Before Brian Williams ascended to the top spot at NBC News, countless stories chronicled his ten-year apprenticeship spent filling in for Tom Brokaw while biding his time with his own broadcasts on MSNBC and CNBC. The truth is, his wait was decades longer. Williams knew he wanted to be a news anchor by the ripe old age of eight and began boning up for the big time by staging imaginary newscasts from his living room in Elmira, New York (He also published a weekly newspaper using his father’s shirt cardboards). “I was blessed to have big, almost arrogant dreams as a kid,” he says. While it’s difficult to imagine television’s most tireless and earnest news anchor doing anything else, Williams’ early life as a college drop out and New Jersey volunteer firefighter hardly foreshadowed the future. But it’s his solid middle class roots that he says gave him the tools to reach for — and land — one of the most competitive jobs in television.

Although not exactly cut from the paternalistic cloth of his predecessors (Williams is more like a smarter older brother with his encyclopedic knowledge of the presidency, NASCAR and pop culture), he readily embraces comparisons made between his broadcast and the traditional mold created in the Cronkite era. “I venerate the giants,” he says soberly. Chances are, though, his idols could never have imagined blogging about what goes on behind the scenes in their newsrooms or broadcasting excerpts from a ‘manifesto’ sent to them by a mass murderer. For Brian Williams, it’s all in a day’s work.

Name: Brian Williams
Position: Anchor and managing editor, NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams
Resume: Joined NBC News in 1993; named White House correspondent in 1994. Prior to assuming his current role as anchor of Nightly News in December 2004, helmed MSNBC’s nightly newscast when the network launched in 1996 and later moved the show to CNBC in 2003. Before joining NBC spent seven years at CBS as a correspondent and anchor in Philadelphia and New York; worked at WTTG in Washington, DC. Began his television career at KOAM-TV in Pittsburgh, Kansas. Worked as a college intern during the Carter administration; left college for an administrative position at the National Association of Broadcasters.
Birthdate: May 5, 1959
Hometown: Elmira, New York. “When I was ten I moved to Middletown, New Jersey, so I claim both.”
Education: Never graduated college. “I started out at a community college, I then went to Catholic [University] and then transferred to George Washington [University] before stopping I don’t know how many credits short of a degree to go follow my dream.”
Marital Status: Married to former television news producer Jane Stoddard since 1986, two children.
First section of the Sunday Times: “I go for Week in Review. I usually peruse everything from what the comics are saying to the op-ed page and there’s usually one take-out piece that I like. By that time, though, I’ve usually read the front page. Then, I love obits because often that is some of the only news that surprises me in the paper. If it’s an AP story or a Times bureau story you kind of know a lot of what they’re going to say. I think I’m a pretty typical reader. I’ll scan the Weddings. In my job, I’m lucky enough to get an advance copy of the magazine before I go home on Friday. I usually take a pathetic stab at the puzzle, get about four answers in and convince myself I’m too busy — it couldn’t possibly be that the puzzle is too hard. The last thing I read Sunday night before turning in is the book review section.”
Favorite television show: “In the post-Sopranos era, I would have to say The Office — 30 Rock is a close second. I’ve been a huge SNL fan since its inception. And Friday Night Lights — it is the most creative and most serially underestimated show on television. I love that show. Talk about a realistic portrayal of married life. They get race right, they get high school kids right — I’ve owned two of them, I know; they get marriage right — a strong, long term marriage, I have one of those. I’ve never been a high school football coach but I have been to Texas and I have seen the yard signs in different communities saying, ‘so-so jersey number player lives here.’ I later learned from one of our correspondents that those are real homes [on the show]. They move into town and they shut down the streets and the furnishings you see are the furnishings you find in actual homes. Every part of that show is quality. I’m not a corporate lackey, but when I think of what we watch as a family, they all happen to be NBC shows.”
Last book read: Ike by Michael Korda. “I’m in the middle of it. It’s a doorstop but it’s what I read. I’m thoroughly enjoying it.”

Congrats on making the cover of Men’s Vogue earlier this year. Are you disappointed that Roger Federer edged you out for the honor of being Anna Wintour’s big crush?

I read about that! I’m not the typical reader — I don’t consider myself a clothes horse but I’ve got to say last the issue I picked up of that magazine — I think it was the month after I was in it — I found some really interesting articles in there including one about Phillip Johnson’s glass house. They hire good writers and seem to do good work. All I know about Vogue is I just had to carry the September issue to my wife from our mailbox. I have biographies that weigh less!

So here’s the big burning question we usually start with in these interviews: How would you say you’ve gotten to where you are?

Oh that’s easy. I realize I started life with some good cards in my deck but I was also missing some others. I had the good fortune to come from a fifty-year marriage and loving household. While my father never made any real money, he was the classic provider. We weren’t allowed any name brand sneakers or jeans and Christmas was often fairly thin, but I don’t remember going in need of something. But then there’s the part of life that didn’t go so well — dropping out of college. I came very close to taking the police exam in my town where I was a fireman. In Middletown, New Jersey, a lot of our fire department, which was all volunteer, was made up of police officers. You end up hanging out together in the same taverns. I came very close to settling down and not having a horizon beyond that town which would have been a fine life. I know because I have friends who have decided it’s a fine life.

In this country exclusively, if you are armed with a dream — even an outlandish one — and you have the drive, there’s really no limit to where you might go. I’d like to think I have a powerful message for students. When I give a graduation speech, I am able to say, “All of you gathered here today have an advantage over me – you have a degree in your hands.” I don’t recommend my path to others, but I do recommend holding tight to people’s dreams, goals and ambitions because this is the one country on the planet where the system is set up in a way to come true.

What are the key elements of your success?

If you’re a bystander in your occupation, if you feel yourself pushed into what you’re doing for a living or if you’re doing it for the wrong reasons, that will weed out the less than the truly serious. You have to have burning desire. I have found having great mentors and great luck is something there’s no substitute for. I am such a reflection of the team around me. I am the luckiest recipient of the best team of journalists ever assembled. I think all of the people who do what I do for a living walk around with a certain steady flow of guilt.

I don’t think everyone in your position feels all that guilty.

Well, we get to put our name on these broadcasts and it is way out of whack because there wouldn’t be Nightly News with Brian Williams without Richard Engel risking his life in the Middle East, without Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory knowing politics and the players as well as they do, without a video tape producer caring enough to find the perfect shot and an assignment editor working all night to get a live truck to the scene of a breaking story and allowing us the luxury to sleep. You get to be the recipient of all their collective efforts and it’s with me every minute of every day.

It’s almost three years since you were named anchor of Nightly News. Has the job been everything that you’d hoped it would be?

And more. I think that the job today is mildly indistinguishable as recently as when Tom [Brokaw] had it. Tom didn’t have the Internet monster to feed. It’s more portable. Fourteen trips to New Orleans since Katrina is something that I am endlessly proud of. We’ve got a New Orleans bureau because I work for a wealthy company — a company that knows where to put its heart and actually did something unusual and said, ‘Okay, great American city, we’re gonna buy a stake in you. This is so important to us that we’re gonna put out a shingle and ask staff members to leave their lives and families in places like Atlanta and come staff this bureau.’ Certain stories have changed the direction of what we do.

We have a radio division we didn’t have before. I write a daily blog. I update it when I’m on the road. We’re shooting mini video taped pieces for the Web, we’re updating the true believer viewers who click on whatever the update is and follow your progress during the day. 2.5 million streams a week — people looking for Nightly News material on the Web. It just didn’t exist [before].

Do you consider your blog something of an alternate universe to your broadcast? You take a much more personal approach and address the viewer in a much different way.

That’s a great point. I’d never dream of using the first person on the air. This broadcast has to be about everything else but me, and yet if you take the time and trouble to read my blog, that tells me that you bring to the blog a certain level of interest about what we do for a living. I’ve used it for one extra-curricular vehicle. I’m a member of exactly one board of directors — the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation. So every day for 109 days we post a different biography of the 109 living Medal of Honors recipients. They’ve become a cause in my life. They are all about service, duty, sacrifice and valor. I have this great destination every day that gets to be my little corner of the blogosphere and no one has said to me, ‘Hey, how unfair you calling attention to these medal of honor recipients! Stop that!’ I chose this board membership very carefully because I think it’s an organization and 109 individuals that are above reproach. So yes, it’s a parallel universe. It’s a style and minutiae that doesn’t belong on Nightly News but it also feeds as a viewer’s guide and accompaniment to Nightly News. It feeds those who are looking for a little bit more texture and context.

How much time do you devote to the blog on a daily basis?

You take a day like yesterday when I anchored the Petraeus hearings from 12:30 to 4, got off at 4 and went immediately to the Nightly News. I hadn’t written a word for the broadcast so I never got to post a blog entry for the first time in ages. I can’t remember the last time I haven’t had time to say something. I come back after our editorial meeting when it’s over at 3 o’clock and sit down and write something. Often I’ll have a topic in mind, something will be bothering me or there’s something I want to link to. It’s like having a daily column, but the stakes are lower.

What’s a typical day like for you?

If I’m not here for the 9:30 am conference call, I join by phone and then often walk in before the room is broken up. I love the sensation of walking down the hall toward the glass doors where the meeting is going on and hearing live what’s happening on the other side of that glass, then I hang up and take my seat. We’re here for quite a while afterwards. We know we’ve got to do another broadcast the next day, but we’re never satisfied enough when we talk about what we just finished. We talk about what the competition just aired — that’s important. You put your heart and soul into these broadcasts every day and you know we’re not doing this in a vacuum. We go on the air with two great news divisions across town gunning for us trying to do a lot of the same stories we have to cover because it’s the news of the day. There’s no substitute for competition. That’s why monopolies aren’t good.

Do you still clean your kitchen at night to relax?

I did it last night. You were the first person to “report” that years ago and people still mention it to me. I don’t know what it says about men or our profession that it’s of note that we have a home life, but one of my duties is to run through the kitchen before I turn in for the night. Although last night I must say that I went downstairs to let the dog in and my wife had done a beautiful job. All that was left for me to do was run the dishwasher. Cleaning the kitchen is very satisfying because you wake up to a clean slate and hopefully a clean countertop the next day.

You could not have possibly imagined being called “the dean of the evening news” as the New York Daily News christened you just six months into your tenure because of the unexpected departure of both Rather and Jennings. How did that affect the way things played out for you?

I said at the time and I really meant it, calling me the ‘dean of anchors’ is a lot like saying that The Empire State Building is the tallest building in New York. It’s true, but it’s by default. It didn’t happen organically. It’s a bizarre thing especially knowing how much I venerated these three positions and the three men that had them in the last go-round. Luckily, the daily deadline pressure and slamming these stories together deciding who will make the cut is so much of a preoccupation every day I don’t have a lot of time sit around and think big thoughts about my position.

This year brought more upheaval with Charlie Gibson assuming the top spot at ABC and, of course, Katie’s arrival at CBS. The big lesson here seems to be regular evening news viewers aren’t big on change.

That’s true. In a way, this is the biggest audience of habit left in television. Our viewers are profoundly faithful and very loyal. They are so brand conscious and thank God they are. I always say about the ratings I don’t know what we could put in [the broadcast], how we could tinker with the formula if our goal was to suddenly up the ratings. It’s kind of like you hope the best broadcast wins and we believe we put on the best of the bunch.

What do you make of the treatment your former NBC colleague has gotten in the press?

I wish everyone would take a deep breath. I wish everyone would judge Katie the way I’d like to be judged and that is on the quality of the journalism every night on the CBS Evening News. The rest of it is for journalists not worthy of the title. Katie is a colleague and a friend and as such, I’m a defender. She’s doesn’t need me to speak for her on her behalf but I want to say to everyone who has uttered a harsh word, let’s keep our eyes on the ball.

Speaking of change, you have a new producer, and Nightly News is going to unveil a new set next month.

This is an exciting time. Alex [Wallace, Nightly‘s executive producer] is fantastic. There’s a big reason behind [the new set]. This building is becoming the global headquarters of the network. We’re bringing in everybody from MSNBC so all of us — Channel 4, Telemundo, the division that puts out of our newsfeed — News Channels are going to be under one roof. MSNBC is going to be next to Nightly News in the newsroom which, to quote John F. Kennedy, a rising tide lifts all boats. This is going to be fantastic. They are populated with some really aggressive young talent. To combine these families — I think they should have been combined all along — necessitated the blowing up of walls and breaking down of barriers both literal and figurative. This whole redesign meant we had to have a new set and no one here objected to that. Over my shoulder in certain shots you’re going to see the entire gathered collective family of NBC.

Anything changing content-wise?

No. We’re not going to let form drive function. Beyond a new set of graphics and the shot over my shoulder that will look different, Alex and I are so respectful and mindful of the fact that these audiences are used to a certain look and feel. Nothing is broken, so we don’t want to go fixing things that don’t need it.

It was interesting to see you interviewing James Gandolfini on Nightly not to long ago. Whose idea was it to interview him and promote a show on another network?

Mine. Everybody has their thing and I have a strong military bent. It just so happens this was his first post-Sopranos interview – and by the way there wasn’t a Sopranos word mentioned. He wouldn’t have it and it seemed wrong anyway. (His HBO special, Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq ) was a powerful hour of television. I think the cause and his passion superseded the difference in networks. Not a soul raised a syllable about, ‘What are we doing promoting an HBO show?’ That’s one of the great things about working here – people know a great story when they see one. I know it can be petty business, but I didn’t hear that kind of thing. I didn’t give it a second thought it was a venture of a competitor — I looked at it as a cause.

This interview is taking place on the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. What did that event do to change the news business?

I think 9/11 knocked a bunch of us off our axis. I am still affected by every trip I make downtown. I almost try not to look across town on certain side streets because of the yawning gap I know is there. Six years out, I don’t think we’re yet in a position to calculate the cumulative effect on our psyche. That’s why I love history and historians — they get to be smarter than us and they take their time at it.

You mentioned earlier you’ve been in New Orleans quite a bit. Traveling seems to have become an increasingly important part of the anchor job, particularly in covering stories like Katrina and Virginia Tech. What’s the deciding factor for you that your presence is needed at the site of a story?

There are some where there is no decision. With Virginia Tech, as soon as we got an indication that the death toll was going above a certain number, there was zero discussion about ‘Should you go?’ It just switched to, ‘How do we get there?’ You know ’em when you see ’em, you just know.

Were you surprised to find yourself being cast as the network’s defender — on Oprah no less — for having aired portions of the shooter’s ‘manifesto?’

To her credit, I still don’t know how she felt about it because she worked in television news for a long time. I approached the altar of Oprah with the profound amount of respect for her role in our society, which is undeniable, and she gave me a very decent airing. I just felt the need to explain our actions. I think some people had forgotten the role of a journalist in society. It was a matter of taste in what we released, but the notion of not reporting this was antithetical to us.

That same month, NBC found itself at the center of another story — Imus’ firing — which you announced at the top of a broadcast and wrote about on your blog. Would you go back on his show if and when he returns to the airwaves? Have you been in touch with him?

I’ll take that if it comes up and consider it at the time. I think we exchanged an email since his departure. I think we’ll wait and see.

What Internet sites do you regularly check out?

MSNBC, Drudge Report and the New York Times.

Do you still answer all — or most — your viewer emails?

Yes.

What do you consider your greatest success?

My family and achieving my wildest dreams professionally.

What’s been your biggest disappointment?

Not working harder to enjoy the trappings of my life.

I know you’re a NASCAR junkie. What’s your dream ride?

I have a very fast Mustang GT that sometimes comes very close to a dream ride.

What’s your fastest ever mph?

181 miles per hour at Talladega Superspeedway.

Where does your need for speed come from?

From taking apart engines and attending Friday night stock car races as a kid.

Do you have a motto?

Life’s too short.

Diane Clehane is a contributing editor to FishbowlNY and TVNewser. She writes the Lunch at Michael’s column.

It seems only fitting that Jeffrey Toobin would once again find himself on the bestseller list at the same time that O.J. Simpson has returned to haunt the cable news channels. It’s been 13 years since Toobin, who had recently left the U.S. Attorney’s office to join The New Yorker, penned “An Incendiary Defense” for the magazine which broke the story that Simpson’s defense team was “floating” the theory that LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman was part of a police conspiracy to frame the former NFL great for the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. The 4,700-word piece caused an immediate furor and virtually overnight, Toobin became one of the best known attorneys-turned-talking heads to emerge from the chattering classes that chronicled the trial.

Since then Toobin, who still writes for the New Yorker and is now a legal analyst for CNN, has covered the crowded docket of celebrity trials including those of Michael Jackson, Martha Stewart, and most recently Phil Spector, as well as the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Supreme Court’s decision on Bush v. Gore. He told The Harvard Crimson earlier this year: “One of the things that I’ve always liked is the mix of high and low.”

In his latest book, The Nine, Toobin went behind the pomp and circumstance of the red velvet curtain and black robes to demystify the Supreme Court — due in large part to exclusive interviews with the justices — and, in doing so, has created a page turner that, at times, reads like a novel. The book, which debuted at No. 5 on The New York Times‘ nonfiction list last week, currently holds the No. 2 spot. With O.J. in his rear-view mirror (although with the possibility of another Simpson trial it’s likely Toobin will revisit the never-ending saga once more), the multi-hyphenate is happy to testify on what it’s taken to finally emerge from the media scrum with a book that’s not a ready made cable news story.

Name: Jeffrey Toobin
Position: Author, CNN legal analyst; staff writer at The New Yorker
Resume: Author of The Nine (Doubleday) and A Vast Conspiracy: The Real Story of the Sex Scandal that Nearly Brought Down a President; The Run of His Life: The People v. O.J. Simpson; and Too Close To Call: The 36-Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election. (All published by Random House). Joined CNN in April 2002 after seven years as a legal analyst with ABC News. Staff writer at The New Yorker since 1993. Previously served as assistant U.S. attorney in Brooklyn; served as an associate counsel in The Office of Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh, which served as the basis of his first book, Opening Arguments: A Young Lawyer’s First Case — United States v. Oliver North.
Birthdate: May 21, 1960
Hometown: New York, New York
Education: Harvard College ’82, Harvard Law School ’86
Marital status: Married to Amy McIntosh, chief talent officer at The New York City Department of Education; two children: Ellen, a high school junior, and Adam, a freshman.
First section of the Times: “Every day I walk [the family dog] Thunder Toobin and I take the sports with me as I walk around my block, so I guess I’d have to say the sports.”
Favorite television show: The Sopranos
Guilty pleasure: “Playing golf. It’s a very compelling activity and it’s very hard to do well.”
Last book read: “The Argument by Matt Bai and See You in Court by Thomas Geoghegan. I read those two more or less simultaneously.”

