Tag Archives: sidney harman

Tina Brown Is a Hagfish [Media]

Let us explain. The hagfish is a blind, slimy, deepwater eel-like creature that darts into the orifices of its prey and devours them, alive, from the inside. Which is what Tina Brown is doing to Newsweek . More

Howard Fineman Gives Newsweek’s Print Edition Five More Years

Are you one of the many Americans who can’t stand Newsweek Magazine’s unending tripe of liberal condescension? Good news: you may not have to put up with it much longer – at least not in its print form. Outgoing Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman, who recently announced he would exit the sinking ship for the Huffington Post, gave the magazine’s print edition five years. “My guess is that there will be several years of a fond embrace of the traditional magazine,” he said. “But that stuff is going because the economics are too difficult.” Pressed for a specific time frame, Fineman gave his five-year prediction. Since it was sold for a dollar to media mogul Sidney Harman, Newsweek has shed some of its most prominent names. The Business Insider reported that “of the roughly two dozen Newsweek journalists who have run for the door in recent months, some of the most high-profile names have joined news outlets without dead-tree versions.” Fineman is perhaps the most prominent, but other reporters and commentators have departed as well: Economics editor Dan Gross is headed to Yahoo Finance. Longtime investigative reporter Mark Hosenball is joining former Newsweek worldwide special editions editor Arlese Getz at Reuters. Michael Isikoff, the magazine’s other longtime investigative ace, took a job at NBC News. Marc Coatney (granted, he was a digital staffer in the first place) is now working for Tumblr. The Business Insider posits that Newsweek’s troubles are a commentary on the state of print media generally. Though the magazine’s unique troubles are of course a factor, posited BI reporter Joe Pompeo, the departures also hint at an ever-growing anxiety about what the future holds for print media in general. More and more old media journalists are starting to map out digital futures, and the publications where they are plotting their courses are embracing the credibility, gravitas and, above all, readers, that their bylines can bring. The BI misses one key point: whereas most print media outlets are profitable – and simply owned by companies that are not – Newsweek was anything but, and was draining WaPo’s coffers when it was sold. So why was Newsweek sold for a dollar and debts while competitor Time magazine posted healthy gains in revenue from both ads and subscriptions? Well, according to World Editors Forum, Time decided to go with the conventional “liberal-but-not-too-liberal” approach, maintaining a semblance of news value. Newsweek, on the other hand, turned hard left, according to Stefanie Chernow, who wrote for WEF’s Editors Weblog. Time differed from Newsweek on the direction of its content, writing straightforward analysis of stories that took a left of center spin. Newsweek took a dramatically left approach to its content and produced more opinionated essays and columns. A year later, Time’s strategy seems to be proving much more successful than that of Newsweek. Perhaps Newsweek should opt for an approach that doesn’t alienate anyone less than five notches left of center, regardless of the medium it chooses to emphasize.

Follow this link:
Howard Fineman Gives Newsweek’s Print Edition Five More Years

Bozell: The Price Is Right — Newsweek Only Worth $1

Managing Editor’s Note: NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell issued the following statement about The Washington Post Company selling Newsweek to the guy from RoboCop Sidney Harman, for a grand total of one dollar : There’s something entirely believable about the Newsweek sale.  A left-winger pretending to be centrist sold it to another left-winger pretending to be centrist. Newsweek is a dying magazine because no one wants to read their left-wing propaganda masquerading as ‘news.’ The $1 price tag, then, is probably just about right. For more information on the sale, read the NewsBusters’ story here .

Read more:
Bozell: The Price Is Right — Newsweek Only Worth $1

Was WikiLeaks Leaker Lashing Out Against ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’?

Army Spc. Bradley Manning may face some serious charges for allegedly leaking tens of thousands of classified military documents to the website WikiLeaks. The leak could have serious consequences for the war effort. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen claimed that WikiLeaks “might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.” In investigating the leak, will the media explore every plausible motivation on Manning’s part, even in spite of strong resistance from the forces of political correctness? We’re about to find out. Manning was openly gay, and possibly transgendered. The UK Telegraph gleaned a number of posts from his Facebook page in which he expressed what seems like intense depression, and occasionally disdain for the US military. There is evidence that he took part in protests against the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Did he leak the information in question as an act of protest or vendetta against military policies of which he disapproved? It’s not at all clear. But shouldn’t the mainstream press at least note that possibility? The evidence of that motivation, mind you, is at this point far from conclusive. But given the evidence, it is appropriate to pose the question. The UK Telegraph reported last week (emphasis added): The US Army intelligence analyst, who is half British and went to school in Wales, appeared to sink into depression after a relationship break-up, saying he didn’t “have anything left” and was “beyond frustrated”. In an apparent swipe at the army, he also wrote: “Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment,” and quoted a joke about “military intelligence” being an oxymoron… Mr Manning, who is openly homosexual, began his gloomy postings on January 12, saying: “Bradley Manning didn’t want this fight. Too much to lose, too fast.” At the beginning of May, when he was serving at a US military base near Baghdad, he changed his status to: “Bradley Manning is now left with the sinking feeling that he doesn’t have anything left.” Five days later he said he was “livid” after being “lectured by ex-boyfriend”, then later the same day said he was “not a piece of equipment” and was “beyond frustrated with people and society at large”. His tagline on his personal page reads: “Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!” … Pictures on Mr Manning’s Facebook page include photos of him on school trips during his time in Wales and at a gay rights rally, where he is holding up a placard demanding equality on “the battlefield” . Does the possibility that Manning’s opinions on DADT motivated him to leak the documents in question have any bearing on the validity of the policy itself? Of course not. No one is suggesting that Manning’s homosexuality in itself motivated him to allegedly leak these documents, and therefore that homosexuals should be banned from the military. The only relevant issue is Manning’s motivation in committing the alleged offense – the rantings on his Facebok page provide a key insight into a possible motivation that any responsible reporter would be remiss in dismissing out of some concern for political correctness. Of course the media has not been keen on drawing out possible motives when the explicit mention of those motives could offend some protected group. We saw the same trend after the Fort Hood shootings, when journalists simply could not bring themselves to proclaim that Maj. Nidal Hasan was a Muslim and motivated by his faith. He may have yelled “Allahu Akhbar” while opening fire on unarmed servicemen, but the first five media outlets to report on the shooting didn’t mention the shooter’s religion. Chris Matthews wondered whether it was “a crime to call al Qaeda” – as Hasan had – and CNN actually misquoted a soldier shot by Hasan to cast doubt on the cries of “Allahu Akbar”. So far in the case of Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks, the mainstream press seems similarly averse to even considering the possibility that the Army Specialist was acting out against military policy to which he was strongly opposed. Ace contends that “If it doesn’t advance The Narrative, it never really happened,” and that the press will remain silent. Is he right? We’ll see.

