Anne is reading …
Condé Nast Eyes More Cost Cutting, Shuttering & Consolidation
Google ‘cost cutting at Condé Nast’ and page one is full of articles from 2009. Change the search criteria to within the last month, and we learn that on Friday both WWD and The New York Post report that both Self and Details are in danger of closing, going digital only or being folded into other CN publications — Allure for Self and GQ for Details.
Self’s newsstand sales have slumped from almost 105,000 in January to nearly 60,000 in May. That kind of a drop off suggests old readers have abandoned the redesigned, less fitness-oriented, individual woman content without the fashionistas swooping in to read about celebrity beauty must-have strategies and products. Karlie and friends are turnoffs with the Self crowd.
Last August Condé Nast spun off Lucky in a joint-venture with Beachmint, while combining Bon Appetit and Epicurious. Lucky was shuttered as a print magazine and is now digital only. Next up, the digital giant sold Fairchild Fashion Group, parent of WWD, to Penske Media Corp/
Publishers may be asked to take on group roles, with an emphasis of increasing digital readership. Presently, the Condé Nast digital audience is estimated at 86.3 million versus a print audience of 33.7 million.
The shining star in June was Vanity Fair with a more than 100 percent traffic increase, thanks to the tightly controlled Caitlyn Jenner cover story online. The Post quotes comScore as counting 15.4 million unique visitors in June (when summer typically takes a hit on uniques) vs 7.3 million in May — across all platforms.
Vogue, by comparison, clocked 2.4 million uniques in June, down from 4.1 million in May. Style.com slumped to 714,000 in June from 1 million in May. Self’s more robust, redesigned website held better, with 3.6 million in June from 3.8 million in May. Details also had an increase to 2.4 million, from 2.1 million.
Upheaval at Gawker
Is Gawker Media going to charm school? It’s been a hell of a week for founder Nick Denton and infuriated Gawker employees. Reading Gawker articles tempts one to think that she is on The Onion, but Crain’s Capital New York also writes that come next Monday, Gawker will be 20% nicer… or maybe just 10-15% nicer.
The more moonbeam attitude at Gawker was explained by Gawker CEO Nick Denton at a staff meeting at the Crown Victoria bar in Williamsburg.
Denton told the Gawker.com staff that if any of them were unhappy with the new direction of the site, they could quit next week and collect full severance pay. This severance policy is consistent with Denton’s announcement earlier this week that Tommy Craggs and Max Read, who resigned in protest of the company’s decision to remove a controversial post, would be entitled to full severance.
The new and improved rainbow mood at Gawker comes with the company’s move to new office space at 114 Fifth Ave next Monday and Tuesday. As we previously reported, Denton has been considering a new branding for Gawker, one that may include a new name. Capital also prints a letter that went to Gawker employees detailing the severance policy.
Any eligible employee will be paid through July 31, 2015, and will receive two months of severance after that date. Benefits will continue through the end of September. Payments will be contingent on signing a standard release.
The recent, controversial Gawker article that was pulled involved the outing of a married, high-ranking media exec in New York who sought the services of a gay porn star and appeared to fall victim to extortion.
Mother Jones writes that Gawker invested a single day investigating the article, written by 27-year-old staff writer Jordan Sargent, which was based on texts from the man who allegedly tried to blackmail the publishing executive.
Nick Denton, the site’s founder and publisher, has written that the publication of the article was “a close call around which there were more internal disagreements than usual.” He later wrote, “We believe we were within our legal right to publish.”
Denton provides further perspective:
… the media environment has changed, our readers have changed, and I have changed. Not only is criticism of yesterday’s piece from readers intense, but much of what they’ve said has resonated. Some of our own writers, proud to work at one of the only independent media companies, are equally appalled.
I believe this public mood reflects a growing recognition that we all have secrets, and they are not all equally worthy of exposure. I can’t defend yesterday’s story as I can our coverage of Bill O’Reilly, Hillary Clinton or Hulk Hogan.
We are proud of running stories that others shy away from, often to preserve relationships or access. But the line has moved. And Gawker has an influence and audience that demands greater editorial restraint.
Gawker is no longer the insolent blog that began in 2003. It does important and interesting journalism about politicians, celebrities and other major public figures. This story about the former Treasury Secretary’s brother does not rise to the level that our flagship site should be publishing.