How’s the book tour going?

Great. I’m getting these enormous audiences at my appearances and as much as I’d like to think it’s about me and my book, I think there is just this huge thirst for knowledge about the court. There is a recognition that the court is in a critical moment in its history. People are hungry for information about it, so I think my timing is really good.

What made you want to write this book? When did you decide to do it?

It’s sort of a funny story. Three summers ago, in 2004, I had the wonderful idea of writing a legal thriller and my agent, Esther Newberg, said, “Oh, that’s great. It’s a terrific idea. [Editor] Phyllis Grann has always been interested in you and wants to read your novel.” So I spent the summer writing three chapters and showed it to Phyllis. She invited me to her apartment and said, “This novel is terrible. You should not pursue this. This is going to be a very bad novel if you finish it.” Then she said, “What you should do instead is write a book about the Supreme Court.” It was like a light bulb went off in my head because I’ve been covering the court off and on for almost 15 years. I loved The Brethren, but it was published in 1979. There seemed like there was a tremendous need for a book on this subject and I also knew it was likely that one or more justices would leave in the next couple of years — and this was of course before Rehnquist and O’Connor left. I knew it would be an issue in the 2008 [presidential] campaign, so all the stars quickly aligned. I more or less immediately agreed to do it but, I owe the success of The Nine to my ineptitude as a novelist.

When did you start writing? How long did it take to do?

I took a leave from The New Yorker of about seven months — I also worked on it while I was there — but there was a seven-month intense period. The dates are a little fuzzy to me. I worked on the book over three years.

How much time did you spend reporting?

It was much of the three years. A lot of the reporting was at the same time I was writing. It’s not neatly divided.

How does one go about getting Supreme Court justices to talk?

I had done profiles of three of them already. I had written long New Yorker pieces about Thomas, Kennedy, and Breyer. I was not an unknown quantity to them. There were also clerks who are a lot more hit or miss. It took a thick skin. Some clerks would tell me to go to hell promptly or not return my phone calls, but many were cooperative. It was just a question of pounding your head against the wall with the justices and the clerks.

Were there specific challenges endemic to this book since the critical interviews were all not for attribution?

It was pretty clear from day one what the terms of the deal were going to be — all interviews were on background. I could use the material, but I couldn’t identify the source. People were relatively comfortable with that. Once people agreed to talk, the conditions were pretty obvious. I was able to cross reference a lot of the more controversial stuff. I was usually able to get multiple sources.

The Nine is such an in-depth examination of the personalities of the justices. I would think you would have naturally wanted to attribute much of what was said to the person to give it even more context.

I just knew that wasn’t going to be the case.

But did it make writing the book more difficult?

Not really. Magazine writing is different from book writing. In the practice of magazine writing attribution is mandatory, particularly at The New Yorker. Whereas a book is more of a seamless narrative without that sort of attribution. I had done that with my previous books as well when I was writing about the recount or writing about Monica or O.J.

Can you tell me which justices required the greatest amount of finessing?

My deal with them was I would not disclose either the number or the identity of the justices who spoke to me. All I can say is that it was better than I expected.

What was the biggest surprise once you got into the meat of the project?

The extraordinary drama of Sandra Day O’Connor’s life was the biggest surprise. Here you have this woman when she graduates near the top of her class at Stamford the best job she’s offered is as a legal secretary. That’s the world into which she arrived. Flash forward to a tenure at the United States Supreme Court where she dominated the court on all the most contentious issues. She provides the decisive vote to put George Bush in office in Bush v. Gore, then becomes totally alienated from him over the war or terror, the war in Iraq, and the Terri Schiavo case and doesn’t want to give up her seat to him, but because of her husband’s illness feels like she must. As the crowning irony by the time she actually leaves the court, her husband has disappeared into Alzheimer’s disease. She winds up losing both her beloved seat on the court and her beloved husband almost at the same time.

She emerges from your book as being not only the most influential justice but seemingly from your perspective the most intriguing.

It’s not just that she was the first woman — although that is very significant — she was just enormously influential. Her legacy is a chord that hued very closely to what the majority of the American people believed on any given issue. She had a politician’s instinct for being a judge. But I think her legacy is in extreme and immediate jeopardy right now and I think she knows it. This is a very much more conservative court and looking ahead the three justices likely to leave in the next presidential term are Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg are all on the liberal side. If they’re replaced by a republican president, her legacy disappears practically overnight.

How did Clarence Thomas writing his own book impact your access to him?

[His book, My Grandfather’s Son] was kind of a mystery for a long time. HarperCollins was very secretive about it because it was very late. The book contract has been announced quite a few years ago and it took him a very long time to deliver. Then they didn’t announce publication until shortly before it was out. Frankly, it’s great that it’s out the same time as mine. It just means more attention to the court. He such a polarizing, fascinating figure — it’s always good to be able to talk about him.

Your timing was great on that one.

It was total dumb luck.

Is the secrecy surrounding the court what makes it compelling to a wide book audience?

It’s the combination of the enormous secrecy, the huge stakes of what they decide, and the compelling idiosyncrasies of the people involved. Once you chip away at the secrecy, you learn that these are very interesting people. David Souter is a huge catalog of idiosyncrasies. The nuclear weapons program is secret, but nobody is particularly interested in it. What makes it interesting is the secrecy plus the stakes involved and the characters.

Have you gotten any feedback from the court on the book?

Not yet. Frankly, I’m sort of relieved. David Remnick once told me after he writes a story his preference is not to hear anything one way or another. I think I’ve sort of adopted that approach. You kind of feel bad either way. If they hate it, you feel like you were unfair; if they love it, you feel like you were too soft. No news is good news.

Any interest in developing the book for a movie? There are lots of meaty roles there.

HBO is doing two of my books for movies. They’re doing Recount and that starts filming this month. The lead is Kevin Spacey with Laura Dern and Denis Leary. Jay Roach, the Austin Powers guy is directing it. It’s a great script which I did not write. A Vast Conspiracy, the Monica story, is also in development at HBO. With [The Nine], I’m certainly open to offers.

From one end of the spectrum to the other, we last spoke at Michael’s the day Denise Brown went on The Today Show to implore the publisher of the Goldman’s version of the O.J. book, If I Did It, not to publish it. At the time, when I asked you what you thought the public’s reaction would be to the book, you said it would be “a disgusted sigh.” Are you surprised it’s become a best seller?

The book is selling better than I expected. I figured it would make the bestseller list briefly, but it seems like there’s more interest in the book than I expected.

Simpson certainly helped things by getting arrested in Vegas.

I guess that’s right. Wasn’t it the day after it was released he was arrested? That’s sort of a cosmic complement. It sort of is like old home week. The O.J. repertoire company has reconvened.

Have you read the book?

I don’t have a copy yet, but out of professional obligation I should get one.

If you had to write the epic end to the O.J. saga what would it be?

My reaction so far is if O.J. Part One is tragedy, O.J. Part Two is farce. As best I can tell, every single person in that goofy hotel room in Las Vegas was some kind of shady character and who’s exactly the thief and who’s exactly the victim will be difficult to sort out. The first trial was about the horrible murder of two people; the second trial is basically about some worthless merchandise so the stakes are wildly different.

But for those who are obsessed with O.J., this is a second chance to immerse themselves in every detail.

As with the first case, I think the public is more interested than it admits. If this case really proceeds and there’s a trial, there will be a tremendous amount of interest.

By and large, with few exceptions, no one really seemed to care about the Phil Spector trial.

That case made no impression, did it? He’s old and his accomplishments are old. But the public cared about Scott Peterson and no one had ever heard of him. That is kind of a puzzle.

You’ve been covering these sensational trials-turned-train wrecks for a while. What makes one capture the public’s attention while another doesn’t register on the radar?

It takes a certain combination of events. One of the reasons why there’s not interest in some cases is they’re not televised. But Spector was televised. Yet still no one was particularly interested. I think it just dragged on for so long. I don’t know — there was something about him that people were not interested in.

What are they putting in the water coolers in Los Angeles courtrooms that prevent juries from convicting anyone with a modicum of celebrity?

It is interesting — with each individual case you can muster an explanation. I did follow the Spector case somewhat — I only did it when CNN forced me to do it and that wasn’t very often — and the suicide theory, which I initially thought was completely absurd, did have some evidence behind it. I thought it was absurd when I first heard it, but it was not as crazy as I thought.

What do you consider your greatest success?

The success of The Nine. My other book piggybacked on events where there was already enormous interest. With The Nine, I had to create a narrative out of an institution rather than an event. I think that made it a more difficult writing assignment. I think the book is my best book. It was the hardest book to report and write. O.J. was huge, Monica was huge — even the recount was big. This was more sort of my creation.

What’s been your biggest disappointment?

I don’t want to sound like a whiner. I’ve written five books — two of them came out in the middle of huge news events which really swamped them. My first book, Opening Arguments, about my experience as a prosecutor in the Oliver North case came out just as the Gulf War happened in 1991. Too Close to Call, about the recount in Florida was published in October 2001 right after 9/11. It’s weird — my O.J. book happened to be published exactly when the O.J. civil case started. It was just fantastic timing. This book has had fantastic timing. I’ve also had two books with terrible timing. It’s all dumb luck — some good, some bad.

How would you say you’ve gotten to where you are?

It’s funny. It’s very circuitous. I had two journalist parents — my mother is Marlene Sanders, who is one of the pioneering women television correspondents, and my dad, Jerome Toobin, was one of the founding fathers of public television and Bill Moyer’s producers for many years. So I grew up in this television household and thus, was repeatedly instructed never to consider a career in television. So I went to law school thinking I’d be a lawyer but I always worked on the school paper and I started freelancing when I was in law school. It’s a question of my genetic destiny kicking in and that fact that Tina Brown took a chance on hiring me out of the US Attorney’s office were really key factors.

These days there are people going to law school because they want careers on television.

I hear from people like that and it’s surprising to me. When the O.J. case happened in 1994, there was no such thing as a television legal analyst. The job didn’t exist — that’s just 13 years ago. The advice I always give to would be law students is: don’t go to law school if you want it as vehicle to something else because the sad truth is most law school graduates become lawyers. If you want to be a journalist, be a journalist. Don’t go to law school to be a journalist. Obviously, my career refutes that to certain extent but it’s very much the exception rather than the rule.

Do you have a motto?

The writing motto I have is ‘Show, don’t tell.’ It’s the best writing advice I ever got. It’s the writing advice I always give.

Diane Clehane is a contributing editor to FishbowlNY and TVNewser. She writes the Lunch at Michael’s column.

As the sole surviving original co-host (except for boss and mother hen Barbara Walters) of ABC’s chatfest The View, Joy Behar has handled more than her share of ‘hot topics.’ While Star, Rosie, and Elizabeth made headlines with their feuds and shoot from the lip, take-no-prisoners style, Behar has remained happily — and smartly — above the fray. The former school teacher-turned-standup comedian knows a good gig when she sees one, but she hasn’t given up her first love — standup comedy. (“It’s what I do.”) Her route from answering phones at Good Morning America to a seat at the table alongside Barbara and the guests at “the cocktail party du jour” was a circuitous one. Behar survived her share of personal and professional meltdowns before finding her footing on stage doing standup and moonlighting on one of daytime’s most enduring and compulsively watchable shows. These days, she spends her mornings at ABC and many of her evenings on stage (this month she’s headlining a benefit every Tuesday night for God’s Love We Deliver at the Zipper Theatre). Over a post-show lunch of Jenny Craig pizza, Behar served up some tasty dish about what it’s taken to outlast her former co-hosts over the past decade and why she’ll never give up her night job.

Name: Joy Behar
Position: Co-host of The View
Resume: Joined The View in 1997 as part of the daytime chat fest’s original team of cohorts after Barbara Walters saw her perform at Milton Berle’s 89th birthday party. (“She was impressed even though she’d never heard of me.”) Prior to joining the show, Behar was performing standup comedy at legendary clubs including Caroline’s and Catch A Rising Star in New York City. Before breaking into the business, the comedian had various stints that included teaching grade school English and answering phones at Good Morning America. She is the author of several books including the best sellers Joy Shtick or What is the Existential Vacuum and Does it Come with Attachments? and the children’s book Sheetzucacapoopoo: My Kind of Dog. Her latest, When You Need A Lift (Crown) was published last month.
Birthdate: October 7 (“That’s it”)
Hometown: Brooklyn, New York
Education: Queens College BA in English, State University of New York/Stony Brook MA in English education.
Marital status: “I’ve been with Steve [Janowitz] for 25 years.” One daughter, Eve, from first marriage.
First section of the Sunday Times: “I read the front page. I just sort of scan it. Then I go to the Op-Ed page, the editorials, and the letters. Then I go to the arts section.
Favorite television show: “It sounds too elitist when I answer this but I basically watch The Situation Room on CNN. I Tivo it. I watch it every day. I like the format. I like everything about it. It never disappoints me.”
Guilty pleasure: “Massage, manicure, pedicure. The whole bit.”

You are the only original member of The View — besides Barbara Walters — still standing. What’s the secret to your longevity?

I recognize that it’s just television. It’s a show, it’s not personal. I’ve said this before — I feel as though I’m at a revolving cocktail party and I basically stay the same and different people move around me. That’s my attitude. Plus, I have my real life. I have a very strong real life. I have a lot of friends and I think that’s why. I’m not sure that other people couldn’t say the same thing, but they’re not here. [Laughs]

The show has evolved in its 10 years. It’s changed a lot in terms of tone — it’s certainly become a lot more controversial. How do you think you’ve evolved?

I think I’m calmer about it. I don’t like the cross-talk and now I open my mouth about it — “One at a time.” I’ve become more bossy. [Laughs] I’ve also become more political over the years — which I’ve always been. In the sixties and seventies I marched against the Vietnam War. My ex-husband and I were always very concerned about the country and the way it was going, so it’s a natural thing for me. Since it’s election year coming up, I’m going to be there.

Have you decided who you’re endorsing?

Not yet. I like Hillary but I’m afraid of her hawkiskness, to tell you the truth. In that regard, I like Ron Paul better. Even though he’s a staunch conservative. He’s against Roe v. Wade, I think. I’m not even sure about that. He’s a libertarian so how can he be against that? He could personally be against abortion but that doesn’t mean he’d want to change the law. He’s the only one who speaks the truth from that party. With the other party, they’re all playing around right now and I don’t know who to believe.

Let’s go back to the politics of The View. During that now infamous final dust up between Rosie and Elizabeth you said on-air, “Who’s directing this show?” and were clearly annoyed about what was going on. Did you say anything to the powers that be afterwards?

I was in a minimal position at that point. It was so crazy that day that they didn’t even pay attention to me, which is fine. [Laughs] I was a minor player. I was, in the moment, saying, “How come this is going on for so long?” It was so acrimonious. When I’ve seen it, it was not pretty. I never watch the show after I do it because I’m there already. I happened to catch [that show] a couple of times and I just thought it was nasty business.

Were you ever concerned that all the negative publicity surrounding the show was overshadowing it?

Yeah. Sometimes I did think that.

Did you talk to Barbara or [executive producer] Bill Geddie about that?

No. It doesn’t work like that around here.

So what did you think?

[The controversy] became the show and the ratings were up. You can’t argue with success. It was like the cocktail party du jour and it just went. That was the way it was. When [Rosie] left, now it’s this party. We’re having a different kind of thing. I think this is calmer. This is as much fun as last year. It’s just a different kind of fun.

What’s the vibe on the set now with Whoopi and Sherri?

It’s a much calmer vibe. It’s not as dangerous, I guess. But to me, it’s exciting anyway because Whoopi is a very bright girl. She’s got good politics and both of us are interested in trying to get people to listen to the things we say about what we read and see.

Did you read Rosie’s book?

I haven’t read it. I went to her art show yesterday. She has all these wacky paintings that she’s done that are very interesting. She’s a talented girl. She’s very smart. All I know are these little dribs and drabs from the press. I haven’t gotten around to it. I’ve been trying to avoid it so I don’t have to comment on it. But, I can comment on what I know about it.

It’s been widely reported that in it she says Barbara is ‘tired’ and says something about it being time for her to retire. Were you surprised by that?

I was surprised. Mike Wallace is 89 and he’s not retiring. People should retire when they want to retire. She’s entitled to say whatever she wants — it’s a free country — but I don’t happen to agree with it.

What was it like having Meredith come back for a visit last week? I know you’re good friends.

We really are good friends. It was nice to see her again.

How do you think she’s done at Today?

She’s doing so well. When she went over there I said to them, “You’ll never have any diva moments with this girl.” She doesn’t act out. She’s not crazy. She doesn’t act like a big star. She’s very self-effacing and generous. I miss her.

So let’s talk about your new book When You Need a Lift. Where did the idea come from?

They [Crown] came to me with the idea of people sharing their stories about how they get out of a bad mood since I’m a comedian and my whole raison d’etre is to make people laugh. That’s where the idea came from. I sent a letter out to a lot of people — some people responded and some didn’t. The ones who responded that we liked we put in the book.

Most people don’t know a lot about you prior to you joining The View. You started your television career as a receptionist at Good Morning America. What were your goals at the time?

