January 7, 2008 3:00 pm : Comments 005
The Kitty Genovese story has long represented one of the most tragic examples of social apathy. In 1964, Ms. Genovese was repeatedly stabbed on her way home late one night while some 38 neighbors who heard her screams failed to call the police. “Her case came to symbolize the corruption of modern city life, a life in which everyone is too frightened or too selfish to help another person, a life in which the value of humanitarianism has been forgotten,” Professor Helen Benedict of Columbia University once said.
Ms. Genovese’s avoidable tragedy came to mind last Saturday as I read the New York Post. The paper’s cover prominently featured a picture of a distraught woman being forcibly restrained by paramedics. The photo was extremely unsettling, as the woman – wholly unrecognizable to me – was clearly terrified, her raw emotional pain clearly captured.
I was stunned to read that the woman in question was Britney Spears. I may not be a fan of her music or some of her lifestyle choices, but that had no relevance Saturday morning. Staring at that haunting image, I was overwhelmed with compassion for the person caught in the photographer’s lens. It was not a picture of an award-winning performer who has sold millions of albums worldwide. It was simply that of a person… a daughter, a sister, a friend… a mother of two… and she was clearly in need of help.
It didn’t take long for the opportunistic vultures to feast on what they deemed the latest offering to a culture gone mad in its obsession with celebrity. The fact that the paparazzi had gotten that shot of her on the gurney makes that point abundantly clear. Dr. Phil’s reported press release, website postings (”DR. PHIL COMMENTS ON BRITNEY SPEARS – CLICK HERE!”), and morning talk show participation about his involvement with the Spears family and planned family intervention on his own show were an embarrassment to mental health professionals everywhere. The Times of London had a thoughtful piece earlier today on this repugnant but probably inevitable chain of events titled “Cashing in on the Britney Spears Breakdown.”
While celebrities may have to “pay” for their fame with their privacy, there is no moral justification for such intrusion when the person in question is clearly in the midst of some medical emergency, physical or mental. While I didn’t plan to return to blogging perched atop my high and mighty soapbox, I am simply aghast at the total dehumanization of Britney Spears in this weekend’s coverage. Speculation ran rampant on the cause of her crisis, her song titles were parodied and punned, timelines of her descent from her days at the top of the music world charted and published, unflattering photos of her endlessly produced and posted…
Enough already.
Like the vast majority of what’s been published since Thursday’s incident at Ms. Spears’ home, The Post’s coverage underscores the media’s failure to appreciate that mental illness is a serious disease afflicting tens of millions of Americans. All reporters and editors saw was the celebrity, the icon, the persona, the brand. Dismissive characterizations like “trainwreck” and “fallen pop princess” abounded. Even The New York Times took a cavalier attitude, as evidenced in a staffer’s blog title – “Gee. A Bizarre Britney Incident. Imagine That.” The fact that she is a person with all the emotions and imperfections that are part and parcel of our kind never seemed to enter the equation.
Admittedly, the Post is not known for its decorum and restraint, particularly in its coverage of celebrities, but even they must have the proverbial line in the sand that they will not cross. If some sleazy paparazzo came to them with an ill-gotten photo of a celebrity vomiting after completing a round of chemotherapy treatment, would they run it? Probably not. Or how about a cell phone image surreptitiously snapped in the gym changing room of the scarred, post-surgical breast of a famous breast-cancer survivor? I doubt it…
One of the enduring myths of the Kitty Genovese tragedy is that none of the witnesses who heard her screams did anything. In fact, one of her neighbors shouted, “Let that girl alone,” which prompted the attacker to temporarily leave the scene. Perhaps if more people had opened their windows and shouted, Ms. Genovese’s tale would have had a very different ending.
Forty years later, we see another 20-something woman in clear crisis who desperately needs perfect strangers to shun instinctual apathy and loudly shout out “Let that girl alone.” The strangers in question are, of course, all of us and the attacker in question is the media. After all, we are the ultimate consumer of the media’s cold, merciless trespasses into her privacy. It is done for our entertainment and folly, and in exchange for our dollars, both directly and indirectly.
Statistics show that depression is rampant in this country, leading to a dramatic rise in suicides. It is also generally believed to be a key contributor to other life threatening illnesses such as heart disease. Yet the disease retains a social stigma (reinforced by headlines referring to psychiatric wards as “loony bins”), so the majority of people who are inflicted with it understandably forgo any kind of treatment.
