Earlier, we told you Page Six had taken a preemptive strike at former freelancer Jared Paul Stern in a lengthy item entitled "Lies & Smears Aimed At The Post." Despite the fact that, as recently as four months ago, the very same column attempted to cast Stern as a martyr, today they opted to actively discredit him, addressing his defamatory allegations—and the incendiary Ian Spiegelman email—head on, and contesting the litany of charges in advance of the upcoming court battle.

And though the Posties predictably brushed aside most of the charges and as complete and utter falsehoods, they did, however, acknowledge that, on one regrettable occasion, Page Six's Richard Johnson made a "grave mistake" in accepting a $1,000 gift from restaurateur Nello Balan back in 1997, and they offer a prompt (albeit rather vague) apology for this transgression.

Following this morning's testimonial in the NYP, The Smoking Gun re-examined the circumstances surrounding the Payola Six scandal, and questioned whether or not their apology addressed all of the relevant facts.

CONTINUED »

You probably know Jared Paul Stern as the disgraced Page Six freelancer who was fired after extorting Ron Burkle back in 2006. Yes, as we all know, Stern was eventually cleared of all charges, though he was generally recognized by everyone (except those in danger of being named in his defamation suit) as a guilty ass, who skated free due to a lack of evidentiary support.

Indeed, back in January, the Post was quick to gloat over Stern's exoneration, brazenly skewering the Daily News for jumping to premature conclusions about his guilt, denying rumors of any quid pro quo arrangements at the Page Six and preemptively defending Stern as though their lives—and corporate bank accounts—depended on it.

CONTINUED »

Have you heard the news? Graydon Carter is getting the Hollywood treatment, and the actor slated to portray the Vanity Fair chieftain, Bono-hugging, elitist restaurant opening editor-in-chief is none other than Jeff Bridges.

Vanity Fair editor in chief Graydon Carter's love of Hollywood is about to undergo a new test: Jeff Bridges will play Carter, renamed Clayton Harding, in the film adaptation of onetime Vanity Fair contributor Toby Young's book, "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People." The book depicted Young himself as status-obsessed and wildly inept, even as it skewered the New York media and celebrity scenes.

Ah, we can picture it now.

CONTINUED »

Earlier this week, members of the Defense Department announced that—effective as of Monday—soldiers stationed overseas would no longer be allowed to access YouTube or MySpace, citing concerns about bandwith as the primary reason for the new digital restrictions.

Now, YouTube is fighting back against what they perceive to be a miscarriage of justice.

YouTube's cofounders Thursday challenged the Pentagon's assertion that soldiers overseas were sapping too much bandwidth by watching online videos, the military's principal rationale for blocking popular Web sites from Defense Department computers. "They said it might be a bandwidth issue, but they created the Internet, so I don't know what the problem is," Chief Executive Chad Hurley said.

While no one's gone so far as to call this a government conspiracy, YouTube has suggested just enough impropriety to call "bullshit." And we're just glad to be living in a country where people are willing to challenge questionable statements, invoke their First Amendment rights and stand up for what they believe in.

Even if "what they believe in" is off-duty cops accidentally shooting themselves in the leg and overweight boys fighting with broomsticks light sabres.

MTV's president of network development, John Sykes, was scheduled to be feted tonight at Lubin House, the Syracuse University outpost in New York City that serves as a hostel-slash-events space for alumni, visiting professors, and editorial assistants still clinging to their "But I went to Newhouse!" rationales for why they should get jobs at 4 Times Square. (We, for one, gave that up exactly three months after graduation.)

Sykes, a Newhouse alum (which explains his picture here with Bill Clinton, at, yes, a Newhouse event), was to be honored for "his contributions to the media, Syracuse University, and the community," according to the official invite.

Too bad, because the event's been canceled for lack of interest from alumni, we're told. Likely scenario: Newhouse alums who are more successful than Sykes (hard to do) couldn't be bothered, and those less successful than Sykes are exhausted from kissing ass and handing out business cards at last night's Maxim 100.

Let's just hope Meredith Vieira doesn't have the same fate next month when she hosts the Newhouse school's first-ever Mirror Awards, honoring the "outstanding work of people and organizations that report on the media." Why we're not nominated for anything, we don't know.

Is Charlie Gibson responsible for his own … success? The way Howard Kurtz reports it, perhaps yes. We know, it's a silly question to pose: Charlie is the face of ABC's World News, so of course he should take credit for sliding into the top spot among evening newscasts. But over at the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric's hum-drum performance in Nielsen's eyes also gets blamed on who's producing the show. (Before: Rome Hartman; Now: Rick Kaplan.)

But under Kurtz's eye, it's Gibson running the newscast, choosing to cut stories about the latest deaths in Iraq, "order[ing] up" pieces about post-Don Imus tones in media, bumping news of Jerry Falwell's death to anywhere but the lead story.

Sure, Charlie's exec producer Jon Banner is there. Somewhere. But it's Charlie's turf. At Katie's show, she's been relegated to just reading the autocue. (Brian Williams, to be sure, wields supreme power at NBC.)

Kurtz, however, isn't the only one lauding praise.

CONTINUED »

Former Post-it and TV hopeful-cum-Fortune scribe Tim Arango is on the case of Rupert Murdoch's Fox Business Channel today. He's chock full of details – $100 million budget for launch; October debut; 300 new hires for the network – that will likely be shot down by News Corp. as inaccurate and premature.

There's much focus on the $100 million budget, however, deemed not-very-large by on-lookers. After all, News Corp. spent $400 million to launch FNC. And Conde Nast spent more than that just to launch a magazine.