I had tried a lot of different things. I was an employment counselor. I worked at a mental hospital. I taught English to different grades in different places. I had done a lot of those kinds of jobs. I was qualified to teach English in a high school but I saw that wasn’t working for me. You always have in the back of your mind the thing you wanted to do when you were 10 years old. I was a funny kid. I wanted to be an actress of some sort. Standup comedy was always in the back of my mind because I was funny at parties — and I thought, “I could do this.” But it was extremely daunting. So I went into television because the lighting director [at Good Morning America] was a family member and got me this gig as a receptionist. I was thinking “I guess I’ll be a producer or something.” I wasn’t cut out to be a producer, either. I did get a promotion at one point to be a producer at Good Morning America and then I said, “I don’t want this job. I want to be a receptionist again.” [Laughs] Then I went back to being a receptionist and I got fired because it was clear it really was not happening. I was a receptionist with a master’s degree, so I was a little bitter.

After I was fired, I had also had a near death experience — an ectopic pregnancy, which really went awry during that period. I also got divorced. I was really on the edge. All of this happened in three years [1979-1981]. I was really like, “What am I going to do now?” After I got over the shock of why my life was in such shambles, I started to get on stage. I started to work in [standup comedy] and I was on stage constantly.

Where was your first show? What was that like?

I started down in the Village at a place called Comedy U. because on Thursday nights they had a female night. I started to bond with the other women comedians and we were trying to support each other. The audiences were different from the uptown male audiences. It was a little bit easier to break in. From there, I started to get better and better until I was able to get into Catch a Rising Star.

It sounds as if even with your gig on The View you still consider stand up your primary “job.”

Jay Leno told me he makes a lot of money from The Tonight Show but he doesn’t spend any of it. He puts it all in the bank. The only thing he spends is his stand up money because he knows he’ll always be able to work as a comedian and that’s the money that he lives on. Stand up comics always have that. We always have that in the back of our minds and in our back pockets. It’s what we really do.

Has the experience of doing standup changed for you since you’ve become so well known from The View?

More people know me so they come to party with a kind of savviness about me. They know, for example, they’re not going to hear me say wonderful things about President Bush. They’re also interested in me as a person, so it’s much easier when you’re at that point in your career rather than having to win them over.

So what does the future hold for you at The View? How long are you planning on staying there?

I don’t know. I never know. I always think, “We won’t last much longer” — and then we’re on for 10 years. I have two more years on this contract and we’ll see what happens.

What’s your dream job?

This one. [Laughs]

What’s your average day like on The View?

I wake up in the morning and I read the paper. That’s the first thing that I do. I read The New York Times every day and I read The Week on Friday. It’s very important to read. And I read The Nation. Those keep me informed.

What about Web sites?

I’m going to start doing more. I’m trying to read Huffington Post a little more. My main preparation is watching The Situation Room and reading the papers. And, of course, there’s pop culture to deal with. We get research in the morning. I try to follow Britney and all the rest of them and try to have my own take on the situation. That’s basically it.

What do you consider your greatest success?

Besides my daughter? My daughter has turned out to be very strong. Everyone loves her. She’s a divine person. She’s very solid and has real values. She’s not a phony. She’s doesn’t go with the crowd. She has a mind of her own. She’s it as far as my accomplishments are concerned.

What would you say has been your biggest disappointment?

[Pauses]. Oh God…I’m not really disappointed by too much.

Looking back, how would you say you’ve gotten to where you are?

Desperation. [Laughs] And an innate ability to do what I do. They say the definition of talent is something that comes easy to you. Yakking comes easy to me. [Laughs] No one in my family ever told me to shut up.

Do you have a motto?

My mother used to say, “Don’t spit up in the air, it comes back in your face.” My father used to say, “People who live in glass houses should dress in the cellar.” I try to live by those mottos.

Diane Clehane is a contributing editor to FishbowlNY and TVNewser. She writes the Lunch at Michael’s column.

Backstabbing and bitchiness are the stock and trade of the characters that populate fashionista favorites Project Runway and Ugly Betty, but to hear Fern Mallis tell it, real life doesn’t imitate television. When reality show producers declared her “too nice” for her own series last year, IMG’s senior vice president of fashion saw it as more of a validation than a rejection. “In the conversations it just became obvious I just wasn’t bitchy enough, which I thought was an okay thing,” she says.

In her decades long career in fashion, Mallis has become one of its most tireless and visible champions. In 1993, as the executive director of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, she organized the industry’s first “Fashion Week” — then called 7th on Sixth — and took on the unenviable task of getting notoriously prickly designers to play nice and produce their runway shows in one central location. Today, she presides over Mercedes Benz Fashion Week in New York twice a year when the industry’s biggest names pitch their tents in Bryant Park with her characteristic good-natured calm while making sure the hissy fits are kept to a minimum and Jessica, Demi, and Beyoncé get to their front row seats without too much hassle from the paparazzi. Mallis has also proven there’s plenty of substance behind all that style. According to industry sources, the event generates over $235 million for the city each season. Perhaps that’s why Mallis is logging plenty of frequent flyer miles traveling as far as India to help foreign fashionistas stage their own headline-grabbing shows.

For the Brooklyn-born girl who graduated from James Madison High School having won both the “fashion design” award and kudos from her classmates as “best dressed,” it’s a dream come true. “I still get goose bumps when the lights go down, the music starts and those first shows start,” says Mallis. “It’s thrilling.”

Name: Fern Mallis
Position: Senior vice president, IMG Fashion
Resume: Before assuming her current position when IMG acquired 7th on Sixth in 2001, served as executive director of the Council of Fashion Designers of America for 10 years; served as a consultant for the fashion and interior design industries and worked as vice president of marketing and communications for the International Design Center, New York (IDCNY); principal of Fern Mallis Public Relations; began her career in fashion after winning Mademoiselle‘s “Guest editor” competition; spent several years as a merchandising editor for the magazine
Birthdate: March 26
Hometown: Brooklyn, New York
Education: University of Buffalo, BFA
Marital status: Single
First section of The Sunday Times: “I have to admit I read the Style section first.”
Favorite television show: “I watch Project Runway and I’ve been watching Cashmere Mafia. I think it’s amusing. It will be interesting to see how Lipstick Jungle shapes up. I love Boston Legal. I was a Grey’s Anatomy fan — a little less so now. Most of this is on DVR and watched at one o’clock in the morning. I tape Oprah. I check what the subject matter is and if it’s interesting, I watch it later when I’m up at night and can’t sleep.”
Guilty pleasure: “Eating”
Last book read: The Other Boleyn Girl by Philippa Gregory

How did Fashion Week in its current incarnation come about?

The short version is it was an accident. There was a ceiling crash in 1991 at Michael Kors in a loft downtown in the kind of raw, rough space designers love to do fashion shows in. Once the music started playing, pieces of the ceiling plaster started to fall down on the runway hitting the shoulders of the super models — Linda, Naomi, Cindy. They just kind of brushed off their shoulders and kept walking but then plaster landed in Suzy Menkes’ and Carrie Donovan’s lap. They didn’t take kindly to that. The next day’s headlines pretty much read ,”We live for fashion; we don’t want to die for it.” It took the American fashion industry to task for all the unsafe spaces designers would show in. I had just been hired and hadn’t started yet as executive director of the CFDA. At that moment I said, “I think my job description just changed.” If there were 50 shows, there were 50 locations and very few people spoke to each other about you being uptown and I’m downtown. The mantra was “Organize, centralize, modernize” the runway shows.

The first shows were organized in 1993 at the Tents in Bryant Park. In 1992, we were asked by CFDA to come up with an idea for the Democratic National Convention. We got a group together and put on a fashion show. We put up this big tent in Central Park for 1200 delegates and guests. Every single designer was there — Calvin, Donna, Oscar, Diane, Isaac, and Tom. Everybody you could possibly think of participated. At the end they all walked down the runway with their models. They all looked at me like, “So this is what you’re talking about?” It was the reality of seeing it that really cemented the concept. I went to Paris and Milan the following season to see everything and came back with a full report. The next season, we made our deal with Bryant Park. It just kept growing and has just evolved into this massive company. Nobody ever thought 10 designers would ever work together in the same place. Then we began registering media from around the world. We now have 4,000 registered outlets that come to cover fashion week.

Any idea how many shows you’ve been to since taking this job?

Thousands.

For you, prepping for Fashion Week must be like getting ready to run a marathon. What do you do to prepare?

There’s no time. I just came back from India. I was there for some licensing meetings and some meetings for Fashion Week. Since IMG bought 7th on Sixth in 2001, we’ve expanded. Now we have Mercedes Benz Fashion Week twice a year in New York, twice a year in Los Angeles, once a year in Miami, twice a year in Berlin. We’ve also purchased a company in Australia so we have Rosemont Fashion Week in Sydney. We do Kuala Lumpur. We consult in Mexico City. We represent Milan Fashion Week for commercial sales. We do Fashion Fringe events in London. We just signed Istanbul Fashion Week. We’re also involved with Fashion Week in Moscow.

Is that the major difference in your job — its international scope — since Seventh on Sixth was acquired by IGM?

It’s certainly much more global. Before that CFDA was doing Fashion Week plus the awards galas, the membership and scholarship programs and Fashion Targets Breast Cancer. When we got here, we saw the opportunity and the interest in Fashion Week expanding around the world. The company is a much more synergistic company with media opportunities, licensing, and all the different divisions that IMG brings to the table that we’re able to leverage for the fashion industry.

Fashion Week can certainly be credited with making fashion a much bigger part of the pop culture landscape. What has that meant in the big picture sense for the industry?

It’s meant better business for them. The convergence of fashion and celebrity over the last 10 years has just been phenomenal. I credit Joan Rivers with a lot of that. She was the first person who covered the red carpet and asked people what they were wearing. Before that you had to guess. That was not the primary conversation — nobody would dare ask, “Are those your diamonds? Whose shoes are those?” She changed that dialogue forever. I think that has put fashion squarely at the center of pop culture. You can’t look at a red carpet event without having 20 or 30 designers names associated with it and that’s been great for the industry.

This year’s Oscars — if it comes off — will have a pretty high glamour quotient. What would it mean to the fashion industry if there’s no red carpet this year?

It would be a disaster. That, coupled with today’s stock market news is just going to contribute to the downward spiral I’d rather not think about. We all need this Oscar. I hope that sanity and common sense prevail and people are able to negotiate their way forward.

I once got trampled by a photographer – he literally held me down on the ground under his boot — when Beyoncé showed up at an Oscar de la Renta show. The melee made the papers because Suzy Menkes, who always seems to be in harm’s way, got caught in the fray. The presence of celebrities at shows seems to be a double-edged sword. What’s your take on having them at the shows?

It is a double-edged sword in some respects, but the majority of the celebrities who show up are bonafide clients and friends of the designers. They depend on each other a great deal. That dress will get that celebrity in the media and it’s that coverage in one of 15 celebrity-driven magazines or Web sites that gets that designer’s name out there. That is money in the bank for them. The celebrities add a marvelous element to the shows when kept in context and in proportion. We try very hard with our security and our public relations staff to manage that as best as possible. There are always a few overeager photographers. Over the years we have really worked to create several levels of credentials. There’s that tap dance that goes on for twenty minutes while people are getting to their seats — people go up and down the front row and shoot and get their interviews because the story and the news of Fashion Weeks is not just the collections. It’s the whole environment in the tents.

When celebrities are there, sometimes the press is favorable and sometimes it’s not. If there are too many celebrities, the press will say, “This is ridiculous.” The next season, there’s no celebrities and you get beat up the shows are lackluster because there’s no stars. It’s an absolutely a no-win situation.

Which celebrities have caused the greatest uproar by their presence at a show?

Several years ago when we were doing separate men’s show I’d say Pamela Anderson caused a stir the likes of which were shocking. Beyoncé gets a crowd. Last season we had Clive Owen, Demi Moore, and Lucy Liu at Miss Sixty.

There were a lot of rumors flying around that the company paid all those stars to sit in that front row. What do you think of that practice? Are you aware of that happening a lot?

I know it’s been much more prevalent in Europe where they fly people in, put them up, and give them clothes. For the most part, with the designer brands who work in New York and show in the tents, I’m not aware of them hardly ever paying anyone to be there. There are some names and brands that are new on the schedule and if they’ve got some money to do it and celebrities show up and get them press coverage, it’s probably an investment that was worthwhile. I don’t think it’s for me to condone or criticize how people spend their money. I’m sure there are a lot of young designers who could afford to do that.

Celebrities have long replaced models on the covers of fashion magazines. Do you see that practice continuing?

I think it kind of goes in and out of favor every so often. Models are the mainstay of our industry and are really the people who sell a dress and a look.

On the runway that’s certainly true, but on magazine covers it seems like celebrities rule. Someone once said to me now if you see a magazine cover with a face on it you don’t recognize it seems rather jarring.

I think that’s too bad. I wish there were more models on the covers of magazines again.

Maybe this is too strong a word, but do you think there is any resentment on the part of designers for having to play the celebrity game? There’s really no way around it these days, is there?

Some people don’t play it and they’re fine. Somebody like Ralph Rucci just says that’s not my shtick. He’s just stayed true to his work ethic and he’s developed a completely other kind of celebrity now — the social client who buys his things. He doesn’t have to give clothes away. I think designers have to stay true to their instinct. I don’t think fashion is the culprit here. It’s the media. I remember when we had shows and Paris Hilton and her sister would come and they’d be guests like anybody else. Now they create this media frenzy when they show up and I’m not sure I understand that.

Are there celebrities that you wish would just go away. Has anyone been banned from the tents?

There’s not celebrity that I can think of that we’ve had that kind of an issue with. There are photographers I can say that about and a few editors …

Editors! Come on Fern, name names!

There are a few fashionistas — for lack of a better name — who are marginally involved in the industry who seem to suck out a lot of air and we can never quite figure out how to get them out. There are some names for them like “lobby fleas.” If something is not nailed down, it seems to walk. They’re always carrying the biggest tote bags. They live and breathe and love being there. It’s their life.

I’ve stood in the back on the bleachers at shows and thought, if there’s an emergency of any kind, I’m toast. I think that the neighbor of the cousin of the dry cleaner has no business being there. It’s really annoying to people who have to be there and are thrown together with these hangers on.

Mind you, these people have an invitation that says “standing” that they get from the designer and that public relations firm. We don’t let people into those spaces without an invitation. So they have an invitation for one or two or three shows and then they get on the standing room line for another show. Generally they are vetted by those PR firms and those houses. Everybody over-invites because there are very bad manners in our industry about the number of people who actually rsvp so there’s always some padding.

There’s always some front row drama. Last season it was Marc Jacobs feuding with everyone in that explosive WWD interview after people complained about the very late starting time for his show. Any predictions about this season?

Well, Marc has changed his show date to the last Friday of the week so I know that changed a lot of people’s schedules and caused a little bit of shuffling. I never can predict what will be the issue of Fashion Week but I can guarantee you there always is one.

Shows like Project Runway, which you’ve been on, hype the bitchiness factor of the industry. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I just think it’s television. When I did my first appearance two seasons ago, the finalists came to our offices and the advice I gave to them was to be nice. I can’t tell you how much feedback I got from that. People said, “Thank you for saying that you don’t have to be a bitch to succeed in fashion.”

Did you always want to be in fashion and know you’d wind up there?

I think so. My dad was in the industry — he sold women’s scarves and accessories — and all my uncles were in the garment center. I used to always come into work with my dad. I was thrilled to see all the carts up and down the streets on Broadway and seeing the energy of that old garment center. I would always have lunch with him and his buyers and fashion directors from stores and that was very empowering seeing women in those jobs. I saw that was a career path. I loved clothing and all that came with that. All my summer jobs were fashion-related and I won a fashion design medal in high school.

And you were voted best dressed in your high school class. What’s in your closet these days?

Too much of everything. If I could do one thing, it would be to take some time off to just edit my closet. But it’s all good stuff that I love. I’m so attached to every single thing I buy.

You started your fashion career at Mademoiselle as a winner of their guest editor competition. Any lessons you learned there that still resonate today?

Today the guest editorship would have involved having a television camera follow you around. You learn a lot. You learn something every step of the way. I’ve never had a five-year plan. I’ve always just believed in doing your very best whereever you can and being completely passionate about it and the right things evolve and unfold.

That’s an interesting point you made about in today’s climate there would be camera tracking a guest editor a la Miss Seventeen on MTV. Have you ever been approached to do a reality show?

I was — a year ago after Project Runway and there were quite a few meetings. They really wanted somebody who was a screamer and would make people nuts. That’s not how I operate. I tried to say I think you can get just as much accomplished just by looking at somebody cross. One of the examples put forth to me was there would be three apprentice types who would come into your office and serve you coffee and spill it all over your desk. How would you react? I said it was more important to me to see how quickly they recovered and cleaned up it because obviously nobody does that on purpose.

What are the qualities one needs to succeed in fashion today?

They’re similar to those in almost every industry. You need to be smart, be aware. You need to have a point of view, read as much as you can, absorb as much as you can. You need to travel and see movies and work on charities. All those things that round you out as a better person make you a better professional. In fashion, it’s so much a part of all of those elements. It’s everywhere. I find that I get more accomplished on many days from being at lunch at Michael’s or going to one or two receptions or cocktail parties after work because you run into people and see people that you can’t get on the phone. I have a hard time conveying that to our younger staff who don’t go to anything. I’m forever trying to shuffle invitations around and most of them are too tired.

Is it harder to break into the business now than it was say even five years ago?

It depends on in what capacity. I think there are so many opportunities for young designers now. There are so many companies and sponsors that we work with that are constantly looking to support the talent. Our industry is filled with people who sniff out truffles — they can find talent anywhere, get behind it and help it. What our schools need are more creative business people who can help. I think there are way more media opportunities and a lot more of everything. You just have to be smart and not walk in the door chewing gum.

How has the Internet affected the business?

It’s opened up unbelievable opportunities for people. I’m still not sure who it is searching all these sites and blogs. That in and of itself is a full-time job. The immediacy of the information is kind of scary. It impacts more of our loyal print publications even Women’s Wear Daily and The New York Times who you go to for breaking news — seldom are they breaking the news because the minute somebody hears it, it’s out there. I was at a dinner in India where somebody was taking pictures and I said, “If this shows up on somebody’s Facebook you’re all toast!” With cell phone cameras it’s a little too much out there. There are no policemen on the Internet.