Regardless of the specifics behind Ms. Spears’ troubles, the fact that she is undergoing a very real personal crisis seems apparent to even the most-distant and otherwise disengaged observer such as myself. She is deserving of a modicum of compassion simply because she is a human being. At the risk of inadvertently coming off as an apologist (or worse, Chris Crocker!), enough already.
Let that girl alone.
Share This Post
November 5, 2007 12:00 pm : Comments 001
Bear Stearns CEO James Cayne has become yet another textbook example of why executives at the top of their game should never regard journalists as their friends. Just 18 months ago, The Wall Street Journal characterized Mr. Cayne as being “renowned at Bear for his hands-on approach.” Bear’s fortunes have changed since then, and so has the Journal’s reporting of Mr. Cayne’s leadership.
It turns out Mr. Cayne might not have been quite as “hands-on” as the Journal’s readers were initially led to believe. The paper reported last week that Mr. Cayne was hitting the links or playing bridge during much of the summer while two of the firm’s hedge funds were badly imploding. Regardless, Bear president Alan Schwartz insists that Mr. Cayne remains fully engaged.
There are some top business strategists who would argue that good leadership is all about delegating authority, even at times of crisis. Indeed, one of the savviest PR executives I know once chose to remain on vacation when his company became embroiled in a crisis. When I later asked him why he didn’t feel compelled to return to the office, he matter-of-factly replied, “I surround myself with good people and I knew they could handle it.”
For me, the Journal’s most startling disclosure in that story about Jimmy Cayne was not that he is a master at delegating or that he allegedly likes to smoke a little marijuana from time to time. Rather, it’s that talk-show host Maury Povich is one of Mr. Cayne’s golf partners. For those who are not particularly familiar with the underbelly of American culture, Mr. Povich is host of the daytime chat show called “Maury.” The show isn’t quite as exploitive as “The Jerry Springer Show,” but it’s pretty close. One of their favorite shticks is to have women drag current or former husbands, boyfriends, and one-night-stands on to the show to take paternity tests. In manners as dignified and sympathetic as the show itself, more than a few guys have pranced around the stage to hear Mr. Povich deliver his signature lines: “The results of the paternity test are in. With 99.7% accuracy, you are …NOT the father!”
That said, Mr. Cayne could teach Mr. Povich a thing or two about exploiting – err, I mean leveraging – a situation. According to “King of the Club“, a book by Charlie Gasparino about former NYSE head Dick Grasso, Mr. Cayne spotted an opportunity in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 that would be to his company’s competitive advantage and took it. Mr. Gasparino reports that when the operations of the NYSE and several brokerage firms were impaired after the collapse of the Twin Towers, Mr. Grasso wanted to hold a meeting of Wall Street’s top executives at the Exchange. Mr. Cayne, however, convinced Mr. Grasso to hold the meeting at Bear’s midtown headquarters.
As reported on page 157 of Mr. Gasparino’s book:
“It wasn’t long before it became clear why Cayne was being so accommodating. Bear Stearns’s competitors, all representatives of the top securities firms, began filing into the large conference room, many with stern looks on their faces as they realized they would have to hold a meeting not on neutral ground at the NYSE but on Cayne’s turf. They knew that Bear would get publicity as being one of the few Wall Street firms open for business following the attacks.”
Mr. Gasparino said that Mr. Cayne wanted to hold a follow-up meeting at Bear’s headquarters, but then SEC chairman Harvey Pitt nixed the idea.
“The official reason given for the change in venue was a series of bomb scares near Bear’s offices. But the real reason was much different. Pitt was blown away by all the Bear Stearns signs that appeared in the media room where the press conference was televised.”
They say things happen in threes. With two prominent Wall Street CEOs already shown the door in recent days, I can’t help but wonder if Bear’s board is pondering a similar fate for Mr. Cayne. If that turns out to be the case, maybe they should do it live on “Maury.” I can hear it now… “Mr. Cayne, the results of the Board are in. With 100% accuracy, you are … NOT the CEO!”
In the interest of full disclosure: S&A represented Mr. Grasso and I’m mentioned in the body of Mr. Gasparino’s book and in his acknowledgments.
Share This Post
November 1, 2007 8:59 am : Comments 003
I recently attended a private business briefing where a management consultant from one of the major firms gave an extremely impressive and insightful presentation on global business trends. During the cocktail reception that followed, the speaker was asked by the co-head of a buyout firm if he did a lot of work with private equity firms. “I try not to,” the consultant said. “With due respect, most of the people in your business are real @#$holes.”
