TVNewser FishbowlNY AgencySpy TVSpy LostRemote PRNewser SocialTimes AllFacebook 10,000 Words GalleyCat UnBeige MediaJobsDaily

Posts Tagged ‘Jim Rutenberg’

NYTimes Magazine’s Jim Rutenberg Offers Q&A with Former WH Press Sec Jay Carney

carneyIn this weekend’s New York Times Magazine, Jim Rutenberg offers a Q&A with former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. The conversation teeters on funny at times, when Rutenberg asks which cable network Carney will join as a pundit and comments that the he looks 20 years younger than his former boss.

The July 6 magazine cover story – Can the G.O.P. Be a Party of Ideas? - by Sam Tanenhaus explores reform in the Republican party and the faces behind it.

Obviously, the magazine hits newsstands Sunday, but an excerpt of the Q&A between Carney and Rutenberg can be found here.

Mediabistro Course

Freelancing 101

Freelancing 101Manage a top-notch freelancing career in our online boot camp, Freelancing 101! Starting August 18, freelancing experts will teach you the best practices for a solid freelancing career, from the first steps of self-advertising and marketing, to building your own schedule and managing clients.  Register before 7/16 to get $50 OFF with early bird pricing. Register now! 
 

Um, Congrats? MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Exalts BuzzFeed Scribe For Being On Show

Wearing a cornflower blue vest that made us ask “Where’s Abu?,” BuzzFeed‘s Andrew Kaczynski appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball” yesterday. He was on to discuss the “secret donors” fighting against the confirmation of Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary.

Kaczynski tells FishbowlDC it’s a Brooks Brothers vest which he had just received in the mail. He left his sports coat at home but has “no regrets” on the vest.

But more important than Kaczynski’s Prince Ali-inspired garb was the way in which show host Chris Matthews profusely thanked the reporter for appearing on his program.

NYT‘s Jim Rutenberg was also on as a guest. At the end of the segment, Matthews said, “Thank you, Jim Rutenberg, sir, a great reporter for the New York Times.” To Kaczynski… Read more

Morning Chatter

Quotes of the Day


“First @CNN liveshot of the day at #scotus . This is the scene in front of the 44 marble steps.” — CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

Boybander says ‘vagina’

“6-3 that transvaginal ultrasounds are NBD#otherSCOTUSpredictions” — TPM‘s Brian Beutler in an apparent attempt to be cute on the day of the heightened Supreme Court healthcare ruling. One reader thought it was in “bad taste.” But considering we did an entire feature called “Vagina Journalism” we’re not here to judge.

‘Wish me luck!’

The Atlantic‘s editorial meetings may be about to get a bit livelier. Atlantic Magazine Editor Scott Stossel remarked on Twitter this week, “My son (5) has, unaccountably, started gleefully yelling ‘Wish Me Luck!’ every time he breaks wind. Whole family now adopting the practice.” Our suggestion: Anyone who runs into Stossel today should say the phrase … repeatedly.

Understatement of the Day

“Probably more traffic today than in SB’s first 5 years, combined. So grateful; a little scared. #teamlyle #dontcrash” — SCOTUSblog.

Journo braces for bad hair day

“I have a contingency plan for nearly everything today, but not a power outage at my apartment. Are you ready for my good hair day, SCOTUS?” — Rebecca Berg, NYT political reporting fellow.

Politico publicist has a bad day

“Horrible end to a bad day. #RIPStella” — Politico‘s Olivia Petersen on Wednesday. (Might that have had something to do with Politico‘s suspended bad boy Joseph Williams appearing on The Bill Press Show seemingly without the pub’s knowledge or approval?)

Speaking of Williams…“One thing’s for sure,” noted lefty Bill Press on this morning’s radio show. “The right wing blogs are out to take Joe Williams down or me down or anybody down who gives any indication that they are liberal. Of course they don’t have to guess about me, man. I put it out there everyday.”

HuffPost‘s Jon Ward wonders why NYT’s homepage forgot today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court

Most of Ward’s comments were directed to NYT’s Jim Roberts, Asst. Managing Editor of the NYT, just before 7 a.m. At the time, Roberts was telling followers about a newly created Chinese-language site by the NYT. He never responded to Ward. At 8 a.m. he directed NYT readers to this story on the Supreme Court ruling. At 9 a.m. there was still no indication of the Supreme Court ruling on NYT’s homepage minus a small print blurb at the bottom.

1. “Nothing on NYT front page about #healthcare ruling?” 2. “idk, seems like there should be something: a recap, a rehash, etc. im sure there’s still lotta people tuning in for first time.” 3. “As my old editor used to say, even if you’ve written a story before, there were people who didn’t read it, so write it again.”

Want a friend in London? Forget the dog

“Odd conversation o.t. day: Woman to her dog: ‘You really don’t give a shit about me, do you?’” — Sarah Lyall, a London-based NYT correspondent.