So many of these renegade fashion sites get more hits — certainly a lot more buzz — than the more established sites. They’re often not very informed about the business and have very little context. I think it’s harmful to credible fashion journalism.

I agree with you. It just makes it harder for us to decipher it and read through it and come to our own opinions. I think it makes you want to be more loyal to the people you do trust and read. Hopefully, they will remain at the top of their game. It makes you look more towards those people to help you navigate this.

What do you consider your greatest accomplishment?

That I’m still standing and doing this. I’m very proud of a lot of things I’ve accomplished in my career. Being of DIFFA’s board for 10 years raising millions of dollars for AIDs. Certainly helping to give the CFDA its voice and identity over the 10 years I was there with everything from Fashion Targets Breast Cancer to creating the initiative to organize the fashion shows. I’m extremely proud of something that I know has absolutely changed the face of fashion and has made a huge difference in people’s careers. I think at every step of the way I’ve been proud of the work I’ve accomplished. I’m glad that I’m still here and I still enjoy it.

What about your biggest disappointment?

I’d rather not think about that.

How would you say you’ve gotten to where you are?

By putting one foot in front of the other. I really care about the industry and the people in it. I get behind everything I do because I think it’s the right thing to do and I always hope there is somebody at my side because we’re going to make money at it. For me, the motivating factor for doing the work I do is I know it’s helping people and it’s making a difference in people’s lives.

Do you have a motto?

One of the lines I quote a lot especially during fashion week is something my dad always said when we were growing up and it’s so true — “No two people should ever have to worry about the same thing.” That is very good motto to get through work — if someone else is worrying about something, you don’t have to. And also — “A good idea with a stupid person is not as powerful as a bad idea with a smart person.”

Diane Clehane is a contributing editor to FishbowlNY and TVNewser. She writes the Lunch at Michael’s column.

Photo courtesy of Timothy Greenfield Sanders.

Successful second acts for star athletes who’ve grown used to the cheer of the crowd can be a dicey proposition. Many, like the former New York Giants running back Tiki Barber, turn to television, the medium that helped secure their stardom. For the majority of players turned broadcasters, the results are decidedly mixed. Instead of the graceful great fans were accustomed to seeing on the playing field, often times this familiar face in unfamiliar territory assumes the role of nervous rookie. As a novice broadcaster approaching his first anniversary on NBC’s Today show, Tiki Barber is playing to win. He began planning for his post football career long before he announced his retirement in October 2006. In the months leading up to and directly after hanging up his helmet for the last time, Barber seemed to be everywhere from ads touting The Wall Street Journal to slick spots as a celebrity shill for Cadillac. Last fall he made headlines when he revealed in his memoir, Tiki: My Life in the Game and Beyond, that he still might be playing football if Tom Coughlin weren’t coaching the team. But Barber isn’t looking back now. Today, he says he’s concentrating on reporting the news instead of making it.

Name: Tiki Barber
Position: Correspondent, Today; analyst, Football Night in America
Resume: Joined NBC in February 2007 after retiring from a decade long career in professional football with the New York Giants; started his broadcasting career in 1999 at WFAN radio in New York; the following year added morning sports anchoring to his resume for WCBS-TV; served as a correspondent on Fox News Channel’s morning show Fox & Friends and hosted a radio show on Sirius Satellite Radio; currently hosts a weekly football show on Sirius NFL with his twin brother Ronde, The Barber Shop
Birthdate: April 7, 1975
Hometown: Roanoke, Virginia
Education: University of Virginia, B.S. Commerce
Marital status: Married to Ginny; two sons AJ, 5 and Chason, 3
First section of the Sunday Times: “Probably the front page. It depends on whether I’m up to date on what’s going on for my Sunday job [Football Night in America]. If I’m up to date, I’ll read the front page. If I’m not, I’ll read the sports section.”
Favorite television show: “24 but it’s not on anymore. I don’t really watch television because when I come home my kids are watching GeoTrax on demand, so I guess it’s GeoTrax and there’s only one episode so I end up having to watch it over and over again.”
Last book read: “The seventh book of Stephen King’s Dark Tower series. It’s great. My brother got me into reading fantasy escapism books.”

What will the Giants do without Shockey?

[Laughs] That’s a great question. Yet to be seen. They have a young kid named Boss who they’re high on. He’s going to have to pick up a lot of the slack because a tight end in the playoffs when it’s cold and windy plays an enormous role. That’s why losing Shockey is such a big deal.

Do you watch all the games?

Of course. It’s my job. But I enjoy it. People ask me all the time what’s it like working on Football Night and I say it’s a sports fan’s dream. They pay me to sit and watch nine football games in the morning and four or five in the afternoon and then go talk about them.

Do you miss playing?

No. I don’t miss playing at all. I miss the stage a little bit — going out there, performing and knowing I was good at my job and doing it in front of an audience, but I get that in some ways by being on television. I don’t miss the poundings and the grind and the way I felt on Mondays, the agony of losing and everything else.

You started your television career long before you retired. Did you always know you were going to wind up in television?

I’m always the kind of person who looked for options. I think it goes back to when my mom used to say, “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket” and “You have to be great at school because you never know when sports or football are not going to be there for you.” That logic kind of ruled my life. To be quite honest, my third year into the NFL I wasn’t that good of a football player and so I was looking for options for the next thing. Fortunately, I got better as a player. Congruently, my opportunities in television grew.

I’ve always been fascinated by watching athletes — particularly very celebrated ones — transition into broadcasting. It seems like they fall into two camps: Either they are very natural or other guys, who were so skillful in the game, are so painfully wooden. What’s the key to making the switch successfully?

[Laughs] It’s interesting you say that. The same thing that made a lot of these athletes great as players — whether it’s baseball, football or whatever — they don’t take the same philosophy going into the next career, which is practice. You get comfortable when you feel confident about what you’re talking about. If you go look at my first few tapes when I was working at WCBS back in 1999, I was griping the podium as if my life depended on it — I wasn’t comfortable. But over the years, it just became more comfortable and I became more natural, so that eight years later when I decided to retire and go into television, it was like second nature to me.

Athletes are so venerated by fans that there’s such a high expectation level on the field and off. It’s almost like if you’re a star athlete you have to be a star at whatever else you do in order to be considered a success.

You’re right. People always ask, “Is it easier to do sports or television?” I always say sports because you can hide behind your athleticism. You can let something that is God given to you hide your mistakes and that happens in football. I made a lot of mistakes and I was able to make up for them by being aggressive or giving that little extra “oomph.” It doesn’t work that way in broadcasting. It’s like golf in that way — if you try harder, it messes you up.

What’s been the biggest adjustment you’ve had to make in your new career?

I guess finding the fit. It’s the same thing I went through in sports. I learned a lot of lessons in sports. For a long time with the Giants I didn’t know what my role was: Was I starter? Was I a third down back? Now, I’m still new in this profession — I’ve only been here seven or eight months — it’s about finding exactly where I fit in. That will come. I just know I have to be patient but I’m enjoying it because it’s so diverse. I’m getting a lot of opportunities to do tons of different things. Football Night in America and the Today show are just two of them. I’ve been appearing on Morning Joe and I did Project Runway.

What the best part of your Today show gig?

I get to do so many different things. There’s no monotony. That’s one of the reasons I got away from the NFL. I got less and less challenged by it and interested in it. The grind was the same every week — when you’re losing it, isn’t as easy to feel excited about what you’re doing. My body was getting beat up and I wanted to do something else.

How does your sports background translate specifically into doing television?

I guess it does translate. For me it was about being honest. I always toed the line when I was a player. I would get asked a question and there was a certain quote-unquote code that you’re not to step over. I toed the line as close as you can toe it without breaking the confidence of my teammates and the organization because that’s what I felt like I should be doing. So it translates into morning television because if you’re dishonest or you lie on television, it comes through. There’s a saying in sports: “Everything is taped.” So if you mess up on a football play, you’ll get caught because, “The eye in the sky doesn’t lie.” The same thing happens on television. You can try to fake it but the eye looking right at you doesn’t lie. That’s one of the lessons I’ve learned: Be as honest as you can be, because people can tell when you’re being fake.

As a Today correspondent who’s the one person you’d like to interview?

It’s an interesting question — before I started I would have said Condoleezza Rice. What I’ve found is that every day people in this country are interesting. I did this story on these refugees down in Atlanta. There was this girl, a Jordanian immigrant — she was affluent growing up. She came to the United States and decided to stay and her family subsequently cut her off because they wanted her to come back. Meeting her and hearing her story — how she found these refugee kids and has been a mother figure to them is inspiring and uplifting. Being able to meet someone like that who most people would never even think about was more fulfilling to me than doing an interview with somebody that people already know.

What do you think of the coverage in the media of the steroids story? Do you think it will evolve into a bigger story inclusive of other sports?

I think the coverage was needed. The unfortunate thing is that there is too much hearsay and too much misinformation, so people have been desensitized to it. When the real story comes out I don’t know that people care. I think there is a little bit of a disservice done by the need to be first. The same thing happened to Sean Taylor when he passed away. Everybody was jumping to conclusions about why he was killed when it was just a random act of violence. Not only do you hurt his legacy, you desensitize people to what the truth is.

In New York, there was a lot made of how disappointed fans were to see some names on Mitchell’s list. Athletes are perceived as living icons in this country. Do athletes have a responsibility to live up to fans’ high expectations?

They do have a responsibility. It is a responsibility that is probably one of the most challenging things any person can be asked to do. When I talk at schools or groups, I talk about athletes and how we’re so venerated because of what we’re able to achieve. But at the same time, parents are the key to anything in life, so if your son is a fan of Michael Jordan, you better be a fan as well because should he fall, you need to be there to catch the effects. It is a great responsibility and it’s something a lot of athletes aren’t cognizant of until something extreme happens to someone close to them or to someone big in the industry, a la Michael Vick.

Speaking of Michael Vick, what’s your take on that story?

I saw something from Michael right before sentencing. It made sense to me from his perspective — and I think that’s something a lot of people lack when they look at situations like this. You should have empathy for guy like this even though he was blatantly wrong.

I don’t know about that. When a grown man abuses animals in such a horrible way — for profit no less, I can’t go there and think most people would agree with me on that.

I agree with you but when I listened to what he says, I believe him.

Which was what?

[Paraphrasing] “I grew up in the hood basically and I saw people doing drugs and guns and they would get arrested for it. People were fighting dogs and nothing would happen to them.” So even though he probably knew it was bad, he didn’t know it was bad because you associate bad with going to jail. The perception [of dogfighting] is changing and it’s a good thing this happened because it does shine a light on this. The thing I worry about is after he goes to jail, do people forget? Are they on to the next story now? Was anything accomplished or was he just made an example of?

Do you think his sentencing was fair?

I think it was fair. He was egregiously involved in the slaughtering of animals. My question is what is the real result of this? Are we going to keep following this or are we on to the next thing?

What is the appropriate next move in covering the story?

I think you keep telling it. I think you give him the opportunity to tell his story. People go through things in life and they either learn from it or they rebel against their lesson. I think you find out. I think it’s valuable to see what he does going forward.

So would you want that first sit-down with him?

Absolutely. Obviously, it’s not happening until whenever he gets out.

On a lighter note, fess up — what did you really think of those ridiculous outfits those contestants on Project Runway made for you?

They were horrible. To their credit, they didn’t do men …

That was obvious.

[Laughs] But they were horrible. They were very kind on the editing because we weren’t as nice as they made it seem. My wife is a publicist of [Ermenegildo] Zegna and I know she wasn’t as nice as they made her out to be. [Laughs]

How did you wind up on the show?

I was in the elevator at 30 Rock and one of the producers said, “I was looking for you. I want you to do Project Runway.” I literally gave him one of those, “Yeah, sure. Whatever.” It came back around a few months later and he said, “No, I was serious.” It was really light lifting for me. It was fun. Every female I’ve talked to since then has asked me about it.

You’ve got great personal style. Your clothes look like they’re sewn on to you. Were you always into clothes?

I was always into my wife. When we were in college we loved New York City and she always wanted to be in fashion and serendipitously I got drafted by the New York Giants, which meant she came to New York and started working in the fashion industry.

So she’s your personal stylist?

She is. I was my terrible dresser in college. Whatever I had was mismatched. It was horrible. Once she started working at Zegna, my wardrobe became filled with these Italian suits made to measure.

They make them just for you? I guess you can’t wear off the rack.

I can’t wear off the rack because my waist is to skinny and my shoulders are too broad. They let you do your own style — things that people don’t notice like the lining in the jacket or the stitching.

What’s an average day like for you?

It varies depending on the day. On Sundays, I go sit and watch television all day.
Today I did Morning Joe and I had a meeting with our producers about a documentary I’m going to help with called Meeting David Wilson and talking to you. I’m going to pick my son up at 2 o’clock and take him to karate class. Then I have drinks with Carson Daly’s producer because I’m doing his New Year’s Eve show and then dinner. Tomorrow will be similar. Some days, in full disclosure, I literally don’t leave my house. I take the kids to school, go back to sleep, or do nothing. I have great flexibility, so it’s great.

What do you consider your greatest professional success thus far?

I don’t know. I don’t think I’ve achieved it yet.

What’s been your greatest disappointment?

If it happened, I probably forgot about it.

Do you have a five-year plan?

It’s always a work in progress. Right now I don’t know exactly where that plan might lead me. There are a couple different tentacles that can branch off. I’m enjoying the ride.

So how would you say you’ve gotten to where you are?

[Sighs] I surrounded myself with great people, one being my manager — Mark Lepselter — who told me when I was struggling as a football player, “Here’s what we’re going to do Tiki: we’re going to divorce you from the game of football because you have greater interests and you’re bigger than that.” I was getting criticized — roundly criticized — I think it was necessary. It helped me become a better football player. I have this theory — if you try too hard at something you can’t focus enough on it. Once it loses a little bit of its importance, it becomes more important. It worked for me. The other people that have helped me are my wife because she’s been so supportive of everything I’ve done. During football season I never had any free time and she was understanding because she knew I was working towards something. I always took her on great vacations. My brother has always been the guy who told me what I needed to hear, not what I wanted to hear because a lot of times we surround ourselves with “yes” people. I never wanted that.

Do you have a motto?

I do. Always treat people with respect, because you never know when that foot you step on is connected to the ass you have to kiss.

Diane Clehane is a contributing editor to FishbowlNY and TVNewser. She writes the Lunch at Michael’s column.

There are many cautionary tales in the news business, but to some Ashleigh Banfield’s seemingly meteoric rise and subsequent and self-described “banishment” from network news is a particularly chilling one. Having become one of NBC’s most visible faces and resonant voices in the wake of 9/11, Banfield went from reporting the headlines to making them and in doing so almost destroyed her career. Shortly after the attacks, she was criticized by some when she dyed her blonde hair brunette for a trip to Afghanistan (Something that still makes Banfield bristle). Then, in the spring of 2003, her remarks made during a lecture at Kansas State University about what she believed were the media’s mistakes in their coverage of the Iraq war seemed to seal her fate. She told her audience: “I’m hoping that I will have a future in news in cable, but not the way some cable news operators wrap themselves in the American flag … Free speech is a wonderful thing, it’s what we fight for, but the minute it’s unpalatable we fight against it for some reason.” Her statements angered her bosses at NBC, who, says Banfield, exacted punishment by making her sit on the sidelines until her contract ran out.

Today, Banfield is fighting her way back from her perch at Court TV where she offers the “man on the street” perspective among the network’s legal eagles. While she is no longer trudging through war zones, Banfield is still waging her own battles to be heard (“women 40 and over, unite!”) and remains unbowed about her outspokenness and her desire to carve out a career on her own terms.

“Even my failures I look at as successes because I am not gone,” she says.

Name: Ashleigh Banfield
Position: Co-host, Banfield and Ford: Courtside; host, Hollywood Heat
Resume: Joined Court TV as a substitute host in July 2005; Anchor/correspondent for MSNBC and NBC News correspondent from 2000 until 2004; anchor at KDFW, a Fox affiliate in Dallas; freelanced as an associate producer for ABC’s World News Tonight. Began her television career in 1988 as a photographer/researcher/reporter in Ontario, Canada.
Birthdate: December 29, 1967
Hometown: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Education: BA in political studies & French from Queens University in Ontario
Marital status: Married to Howard Gould, founder of Equator Environmental, since July 2004; two sons Jay Fischer Gould (‘Fischer’), 2, (“Named after the famous robber baron Jay Gould who is his great -great -great grandfather”) and Ridley Banfield Gould, six months.
First section of Sunday Times: “If I get to read anything these days which is rare, that would be Tom Friedman.”
Favorite television show: “The Daily Show. It is clearly the best production on television now and ever. I never miss it. When I was on maternity leave, I Tivoed every single one.”
Guilty pleasure: “That would have to be Howard Stern. [Laughs] I have admired Howard Stern’s resilience. There’s not a lot of other stuff I admire about his content, but there’s something about Howard Stern and his perseverance in a very difficult industry. He does tickle me in certain ways with humor. Obviously, he’s very over the top and very inappropriate most of the time, but I do find him intriguing. My husband and I have outfitted the cars with Sirius Satellite Radio because of him.”
Last book read: 1776 by David McCullough. I literally have one more chapter to go. I hate to say it, but I’m reading it alongside The Great American Citizenship Quiz because I’m prepping for the test.”

How would you say you’ve gotten to where you are?

I would have to say sheer perseverance because this is not the friendliest of industries — it’s not for anyone without a thick elephant skin. I just truly love what I do and if you don’t love what you do, you’re going to be at work every day. Because I love what I do, I’ve never worked a day in my life.

What do you consider your best work on-air?

It’s a tough question because some of the best things I’ve done have been the worst things that have happened. Clearly, 9/11 would have to be some of the best work that I’ve done because I was working without a template and that was very difficult. Having nearly been victimized by the north tower, it was difficult to remain composed and be informative.

How long were you on air?

Nine days.

What was that like?