While it may be unfair to tar and feather the individuals of an entire industry in one broad stroke – trust me, I know about that first-hand being in the PR business – there’s more than a little truth to the old adage “nice guys finish last” when it comes to the leadership of companies owned by some private equity firms. Fortunately, there are exceptions. Indeed, the executive who questioned the management consultant is a former very senior executive at a Fortune 100 company whose résumé boasts an impressive litany of career accomplishments. He also happens to be one of the fairest and most decent business leaders I’ve ever met.
The cover story in last week’s issue of BusinessWeek touches on this topic. Emily Thornton’s compelling “Perform or Perish” article reports on the increased pressure LBO firms are placing on the executive management of acquired companies to generate better returns on faster timetables. To quote Ms. Thornton, “The toughest CEO jobs in America just got tougher.”
She cites work done by Steven Kaplan, a professor of finance and entrepreneurship at the University of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business, and Geoffrey H. Smart, head of a management assessment/recruiting firm, on common proficiencies and character traits found among 150 private equity CEOs:
Only the most tenacious executives can survive private equity’s rigors… Kaplan found that CEOs who bring “hard” qualities such as aggressiveness, persistence, insistence on high standards, and the ability to hold people accountable are significantly more likely to succeed. Those who offer primarily “soft” skills that are often effective at public companies – like listening, developing talent, being open to criticism, and treating people with respect – are unlikely to work out. Says Smart: “Successful private equity CEOs are cheetahs.”
Ms. Thornton laces her story with examples of the seeming callousness and unmitigated ruthlessness it takes to be a CEO these days of a portfolio company of some buyout firms. Jeff Clarke, CEO of Travelport, a travel services company owned by Blackstone Group and Technology Crossover Ventures, is one of them.
Let’s just say Mr. Clarke clearly isn’t vying to make anyone’s list of “Best Bosses to Work For.” In response to rumors that Travelport was thinking of taking its Orbitz unit public, Mr. Clarke told his staff that “private equity ownership generally is not a long-term proposition. The day will come when our [owners] will decide to take Travelport public, sell off individual businesses, spin off groups of businesses, or pursue some other exit strategy.”
Yes, there are some advantages to providing such a blunt assessment of the company’s future from a “communicating organizational change” perspective. But there is also something to be said for not destroying employee morale in the process. And what about Travelport’s customers? I’d welcome hearing the inside story as to why WestJet Airlines opted to take a $30 million writedown rather than continue developing a computer reservation system in partnership with Travelport.
Ms. Thornton also shares tales of Gerald Storch, who runs Toys ‘R’ Us for Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, Bain Capital, and Vornado Realty Trust. Seeking “to administer shock treatment” and eradicate “victim thinking” among employees who seemed to have lost their drive, Mr. Storch fired virtually all the senior managers he inherited, intentionally replacing them with outsiders. Whether out of fear or forced corporate rah-rahism, rank-and-file employees are said to now walk around with badges pledging that they’re “Playing to Win”.
While there’s no debating Mr. Storch’s quoted comment that poor performers will become store managers’ biggest problems if they don’t cut them loose, the badge-wearing idea brings to mind that “Seinfeld” episode where Kramer was hunted down for not wearing an AIDS ribbon while participating in an AIDS awareness walk. Will otherwise enthusiastic, productive employees get demerits if they refuse to wear the badge? Scott Adams, please take note!
Another CEO cited is Mary Petrovich of AxleTech, who demonstrates that gender plays no part when it comes to a list of America’s most demanding and punishing CEO taskmasters. Once in office, her first move was to slash union wages and benefits by 33% in their new contract. Managers in a quarterly review of projects in the works were expected to report that they are exceeding expectations, not just meeting them. Those who reported less than 100% success were given one minute to explain their challenge and one additional minute to say how they would overcome it. Ms. Petrovich later told Ms. Thornton they would be given just one quarter to get the project back on track.
To be fair, Messrs. Clarke and Storch and Ms. Petrovich are fighting for their own survival. An Ernst & Young study cited by BusinessWeek found that buyout firms replaced CEOs or CFOs at 17 of the 23 companies they sold or took public last year. The danger, however, is not learning from the misguided “profit-at-any-price” philosophy of executives that came before them. Remember “Chainsaw Al” Dunlap? Enron’s Jeffrey Skilling? They had similar damn-the-torpedoes approaches that came back to sink their own battleships in the end. The ever-escalating pressure to do things faster, cheaper, and with better returns all too often becomes unbearable and corners start getting cut. It’s little wonder that many CEOs are secretly grappling with suicidal depression, as Philip Burguieres has warned.