And what's new on the Bid For Dow Jones front? Supposedly, if the deal goes through, the business channel could use the Wall Street Journal's name, but reporters couldn't appear on the channel until after 2012, when the arrangement with CNBC expires. And when we'll have concrete evidence whether the channel is a success or faces the fate of Trio.

Vogue may have jumped to the Chinese market two years ago, but now it's music trade Billboard that's getting the fever. We hear the VNU publication – you know, the one ran a chainsaw through its masthead last fall – is launching a Chinese edition, and that a team of editors is either on their way or about to leave for China to set up shop. All it took was the Chinese government saying yes to a company that once hoped Paris Hilton and Britney Spears would co-host its awards show.

Normally, were you not to check in with the Los Angeles Times, we wouldn't insult, make fun, or harass you. But this week, if you haven't been reading (the Times' website, in fact) you're really missing something. And it's not Sam Zell announcing layoffs.

It's the battle between Bill O'Reilly and the newspaper over Times columnist Rosa Brook's May 4 article "Sweet Jesus I love Bill O'Reilly!" As you might imagine, O'Reilly had an opinion about it: he didn't like-y. While Brooks' column is dek headed "Why I owe my gig as an L.A. Times columnist to the name-calling cable and radio personality," the meat of her piece focuses on a research analysis of O'Reilly, which finds that while four in 10 Americans think he's a journalist, he's actually a right-wing mouthpiece. (Absolutely mindblowing, we know.) Another fun facts from the study – and the one O'Reilly's camp are angry about – reveals "O'Reilly managed an impressive 8.88 name-calling incidents per minute — an insult every 6.8 seconds!"

On his show, Bill-O called the study bunk, and lashed out at the Times for printing Brooks' column. And here's where things get a little muddy, a little hard to follow. So keep up.

CONTINUED »

Not content to let the National Enquirer win just a few Scoop Wars, EIC David Perel is using his not-exactly-glossy publication to take on the competition this week. And wouldn't you know it — he's going after Us Weekly!

After the Enquirer ran an item about Selma Blair checking into rehab in its April 30 issue, Us ran its own article (in its May 21 issue), which claimed that Selma "managed to fly into the facility under the radar." As Perel's scribe reminds readers: "NOT under our radar!"

If we didn't love being petty so much ourselves, we be making fun of them.

It's the end of an era, people. After more than 50 years, American Heritage has disappointed history buffs everywhere by announcing that it will be suspending publication, effective immediately.

And while many are already mourning the loss of the history-infused bimonthly, some staunch competitors are eager to strike while the iron is hot.

Among the early scavengers is In Touch, who hopes to entice self-professed history buffs with a comprehensive timeline chronicling the evolution of Brangelina's relationship in their current issue. Not to be outdone, Us Weekly quickly fights back, exhibiting the fossilized remains of Brad/Jen's love affair, while Star steps up to the plate by commissioning an archaeological dig to uncover relics from the depths of TomKat's dumpster.

When reached for comment, the American Heritage editor expressed his regret at last week's announcement, but added, "I trust that publications like Us Weekly and Life & Style will take over where we left off, and continue to adequately furnish the minds of our nation's future intellectuals for generations to come."

Calling all social-climbers, Bergdorf Blonds and Tinsley wannabes! Ever heard of PocketChangeNYC.com? It's the go-to site for obnoxious articles lauding everything from overpriced haircuts to overpriced spa treatments and overpriced meals (think Waverly Inn)!

The site* is written in the first person, ostensibly from the viewpoint of "Richard Nouveau," a fictional WASP wannabe with a penchant for spending obscene amounts of his parents' cash to validate his own self-worth. Nouveau (as in "nouveau riche") epitomizes material wealth, and is modeled after the archetypal rich kid who wore penny-loafers back in high school, and who—according to his (also fictional!) bio— "prefers the company of his fellow Princeton alumni, but is graciously tolerable of those from Exeter, Yale and that school near Boston that he can never quite recall."

Et cetera, et cetera. All of which becomes infinitely more interesting when you find out that the role of "Richard Nouveau" is currently being played by…

CONTINUED »

In today's newest Times exposée, we learn that Ivy League rejects from coast to coast are being forced to focus their sights on (gasp!) second-tier colleges. And, once they get over their initial horror/humiliation of being waitlisted at Brown, the underachieving pre-frosh are actually kinda psyched about settling for their safeties!

Turns out their name-dropping parents aren't quite as good at coping, though.

CONTINUED »

It's time to play our new favorite weekly game called "Who Is Us Weekly Picking on Now?" Sure, we may have already ruined the surprise yesterday – when we learned Janice Min was using her third straight week of calling bullshit on other tabloids to once again go after Bauer – but who says there's no fun in going in depth on two pages of bitchslaps?

Again this week, Us's ire is directed at In Touch and Life & Style, calling them out on all their baby news mistakes. Like when In Touch's June 26, 2006, cover declared "Jen Looks Pregnant," or when Life & Style's Jan. 1, 2006, cover claimed Angelina and Brad were working on baby number two.

Us is, of course, in the business of refuting pregnancy rumors. Like they did with Christina Aguilera. Or with Reese Witherspoon. Or with Britney Spears. It's just too bad those "ANGELINA NOT PREGNANT!!%@#^@#!" covers don't sell as well.

While yesterday's instance of People.com crediting In Touch for breaking the "Denise Richards and Richie Sambora break up" story may have been one for the history textbooks, it was also an instance of life repeating itself in the tabloid world: In Touch already broke that story — a year ago, in the May 22, 2006 issue.

Meanwhile, it's worth taking a peek at the bottom of the cover: "Britney Reveals: It's a girl!" We all know how well that turned out.