It was riveting in every sense of the word. It was troubling. It was the most complex moment in my career in terms of trying to decipher A) what was happening moment by moment and B) what was happening to us as a nation. We underwent this metamorphosis overnight and I think we were all trying to understand our new reality. It was difficult to find that new reality while you were traipsing around on a moonscape. I was thoroughly confused for nine days in so many ways.

One of the most iconic images from the newscasts at Ground Zero was when you were interviewing that woman with the baby and a building started to come down behind you. How long did that haunt your dreams?

Most people remember that because it was televised but there was so much more that wasn’t. They all haunt me equally. I lost two friends that day. [Sighs] It all is a sad smear in my life. I try not think about it very often. I think about it when I have to on anniversaries and during interviews. For the most part, I try to avoid it. Because honest to God, I don’t think anyone of us who ever stepped foot down there will not have a quiver in our voice when we try to recall those events. It will always remain a pit in my stomach. It seems like decades ago and yet it was yesterday in so many respects.

In the months following 9/11 you were being touted as one of NBC rising stars. The New York Post even mentioned you as possible successor to Katie Couric’s. Then, just as quickly, it seemed as if you dropped out of sight. What happened?

The Iraq war started to develop and I gave a very controversial speech at Kansas State [University] about the press’s responsibility in covering international affairs. I sent out a cautionary note to all my colleagues covering this conflict and chastened the press corps not to wave the banner and cover warfare in a jingoistic way. It didn’t sit well with my employers at NBC — who are no longer there. I think they overacted. I was banished. I sat in the outfield for a long time. I think it’s cause célèbre today for everyone to realize the mistakes of many — not just the media and the administration — in the Iraq war and the ensuing quagmire. At the time it was either bold or stupid or both. I know now the cost [of speaking out], but it would never have made a difference.

When did you officially leave NBC?

I left in 2004 — a few months after my contract expired. I was very much in the warehouse while my contract petered out.

Looking back on that time, what were the biggest lessons you learned?

On one hand you could say, “Keep your mouth shut while our nation is embroiled in war,” but I don’t think that was a responsible way to behave. If I have been fortunate enough to have risen to level in this business where people would actually listen to me, then I think I have a duty to convey all truths that I encounter. I felt it was my duty at the time. I was a war correspondent who had seen that the hearts and minds of the Arab world were not that easy to win. I had seen that the street in the Arab world were on fire and angry and that smashing campaigns may not be as simple as the headlines were making them out to be. I felt it was my duty to speak up. Very few people are fortunate enough to walk through countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia and I had seen them all. I had spoken to many on the street. I felt I had a solid editorial grounding for saying the things I said. Despite the enormous cost to me professionally, personally, and emotionally, I would not have changed a thing.

How did you wind up at Court TV?

[Former Court TV head] Henry Schleiff and I were talking at a social event about the network and he recommended I come in and talk to him. I never thought I’d be doing legal [reporting] — I don’t know why. I’ve done every beat in the journalism book, but I hadn’t done legal. I thought it was only the domain of lawyers — and it is. Everybody here is a lawyer but me. [Laughs] But it turns out there is space for inquiring minds among the attorneys here and I bring a different perspective to a lot of the interviews and the questioning here. It’s the perspective of the man on the street who doesn’t have a Juris Doctorate. Thank God for Henry. He recognized that I actually could prevail in this extremely difficult environment.

I think there’s some confusion over the re-branding of the network. Court TV will officially become Tru TV in January. Will your responsibilities change as a result of the relaunch? What does it mean to you?

You’re talking to the wrong girl. [Laughs] I was out on Halloween trick or treating with my babies when all of that information started getting passed around.

There was a recent story in Elle that deconstructed various female anchors and reporters’ on-air look. The piece made a particular point of saying you went from blonde to brunette to boost your credibility. Care to comment?

That’s wrong and extremely short-sighted. If they had actually done some research or given me a call, I went from blonde to brunette because I was going to Afghanistan. This is nine days after terrorists had just killed 3,000 of my neighbors. There was a whole different dynamic playing out in those days. I love it when people say I was some brave, courageous reporter. I wasn’t, I was just shit scared. [Laughs]. Sorry to say I was absolutely terrified about the assignment. It was the No. 1 refused assignment in the history of NBC news.

Really?

Even the producer assigned to go with me changed her mind and backed out after her children asked her not to go. I started to worry about all the time I’d spent in the Middle East prior to 9/11. What a tall beacon I appeared to be with my blonde hair. All of sudden the dynamics of the world had changed and the Arab terrorists were looking to kill us no matter what. I didn’t want to stand out and give them the upper hand. I’ll tell you something — as much flack as I took — it all ended the day Daniel Pearl died. No one ever said a word about me and my effort to blend in as a journalist in Pakistan and Afghanistan after that because they recognized that it was true. There were bounties on our heads. There was a $40,000 bounty on all American journalists heads as we were traveling from Jalalabad to Kabul. I had to hire an army of Muhajadin soldiers — 25 of them with rocket propelled grenades.

Did you personally or the network hire them?

I did, myself. I did with my producer, photographer, and audio engineer. The four of us negotiated a small Mujadine army to the governor of Nagarhar Province in Afghanistan to protect us. It was bad. This was a very ugly place that we were going and it remains an ugly place. So I think it was very short sighted of whoever wrote that. I never had a problem with my credibility. If there are people out there who think that credibility comes with hair color, that’s their issue, not mine.

I seem to remember your choice of eyewear got a lot of attention at the time as well. Did that bug you?

I find it a fascinating study of inequality on the air because men have been wearing glasses forever and there’s nary a headline published about that.

Is there anything that women in positions of power on air can realistically do about the double standard?

I’m no idiot. I know that I sleep in the bed that I made. I understand that women are scrutinized at a level that is not commensurate with men but, there are times when it becomes ridiculous. There are times when it is obviously overkill. I think eventually it will wane. I hope it happens in my lifetime, but I don’t know.

One of the biggest challenges women at all levels face is juggling a career with motherhood. How do you do it?

It’s tough. I had a great conversation last night with Elizabeth Vargas. She also has two young boys and is trying to juggle network responsibilities. We both recognize we have had to scale back our ambitions and our endeavors. We make these choices voluntarily. We recognize that this career isn’t going anywhere. That television business isn’t leaving and we’re not leaving it, we’re just repositioning our strategies; we’re changing our timeframes and our timelines. Thank God women over 40 are still welcome in this business. I think there was a time long ago when you weren’t. I bristled every time this summer as I was covering Phil Spector’s case that the defense would bring up Lana Clarkson was “40, a B-Movie actress and her career was over.” I bristled every single time because I am turning 40 and I think my career is getting better. I think with every year, I get better and I think that’s reflected in the assignments I’m given.

I can’t tell you how many women I interview for this column take the fifth on the birthday question.

Not me, man. I have openly said I was 190 pounds on the on-air [when I was pregnant] and I’ve often openly said I am turning 40 and I wish more people would do it. I wear it like a badge of honor. I’ve been in this business for 20 years and I always felt like I didn’t know enough. Recently, I had an epiphany that with every year I age, I get smarter and there’s nothing better in this business than that. By the way, I’m not 190 anymore. [Laughs] I’m working on it, but it’s not easy. [Laughs] I’m doing the countdown on the air. This week I hit 140.

What do you consider your greatest success?

Oh, my boys Fischer and Ridley. I can’t believe I pulled it off. Often I’ll look at photographs of them and think, “Whose kids are those?” [Laughs]

What about your biggest disappointment?

My biggest disappointment in life and work has been what we talked about earlier — the reaction to what I felt was a legitimate point of view at the commencement of the war on terror and the ramifications I suffered. I don’t think that’s the way Americans truly operate. I’m so thrilled to be in this country by choice. I am taking my citizenship exam in six months and will be waving that flag and swearing in with so much pride. I think most people who are here by birthright have no idea how special it really is for those who have to really work for it. That was a biggest disappointment when my free speech cost me so much.

Do you have a five-year plan?

I’ve always looked at the 25-year plan — especially in this business. If you set aside your plan I think you’ll be regularly disappointed. I have been on as many dips as peaks — if not more. I look at Regis [Philbin]. Regis really hit it in his 70s. If I manage to do it before I’m 75, I’ll be thrilled. I’ve always looked every step along the way as a success. Even my failures I look at as successes because I’m not gone. Every time I fail, I look at it as a positive if I’m not completely wiped out. If I didn’t have that perspective I would have been wiped off the face of broadcasting about a dozen times by now.

Do you have a motto?

I do have one. I think people should have one, if not then a song. [Laughs] I keep it on my desktop, too. It’s “People who expect to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never will be.” I always have felt that is something we all should live by not just journalists. It’s an American mantra. Especially at this time — we’re at a turning point in this country and we need to understand the value of being American. If we don’t find the courage in ourselves to seek truth and to pass it on, then I’m not sure that we’re doing our founding fathers any justice.

Diane Clehane is a contributing editor to FishbowlNY and TVNewser. She writes the Lunch at Michael’s column.

How’s this for a juicy tale: a successful movie producer who had it all — a loving family, glamorous career, and a circle of friends that included the biggest names in 1960’s Hollywood — becomes addicted to his over-the-top lifestyle. Alcohol and drugs take their inevitable toll and at one of his lowest points, he sells his own dog to a friend for $300. Unemployed and unemployable, he becomes his worst nightmare — “a nobody.” On the brink of ruin, he spends six months alone in a one-room cabin in the woods of Oregon to get himself together. Newly sober, he heads to New York as an aspiring writer with one suitcase, his treasured scrapbooks, and a typewriter and starts over. Tragedy strikes when his beloved daughter is murdered. After writing a first-person account of the trial that resulted in little more than a slap on the wrist for the killer, his outrage at injustice becomes his signature as he goes on to chronicle the most sensational murder trials of the past 20 years.

This is not the plot of Dominick Dunne’s next book, it is the story of his life.

Dunne credits Tina Brown, then the newly-appointed editor of Vanity Fair, with giving him a shot at what has turned into an extraordinarily successful second career during one of the darkest periods of his life. “I have a particular soft spot for Tina because she discovered me,” says Dunne. “The night before I was to leave for the trial of the man who killed my daughter, I met her at Marie Brenner’s house,” he recalls. “She called me the next day — the day I was leaving — to have lunch with her. I said, ‘Gee, I can’t, I have so much to do before I leave on the six o’clock flight. She kept on and I met her, and that’s how I got started. After I wrote the piece about the trial called ‘Justice,’ I thought that would be it. Right away, she sent me to the Von Bulow trial which turned into one of the best series of articles I ever wrote.”

Dunne hasn’t stopped since. As famous — in many cases, more so — as the infamous defendants whose trials he has covered for the past 24 years, Dunne remains unapologetically opinionated about his subjects. Despite his feuds with famous foes like Robert Kennedy Jr. and former Congressman Gary Condit, the prolific author is more outspoken than ever. He calls Phil Spector “vermin” and still seethes over OJ Simpson (“I’m so sick of the smirk on his face.”)

Recently diagnosed with bladder cancer after a previous battle with prostate cancer, Dunne finds himself more motivated than ever to finish A Solo Act, his long-awaited next novel. “When this happens to you, you’ve got to think, ‘Listen, I’ve got so much time left,” he says. “I cannot leave an unfinished book.”

But this isn’t the final chapter in a fascinating life. “I’m fine. I go out to lunch every day and I go out every night,” he says.

Name: Dominick Dunne
Position: Author, special correspondent for Vanity Fair
Resume: Bestselling author of several books including The Two Mrs. Grenvilles (Crown, 1985), An Inconvenient Woman (Crown, 1990), A Season in Purgatory (Crown, 1993), Justice (Three River Press, 2001); wrote a memoir, The Way We Lived Then: Recollections of a Well Known Name Dropper (Crown, 1999). Writer and special correspondent for Vanity Fair since 1983 covering high-profile trials including those of the Menendez brothers, Claus von Bulow, and O.J. Simpson. Prior to becoming a writer, Dunne was vice president of Four Star, a television production company and a producer of feature films including The Boys in the Band, Panic in Needle Park, Ash Wednesday. Currently host and narrator of truTV’s Dominick Dunne’s Power, Privilege, and Justice.
Birthdate: October 29, 1925
Hometown: Hartford, Connecticut
Education: Williams College
Marital status: Divorced
First section of The Sunday Times: “First I read the obituaries. I read them every day. “I’m at an age where I always know everybody. But I’ve always read the obits first. Then I read the Week in Review and the Style section.”
Favorite television show: “Sunday night was my TV night. I liked Six Feet Under. I just adored that show. I liked The Comeback with Lisa Kudrow and, of course, I never missed The Sopranos. Now I’m not stuck on anything in particular. I like any Law & Order. I’m crazy about that girl — Mariska Hargitay. I long to meet her. As a child she used to sit with her mother, Jayne Mansfield and her father, Mickey Hargitay, at mass on Sunday. I’d be there with my three kids and my wife. They were always at the 10 o’clock Sunday morning mass — that’s when all the Catholic stars — Rosalind Russell, Gary Cooper, Loretta Young — went. Mariska’s mother, this sexy lady, would be saying, ‘Read your prayer book.’ [Laughs] I just think she’d like to hear that.”
Guilty pleasure: “I never understood what that means.”
Last book read: “Last night I just finished the galley of the book written by William Patton, who was the son of Susan Mary Alsop. It’s called My Three Fathers. His father was a diplomat and his mother was this great social figure in Washington. He didn’t know until he was in his 40s — Susan Mary, whom I knew quite well, was in rehab and they had family week — it was during that time that he found out that his father was not Bill Patton but he was the son of Duff Cooper, the British Ambassador to Paris in World War II who was married to Lady Diana Cooper. It really knocked him for a loop. Then his mother married Joe Alsop, the great political writer and friend of Jack Kennedy. It’s a fascinating biography.”

What are you writing about for Vanity Fair these days?

I’ve just turned in my piece on the Princess Diana inquest.

That must have been a topic of conversation at lunch when I saw you at Michael’s recently with her former private secretary, Patrick Jephson.

I think he was quite loyal to her.

He certainly looks like a saint compared to Paul Burrell [Diana’s butler].

Boy, do l let Burrell have it in my piece. But I’m not writing anything else until I finish my novel. I’m going away to finish a novel.

What are your impressions having been to the inquest.

I knew everybody in the story — I knew Dodi from Hollywood, I had met the father [Mohamed Al Fayed] twice before all this happened. I was staying at the Ritz after the Cannes film festival the year before last and I got a call from the manager of the hotel saying that Mohamed Al Fayed as in the hotel and wanted to meet me. I met him for the first time — and saw him walk with the four bodyguards who are always around him. He was terrific for a while. We had each lost a child. We had that in common and that’s a bond you always have with anybody who has had that awful experience. Then he started going off on Prince Phillip [about being behind Diana’s death] and I just don’t believe that.

Do you believe it was a conspiracy or a terrible accident?

It was a terrible accident. The bodyguard, Trevor Jones — he’s dropped the “Rees” because “Rees-Jones” makes people turn around when they hear it and with “Rees” they don’t — I was so touched by him on the stand. They tried to give him a rough time. I hate that — especially a man who has suffered the way he has. Mohamed has turned on him and says he’s lying when he says he can’t remember. He quit working for Mohamed because he was trying to give him a version of the “blinding light” story that blinded Henri Paul. He didn’t have any memory of that. He wouldn’t go along with that. I love that about him. He and his partner Kez Wingfield had been on the yacht and saw the extent of the paparazzi. They had called and asked Al Fayed several times for more bodyguards. They knew it wasn’t enough for the mountain of paparazzi. For some curious reason, after having bought the $20 million dollar yacht for the Princess to spend a week on — he didn’t think his own yacht was good enough for her — he didn’t get more guards.

What do you make of this tape that’s surfaced of Burrell saying he wasn’t forthcoming during the investigation? Tina Brown once told me that Diana’s undoing was her spectacularly bad taste in men, and he’s right up there with the worst of them.

I covered his trial and I got to know him. I liked him, and all of Diana’s friends thought he was so loyal. Then, after the Queen came to his aid in that totally phony, ridiculous trial — they were afraid to have him take the stand with what he could say. According to Patrick [Jephson], he does know things that if he told, could be a great embarrassment. They probably hope he doesn’t come back.

What an asshole. Did you know he’s supposed to be worth $20 million dollars? He’s made so much money off Diana. During his trial all her lady friends were saying, “Oh, he’s so wonderful.” The whole time he was making that secret deal with The Sun [to sell his story] who paid him so much money and his story started two days after the Queen got him off. So he’s not a good person.

I thought the inquest would get more coverage here since Diana was, for a long time, the most famous woman in the world and Tina’s book was a No. 1 bestseller just this past summer. Why hasn’t there been more attention paid to this chapter of the saga?

I don’t know, except there have been these two other investigations before — one by the British and one by the French — and there’s this sense, “Oh my God — that again.” But I found this inquest utterly fascinating. I open my next piece with this quote from Martin Gregory who wrote a terrific book, Diana The Last Days: “On the night she died, Diana was traveling from a Fayed hotel to a Fayed apartment in a Fayed car with a Fayed driver sitting next to Fayed’s son and behind a Fayed bodyguard.”

Where’s the royal conspiracy there? They requested more help — he didn’t give it to them. It was his hotel. He’s carried on this thing for years. He made a spectacular fool of himself on the stand. It was outrageous the things he said. Dodi, at the same time he was with Diana, was engaged to be married to Kelly Fisher which has never gotten play — but not in my next piece. I got hold of Gloria Allred, who was her lawyer. Then, when Mohammed was on the stand and they asked him about Kelly Fisher, he called her a hooker. A hooker!

If I recall, she had a nice ring from Dodi — nicer than that hideous thing he allegedly gave Diana.

She had a beautiful ring, although I think he had quoted a price to her that was excessive. It wasn’t worth as much as he told her it was.

You didn’t go out to Los Angeles for this year’s Oscars and, of course, there was no Vanity Fair party. All things considered, the show turned out to be a big bore and everybody is asking “Why?” Do you think Hollywood can ever be as glamorous as it once was?

No.

What’s missing?