One of the major benefits of taking once-public companies private was supposedly to free top managers to focus on long-term performance rather than quarterly earnings. There are private equity firms that are adhering to that principle and creating value for their shareholders and their workers as well. But these firms typically are smaller than the Blackstones of the world and generally prefer to keep a lower profile. Instead, the public perception of private equity is driven by those who embody the values and ideals of Gordon Gecko and delight in flaunting their stratospheric wealth.
Sadly, I suspect Messrs. Clarke and Storch and Ms. Petrovich are quite proud of their BusinessWeek portrayals. I know what at least one management consultant will think of them if he reads the story.
Share This Post
October 31, 2007 1:59 pm : Comments 001
It’s ok to be a Yankee fan. I’m not talking to you fair-weather fans who are wearing day-old baseball caps, but the true diehards who rooted for the Yankees in the hot summer sun even when they were 14+ games out of first place; the true fans of baseball. Yes, the Yankees had yet another post-season collapse, but it’s not the team’s on-field exploits that caused me to question my faith as a fan, despite what Red Sox Nation will have you believe.
This post-season featured another episode in the annual Torre saga: a high payroll, superstar-laden team having a round one failure, George Steinbrenner issuing an ultimatum, and Yankee management still tendering another contract. The difference this year? Joe Torre turned down the Yankees. My entire world tilted.
While the Yankees have seen better days, the fault lines (such as starting pitching) were there well before Game One played out in Cleveland; remember they had to have one of the best regular season comebacks in baseball history just to make it to the playoffs. If they were going to fire Torre though, which I was against, I wanted to see it done quickly and with the respect he deserved. Sadly, this was just wishful thinking
Keeping the Yankees in the national news is a guaranteed money maker, and Yankee management knows that. Baseball is currently in a golden age (despite the steroids abuse scandal), and the Yankees are its fussy diva. They are the team you love to hate or hate to love, but either way, you pay attention. The Yankees have an entire sport divided on their every move; is it any wonder that the Yankees cable network is worth twice as much as the team itself?
It’s hard to admit, but Boston pitcher Curt Shilling touched a nerve when he stated the obvious that the Yankees were “making sure we were updated every 15 minutes about when they were actually going to name their manager.” This was after more than 2 weeks of constant coverage on Torre’s fate. Sure New York’s rabid media plays a large part in the firestorm, but someone has to feed the beast, and no one else in baseball has done that better than Steinbrenner & Co. Ray Ratto of CBS Sports sums it up perfectly:
New York, though, throws its drama at you whether you want it or not, and demands that you be interested far beyond your capabilities, which is why the Torre story has so run its natural course.
Who else but the Yankees could turn a managerial job change into such high-stakes drama? At least four other MLB managers have moved on this season, yet none of them have had the relentless coverage of the Torre saga. Watch the national news and be hard-pressed to find any team in any sport coming close to the Yankees for coverage. A Google Trends search of George Steinbrenner shows that its not just people in the New York metro area who are curious about him. Call me na�ve, but is the team that I’ve loved since my childhood become nothing more than a “brand?”
Since their last World Series win in 2000, I’ve watched the “House that Ruth Built” being torn down for a new ballpark, the team consistently overpaying for “superstars” who lose in the post-season, Yankee heroes insulted by team executives and now Torre treated like an interim manager. Any one of these alone is a staggering hit to the hallowed legacy of the Yankees; collectively, they are near fatal blows. But it is this same legacy that sustains me as a fan.
DiMaggio, Gehrig, Mantle, Jeter, Torre – they all have their faults as people off the diamond, but there was no mistaking that they truly believed in what the Yankees stood for and they showed it nearly every day on the field. It is the players and pride that make the team and ultimately derive its value, not the other way around. This is what being a Yankee fan stands for.
While other fans may chide me for supporting a team that “buys” its victories, and forces out one of the greatest managers in the history of baseball, I still wear my pinstripes without hesitation. No matter what obstacles are thrown in its way, know that the Yankees will always be a team of history and heritage, as it always has been.
I have no doubt that Joe Girardi, the new Yankee skipper; will guide the Yankees into the next chapter with great class and success. After next season though, he’ll be doing it across the street, in the “House that Torre Built.”