Read the original:
Was WikiLeaks Leaker Lashing Out Against ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’?

Bozell Column: Newsweek, Still Devolving

There’s something oddly funny about the cluelessness of liberal media companies when their ratings fall or their subscriptions collapse. They just refuse to admit, even consider that the business problem could be (at least in part) their own incessant liberal agitating. Instead, they seem to double down and make things even worse. ABC’s Sunday show “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” could never beat NBC, so what did the ABC braintrust do? They promoted the Bill Clinton spin artist to an everyday anchor job on “Good Morning America.” Then they doubled down and replaced him with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, who is married to another Bill Clinton spin artist, Jamie Rubin. Can it get more insular? Here’s another case in point: Newsweek’s subscriptions collapsed a couple of years back. How could it not be (at least in part) the umpteen Obama-worshipping cover stories that caused some subscribers to cancel. Then they really abandoned the “News” half of their title and wrote cover stories like “We’re All Socialists Now” and “Is Your Baby Racist?” Newsweek was put on the market, and the market has spoken: a $1 sale. Washington Post Company chieftain Don Graham wasn’t going to let the unwashed “rabble” of journalism win this Cracker Jack prize. So he turned away the conservatives at Newsmax magazine, as well as the publishers of the National Enquirer and TV Guide. “In seeking a buyer for Newsweek, we wanted someone who feels as strongly as we do about the importance of quality journalism,” Graham said in a statement. That means nobody broke up into laughter in front of him over whether the notion of “quality journalism” is demonstrated by racist-baby exclusives. Of course, The Washington Post wasn’t going to take that dollar (and unload its obligations) with some conniving Murdoch. They obviously wanted another liberal elitist to take the reins, and so they accepted the bid of Sidney Harman, the husband of Rep. Jane Harman (D.-Calif.). This passed with flying colors for radicals like Katrina VandenHeuvel of The Nation, who hailed him on Twitter as a “decent & longtime liberal.” Twitter also contained lots of mockery. Jim Geraghty of National Review joked: “Sidney Harman bought Newsweek, the institution, for $4.95 less than the cost of Newsweek, the print edition.” And: “Newsweek’s cover story next week is ‘MERCIFUL ATHENA: How Jane Harman balances toughness and tenderness in a dangerous world.’” Mr. Harman has donated $85,000 to the Democratic National Committee (most recently $25,000 in 2004). He’s also contributed to liberal politicians from Ted Kennedy to Barbara Boxer to Geraldine Ferraro. There’s only one Republican on the list, Scott McInnis of Colorado in 2001. As for the potential that Harman would do his wife’s bidding, there are occasions where both Harmans contributed to Democrats at the same time, according to federal election records. Both donated to leftist Mark Green on July 9, 1997; to Ellen Tauscher on February 6, 1998; to Max Cleland on June 29, 2001; to Paul Wellstone on August 21, 2002; to Joe Lieberman on March 31, 2003; and to John Kerry on April 16, 2003. Even without the major conflict of interest that the owner of Newsweek is married to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Harman has liberal-elite credentials. He was president of Friends World College, a “worldwide experimental Quaker” peace college, in the early 1970s. He’s on the board of the Aspen Institute. Harman was an undersecretary of commerce under Jimmy Carter and is a trustee emeritus of the Carter Center and a former board member of the Martin Luther King Center for Social Change. But the media elite still sold this unconvincingly as one “centrist” selling to another. Mike Allen of Politico relayed that Washington Post Company chieftain Donald Graham “felt comfortable with Harman’s centrist politics, and was comforted by the idea of selling to a stalwart of the Washington establishment.”   This is the magazine that couldn’t send one greenhorn reporter to the scene of the earthquake in Haiti this year, choosing instead to rely for its “quality journalism” on a cover story written by (and about) President Obama. Two months later, they awarded their cover story to Michelle Obama to publicize her initiative on childhood obesity. With this kind of shilling for the White House, it won’t be at all shocking if Sidney Harman’s Newsweek seems run by a left-wing activist. That would mean the status quo is intact. But that wouldn’t mean that Newsweek will stop losing money. This ship is still sinking, and the captains have no plans to plug the leaks.

Go here to read the rest:
Bozell Column: Newsweek, Still Devolving