Scarborough Faces Backlash Over NYT Bias Claims

MSNBC’s Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough criticized the NYT on his program yesterday after the paper published an extensive report on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney‘s upper-income neighborhood in San Diego. He said the story was “an embarrassment” for the publication, alleging that NYT didn’t cover Sen. John Kerry‘s (D-Mass.) wealth to the same extent when he ran for president in 2004.

Politico‘s media reporter Dylan Byers wrote a post citing an NYT rep who provided four examples of the paper’s coverage of Kerry’s wealth. In a follow-up post he quoted Scarborough (who has his own Politico blog and regular column) doubling down on his criticism and dismissing the four stories provided by the Times as follows:

“They may have a database showing how many articles they did on each candidate. I have to talk extemporaneously for three hours a day. But the general impressions of people like myself and [MSNBC contributor] Mark Halperin, that does count in the perspective that active news consumers have.”

Despite the rock-solid defense of having to talk “extemporaneously for three hours a day” and having “general impressions,” criticism of Scarborough by other journalists came flooding in.

“MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough didn’t learn much from last week’s Politico misfire on the New York Times’s alleged bias in covering presidential campaigns,” WaPo‘s media blogger Erik Wemple wrote in a post. “Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen tried to make that case and ended up getting buried. Turned out that the pair hadn’t dug deeply enough into the archives to put together an airtight argument.”

On Twitter, NYT‘s Jim Rutenberg said, “debate is healthy, but if @JoeNBC wants to stand by verifiably false assertions about our covg then not much more 2 say.”

Also on Twitter, Media MattersEric Boehlert summarized Scarborough’s defense in his own words: “Shorter Joe Scarborough: I have nothing to back up my attack…”

In another tweet, Slate‘s Dave Weigel said, “Please note: *Feeling like* some paper is biased is not actually media analysis.”

On Salon, Alex Pareene wrote: “The ‘general impressions’ of vain, blathering idiots like Joe Scarborough and Mark Halperin certainly do count, because someone gave them a TV show, for some reason.”

Scarborough’s one lukewarm defense came from Byers who tweeted to Rutenberg, “I believe his point is it’s about a general impression, your database be damned.”

Wemple Perfects the Copycat Critique

WaPo‘s Erik Wemple appropriately points out in a Monday post that the NYT failed to give Politico proper credit for its Herman Cain sexual harassment story. We just think that if WaPo‘s media opinion writer is going to criticize the NYT for attribution problems, that he point out that this critique first began in early November.

As readers may recall, this was when NYT‘s Jim Rutenberg squabbled about the finer points of “newspapering” and how it’s perfectly acceptable for one version of a story to cite Politico and another to leave it out. The gist was, don’t we know anything about smoothing information into a story with each passing edition and shouldn’t we correct our “glaring error?” That was three days after the Politico story first broke. And Rutenberg was explaining to us that at some point a story evolves and “takes on a life of its own” and no longer necessarily requires attribution.

Here we are a month later and Wemple is right that the comprehensive NYT Cain story ought to have cited Politico. But then again, Wemple, too, is guilty of taking a story and not giving the outlet that broke it proper credit. Try this relatively recent story on Politico‘s firing/resignation of Kendra Marr, who was caught lifting passages from other publications such as the NYT. Wemple got around to analyzing the situation some 24 hours after the fact. No doubt someone aside from himself deserved credit for that one.

When we wrote about NYT nixing credit to Politico on the Cain story, we got mail about what a great guy Rutenberg is — one said pointedly, “Leave Rutenberg alone” — which is hardly the point when covering the media, as most people are not monsters.

NYT Nixes Credit for Politico on Cain Story

The waters are getting muddied with the alleged sexual harassment story on Herman Cain. Since Monday, Politico has been getting loads of credit for breaking the news — on TV, online, and in print. The publication’s Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman broke the story and have been doing gobs of TV hits ever since.

But curiously on Tuesday night, Mother Jones’ Washington Bureau Chief David Corn pointed out a rather glaring omission from a NYT story by Jim Rutenberg, Jeff Zeleny and Mike McIntire on how much a Cain accuser was paid. Namely credit for the Politico reporters who broke the original story. Corn wrote to Zeleny on Twitter, “Good story re the Cain scandal. But why not one mention of Politico? Did I miss that?”

Weirdly, the NYT cites HLN and Fox News — so they do understand the concept of attribution.

Now we realize former Politico scribe Kendra Marr ripped off material from the NYT sans attribution. But tit for tat? Seems unusual for the NYT.

UPDATE: If you don’t watch yourselves you could find yourself on the receiving end of a condescending journalism lecture from NYT‘s Rutenberg, who is full of lame excuses. In a subsequent email he told me he doesn’t care that much but that he was explaining the “business of newspapering” for my benefit. Thank you very much, Jim — you’re a gem. So here it goes: “We wrote our story right up against our first print deadline,” he wrote to FBDC. “Credit to Politico was in our second (and  it happens, last) edition story, as well as our online story as of some point last night, as we smoothed through the story between editions, which is how it works in newspaperland when news comes in late and close to the first deadline. I hardly think the newspaper has been stingy about credit on this story, which has taken on a life of its own now anyway.” Memo to Rutenberg: The fact remains, the credit was not in the first version of the story and should have been “smoothed” into that first version as a basic piece of information. Should you want to attend a really boring FBDC lecture on the matter, we can arrange it. My panel will be Ezra Klein and Lester Kinsolving. Jason Mattera will ambush but I can’t tell you when or it’ll ruin the ambush. It will be four hours.