Share This Post
October 29, 2007 1:59 pm : Comments 000
Cable cars (and Rice-a-Roni) aside, two of the first things that come to mind when most people think about San Francisco are the stunning vistas and, of course, the Golden Gate Bridge. I was delighted to read yesterday that the board controlling the engineering landmark has unanimously rejected proposals to sell corporate sponsorships to help finance the bridge’s operating budget, which is pretty cash-starved these days. While corporate dollars may have brought some financial relief, the posting of sponsors’ ads and logos surely would have blighted the “International Orange” bridge, even if they were limited to the property adjacent to the span. I applaud the board for getting their priorities straight.
According to what I’ve read, a non-profit called “San Francisco Beautiful” was instrumental in getting the proposals defeated. While I commend them for their efforts to preserve the San Francisco landscape that I know and love, I cannot help but note the irony of San Francisco Beautiful having sold corporate sponsorships for its “2007 Beautification Awards Dinner” earlier in the month. Indeed, the logos of Citigroup and Parkmerced, a huge residential apartment complex that was once part of Leona Helmsley’s empire, grace San Francisco Beautiful’s home page.
While it is tempting to say something off-the-cuff and snarky about them pooh-poohing corporate sponsorships in one corner while gladly taking them in another, I’m more inclined to admire them for not kowtowing to the presumed preferences of their benefactors on the Bridge sponsorship issue. San Francisco Beautiful clearly put their constituents’ preferences first, and has earned my respect and admiration for it.
Share This Post
11:54 am : Comments 000
The biggest advantage for any company with a monopoly is the freedom to pretty much throw out the customer service manual. Sure, you may have to do a dog-and-pony show to appease regulators every now and then, but at the end of the day you pretty much have free rein to dictate the rules of pricing and service, consumer be damned. AT&T Corp. before its court-ordered breakup in 1984 serves as a textbook example of the hazards when a company is allowed absolute domination of a market. That company’s attitude was best captured in a bumper sticker bearing the Bell logo and the following caption: “We don’t care. We don’t have to. We’re the phone company.”
Cable companies until just recently enjoyed such monopolistic freedoms, though their industry is probably better defined as an oligopoly. Individual cable providers long-enjoyed exclusive contracts to provide service to entire communities and apartment buildings, which has allowed them to raise prices more than a whopping 90 percent over the past 10 years. The ensuing monopolistic mindset is best reflected by their rigid pricing approach and broadly bundled channels, uniformly bad customer service, and appalling practice of expecting their customers to put up with a three- or four-hour time estimate of when a technician will be on-site to provide installation or maintenance service. Imagine a restaurant or your local pizzeria delivery joint trying to get away with that approach…
The Federal Communications Commission appears poised to serve the cable industry its just desserts. The New York Times reports today that the agency is preparing to invalidate all contracts that give individual cable companies exclusive rights to provide service in apartment buildings. The decision will likely prove to be a big boon for consumers, as studies show that when an alternative cable service is made available, prices can drop as much as 30 percent.
Verizon Communications and the new AT&T (not to be confused with the old, “Ma Bell” monopolistic one) are still in the process of rolling out their fiber optic services, but they do seem inclined to make an aggressive play for marketshare. Unfortunately for consumers, these two companies are also notorious for bad customer service, so I doubt we’ll find much relief on that front. But hey, if the increased competition drives down service costs across the field, that will be a small victory enough.
The cable industry has signaled it will challenge the FCC’s rule in court. No doubt the hearings will be scheduled to start sometime between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m.
Share This Post
October 26, 2007 1:26 pm : Comments 001
The New York Observer, a quirky newspaper that is often first to take note of social and other trends, this week has a story that should be a must read for anyone who is concerned about the future of America’s national media. The story focused on how reporters are increasingly trying to brand themselves and that even The New York Times – a newspaper that didn’t routinely give bylines to all its reporter until the 1970s – is falling into step with the trend.
Julia Allison could be said to represent the new class of brand-conscious “reporters”. This “dating” columnist for Time Out magazine and “editor-at-large” for the gossip rag Star, is quoted in The Observer piece rationalizing her own “brand me, baby!” ways:
“I looked around, and I saw that the people who were getting assignments and getting paid really nicely for it were names. They were brands,” said Ms. Allison. “All journalists are journeymen. You might have a PR team you work with at your magazine that’s taking care of the magazine, but who’s taking care of YOU? Ultimately, you’re replaceable if you’re not a brand.”