Stars. There used to be stars. I hate people that talk about, “It was better then …” but when you think about it there was Gable, Gary Cooper, Cary Grant, Humphrey Bogart, and Burt Lancaster and as many women at the same time. You know, there’s no real star stars now — except I think Nicole Kidman is a real star for the ages. George Clooney is, but there’s very few.

I think the fare of movies — they were very downbeat. I just saw one I hadn’t seen before — 3:10 to Yuma and it’s like all the rest of these things — it was just mindless killing of men killing men. There was no movie this year that everybody was just madly in love with. It was a boring [Oscar] show and a boring year. With the women, you never see an individual look because stylists have taken over. Half of the women this year were wearing the same red dress. I liked it when the stars bought their own clothes. Sometimes they made terrible mistakes and that was fun. Now, everyone looks exactly alike in their borrowed finery.

You’ve written about so many trials and covered the lives of so many of the famous and infamous. Is it all still as interesting to you now as it was when you first started writing?

I had never been to trial until the trial of the man that killed my daughter. That’s when I began to understand the showbiz aspect of these high-profile trials. They dressed the man that killed my daughter like a sacristan in a Catholic seminary. He read the Bible. The Menendez brothers were all costumed with their Shetland sweaters. I do understand now that all that happens.

Several years ago during another interview, you talked to me about the first OJ Simpson trial and said, “I can’t tell you how that trial affected my life.” How does that experience look to you
now?

There will never be a trial like that again. That was the trial of trials. That was about the power of celebrity and the power of money. The fact that a man who the jury knew was guilty and that his “dream team” knew was guilty got acquitted … it was absolutely so shocking to me. I couldn’t believe that could happen. It had a deep effect on me. I became sort of obsessed. I couldn’t stop thinking about [it]. I went to Europe to try to get over it. I went to places I’d never been, like Prague just to look at churches and I kept running back to the hotel to turn on CNN to see what the latest was on him.

I grew to hate [Simpson] so much. I do believe in ultimate justice. I believe the man who killed my daughter and then got off with slap on the wrist — he’s going to get his somehow. And I think this thing with OJ now and the armed robbery, he’s going to get his.

Any predictions on how that trial will play out?

No predictions, but I hope he will be taken back to prison. I don’t care if it’s only a year — just to have that humiliation that he should have. I would love to be able to go out and cover that Nevada trial, but I can’t because I’ve got to finish this novel.

Before we talk about your novel, I want to ask you about your part in the Goldman’s version of Simpson’s book If I Did It.

I wasn’t a part of it, really. I did that one thing. I did it for the Goldmans. I never read the book.

You wrote the “Afterword” for them. Since you know them so well, do you think the process and the outcome did anything to help them on an emotional level? What was the point of them doing it?

I could understand them doing it. I understand the rage that you feel when something like that happens that someone has gotten away with killing your child. That’s why I did it. I really like the Goldman family. Judge Ito gave me a seat next to Fred [Goldman] at the trial because he knew I’d been through the same thing. We became close friends and I still keep in touch with him. When he asked me, I didn’t want to do it, but I couldn’t turn him down. I said to him, “I’m not going to read the book. What I will write about is my relationship with you and your wife and your daughter.” That’s what I did.

There seems to be a particular type of alchemy that has to happen in order to have a trial take hold in the public’s imagination. Why do some trials that don’t involve famous people the Scott Peterson trial fascinate while others involving a celebrity like Phil Spector barely register?

I found the Spector trial riveting but it didn’t catch on. As in most of the cases I covered, I knew him. He’s a creep. For years and years, he’s done this act of pulling guns on people — on a lot of people I know. On some level, he hates women. I think he’s also nuts. He took the hung jury as if he were declared innocent. It was this one creep who was his neighbor who was the jury foreman. I’ve talked to so many of the jurors. His mind was made up from the first day — acquittal. There’s just something creepy about that.

You’ve written countless books and covered so many trials. Do you prefer doing one over the other?

No. Fiction is different from fact. I just happen to deal in both. But I’ve actually had a hard time on this novel [A Solo Act] because I haven’t written a novel in several years.

I guess it’s hard to finish it when you’re being sent off to cover all these trials the last few years.

That’s why I’m not going to do anything else. Graydon [Carter, Vanity Fair‘s EIC] has been wonderful to me about it. I said, “Graydon, I have got to finish this novel.” I’ve also got cancer and I’m 82.

I didn’t know that you were ill. I’m very sorry to hear that.

I’m undergoing treatments now. I’ve got cancer of the bladder — urinary tract — not very attractive. I was always so proud of my brother [John Gregory Dunne)] He got his book finished and had the heart attack. His book came out after he was dead. I’ve just got to get this book finished. That’s why I came back from the inquest. I just knew there was something wrong. I came back and they found this. I’ve taken the first of six treatments and then I go in the hospital and they go in and see how much they got.

Where are you with the book?

I’m more than half-way through. But I haven’t actually worked on it for a long time. Now I’m back on it full-time — that’s my life now until I finish.

What’s your day like when you’re writing? How much time can you devote to it in one sitting?

It’s different if I’m here [in NYC] or in the country. If I’m here, I spend my mornings going through my mail and all that stuff with my assistant and then in the afternoons I write. When I’m in the country, I write all day. At the end of each day, I plan what I’m going to write the next day and read and correct.

How long can you write in one sitting?

Four hours — of creative writing. There’s also the “fixing writing,” which is not creative but the changes and all that stuff. I do rely on my editor. My book editor is Betty Prashker, who has been my editor for all my books. My magazine editor is Anne Fulenwider. She’s absolutely great. She’s young and went to Harvard. I really enjoy working with her.

When do you hope to have the book finished?

I think it’s going to take me a couple months of solid work. Then I’m going to come back to [Vanity Fair] and keep writing there.

You’re never without your notebook. Any idea of how many you’ve filled over the years?

I do have a good idea because I save them all. I don’t know who I’m going to give my papers to. I went to Williams and Williams has never shown the slightest interest in me.

Are you kidding?

I’ve never been asked to speak. I don’t mean this in a bragging way, but I think I’m probably the most famous person in my class. It just staggers me. I’ve spoken at Yale. I’ve spoken at Princeton. I’ve never been asked to speak at Williams. I’ve never had the slightest recognition from them. So f— em when it comes to my papers, but I don’t know where to leave my papers to.

You’ve mentioned countless times in your writing that you always have people come up to you out of nowhere and tell you the most interesting things. Why do you think that is?

It happens to me wherever I go. I could be at 21 for dinner and wave at somebody or somebody waves at me and the next thing I know I’m handed a note by the head waiter and it says, “Please call me at so-and-so, I have something to tell you.” That happens to me constantly. It happens to me on the street.

I’m always open to any stranger who comes up and speaks to me. A lot of people feel like, [stage whispers] “Oh, I don’t want to get involved.” I’m grateful they say, “I love your book or I loved your article.” I love hearing that but then I always get a little gem. It’s just amazing to me. I think the mistake that so many people make who get famous is that they only stay with famous people. That limits your horizons. You never know where the next message is going to come from.

What do you consider your greatest success?

The thing that really changed my life was the enormous success of The Two Mrs. Grenville‘s. I had been on a downer for years until I wrote that book. It truly changed me. It made me well-known.

I loved Season in Purgatory and the mini-series they did from the book. It’s funny now to think that when Patrick Dempsey did that he was pretty much an unknown and now he’s this big star.

He came up to me last year at the Vanity Fair party and said just what you said to me. He actually played the character that was based on me. He said, “That was what opened it all up for me.” It was nice of him to say that. He was good in that.

What about your biggest failure?

[Pauses] Why am I having a hard time thinking about that? [Laughs]
My real major failures came before my second career. Here I was after this glamorous life, there were seven or eight years where I was almost penniless. I said something when I was drunk that was very mean about someone out there. It was one of those things that was funny when I said it and wasn’t funny when it was printed in the newspaper. I hurt somebody’s feelings and that has always bothered me. That brought me to a big ending in Hollywood.

I’m happy about the Hollywood failure because then I discovered this whole other life of writing which is far more appealing to me than the movie life. When I started writing novels and they were all made into mini-series they would say to me, “We’ll make you the executive producer.” I’d say, “I had that. I want to be on to the next book. I don’t want to be the executive producer.” It’s a good feeling to know that what you’re doing is what you should be doing. I would have been a B-level producer always, not a A-level producer. I’d been rich all my life and then I had no money. I learned so much from being on my ass during that time. I stopped drinking, stopped doping and began a new life.

How would you say you’ve gotten to where you are?

I’m a very hard worker even though I go out all the time. I love it when my sons say to me, “Dad, you can slow down a little bit now.” I never want to slow down, I’ll be doing this until the last day.

Diane Clehane is a contributing editor to FishbowlNY and TVNewser. She writes the ‘Lunch’ column.

Long before the supermarket check-out stands were clogged with rows of nearly identical looking tabloids with their fluorescent logos and breathless cover lines boasting the inside scoop on Britney, Lindsay, and Angelina, there was InStyle. When the magazine launched in 1993, it was a haven for celebrities who were assured of receiving the kid glove treatment on its glossy pages and a deliciously frothy treat for those readers whose appetite for all things related to celebrities had barely been whetted.

These days, InStyle‘s managing editor Charla Lawhon, who was part of the magazine’s launch team (“Which was called ‘Project X’ at the time.”) and served as second lieutenant to the magazine’s first top editor Martha Nelson, presides over the now iconic title. Lawhon’s well-mannered enthusiasm for the job is reflected in the title’s polished, dishy (but never gossipy), and “aspirational” tone. The editor, like her faithful readers, has grown more and more at ease being a satellite in a world dominated by celebrities. “When I came to InStyle I knew nothing about celebrity,” says Lawhon. “I was amazed at that the other editors were sitting around calling these actresses by their first names.” Now, she says with a laugh, “I say ‘Jen’ and ‘Reese.’ I’m very comfortable calling them by their first names, too.”

Name: Charla Lawhon

Position: Managing editor, InStyle

Resume: Named managing editor of InStyle in April 2002 having previously served as executive editor and deputy editor; part of the original team of editors during its test period in 1993. Started her publishing career at Apartment Life in 1978 (which later morphed into Metropolitan Home). During her tenure at the magazine (which was sold to Hachette in 1992), she “worked in virtually every editorial department” and was named services director for Meredith Design Group in 1990. Remained in the position until she left for InStyle.

Birthdate: December 11, 1956

Hometown: St. Joseph, Missouri

Education: Drake University, BA in journalism

Marital status: Single

First section of The Sunday Times: “The Style section.”

Favorite television show: “I’m liking Ugly Betty. I love to see that interpretation of what it is I do every day.”

Guilty pleasure: “Spending an entire day reading a ‘not really literature’ book.”

Last book read: “Actually, it was literature. Atonement. I picked it up because one of my dear friends is one of the executive producers on the film. I loved it. I thought, ‘The language in here is probably gorgeous’ and it is. “

More than any other fashion magazine, InStyle was probably the most affected by the writer’s strike. When the Golden Globes didn’t happen, did you put a contingency plan in place to deal with the possibility of a shortened or non-existent awards season?

We did. At the end of the summer we made a strike plan that had to do with not only all the awards coverage, but many of our stories for the spring and early summer because the strike would be affecting all of those. Certainly the television season is affected, film release dates just keep changing and the summer series — we’re just not sure what’s going to happen to them. Hopefully, they will be able to recover from it. We started back then and identified all the stories where we had exposure and just kept working through them ready to make a change if we needed to.

When the Globes didn’t happen, we had our lists of other things that were going on and we were able to nail those things down and use them in those [Globes] pages. They were other red carpet events and some parties that were happening around that time so we let our close go late so that we could add in that very fresh material.

So what did you cover?

The National Board of Review — which ordinarily would have gone in a later issue because our Globes coverage would have sucked up that space. It had a very nice turnout and great names. There was a Chanel dinner party that we covered plus more of some of the smaller red carpet events that were happening. Actually, we’re very pleased with our coverage.

The Screen Actor’s Guild did have their awards and I thought the fashion was pretty boring.

A lot of it looked very serious — more so than in years past. The SAG Awards are generally a little more free-wheeling, but this felt somewhat studied.

So, in the end, the Oscars actually did come off and the fashion was, in my opinion, lackluster to say the least especially since the audience was probably craving a heavy dose of glamour. What was your take on this year’s Oscar red carpet?

The fashion did seem a bit quiet. In fact, everyone looked very beautiful, but there weren’t those “big statements” — both stunningly gorgeous and shockingly odd — that we all look for. While I’m sure there was some pre-planning before the strike settlement was decided, in the end these looks had to be pulled together in a very short amount of time … an amazing feat on the parts of the actresses, the stylists, and the fashion houses.

Maybe it’s me, but I feel like it’s been a long time since actresses have truly dazzled at the Oscars. What do you think?

I also wonder if we haven’t all become a little more jaded. We know more, the television viewers know a lot more. They’re pretty sophisticated and have much more of an opinion about what someone should be wearing because viewers feel they know these women. I think that’s part of it. I also think that because of scrutiny, actresses are less likely to give us the ‘Bjork moment.’ Of course there are some people who would still wear a feathered dress but they’re not going to wear some of the crazy or riskier things they had in the past.

Why are there so few blaring fashion faux pas today? Are the stars afraid of being “Worst Dressed?”

Each of us can remember a favorite “ouch” look from past years. After all, a picture says a thousand words, and trying too hard to make a statement is a dangerous strategy. The photos and videos from the Academy Award’s red carpet are mined for years to come by all media, and once that image is out there, it’s out there. But you do kind of miss them, don’t you?

I do. When I talked to Fern Mallis she credited Joan Rivers with creating the ‘What are you wearing?’ red carpet phenomenon. How do you think the whole thing got started?

I think InStyle has to take a little of the responsibility. It’s been a steady build. Was there a tipping point? Do you remember when Nicole Kidman wore that chartreuse Dior? It was such a clear moment and everyone paid attention to that dress.

Interestingly, I remember that year Joan called that dress “the ugliest dress I’ve ever seen” and Pat Kingsley threatened to not have any PMK clients talk to her ever again.

[Laughs] Joan is nothing if not an entertainer. Who knows how much of it was an actual fashion critique or Joan being her wonderful edgy self. I happened to catch Melissa’s critique of the Golden Globes — let’s not forget it was a press conference. [Laughs] Everyone was trying to do commentary asking, “Was the event boring?” Guys, it was a press conference.

I really have to laugh when I see the people doing red carpet fashion commentary for television these days. They make Joan and Melissa look like Woodward and Bernstein. At the SAG Awards Jay Emanuel called America Ferrera Jennifer Ferrera and then got her costar Eric Mabius’ name wrong a few minutes later.
I know. There should be a law. [Laughs] Outlets … should have people who actually understand to whom they’re speaking and what they’re looking at.

InStyle has served as a template for a whole slew of clones — many of which have “borrowed” heavily from your formula. How are you distinguishing yourself from the pack? What sort of changes have you made?

Change is absolutely necessary and to date, our changes have been deliberate and fairly subtle. If you look at the magazine and what it looked like six years ago, it looks much different. Our goal now is to consider how celebrity has changed and to consider the way readers’ interests have changed. As we were talking about earlier, there is a certain jadedness — or should I say a sophistication — on the part of magazine readers, Web site users, and television watchers. They know much more about fashion and beauty now then they did 10 years ago. I think that it’s important for InStyle to reflect that knowledge much more clearly.

How do you personally stay current on the constantly changing crop of celebrities and the elastic the definition of who qualifies as a celebrity you have to pay attention to?

The definition of who is a celebrity — that’s a hard one because they come from everywhere now. It’s not just film, television, and music. There are celebrities in fashion, in the beauty world, the whole reality thing — I guess we have to stop talking about the “reality thing” because it’s not going anywhere, it’s here to stay. The definition has certainly changed. For our purposes, we have to figure out — and this is an on-going project — who resonates with the readers or who should resonate with the readers. We keep adapting that and bring those people into the discussion.

Do you have anything that you personally do?

I watch all the new shows that are coming up, the cable things that are happening. Online is a great place to learn more about these people and see who is who. There’s people in the business we talk to — managers, agents, casting directors. All of those folks have a point of view and they’re meeting new people all the time. It’s about talking to people.

Were you an entertainment junkie growing up? What magazines did you read?

At that one point it was Seventeen, Esquire, and of course the fashion magazines. I read a lot of fiction of the non-literature type. I’ve always been a big newspaper reader — ever since I was a child.

Are you a big movie-goer?

More at certain times in my life. Now, of course I get to think of it as part of my job so that’s a good thing.

Sitting where you are today, did you ever expect the culture to become as obsessed as it is with celebrity? For years, people have been saying, “Oh, it can’t get any bigger than this,” but it just keeps mushrooming.

I remember when we were first launching, a local paper newspaper here asked me a question in an interview “Who is going to be interested in celebrity? Why do you need this magazine?” At that time I think I said something like, “It’s like cars. Every now and then you need a new car.” I’m amazed really. It’s a generation of interest, really, in celebrity. I’m always surprised at the way it just keeps rolling and rolling and rolling. Wave after wave after wave. It’s exciting, too.

With the birth of no holds barred sites like TMZ, does InStyle — which is at the polar opposite of the spectrum — benefit in some weird way from the existence of the stalkerazzi?

I believe we do because the kind of access that InStyle has is not what other magazines do. That helps with the “unique” problem. The other thing is we’re a respite from that type of celebrity coverage. While I know there are a lot of people out there that love the dishiness of the ones that report on gossip, problems, and cellulite. You can’t have a steady diet of that. You can’t consume that all the time. InStyle is a great alternative. Our news shows up in other ways. Halle Berry pregnant on the cover — it was the first cover she had done when pregnant — so that’s news in its own right.

