Scandals

Today's Vanity Fair article by former "Late Night with David Letterman" writer Nell Scovell starts out with some pretty pitiful statistics:

"At this moment, there are more females serving on the United States Supreme Court than there are writing for "Late Show with David Letterman," "The Jay Leno Show," and "The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien" combined. Out of the 50 or so comedy writers working on these programs, exactly zero are women. It would be funny if it weren’t true."

Scovell is not shy about equating this dearth of the fairer sex to the scandal that erupted earlier this month that revealed Letterman's proclivity for hooking up with female staffers. But what's unique about her perspective is that it's one that has been lacking from the whole Letterman debacle: the view of a woman on the inside. While we may not yet have heard the story from Letterman's former assistant and reported lover Stephanie Birkitt (we're waiting for exclusive primetime interview with her for sure) or any of the other women Letterman is said to have bedded, we at least have Scovell's take:

"Did Dave hit on me? No. Did he pay me enough extra attention that it was noted by another writer? Yes. Was I aware of rumors that Dave was having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Was I aware that other high-level male employees were having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Did these female staffers have access to information and wield power disproportionate to their job titles? Yes. Did that create a hostile work environment? Yes. Did I believe these female staffers were benefiting professionally from their personal relationships? Yes. Did that make me feel demeaned? Completely. Did I say anything at the time? Sadly, no."

Would more women on writing staffs have curbed Letterman's actions? Maybe, maybe not. But Scovell does make a case for including more women on the writing teams, and offers some good ways to do it, too. Now head writers and producers: what are you going to do about it?

Letterman and Me --Vanity Fair

Related: CBS Tries To Remove Unauthorized Videos Of Letterman's Extortion Explanation

The 150 journalists and guests who had the pleasure of vacationing last weekend in Jamaica for free were repaying their hosts/benefactors, Thrillist.com and Jetblue, with tons of tweets and Internet hype. Some would say that's worth it's weight in gold for the New York-based daily e-mail group, or they wouldn't keep throwing these elaborate parties.

In fact, for most freelancing journalists, getting on Thrillist's Director of Communications Flavie Bagnol's good side means invitations to nightclubs, Vegas, and even the Hamptons, all with goodie bags and free drinks.

But no good deed goes unpunished, as they say.

continued...

Earlier this week we learned that The New York Post has laid off associate editor Sandra Guzman, who edited the Latino-focused section, Tempo, for the paper.

Guzman also spoke against a Sean Delanos cartoon that debuted earlier this year featuring a monkey and a possible reference to President Barack Obama. Combine that with the fact that the Post doesn't have too many editors of color and it's Hispanic Heritage month and Guzman's departure was destined to stir up some controversy.

Today, the New York Association of Black Journalists put out a statement about Guzman's departure, signed by the organization's vice president of print Zachary R. Dowdy and president Gary Anthony Ramsay, saying they were "dismayed" by the news.

"We are further disturbed to hear the firing took place as the Post interviews candidates for a similar position at the paper's city desk, which remains open," the statement said, arguing Guzman should have been offered the opened job before being let go.

Their full statement, after the jump

continued...

After revealing an extortion plot and affairs with staffers on his show Thursday night, David Letterman took a moment on last night's show to apologize to his wife and his staff.

The video of the apology -- which is currently on the "Late Show" site -- is above. But CBS has been removing videos of Thursday's revelation, so who knows how long the clip above will be available. In fact, the clip from Thursday that we posted last week has been swapped for a CBS video blog entry featuring Katie Couric.

In related news, The New York Times reports today that alleged extortionist Robert Halderman's attorney claims he has evidence that Letterman sexually harassed his staffers.

Earlier: CBS Tries To Remove Unauthorized Videos Of Letterman's Extortion Explanation

The copyright infringement lawsuit against Gawker Media filed earlier this week by celebrities Eric Dane and Rebecca Gayheart raised a number of legal questions for bloggers and the media. We wanted answers, so we asked Jonathan D. Reichman, a partner at intellectual property law firm Kenyon & Kenyon specializing in copyright law, to weigh in on the merits of the case.

After reading the suit, which Gawker posted online, Reichman said he was surprised Dane and Gayheart went after the media company for copyright infringement instead of other claims, like invasion of privacy or violation of right of publicity, which is a celebrity's right to control how his likeness is used commercially.

"The unique thing about this case is that Eric and Rebecca are putting all of their eggs in the copyright infringement basket," Reichman said. "They could have sued for publicity rights or privacy rights. Usually in these cases you see celebrities alleging defamation or liable or slander. I don't see any of those claims."

Reichman said that if he were Dane and Gayheart's attorney, he would have at least added the additional claims for good measure. What Dane and Gayheart's attorney Martin Singer did do, however, was register their sex tape with the Library of Congress and obtain a copyright. Reichman said that obtaining a copyright is fairly easy and copyright infringement is "an easy claim to assert, on paper."

But will it hold up in court? And what defenses does Gawker have against it? Reichman explains, and suggests what Gawker's next steps should be, after the jump.

continued...

First there was the not so scandalous sex tape featuring a three-way romp between married celeb couple Eric Dane and Rebecca Gayheart and former beauty queen Kari Ann Peniche that Gawker posted online last month.

Then yesterday came reports that Dane and Gayheart had filed suit against Gawker, seeking $1 million in damages.