 

NYT on TWT: “Decidedly” Sorry, Offers Retraction

We told you earlier that TWT‘s John Solomon was upset by an article on the front-page of the New York Times. The article by Jim Rutenberg and Jackie Calmes said that TWT was “decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama.”

FishbowlDC has now obtained another internal TWT memo that says that the NYT has apologized and will issue a correction in tomorrow’s paper. Solomon’s memo below:

Folks:

I’m glad to report that the New York Times has formally called to apologize and will be running a correction in tomorrow’s paper. The Times’ Washington bureau chief, Dean Baquet, wanted me to personally pass along his apology. He also shared these words with David Jones: “I would never say your paper has been anything but absolutely fair and objective to Obama.” We agree and accept the Times’ apology.

Regards,

John

NYT v. TWT: Solomon Fires Back

In a front-page story on health care “scares” in the New York Times this morning, Jim Rutenberg and Jackie Calmes claim that the Washington Times is “decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama.”

From the article:

The specter of government-sponsored, forced euthanasia was raised as early as Nov. 23, just weeks after the election and long before any legislation had been drafted, by an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama, The Washington Times.

The article has caused quite a stir at TWT and from a memo obtained by FishbowlDC, it appears that John Solomon is fuming mad about the accusation:

By now many of you know that The New York Times wrongly and unfairlybesmirched your good reputation in a front-page story this morning about health care. I want you to know that we’ve told the Times and and the rest of the media world that we found it wrong, inaccurate,irresponsible and insulting for the New York Times to brand an entire newspaper as “decidedly opposed” to President Obama because of the voice of its editorial pages. Nothing can be further from the truth when it comes to the hard work of performance of our newsroom. Our news pages have no agenda except to accurately and fairly cover the news, including that made by the administration.

See Solomon’s full memo after the jump.

Read more

The Story With “The Story”

(alternate headline: “Bill Keller’s day is gonna suck“)

Yeah, so have you heard about this New York Times McCain story?

Initial assessments and punditry do not support the New York Times’ decision to run the piece.

McCain says it’s not true. Bob Bennett says the NYTimes has “lowered its standards” and calls the piece “a hit job.” Pat Buchanan called it a “weasley headline” on “Morning Joe.” Time’s Richard Stengel says he never would have run it. Tim Russert said that the more you read it, the softer the article seems. Rich Lowry says “The Times doesn’t have the goods—at least from what’s in the story–and shouldn’t have run it.” Mike Allen called it a “famously bland headline.” Joe Scarborough says the NYT has “a lot of questions to answer.” El Rushbo chimes in against the “drive-by media.” Ana Marie Cox (who likes paper dolls) gets a reaction from the McCain camp. Sam Stein asks, “Why Did The NYT Hold McCain-Lobbyist Story?” Marc Cooper says, “John McCain Owes The New York Times a Thank You Card.” Drudge had a field day with it. The McCain people clearly don’t like it:

    “It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign,” said communications director Jill Hazelbaker, in a prepared statement sent about an hour after the Times posted their story online.

TNR (which was rumored to have forced the NYT’s hand on the story) thinks that “a lot of stuff was edited out.” The mag is working on its own story:

    The McCain campaign is apparently blaming TNR for forcing the Times’ hand on this story. We can’t yet confirm that. But we can say this: TNR correspondent Gabe Sherman is working on a piece about the Times’ foot-dragging on the McCain story, and the back-and-forth within the paper about whether to publish it. Gabe’s story will be online tomorrow.

Tucker’s having lunch with Frank Foer today so perhaps he can get the inside scoop.

Leading the charge against the piece (based on both today’s “Today” show and “Morning Joe”) is NBC/MNSBC. And, wait: Aren’t they also partners with the NYT?

Anne Applebaum says: “Thanks to lack of evidence, the article reads not like an expose but like an elaborate and extended piece of insinuation.

Clark Hoyt! Where are you?!?

And in case you were wondering…the reporters: Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn Thompson, David Kilpatrick and Stephen Labaton.

TV coverage notes from TVNewser

Is Tonight Really A Big Deal?

Everyone says that tonight’s a big debate (namely due to the entrance of Fred Thompson). But Jim Rutenberg says “not so fast“:

    But how many people watch these debates anyway? Ratings show that the total is more than usually watch a cable television program and considerably more than the number tuned in around this point in the 2004 race.

    But it is also far fewer than tune into the average network sitcom, and less than might be expected in a race in which both the Republican and Democratic nominations are up for grabs.

NEXT PAGE >>