When you put a star like Katie Holmes on the cover and there’s an elephant in the room — in her case, all the controversy surrounding Tom’s belief in Scientology — are there ground rules laid down that she not be asked about that? How do you work with people when you’re negotiating a cover story and there’s something like that happening in their personal life?
That was not a part of any discussions [with Katie]. There are personalities to magazines, and celebrities’ representatives — their publicists, managers, and agents — have a very good sense of what each magazine can and will do. With InStyle we were specific in the story that we wanted to do. When we were pitching them the story, we were specific and lived up to our end of the bargain and they lived up to theirs which was, “We’ll do this fashion story and we’ll talk about fashion and Katie’s life as a mom and wife.” It’s not expected that InStyle would go down that path. The story wasn’t about Tom, it was about Katie and we were talking about fashion and beauty.

So basically you’re saying with her, they know what they’re getting when they come to you, so with her there was really no need to bring that up because you would understand and she would understand without saying it, that the issue (of Tom’s Scientologist beliefs) would not be brought up.

That it would not be an angle that would be appropriate for InStyle and that’s really what it comes down to. Now if there was some highly controversial moment happening in someone’s life, then they might not be the right person for us at that time. Because it wouldn’t be an angle we’d do — we might just say, “Now is not the right time, let’s put this off for a while.” Who doesn’t like a nice big quotable item? It’s really about what is right for the editorial direction of the magazine.

Consequently, you probably benefited from that leaked Scientology video that broke right after your Katie cover hit the stands because there’s that voracious interest in all things Tomkat, right?

The last time we did Katie — the story had been shipped to the printer on Friday and we got the call on Monday that she was going to be out in public with Tom for the first time. Part of me said, I really would have liked to have had that, but the timing and the swirl around it worked out well. But I would have loved to have had that big life news. [Laughs]

You’ve had pretty much every female star I can think of on your cover. Who has sold the best for you?

I should know this. I think it was probably Jennifer Aniston. She does well. Sandra Bullock, Michelle Pfeiffer, Reese Witherspoon, Queen Latifah did very, very well for us. That was three years ago.

How about the most disappointing?

[Laughs] None of them are disappointing. Obviously, there are ones that have not done well for us. Is it the celebrity? Is it our execution? It is a combination of the two? There are some that are more of a challenge that just don’t strike that chord with readers.

Would you ever put a guy on the cover?

[Laughs] We’re talked about it …

And?

I don’t believe it’s what our readers want to see.

Even a George Clooney cover?
Well if it was going to be for anybody, it would be for George Clooney. [Laughs]

Paris Hilton and Britney Spears aren’t exactly fashion icons but they sell a lot of magazines. Would you ever put them on your cover?

We did Britney in July of 2002 back when she was just Britney before her recent escapades and it did okay. I don’t think you think of her as being right for InStyle at this point.

There was so much attention last year paid to the story when the before and after of Redbook‘s airbrushed cover of Faith Hill was leaked. Where do you stand on the issue of “perfecting” your cover subjects?

The ladies need to look like themselves. [Pauses] I think that it’s tricky. It’s unfortunate that somebody that had no right to the material felt compelled to take the bounty. That adds a whole new wrinkle in an already difficult area. I think you have to be honest with your readers but then again, there’s an aspirational quality to magazines that presenting someone as beautifully as possible is perfectly in line with. The overall thing is they have to look like themselves, but there is this aspirational quality to a magazine cover that I would say most women want when they buy them. If they don’t buy them because they’re too aspirational, well, that’s their right too.

Speaking of unattainable beauty, do you enjoy going out to the Oscars?
I do. There, I’ve said it. [Laughs] I like getting dressed up and putting on beautiful gown. The Golden Globes, the Oscars — they are a celebration and the really great thing is I can have a good time because they’re not about me. It’s about the actors and it’s a lot of fun.

What’s your schedule like out there?

I usually go out four or five days in advance and we generally have events around it. I’ll fly out on the crack of dawn on a Wednesday morning and arrive midday and then unpack and start meetings — either staff meetings or drinks and dinners with publicists and agents. I actually get together with subjects we cover from time to time. Then, of course, go to any of the parties that are associated with it like with the Golden Globes HBO would usually have a party, which is a lot of fun. Generally we have advertisers out there so I spend some time with them and we’ve done a charity luncheon the day before the event with one of our advertisers and one charity we support out there.

InStyle doesn’t do their big Oscar party anymore. Why not?

February of 2005 was the first time we did not do the party. We did it for nine years with Elton John. Initially, it was to join up with him to get coverage for the Elton John AIDS Foundation. They are so well-established now and we have really shifted our focus to the Golden Globes.

So what do you have at the Oscars?

The night of the Oscars we have what we call our “underground” Hollywood party. It’s not a red carpet event — it is a small viewing party for the celebrities that are going out that night but not going to the awards and headed off to someone else’s party later on.

So there’s no red carpet?

No, because that night it’s all about the Oscars, so we’re not trying to compete with that. It’s lower key. Most people come in gowns and cocktail dresses.

You don’t have a step and repeat or photographers there?

No. It’s a small event for 150 people.

Have you ever been approached to do a reality show?

We have. There have been a number of iterations of various reality shows that people have approached us on. A lot of it had to do with being at InStyle behind the scenes on our cover shoots or what’s it like to deal with these terrible celebrities. Our point of view is they’re not terrible. [Laughs] These are the people we have long-standing relationships with. My grandmother used to say, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.” It’s really not our type of thing.

What would you say your greatest contributions to InStyle have been?
I think we’ve added more fashion in the last six years. Whether that was me or the general mood of the industry, I do think that has increased. I would say the one thing we talk about a lot around here is “fun” — which is “What’s the fun moment? Where are we finding the fun in this? Let’s do something along those lines.” So I would say perhaps it’s those two things.

What do you consider your greatest professional success?

[Laughs] Longevity. I would say InStyle, in general because I was here at the beginning. It’s been an incredible place of learning in terms of fashion and beauty readers and the celebrity market. I’d been at Metropolitan Home so I was familiar with lifestyle. It was a huge new area for me.

What’s been your biggest disappointment?

I don’t know. I’m looking forward to that. [Laughs]

Anything you learned at your first magazine job at Apartment Life that still applies today?

Think of the reader first. It’s really all about them.

So how would you say you’ve gotten to where you are?

You know, there’s a lot to be said for enthusiasm for the work and the ability to work hard. Also being guided by very smart people. I’ve had great fortune working with very smart editors — both for whom I’ve worked and the editors I work with.

Do you have a motto?

I do. I end almost every phone call with the Los Angeles bureau with: “More. Later.”

Diane Clehane is a contributing editor to FishbowlNY and TVNewser. She writes the ‘Lunch’ column.

On most Wednesdays, Henry Schleiff can be found at the epicenter of the Manhattan media world — Michael’s restaurant — doing his fair share of glad handing over his Cobb salad. (“It’s like Rick’s Place in Casblanca with better salads.”) Having built a career spanning 25 years as a television “insider,” Court TV’s former top executive is now happily embracing his new role as champion of the aging baby boomers who actually tune into the Hallmark Channel in search of reruns of Little House on the Prairie and Murder She Wrote. Instead of throwing parties featuring caged go-go dancers as he once did at Court TV, today Schleiff is gathering FCC members and their kids for nights of squeaky clean fun at screenings in Washington where “family-friendly” values take center stage. One of cable television’s most passionate showmen, who gave the world Nancy Grace and once considered green-lighting a reality show featuring dismemberment, explains why he now believes it’s hip to be square.

Name: Henry Schleiff
Position: President & chief executive officer, Crown Media Holdings Hallmark Channel and Hallmark Movie Channel
Resume: Prior to joining Crown Media in October 2006, served as Chairman and CEO of Court TV for eight years. Executive vice president for Studios USA from 1996-1998. Held various executive positions at Viacom and HBO. Began his career as a law clerk for United States District Court Judge, M. Gurfein, S.D.N.Y and toiled as a corporate associate at the Wall Street firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell.
Birthdate: April 17, 1948 (“It’s not too late to get into our gift giving program. I’m registered at World of Golf!”)
Hometown: Lawrence, New York
Education: B.A. University of Pennsylvania; Juris Doctor, University of Pennsylvania School of Law
Marital status: Married to Peggy for 24 years; two sons Harry, 18 and Sidney, 16
First section of the Sunday Times: “That is like vegetables to me. I actually force myself through every section carefully. I start Saturday when you get those sections at home. I start with the easy one — real estate which I have absolutely no interest in, but it’s there.”
Favorite television show: “Like everybody, I’m still getting over the passage of The Sopranos. I’m a big Larry David fan — but I’ve still got mixed feelings about it this season. It just hasn’t been as strong. Tell me I’m not Middle America — I’m still watching 60 Minutes on Sunday night. I’ll watch a little Jon Stewart. Like most of America, I watch very little prime-time broadcast programming.”
Guilty pleasure: “Golf. The way I play golf there should be some guilt involved given the number of people who have been injured.”
Last book read: “I don’t read a lot of books. I think the last book I read was Love Story. Don’t tell me, she’s sick right? I’m almost through with it and it’s not looking good at all … The last book I read is Kite Runner.”

How would you say you’ve gotten to where you are?

I think like most careers, it was unplanned. Along the way there were certain touchstones. I think the idea of some formal training as a lawyer, oddly enough, has helped. I can’t point to the specifics but it does give you a way of looking at things — even on the creative side — that are a little bit different.

How did this lawyer wind up in television?

You take that background, which is your formal training, and lay it over your own personal passion. No one’s passion stems from law. I think there may be a passion for justice, for litigation, for argument. My passion happened to be the medium of television. I was always enamored with it. I always loved great storytelling. I’m still amazed at the ability of people when there is nothing on the proverbial page and 10 minutes later, no pun intended, there’s this fabulous movie or television series or special that entertains or inspires. You would think on one level Court TV was a perfect mix because it has the word “court” in it and it has “TV.” Interestingly, that is no different from my current position at Hallmark Channel or my previous positions at Viacom or even HBO. The real emphasis in this industry is on entertainment. But I think that legal training gave me some sense of a way to approach problems and issues that has helped me a little. One of the aspects that I find constantly challenging is to walk the tightrope between “executive” and someone who is endlessly interested in participating in the creative process. Personally, I need to be passionate about what I’m doing.

When you were at Court TV did you really talk to Dick Parsons about a reality show with Jeffrey Dahmer?

[Laughs]. That was Dick Parsons talking about a series we did called Confessions somewhat out of context. It was never about Jeffrey Dahmer [Laughs]. It happened to have an opening episode in which somebody had chopped up their girlfriend into pieces, but at the time — and this was seven or eight years ago — it was somewhere over the cutting edge and I think there were some concerns about it. But you know something, it shows you the benefit of experience and time because I think in this environment this would hardly get noticed. It was a little bit ahead of it’s time. I remember discussing it with Dick and needless to say — and quite correctly — he had some reservations about it. It was hard to argue we were taking the high road [Laughs].

At Court TV, you took these formerly anonymous attorneys like Nancy Grace and made them into television personalities. How does that look in your rearview mirror?

Honestly, I don’t think you turn any of these people. They have, for lack of a better word, either a certain talent or a certain approach, a certain personality. I think what you do is provide an environment in which those people can flourish. You say that for people in front of the camera, but it’s arguably more important to do it for people behind the camera. I think one of the most important aspects of this business if you’re in a managerial position is to provide an environment in which people can flourish. At Court TV we certainly made a number of personalities or helped create an environment where those personalities can flourish. Not every one of them was everyone’s cup of tea but I think in terms of their own personalities coming out, we certainly did that. What gets lost in some of the rhetoric about the individuals is I thought we did a pretty good job of providing balance — not only with respect to our anchors — for every Nancy Grace, we had Fred Graham — which I believe is the full spectrum. There is no question that from time to time we certainly sought to reach towards the outer edges perhaps even towards tabloid, but on the other side we often did something which we thought was really important. That was one of the parts of that network I’m most proud of.

What do you consider your greatest achievement while at Court TV?

First of all survival of the network, which was something of a question when we walked in with no advertising revenue and 30 million subscribers. We were actually losing subscribers. When we left, we handed it over with 85 million subscribers and it was one of the top-rated [cable] networks and it had a very clear brand and high profile. We had a line that this was a network that wasn’t only interested in making a profit but making a difference. While that is reasonably clever there was also substance to it. In terms of legacies, networks change names, as this one is about to do [EDITOR’S NOTE: Court TV will relaunch as truTV in January 2008] so the legacy for that one brief moment a la Camelot, I think, was we had something that was very special to all the people that worked there at any and all levels. It may sound old fashioned, but to me it’s just Management 101 — it does work for me if you take care and nurture those people in and around you not only do you wind up doing well but somehow, it’s reflected in the network.

O.J. Simpson helped put Court TV on the map. Any predictions for O.J.: The Sequel?

Been there, done that. The O.J. trial came before I got there and it was a double-edged sword because a lot of people lost faith in the justice system because of that verdict, so we spent a fair amount of time trying to defend the justice system which, by the way, isn’t always defensible.

When I spoke to Jeff Toobin for this column and asked him about this latest chapter in the Simpson saga he said, ‘If O.J. Part one was tragedy, then O.J. Part Two is farce.

I think collectively that we all hope there is no third act. Whether it was the book [If I Did It] or this most recent episode in Las Vegas where he breaks in a tries to get the collectibles back, I honestly think if there is a point in a career where the shark jumps, from a television perspective that was it.

Let’s talk about your current position. What do you make of the idea that are helming the entertainment arm of what is ostensibly one of the most wholesome brands in America at a time where the bar just keeps getting lower?

We have the brooding omnipresence, as Supreme Court Justice McReynolds once said, of a potential government intervention of censorship which is the last thing anybody wants. We’re all united against any kind of government intervention. I think in that environment, the presence of a network like Hallmark Channel — I’m not saying it has to be the only thing on the menu — but I think having a good, clean, demonstrably family-friendly network is an important part of any cable operator’s line-up. I don’t think there’s any dispute there, but there are some issues time to time about what one pays for such wonderful family fare.

So you’ve become this great champion of family-friendly fare.

I got a C in economics 101 only because the guy in front of me got a C, but even I can understand basic supply and demand. Within those parameters, I can see the demand for what clearly is a very small supply of stories on television today that are well-told, well-produced that entertain you, inform you and, on occasion, inspire you. If you want to put it under the simple headline of “family friendly,” that’s fine. But the truth is our programming in that area — you can’t say unique because there’s so many networks out there — but we’re pretty distinctive in terms of commissioning and producing 30 original movies that we hand-tailor to our audience’s tastes. We put them either behind or before an appropriate lead-in. It’s a series that as a baby boomer you say, “Boy, I like that.’ It’s Murder She Wrote, M*A*S*H, or Walker Texas Ranger. They’re all on our network. I think that makes this network really great and I am just as passionate about this as I was about the justice system when I was at Court TV.

When I think of Hallmark, the first thing I think of are those incredibly sentimental, albeit extremely well produced commercials that always manage make me cry.

I think the Hallmark Channel is the video distillation of all those attributes we have come over the years to associate with the Hallmark brand. For our programming people, the trick is to take that expectation of those elements and put them into a compelling, beautifully produced story. We screened a movie in Washington last night called The Good Witch. We did it in front of lots of members of the FCC, their families, people on the Hill. It was a family night and it was great to see the terrific reception it got.

Why did you do the screening in Washington?

There were a number of ‘agendas’ for it. First of all, it’s a city that I think is sometimes lost in terms of entertainment. There aren’t that many previews and screenings there, so we thought that was a little bit different. We are walking around Washington these days shouting our family friendly importance for a number of reasons and we thought rather than hear some boring person speak about these values, let them see them in a movie. Like most of the world, we talk about the media but not that many people actually watch it in its specifics. We’re all familiar with everything going on — we’re all in the green room but very few of us are coming out to play a role so I think the idea of seeing something is as compelling as anything we could say. It was important to have that audience. It was a very appreciative audience on a number of levels. I’ll leave it at that.

Are you testifying before congress or lobbying them on specific issues?

Between those two we are certainly making ourselves heard with respect to the issues that are idiosyncratic to independent cable networks. We’re walking around highlighting the challenges, the issues and frankly, the importance of new voices that are trying to get launched. We are trying to be helpful to the FCC and, by extension, to ourselves in terms of creating an environment that allows these voices not only to exist, but to flourish. At Court TV I was very much of the same voice as I am here. Court TV was effectively an independent. When you’re half owned by Time Warner and half owned by Liberty, it’s like Home Alone. Neither one paid attention to you, it was great. [Laughs] But the other side of that was we had to fight for ourselves, so a lot of the issues for an independent there still exist at Hallmark Channel. But Hallmark Channel is truly the pure independent. We have no partial ownership or anything else.

In this era of mega mergers, how does one go about keeping your independence? Are you for sale?

We’re a public company, Crown Media. We’re listed on the NASDAQ and we have public sharer holders, so wearing my corporate hat for a second, we have a fiduciary duty to our shareholders to consider any offers and any discussions that would benefit our stock and our shareholders. We certain do get “indications of interest” from time to time about partnerships and joint ventures. We look at these and we consider them very seriously. We are not for sale. There is no formal ‘sale’ notice. This is not the situation that was 18 months ago when there was a public announcement that Hallmark Channel and Crown Media were for sale. [It’s] a very different environment.

Having said that, we have to be realistic. The Hallmark Channel is the last of the independents — Oxygen was just bought. Oxygen was at 74 million subscribers; we’re at 85 million. Oxygen did $100 million in advertising; we’ll do $210 million in advertising this year. Oxygen did a .3 in primetime; we do a 1.2. Arguably you can begin to see a basis for comparison in terms of what our value is. Needless to say we think we are a very attractive asset especially to those which we would gain greater leverage from than we as an independent have in not only obtaining higher license fees for us, but helping this network achieve greater success. When the announcement of Oxygen and NBC came out what you heard, to Gerry [Laybourne] and Jeff [Zucker]’s credit, was the opportunity for them to cross promote that network on NBC and their other networks. This network has achieved its success by itself. Can you imagine given the demand out there for this kind of programming what this network would do if it had greater resources? This is one of the greatest untapped sleeping giants out there.

In an interview a few months ago with the New York Observer you said that the Michael’s crowd might not be watching Hallmark Channel, but you’re a rock star in Milwaukee. Care to explain?