The furor at Gawker Media over the pulling of the article was so intense that both Gawker and Jezebel shut down for a time last Monday. When asked for a comment The New York Times reported that Jezebel’s managing editor Erin Gloria Ryan said on Tuesday that the editorial staff had decided not to comment on the situation. By that time, Gawker and Jezebel were back online. “Back to blogging as ujsual,” Leah Beckmann, Gawker.com’s interim editor-in-chief, said in an email.
New York Times Has Its Own Problems With Vetting Stories — Is Michael Schmidt Trying To Can Clinton?
The New York Times Has A very Serious Hillary Clinton Problem Hillary Men
(Note: Pater Daou and Tom Watson founded #HillaryMen to provide actionable analysis of the campaign focusing on the gender barrier in US politics. Peter is a former senior digital adviser to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Global Initiative. He is a veteran of two presidential campaigns (Kerry ‘04 and Clinton ‘08). Tom is an author and Columbia University lecturer who advises companies and non-profits on social activism.)
Anne here, speaking directly about my own impression of The New York Times’ coverage of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. I no longer trust their reporting and haven’t since they broke the Clinton email story a few months ago.The Times has been my truth Bible for decades, but no longer.
HillaryMen writes:
Through the shoddy, over-reaching work of a handful of its many talented reporters and the bad choices of a few editors, the paper seems to be actively running a campaign to prevent the election of the first woman president of the United States.
After running a story that initially - and falsely - described Hillary as the target of a federal criminal probe related to her emails, then having to retract a good portion of it, it’s not hard for readers to conclude that the New York Times opposes Hillary as a matter of policy.
This framing of yesterday’s New York Times headlines on a pending ‘criminal’ investigation of Clinton’s alleged handling of ‘classified’ emails on her private server contained so many inaccuracies that by the days’ end, many people didn’t know what to believe. This confusion wasn’t helped by the reality that the Times online headline continued to carry the word ‘ceiminal’ last night, when multiple entities including the US Justice Dept rejected the story as false.
The Clinton campaign didn’t mince words: “It is now more clear than ever that the New York Times report claiming there is a criminal inquiry sought in Hillary Clinton’s use of email is false. It has now been discredited both by the Justice Department and the Ranking Member of the House Oversight Committee. This incident shows the danger of relying on reckless, inaccurate leaks from partisan sources.”
Think Progress outlines the key developments of the day.
The New York Times broke a big story on Thursday night. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, the Times reported, could be the subject of a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice because of the personal email account she used as secretary of state. The Times reported that two inspectors general had asked for the criminal probe.
This would be a pretty big deal if true. But as the story unfolded, things became a bit more complicated. Most importantly, the Justice Department has said that it never actually received a request for a criminal probe into Clinton’s email, contradicting the New York Times story. Prior to that announcement, the Times made small but significant changes to its copy, and a high-ranking congressman said the Inspector General’s request was about something entirely different.
Reuters reported that the Justice Department said that it had indeed received a request to look at Clinton’s email, but that it wasn’t a request for a criminal investigation. Instead, the story suggested that the requested investigation may be about how the emails were handled as they were being prepared to be released to the public, alluding to concerns that they may not have adequately censored classified information.
If Cumming’s statements are correct, however, those emails would not have been previously marked as classified, meaning Clinton would not be held responsible. (Note, at this point there is no dispute that the emails in questions had NO classified indicators when they were received by the then Secy of State.)
Newsweek is more blunt, writing “What the hell is happening at The New York Times?”
AOC has zero respect in the journalistic integrity of writer Michael S. Schmidt in his coverage of Hillary Clinton. We’ve been down this road before with the press’ coverage of Hillary Clinton in 2008. They are total crybabies that Clinton doesn’t feel compelled to speak with them right now. I can understand why. When he’s on MSNBC ‘Morning Joe’ from now on, I will now treat him as a Republican, which he may well be.
The New York Times ensured that little was written about Hillary Clinton’s economic speech yesterday, one that called for lower tax rates for investors holding stocks for longer periods of time. One wonders: was that an intentional move? Because the magazine article on Clinton two weeks ago was total nothing, a glass with no water or juice in it.
I must check my stats on women writers at The New York Times. I know there is a huge gender gap. So let me say loudly and clearly, that I have zero confidence in the neutrality of Michael S. Schmidt as a journalist, and I suggest that the newspaper put a thoroughly-vetted, objective woman journalist on coverage of the 2016 election. I don’t care if she’s a Republican woman, as long as she has journalistic integrity and a commitment to fair and accurate reporting. ~ Anne