Once upon a time journalists pursued their craft because of a passion for truth, justice, and the American Way (or was that Superman?). Back then, the only way to get ahead in the business was to deliver great copy about great stories. If you wanted to see your name in lights, you probably couldn’t make a worse career choice than journalism, the few exceptions like Ed Morrow notwithstanding.
It’s heartening to know there are still a few reporters out there who haven’t lost sight about the true mission of journalism, and who understand and appreciate the responsibility and privileges that come with being part of the profession. One such reporter is Dan Popkey, a political columnist with the Idaho Statesman. His name is no doubt familiar to more than a few for his coverage of the Senator Larry Craig saga. Mr. Popkey recently spoke to Matthew Felling, co-editor of the CBSNews.com daily blog “Public Eye”. The resulting interview speaks for itself.
Share This Post
October 24, 2007 1:20 pm : Comments 002
When I first relocated to New York City nearly two decades ago and knew just one person in the entire city, New York magazine served as my surrogate best friend. Each issue of the publication, then run by a legendary editor named Ed Kosner, was a “must have”, particularly to a newcomer trying to get his bearings in this bigger-than-life city. The articles were as incisive as they were well-written; I still have a particularly smart cover story Kosner ran November 2, 1992 about the deleterious effects of noise and its emotional impact on New Yorkers.
Kosner inexplicably resigned the following year, sending the magazine into a nosedive. A succession of editors came and went, each one eventually leaving the publication a little worse off than it was when they arrived. Over time, my former best friend became an acquaintance and then a stranger and ultimately, irrelevant to my life. The final straw was the issue featuring Montclair, NJ on the cover and likening it to the gentrified Park Slope section of Brooklyn. Showcasing any place in the Garden State in a magazine called New York was an abomination to me. Deriding New Jersey is one of my few simple pleasures (and frankly, what makes me feel most like a “real” New Yorker).
In early 2004, however, hope arrived in the form of Adam Moss, a wunderkind editor formerly with The New York Times Magazine. Shortly after he took the helm at New York, the magazine became worth reading again. Mr. Moss even ran a cover story about noise, and while it wasn’t nearly as good as Kosner’s original, at least the magazine wasn’t still trying to upgrade New Jersey to our sixth borough. For a while, it seemed my old best friend had returned.
But something has since gone awry.
It started with a rather critical feature about Matt Drudge, whose right-leaning Drudge Report website has emerged as a potent political force, much to the chagrin of the more left-leaning, “old school” media. The New York article let it be known early on that Mr. Drudge is “said by some to be gay,” and then gratuitously revisited the issue later with a rather nasty reference from PR man-turned-journalist Michelangelo Signorile who the magazine said “has broken down many a closet door.” (New York misspelled Michelangelo’s name, but I guess when you are heaving muck, factual accuracy is not as important as simply hitting the target).
Mr. Drudge, according to New York, denies that he is gay. I realize that Mr. Drudge is hardly the beacon of journalistic fairness himself, but do his own editorial shortcomings and misfires make him fair game for mainstream colleagues who want to color outside the bounds of fairness when covering him or his site? I don’t think so.
Then there was the photoshopped cover photo of President Clinton dressed as Jackie Kennedy with the caption: “Bill Clinton, First Lady.” I considered the cover to be an awkward and unnecessarily disrespectful depiction of a two-term president. As I don’t read New York to garner national political insight (The New York Times says I should be reading Mr. Drudge’s site), I never got around to reading the article. New York subsequently made mention of a yearbook photo showing President Clinton and a male buddy wearing dresses and holding each other, so perhaps I’m on shaky ground taking issue with the cheeky cover.
More recently, and most jolting of all, was New York’s cover story two weeks ago by Vanessa Grigoriadis about “the foul, bloggy sewer of Gawker.” For the uninitiated, Gawker is a snarky and sometimes mean-spirited blog that regularly lampoons, mocks, and otherwise savages celebrities and journalists like Ms. Grigoriadis who are far more accustomed to skewering others than being carved and filleted themselves. If Mother Theresa was alive and well in New York, even she’d be fair game for Gawker!