It goes to the overall brand and understanding of the network. We spend a fair amount of time — especially the Michael’s crowd — in New York or Los Angeles. The truth is, as the electoral process shows, this country is made up of everything in between. Look at television today: people seem to be surprised at the failure rate of broadcast or any other [area] of television. Shows are made for us at Michael’s and [people] in Los Angeles — and critics. They aren’t made necessarily for mainstream America. The most common thing you hear out there these days is, “I got all these cable channels, Martha, and there’s nothing out there to watch.”

You’re known for being a real showman when it comes to promoting your networks.

It’s show business so if you’re going to be in it, the “business” part is the vegetables, the ‘show’ is the fun part. If you can play a supporting role in the show, given the “H” is for “ham” — let alone “Henry” or “Hallmark” — then obviously, I love the opportunity to participate. I put it under some rubric “It’s good for the network, it’s good for the brand,” but I know it’s good for me. [Laughs]

Speaking of showbiz, I understand you made your movie debut at the Hampton’s Film Festival in Bob Balaban’s new film.

The working title of Balaban’s movie is Bernard and Doris, by the time it hits, which I believe will be in February on HBO, I am still campaigning — and I want you to join me on this — it will be Bernard, Doris & Henry. You gotta have that third name right there. Just between you and me, I carried [Susan] Sarandon and [Ralph] Finnes. Carried them! [Laughs]

Tell me about your role.

Bob did a fabulous movie for us at Court TV called Exonerated. Through that, I became friends with him and remained friends over the years. We play poker, we have dinner. There was a casting call for some people who could play Doris Duke’s board of directors. Of course, it was a non-speaking role which was somewhat constraining for me. I’m in there with my pal Nick Dunne around a table with the board of directors. If silent movies come back, I have a career. [Laughs]

You’ve been part of several different television “cliques.” Where do you see yourself in the pecking order?

I never really look at it relative to others. There is a collective environment to it. Especially cable. You can’t begin look at your position without understanding there are so many aspects to this business that nobody is “the big fish.” That’s the good and bad news. Nobody is “the little fish” either. Is there a pecking order? Is it feature films, then comes broadcast and then cable? I think those old lines have disappeared. You meet so many people along the way, and people do switch jobs. The lesson of being kind and nice or at least honest along the way serves everybody well in this business because the one rule is that it’s incredibly incestuous. You meet people that have one job — 10 minutes later they’re up, 20 minutes later they’re down and 20 minutes later they’re up again. There’s no point in being mad or holding grudges. Not to be Pollyanna-ish about it, but you try to look for the good in people. Sometimes it’s harder with some than others, but you try. That’s the fun of Michael’s — because if you’re not talking to one person, you can find somebody else. It is a microcosm of the business. The one outstanding aspect of my history in the business, which has been pretty much on the cable side, the common denominator between broadcast and cable is that you really like the people. They’re lively, they’re smart, they’re cool, and they’re fun to be around. I pick up the trades everyday. It amazes me that there’s that much going on. It is a business that is constantly changing.

What do you consider your greatest success?

I think it’s that the people that I’ve worked with anywhere in my career are people that I think that you can go to — I’m sure there are some exceptions — and they will say they enjoyed the experience of having me around them whether I was working for them, with them, or I oversaw them in some capacity. I think somewhere fairly early on in the description, they’ll say “fun.” I’m proud of that.

What’s been your biggest disappointment?

I wouldn’t say it was a disappointment but there’s one thing I would still like to do. When I was in Washington the other evening, after dinner and lots of drinks we all went over to the Lincoln Memorial. It was midnight and it was closing down and the lights were lit up across the reflecting pool and you could see in the distance the Jefferson Memorial. Let me tell you something — as much as I am the jaded New Yorker, Cobb-salad-eating Michael’s person, that will take your breath away. One of the things I still hold out for my own personal desire is to do something in public service, in government. To the extent that I would have potentially some role in a government position in public service, I like that. I like what this country stands for and I think that at a certain point in a career rather than write some checks you really do want to give back. That’s something to me that’s still out there.

So Henry Schleiff for senator?

Henry Schleiff for senator of the great state of television. [Laughs]

Diane Clehane is a contributing editor to FishbowlNY and TVNewser. She writes the Lunch at Michael’s column.

While broadcast television continues to be swallowed up whole by insipid reality shows and mind-numbingly boring games shows which have spawned a generation of Z-listers who refuse to go away, premium cable is more of a haven than ever before for viewers — and talent — looking for something worthwhile. Showtime’s Matt Blank has been a tireless champion of cable since its earliest days and today helms a network whose slate of series and projects in development rivals anything Hollywood is putting out. Having spent more than three decades at HBO and Showtime collectively, Blank has gained a unique perspective on his segment of the television business where creativity trumps ratings.

On the eve of the premiere of the fourth season of Weeds and his network’s stateside debut of British import Secret Diary of A Call Girl, Blank reflects on Showtime’s success and its ability to tap into the cultural zeitgeist. Of Call Girl, he quips: “Since Eliot Spitzer got caught with his pants down we look incredibly smart — and lucky.” He also deconstructs his network’s penchant for dysfunctional families regardless of the century they lived in. “The Tudors are probably the most screwed up family in history. As out there as Weeds or Brotherhood has been, they weren’t beheading people.”

With stars like Tim Robbins, Edie Falco, Toni Collette and none other than Steven Spielberg signing on to work with Showtime, you could hardly fault Blank for going a bit more Hollywood than the average cable honcho. But to hear him tell it, the native New Yorker who cops to having a television in virtually every room in the house is simply thrilled to do a job he loves every day. “I worked hard and got very lucky,” says Blank. “I think passion for the work is very important.”

Name: Matthew C. Blank
Position: Chairman and CEO, Showtime Networks
Resume: Spent the past two decades at Showtime rising up through the ranks; assumed his current position in 1995. Prior to joining Showtime, toiled at HBO for 12 years and departed as senior vice president of consumer marketing.
Birthdate: July 10, 1950
Hometown: Jamaica, New York
Education: University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business; MBA Baruch College
Marital status: Married to Susan McGuirk; two children
First section of the Sunday Times: “Business. I just want to make sure my name is not there.”
Favorite television show not on Showtime: “CSI. I got into it early on. It premiered when I got my first hi-def television. I loved the look of the show and I just like those procedurals, which is a good thing because now I work for CBS.”
Guilty pleasure: Pizza and crime novels
Last book read: “I just started the new John Sanford book.”

How would you say you’ve gotten to where you are?

It’s a mixture of things. I was very fortunate that I wanted to work in television back in 1976. I came across a job at HBO — they had just gone up with satellite and it seemed like it was going to be interesting and I’d learn a lot. I made the plunge from a very traditional marketing job. I was brand manager on the American Express card. I was doing very well, but I really wanted to work in entertainment or media. I just got fortunate. It was one of those situations where HBO exploded — I was one of the people who went around launching it. It was sort of ground zero of the business — going around to the cable operators. I made a good choice.

It’s very unusual especially when it comes to entertainment companies for someone to stay for so long. This year you celebrated your 20th anniversary with Showtime. What’s the secret to your longevity?

It’s actually my 32nd year in premium TV. I just love this business and the people in this company. In the past couple of years in particular when I might have said, “How long can I keep doing this?” We just had such success. So I think it’s the fact that we’re making the type of programming that we really believe in as it’s being embraced by all of our various publics. I’ve felt really fortunate to be part of that.

Is it still possible for someone just starting out to rise up through the ranks the way you did?

I think so. One thing about our business is that despite all its challenges and changes, it’s a business with tremendous opportunities, and it tends not to be as hierarchical as other businesses with the exception of the interactive and digital worlds. Since we rely on our success creatively, the creative areas are always the ones that recognize and reward talent.

Most network presidents reside in Los Angeles. Does being based in New York affect your sensibilities as it relates to your job? How does it affect the way you do it?

I do go back and forth every couple of weeks. Our entertainment group is headed out there — [president of entertainment] Bob Greenblatt is in LA so he’s really in the heart of the creative community. Our bigger customers are here in and around this part of the world. Time Warner is here in the city. Cablevision is out on Long Island. Cox is in Atlanta. Direct TV happens to be in LA. Dish is in Denver. For me it’s important to be very close to the customers. It works having a bicoastal company. I do think it brings a different perspective.

How so?

I just think it’s good not to be submerged on a daily basis in that rather closed community in Los Angeles — and I don’t mean that in a disparaging way. When you have customers located all over the country, meaning our distributors — we sell a product that in many ways is very different than most television products in that it’s a subscription business — I think it’s good to have a varied perspective.

Come on, confess — were you happy to see The Sopranos take their final bow?
The Sopranos was really the bomb for the television business, not just for Showtime, so obviously we’re happy not to compete with it. The reality is the category did very well when The Sopranos was on the air. It brought a lot of attention to the original programming in cable. We like the positive comparisons to our shows today. It’s good to see it go in some ways, but I’m happier about the fact that we’re doing so well with so much of our programming.

It would seem to me in a very simplistic way that one of the essential ingredients needed for a program to succeed on cable is controversial material. What are your thoughts on that?

I’m not sure it’s purely controversy. It may turn out to be controversial, but Bob Greenblatt and I have a very clear view of the things we put on the air. They all seem to have a central character that lives on the edge of respectable behavior but probably not so far over the top that there’s not some level of identity. Even Weeds — she’s totally out there, yet she’s a suburban mom dealing with kids’ issues. With the exception of The Tudors, which is a period piece, I think there’s something there that our audience can identify with in the level of dysfunction in these family situations or societal situations. We tend to be successful with these families that aren’t quite straight down the middle.

With shows like Weeds, The Tudors and The L Word, you’ve given viewers very layered and interesting female characters. It wasn’t so long ago that the most interesting characters on cable were mostly men. Was it a conscious decision to woo the female audience or was it simply a matter of finding good material and you thinking, ‘This is terrific stuff’?

It wasn’t a conscious decision in any way, shape or form. I just think a lot of good material came our way that had some very strong central characters who happened to be women. Californication has a central character that is male. Brotherhood has two central characters who are male but with very critical women characters around them. Dexter‘s central character is male. The two pilots that we just shot happen to have central characters that are female — The United States of Tara and Edie Falco’s show.

What can you tell me about them?

Edie plays a nurse in a big urban hospital. We actually shot in New York City for the first time in quite a while. She’s someone who is living a bit on the edge in terms of her behavior. Like all these characters, I think she’ll be highly sympathetic. The United States of Tara is the project that Diablo Cody wrote before Juno was released. It’s with Toni Collette and John Corbett. The United States of Tara refers to her mental state. She’s a suburban mom — much in the spirit of Mary Louise Parker in Weeds although she has a husband and a family — and she’s a multiple personality.

When are those shows set to debut?

We haven’t made those decisions yet. We’re just looking at the pilots and deciding if we’re going to make them.

What about Tim Robbins’ Possible Side Effects show? He’s writing and directing. Will he also star?

I don’t believe so. We have a script from Tim and we’ll probably shoot that pilot in the late summer-early fall in New York.

There’s been a huge increase in the number of film actors that have come to cable — and Showtime specifically — to work. What was the tipping point?

I don’t know if it was any one tipping point. In the case of Showtime, it’s the material and the attention. When you see Mary Louise Parker winning a Golden Globe and getting nominated for an Emmy for her role and you see David Duchovny come back to television with such great success in Californication and the attention Jonathan Rhys Meyers got for doing our Henry VIII, it builds a reservoir of interest in the creative community so that you get Spielberg coming to us with a project like United States of Tara with Diablo Cody attached. I’m not sure you get a Toni Collette to do a show like this unless she’s impressed by Spielberg and Diablo Cody — not to mention the Mary Louise Parkers and all those people who have been so successful, from a career standpoint, working on Showtime. You kind of reach a critical mass of interest and then you add to that the critical response and the commercial success of our shows — and what happens is Showtime is the place where people want to work. That’s exactly the space we’re in right now.

How significant was the move to air the first season of Dexter on network television on CBS? What does that mean for the future of Showtime programming?

It was an interesting situation. The strike had hit CBS. Leslie was a big fan of the show. There’s no ongoing plan there. It was a unique combination of that show and the timing. Since we had just finished season two and the DVD had been out there, we thought it was a great promotional opportunity for us and the show. We also thought it was a great opportunity for CBS to take advantage of commercially successful programming that still had limited exposure and very much fed into the world of procedural hours. For us it was a home run. I remember sitting home on a cold afternoon in January and the NFL AFC championship was on and there were two or three spots for Dexter coming on CBS, and I had the same experience watching the Grammys. Then, several nights a week prior to Letterman they would promote it, so I think the awareness of Dexter is through the roof. We think it bodes well for Showtime and for the show going forward. It was a great example of the companies working together.

So there’s no plans to continue that kind of thing?

I won’t say never, but I don’t think it’s a part of an overall strategy.

Anything you’ve seen recently on broadcast that has made you think, “Oh, we could do this so much better”?

Almost everything. I look at a lot of shows out there and think — imagine what we could do. Without mentioning anything in particular, we are very spoiled by the creative opportunities that the premium world provides and that we’re not prisoners of ratings. For instance, Brotherhood was not as successful as Dexter or Californication, but we renewed it for a third season. It’s a Peabody Award-winning show and we think it’s a great show — very premium TV. If that show was on broadcast and performed relatively the same it would probably have not been renewed, but we think it’s an important part of our schedule, so it will be back at some point.

How much time do you personally spend watching television? How much broadcast television do you watch?

I watch a lot of all types of television. I’m rarely in a room where the television isn’t on. It’s on right now with the volume down. I watch a lot of Showtime because I like to see how our promotion looks on air. I also watch a lot of broadcast and a lot of cable.

So at home do you have televisions in every room?

[Laughs] At least one. In my New York apartment, we’ve got eight.

Where do you get your best ideas?

I consume a great deal of media. At 11 o’clock at night I’ll see a commercial or something and make a note. The next day, I’ll shoot off a note to Bob Greenblatt or our chief marketing and creative officer. I was away for the weekend and I tore out a bunch of pages out of magazines while I was on the plane that I’m interested in sending along to our guys. It’s sort of a combination of things, but I do think being a huge consumer of entertainment and the media in this business is where you end up seeing a lot of your thoughts kind of formulate — especially promotionally.

There’s certainly a wealth of material that could be gleaned from the political scene these days, don’t you think?

I think there is, but it’s hard to compete with the pundits, the Jon Stewarts and the Lenos and Lettermans of this world who are dealing with it every evening. I think the biggest danger this year is burnout on this stuff. I think people are sick of it and that they wish the election was over and we knew who our president was.

What’s the secret of a successful pitch when someone comes to see you with an idea?

Bob Greenblatt would be better one to talk to about that. For me I tend focus more on what’s an unsuccessful pitch — it’s amazing how many people come in to see me and haven’t watched Showtime and have no sense of what Showtime is and what seems to be working for us.

Does that happen a lot?

It happens a lot. I frequently will have someone come in and I’ll say, “What are they doing here with this? Haven’t they been watching us?” We get pitched a lot of things that aren’t terribly relevant to our current strategy. I say to myself, “If I were going to pitch to a network I wouldn’t walk in the door until I knew everything about that network.”

How do your personal interests and beliefs shape what gets the green light?

Bob and I have a very close relationship on this stuff, and we have a lot of the same fundamental beliefs about what is going to work and what isn’t. But I will tell you hands down there are things I just don’t like, and I will mention that to Bob. I’ll say, ‘Act as you see fit’ and frequently he does, and frequently I’m very wrong. There’s a show on the past year that when Bob came in with it I said, ‘Look, I don’t like this.’

Care you say which one?

I can’t. I would offend the talent. But I said, ‘By the way, I think this has a good shot at being successful, so it’s your call. It’s something I’m not gonna to like.’ He said, ‘I think we should do it.’ So I said, ‘Do it.’ And he’s right. Sometimes you really have to be able to subjugate your feelings about this stuff.

Is that an acquired skill?

You just have to be open-minded. But I do think most really good creative executives are highly biased towards certain things. Bob probably has tremendous personal biases towards types of material and types of characters — and that’s what works. Thank God he does.

Those of us who pitch in comments from the outside have to have faith. If this was math everybody who could add would be successful. It’s not math.

What qualities do you look for in executives when you’re hiring regardless of the position?

I’m a big believer in people that are consumed by a passion for the business. I look for people that are going to fit in with their colleagues. We’ve had a great longevity here in our senior group. They work very closely and are very fond of each other. I think that’s very important. I think at the end of the day in this particular business environment you need people who are flexible in their thinking, who respond quickly and who are very competitive and want to win. With any job you have to fill there are probably dozens and dozens of people who are skilled to do the job, the question is: Are they right personally?

What did you learn in business school that still resonates today?

What resonates is kind of a return to the decision-making process. Sometimes when you get in the heat of battle or stress and ideas come flying from all corners, you’ve just got to step back and say,’ Why are we making these decisions? Are we making them for the right reasons?’ I think that whole decision-making matrix that you go through when you’re in business school is really helpful. I’m a believer in the fundamentals — I spend a lot of time talking to our customers, and I think a lot about the competitive environment and how it can change overnight, and all of that is part of the mix.

What do you consider your greatest success at this juncture?

I don’t think I could have a better group of people running Showtime than we do today. They are people I respect and like personally. That’s why I believe our current success will continue and our best years are ahead of us. It all comes down to having the most competitive group of people running your company who have strong beliefs about the business. I don’t think there’s better individuals anywhere in this business than the people I have in my key jobs. That is the toughest thing for a manager to do.

What about your biggest disappointment to date?

Disappointments are always in the past; opportunities are in the future. I tend not to focus on disappointments. My greatest disappointment has been all the missed opportunities for the Yankees in the past few seasons.

Where do you see yourself five years from now?

I’d love to be doing what I’m doing somewhere in this business. I think there’s a lot of open road ahead of us. I think if we can just keep tweaking the business and keep doing the kind of things we’ve been doing, I think there is plenty of opportunity ahead for us here and I’d like to be around to see that happen.

Diane Clehane is a contributing editor to FishbowlNY and TVNewser. She writes the ‘Lunch’ column.