Responded Gawker chief Nick Denton via Twitter (before seeing the full suit): "To quote the great Marty Singer -- Eric Dane's lawyer -- if you don't want a sex tape on the internet, 'don't make one!'"

Today, Denton told The New York Times that he had paid for the tape -- which has logged over 3 million views since it was posted on August 17. Will that fact change how Dane and Gayheart's allegations hold up in court?

According to People.com, the suit alleges that "Gawker was warned that posting the video on its Defamer.com violated the couple's legal and privacy rights, but that the blog 'went on to maliciously distribute an uncensored copy' of the tape."

Thanks to a little something called the First Amendment, journalists are generally not afraid of lawsuits, especially when they have the power of a media company like Gawker behind them. But the question is, does this instance fall under freedom of the press, or can it be seen as malicious? Will Gawker give in, take the video down or settle out of court? Or will Denton have his day in court? But more importantly: will this suit and its outcome affect journalists and bloggers and what they choose to post in the future? Journalist always have a threat of a lawsuit when making decisions what to publish, so one suit of this kind is not bound to change the face of blogging or journalism too much. But if there's one thing journalists know, its that celebrity and sex always make for great news. If Dane and Gayheart just wanted this to go away, perhaps filing suit wasn't the best move.

Listen to more thoughts about the lawsuit on this morning's podcast.

Update: Gawker has posted a copy of the suit for you to peruse.

Well, it's official. Jon Gosselin's love has driven the Star magazine reporter assigned to cover the "Jon & Kate + 8" star to quit her job over fears of a "conflict of interest."

Star reported the news that senior reporter Kate Major had resigned this morning and Us Weekly tracked down the journalist, who was last seen with Gosselin in the Hamptons on Tuesday.

"I didn't mean it to happen, it just did," Major told Us. "I went to do a story on Jon and ended up falling for him."

What is up with this guy that makes 20-something blondes fall head over heels in love with him? We'd love to know.

As news broke this week that Major had been seen out to dinner with Jon, we thought she was definitely going to be getting a great scoop. In fact, Major is one of the writers of this week's Star cover story, "Kate & Hailey Catfight!" Now that Hailey Glassman is seemingly out of the picture, we can't wait to hear what she has to say about the matter.

Oh wait, People magazine already talked to Hailey. And told her about Jon's new main squeeze. "That's news to me," Glassman told a People reporter who told her the news. "I still love Jon and Jon loves me."

(Note to Hailey, you used to date my roommate's brother so we are practically related. Come tell us your story here! We'll be waiting for your email.)

Our question is: how often do reporters fall for their subjects? Would you quit your job over an affair with a subject? Would you quit over Jon Gosselin?

Earlier: As Jon & Kate Head Toward Divorce, Is It Time To Back Off?

The Erin Andrews peephole debacle has now turned into a feud between Andrews' employer ESPN and The New York Post. After the Post published photos of from the illicit tape of Andrews (including one on it's Tuesday page one, at left) the sports network banned the Post's reporters from any of its outlets.

Then today -- perhaps in a defiance of ESPN's ban -- the Post's gossip column Page Six ran an item blaming the network for outing Andrews as the subject of the fuzzy peephole camera tape. According to Page Six, the video had been posted online since Feburary but "had gone largely unnoticed."

"No one would have known that a sick voyeur had secretly videotaped ESPN reporter Erin Andrews nude in her hotel room, if the Mickey Mouse sports network hadn't sent a letter to an obscure Web site demanding that it take down its link to a fuzzy video of an unidentified blonde," the P6 item reads.

Could this be a declaration of war between ESPN and the Post?

Meanwhile, there is no word on whether ESPN will be similarly punishing other news organizations, like FOX News and CBS, that published or broadcast stills or parts of the video. Publicists at ESPN have not yet returned our request for comment.

Earlier: Erin Andrews Scandal Continues To Make News

For the second day in a row, The New York Post featured ESPN's Erin Andrews and her peephole scandal on its cover. Yes, it is newsworthy when anyone -- especially a sexy sports reporter -- is unknowingly filmed while staying at a hotel, but the invasion of privacy questions that this story raises have echoed through newsrooms. Did the Post breach some ethical code in putting blurry, blacked out photos of Andrews on page one yesterday?

Today, the Post reported that Andrews wants to put the peephole predator behind bars, but will she also seek legal action against those news outlets that publicized the photos of her? In another weird twist, TMZ.com said today that ESPN thinks that the people behind the video tapes were somehow connected to her production team because they were "familiar with Erin's travel schedule as well as her accommodations."

Do you think the Post and others -- like TMZ, Fox News and CBS -- made the right decision in publishing or broadcasting photos or parts of the illicit video? Take our poll and leave your comments below.

Shortly after announcing that it would investigate allegations of cell phone hacking made by British newspaper The Guardian against Rupert Murdoch's British newspapers, Scotland Yard said yesterday that there would be no additional investigation.

Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner John Yates told The New York Times that there was "no additional evidence" in the Guardian story that was not already part of a British policy inquiry into two Murdoch-owned papers' activities three years ago.

However, this may still not be the end of this scandal. As Gawker reports, those named by the Guardian as targets of the cell phone hacking may still sue Murdoch's company.

Earlier: Cell Phone Hacking Allegations Against Murdoch's British Papers Get Investigated

Related: Rupert Murdoch: "I'm Not Talking About That Issue at All Today"