If the first 15 outlets weren’t enough, here are the next batch of titles hungry for your honest stories, including the Gray Lady — where everyone has an equal shot at this “human relationships” column.

But don’t rip out those diary pages just yet. Editors shared the nitty-gritty details on what they want to see in a pitch. While they varied on topics from parenting to food, they all require a clean, tight copy set to their own preferences.

Double-check the word count limit to Ladies’ Home Journal, confirm what Saveur always runs their essays with, and find out what the Times receive “far too many essays” on in Personal Essay Markets, Part II [sub req'd].

We’ll finish off our list with Part III, and stay tuned for an updated guide to digital outlets in our final Part IV.

Read more

Overall, the reviews for Andrew Rossi‘s Page One: Inside the New York Times have been strong all around. It’s scoring an 81 percent on Rottentomatoes.com, and Lisa Schwarzbaum at Entertainment Weekly reviewed that “it’s not quite the same thrill as glimpsing the man behind the curtain of the great and powerful Oz, but for journalism junkies, the fascination of Page One: Inside The New York Times is something like that.” But for Rossi, just as important as the critics’ reactions are likely the reactions of the stars of the film at the Times. Thanks to New York magazine and Esquire, we were able to collect the inside scoop on how the men of the Times felt about the way they were portrayed. Here is what they have been saying:

David Carr: “If you want to signal to people that you’re a big jerk, walking around with a camera behind you is a good way to do it…but by the time the movie gets done, we look like action figures. Like, ‘WOW!’ But that really isn’t what our job is like.” (Daily Intel)

Brian Stelter: “It’s hard watching the version of myself that’s onscreen… When the film started production, I was 90 pounds heavier, and I lost weight as the film progressed, coincidentally. On the other hand, I’m glad I have a record of it.” (Daily Intel)

Bill Keller: “I saw an earlier edit of it. I found it kind of boring. I told Andrew [Rossi, the director], ‘As an editor, I think this piece would work better if you cut it down to 60 minutes.’ Then I realized that one reason I found it boring is that it seems very familiar.” (Esquire)

Bruce Headlam: “There are very few women in the documentary. There were women in my group — two out of about ten reporters. They didn’t want to cooperate.” (Daily Intel)

For those of you have been following every sordid detail about the Anthony Weiner scandal, one major piece might have caught you off guard: how quickly mainstream media outlets like the New York Times reported that Weiner’s wife Huma Abedin was three months pregnant, based on the word of several sources. It’s a huge story, but normally details like that are left to the tabloid trade. Politico’s On Media takes a look at the difficult decision news outlets faced in reporting this story.

The news that Anthony Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, is pregnant had been known and agonized over in newsrooms, including this one, for more than 24 hours before it was reported on Wednesday night… For the New York Times, which broke the story, the decision was not a quick one. The paper published the story a little after 5 p.m. Wednesday night on its City Room blog after Gawker published an item saying it had heard that Abedin was pregnant.

Phil Corbett, the Times’s standards editor, emailed Politico: “We try to be sensitive to privacy concerns, and we weighed that issue here, too. But Weiner’s problems were obviously a big story, and his actions and words had clearly put himself, his private life and his marriage squarely into the news.”

He also made clear that the decision was the Times‘ own. “We don’t take our cues from Gawker on a story like this.”

Read more

Update: Business Insider confirms the data from Comscore that Huffington Post has “zipped past the New York Times in monthly uniques,” and provides a chart showing the overtaking. They also add this provocative tweet from AOL employee Brad Garlinghouse: “Six years to disrupt 100 years.”

Has this apocalyptic event finally occurred? At TheAtlanticWire.com, Adam Clark Estes reports that an anonymous Huffington Post editor said that the website passed NYTimes.com in traffic for May. As additional confirmation, he points to Tony Conrad‘s tweet that “Comscore confirmed that HuffingtonPost.com traffic for May has surpassed NYTimes.com traffic for first time — 35.5MM vs. 33.59MM.” We will update once we’ve heard the official figures from Comscore.

Of course, to a great degree this is expected after the New York Times paywall. But amid all the speculation this week of how the AOL-Huffington Post merger is crashing down on Arianna Huffington‘s well-coiffed head, this is no doubt something she can gloat about, considering her long-standing rivalry with the Times.

In terms of juicy reading, you can’t get any better than this: on Friday, the State of Alaska is releasing more than 24,000 of Sarah Palin’s e-mails that will cover much of her tenure as the governor of Alaska. Because Palin frequently used her personal email to cover state business, including with her husband, those emails have been determined to be public record, reports the New York Times. Since practically everything Palin does is considered news as it is, her personal emails as governor are a veritable goldmine.