Ms. Grigoriadis apparently didn’t take too kindly to a Gawker posting mocking an article about her wedding in The New York Times. Her article – or more accurately her revenge piece – was a journalistic cocktail of vitriol and venom the likes I don’t ever recall reading in a major magazine. Ms. Grigoriadis didn’t just go for the jugular – she also fixated on the groin. She adroitly disclosed that one of Gawker’s male reporters allegedly has performance problems and talked about how New York Post’s Page Six has been “emasculated.” She also dutifully let us know that Gawker owner Nick Denton is an “upper class gay Jewish Briton” with an African-American boyfriend. Although Ms. Grigoriadis’ father also is an immigrant, I strongly suspect that her reference to Mr. Denton’s Commonwealth roots was not intended as a subtle form of endearment.
Given New York’s growing practice of outing prominent website owners (although my “in the know” journalism friends tell me Mr. Denton makes no secret of being gay), I got to wondering about Mr. Moss. A quick Google search reveals that he, too, is openly gay – and I’ve since learned that I apparently was one of the few people in New York who didn’t already know that. Then again, I also didn’t know that The New York Times Magazine is “pretty gay”, as Mr. Moss is alleged to have once described it, though he later pleaded the “taken-out-of-context” defense.
Still, I don’t accept that being openly gay gives Mr. Moss – or anyone else with a keyboard, microphone, or soapbox for that matter – the license to deny another person his or her right to privacy about something as intrinsically personal as their sexuality. And he is badly deluding himself if he somehow believes that Ms. Grigoriadis’ Gawker diatribe was journalistically dignified simply because it was published on fine paper stock. One of the dangers of peeking into sewers is that it’s all too easy to fall into them.
In its latest issue, New York excerpts a telling letter it received from reader Mary-Thomas Turnock of Larchmont who the magazine says “probably spoke for many”:
I’m so glad that I’m over 50 and Gawker.com is not part of my sensibilities. My sympathy to those in younger generations. Life is difficult enough without the gratuitous viciousness/bitterness described in this website.
Perhaps New York’s Westchester subscribers receive a different version of the magazine.
Share This Post
September 6, 2007 9:34 am : Comments 001
As originally posted on Strumpette.com on September 6, 2007.
Like a writer who keeps random plot line ideas and bits of dialogue scribbled in a notebook kept by the side of the bed, I’ve kept the Daily News‘ infamous “Ford to City” headline in the back of my head, just waiting for the right opportunity to rip it off. Thanks to Apple CEO Steve Jobs latest orchestrations, the moment finally arrived.
The technology impresario announced yesterday that Apple would slash the price of its iPhone by some 33%, but denied that lower-than-expected sales were the reason. As he told the New York Times: “It’s very clear we have a breakthrough product on our hands, but it’s also clear that many can afford it, some can’t. We’d like to make it affordable to even more folks going into this holiday season.”
So exactly when did Apple become a philanthropic organization for the tech gadget-deprived?
I don’t know about you, but if I was one of the Apple diehards who camped out overnight a mere 10 weeks ago just for the privilege of coughing up $600 the next morning to get their mitts on an iPhone, I’d be pretty ticked off right now. And I’d go into orbit after reading Jobs’ dismissive comment to USA Today about the brand-worshipping customers who paid full price: “That’s technology. If they bought it this morning, they should go back to where they bought it and talk to them. If they bought it a month ago, well, that’s what happens in technology.”
Can you imagine the fallout if, let’s say, BMW suddenly slashed the cost of its highly popular 3-Series cars by more than 30% just weeks after they were introduced? Or if Rolex slashed the prices of its watches by 30%? The brands would be forever damaged. But the traditional rules of branding and public relations don’t seem to apply to Steve Jobs, and his fire sale discounting of the iPhone is only the latest example.
Take Apple’s exclusive partnership with AT&T. The telecom company has one of the slowest wireless networks around and a solid reputation for bad customer service. Apple offers superior technology, and while its customer support has deteriorated somewhat, it’s still way better than its competitors. The pairing of the two companies is as mismatched as Armani entering an exclusive distribution agreement with Sears.
Then there is the iPhone’s inconvenient replacement battery requirement which, with the exception of the New York Times‘ Joe Nocera, has been largely ignored by the mainstream media. Like all cell phones, this one’s battery will eventually need to be replaced (Apple says the original one will last 200-400 charges, approximately 12-14 months). The kicker is that is must be sent back to Apple, however, leaving people without their beloved iPhone’s for an estimated 10 days. I’m hardly a heavy cell phone user, but being without my phone for just one day would cause me some angst – and mine doesn’t have all the fancy bells and whistles that the iPhone does! A couple of lawsuits have already been filed regarding Apple’s battery replacement policy, but they have received scant media attention.