But the problem is that there are just so many of them! So the Times is actually turning to crowd-sourcing, and asking its readers for help sifting through the documents in its race to get the best stories out first. The Times‘ Caucus blog posts this unusual request:

Times reporters will be in Juneau, the state capital, to begin the process of reviewing the e-mails, which we will be posting on nytimes.com starting on Friday afternoon E.D.T. We’re asking readers to help us identify interesting and newsworthy e-mails, people and events that we may want to highlight. Interested users can fill out a simple form to describe the nature of the e-mail, and provide a name and e-mail address so we’ll know who should get the credit. Join us here on Friday afternoon and into the weekend to participate.

So if you’ve ever had a secret ambition to do some investigative journalism for the Times, see your name credited in the paper, or just gossip incessantly about Sarah Palin, this one is for you.

Henry Blodget at Business Insider says that all the Times paywall naysayers got one thing wrong in their analysis: the effect of the paywall on the legacy print business. According to Blodget, the Times circulation numbers were declining before the paywall because of the discrepancy between “the cost of a print paper (~$600 a year) versus the cost of the web site (free).” Why pay for nothing, right?

But now that there is a paywall, paying for the print newspaper is no longer paying for nothing. In fact, a senior Times executive told Business Insider that the paywall is actually leading to an uptick in print subscriptions. And on top of that, it’s providing revenue for their digital business, without totally destroying their advertising revenue. For anyone who loves newspapers, this is definitely something to feel happy about. We doubt anyone — even Times rivals like the Huffington Post — actually wants the Times to fail.

Jill Abramson, the most intriguing person in the media right now, gave an interview last night to Jessica Yellin at CNN about what it means to be the first female executive editor of the New York Times.

Yellin asked Abramson about Bill Keller‘s very public feud with Arianna Huffington, where he notoriously said about AOL’s acquisition of Huffington Post that “Buying an aggregator and calling it a content play is a little like a company’s announcing plans to improve its cash position by hiring a counterfeiter.”

So can we expect more shots fired from the new Times executive editor? Unlikely. Abramson said to Yellin:

I think that, you know, the aggregation of pieces of journalism that, you know, other news organizations have paid dearly to like get the story, get it right, tell the story behind the story, is — you know, poses a threat to us in some ways.

But I respect the fact that an awful lot of people like to read that way.  And, in some cases, I think “The Huffington Post” has been inventive and presents what it aggregates well.  So, you know, I don’t see myself — I’ve known Arianna Huffington since the early ’90s in Washington.  She is an inventive person.  I certainly don’t want to be in a war with her.

Probably a wise move. Yellin observed: “I can detect a change in tone at the top already.”

Abramson also had positive forecasts for both the Times digital and print.  She called the new paywall very successful so far, and said the number of people who have had print subscriptions for over two years has actually increased in the past year.

Video of the interview with Yellin is after the jump.

Read more

That’s a pretty serious accusation. But Felix Salmon questions the New York Times‘ story about the court case against Goldman’s Fabrice Tourre (written by Louise Story and Gretchen Morgenson) for its dubious sourcing.

This is how they got the information: The story was sourced because a New York woman found emails in a laptop discarded in the garbage. Email messages for Tourre continued to stream in, but the woman ignored them until she heard Tourre’s name in the news for the SEC case. Then she gave the data to the Times.

That was the (heavily lawyered) explanation provided. But — even if that is the full truth — is it ethical? Even legal? Writes Salmon:

I understand that the computer was found in a garbage area, and that there’s a long tradition of investigative reporters using information found in the trash. But if Tourre left a key to his apartment in the trash, that wouldn’t give reporters the right to use that key to enter his apartment and snoop around. The laptop was essentially a key to Tourre’s email account — which held highly confidential correspondence between Tourre and his lawyers. An email account, these days, is arguably more private than an apartment, and breaking into a password-protected email account is clearly wrong.

Read more

God, we love the British. The accents. That Royal Wedding. The fish n’ chips. How can we ever compete?

Now the world’s obsession with the British has gone to new heights. In April we reported Mail Online, the website of the UK-based Daily Mail, passed The Huffington Post in March to become the second-most visited “newspaper” site in the world. The most popular website was still the New York Times, by a wide margin.

But even the New York Times, the best we have to offer, is falling short. Mail Online could become the most popular news website in the world as bosses predict 70 million unique users will be reported for May. Of course, the evil Times paywall is to blame, but even in pre-paywall days in February, the Times reported 61,964,000 unique visitors.

Sigh. We might as well just give up now.