The cost to replace the battery will be approximately $100, or roughly one quarter the cost of the newly discounted iPhone. My guess is that Jobs will have the next generation model out within a year and he’s banking that a good number of iPhone owners will decide they’ll get better value for their money by replacing the whole phone with the latest version instead of just getting a new battery.
Truthfully, I’m somewhat in awe of Steve Jobs. I give him credit for his unparalleled ability to get away with sticking it to his most ardent customers, for getting the technology media to dance for him like puppets on a string, and for creating an aura that he is not someone driven by profits and personal wealth. P.T. Barnum has long been regarded as the greatest showman on earth, but I suspect even he would agree that Steve Jobs is in a league by himself.
Share This Post
September 4, 2007 1:56 pm : Comments 000
While the end of summer is always a bit of a downer, this year it was more so because of the passing of two men, both of whom are inspirations to a great many of us.
Richard Jewell died. You may recall that he was the former security guard who was wrongly accused of perpetrating the bombing at the 1996 Olympics. Although he was eventually cleared of any involvement and declared a hero, his legacy as such will forever be tainted by the indelible smear left when he was falsely accused as the bomber in the days that followed. Unnamed sources whispered unsubstantiated rumors to ambitious reporters chasing The Story. As hindsight would bear out, it was not journalism’s finest hour. An innocent man’s good name was decimated in the media feeding frenzy that transpired back then; his story should serve as a stop-and-think moment for everyone involved in the news reporting business. Jewell died last week at age 44, hero to many, including this guest columnist in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
I was also saddened to learn about the death of Arthur Jones, the inventor of Nautilus exercise machines who definitely knew a thing or two about effective public relations. Although I never met the man, he had a major impact on the health of my body and earlier journalism career.
My history with Nautilus equipment goes back nearly 30 years. Although they were initially rather ungainly contraptions, they made weight training considerably more efficient because their patented elliptical cams allowed for a greater range of movement than conventional free weights and dumbbells. The introduction of Nautilus equipment represented a real breakthrough in fitness training. Back then, the prevailing wisdom was that the movement itself was not as important as the number of times that you did it, essentially suggesting that only gym rats could hope to get a good workout. Then along came Jones and his Nautilus machines suggesting you could do more by doing less.
Nautilus equipment – there’s a machine now for virtually every major muscle group – is designed to provide high intensity training via just a dozen or so repetitions of a specific exercise to work a specific area. Jones wasn’t a believer in long-term cardiovascular exercise. He argued that total fitness could be achieved simply by working all your muscle groups to exhaustion.
It’s fortunate for Jones that he understood the power of public relations and how to harness it. After all, he was a lone fish swimming against the tide when he first came out with his initial “Blue Monster” machine. Early on, he finessed some of the leading sports heroes of the day to endorse his equipment, including famed Miami Dolphins running back Mercury Morris and tennis champ Chris Evert. Various actresses and models also endorsed the equipment, including Bo Derek, who at the time was best known for the movie “10.”
In 1980, various health clubs in my native Canada introduced Nautilus equipment. What I found especially intriguing is that they were incredibly popular with women who, at the time, rarely trained with weights. Shortly thereafter I came across a renowned orthopedic surgeon who used Nautilus equipment for rehabilitation purposes. Working as a freelance writer at the time, I wrote a few articles for a major Canadian magazine and newspaper (not available online) about how Nautilus was luring women into the fitness fold. I’m still extremely proud of the prescience of those articles, which helped me land a job at my hometown newspaper, The Toronto Star.
Jones was a colorful character who didn’t mince words, according to many accounts. In his New York Times obit, his son William is said to have characterized him as “a rough-and-tumble character who had six wives, a nearly lifelong smoking habit and an affection for exotic animals like rattlesnakes and crocodiles, which he kept at his farm.” The elder Jones was also known to make more than a few eyebrow-raising comments in his time. (Interestingly, Jones’ other son Gary was one of the inventors of the Hammer Strength line of exercise equipment, unquestionably the best training equipment on the market IMHO).
Jones died last week at the age of 80, living life not so much in the fast lane anymore. And as a result, Jones will no doubt be remembered by most for the good that he did, for the positive contributions he made to touch the lives of people around him and leave them better off for it. It is very sad to me that the same could not be said for Richard Jewell.
Rest in peace, gentlemen.
Share This Post
top of page