executive editor of new york times

independent.co.uk
THIS. IS. NOT. NORMAL! White House blocks news outlets from media briefing
The White House has blocked several high-profile media outlets from its press briefing. The Trump administration on Friday blocked legacy outlets including CNN, BBC, The New York Times, LA Times, the New York Daily News, the Daily Mail, and others from the White House press briefing. Officials also approved outlets who typically provide favourable coverage of the new administration. Several media outlets including the Associated Press and TIME Magazine declined to attend the briefing to boycott the President's decision.

Justin Carissimo at The Independent:

The White House has blocked several major news outlets from covering its press briefing.

White House Press Secretary Spicer on Friday hand selected news outlets to participate in an off-camera “gaggle” with reporters inside his West Wing office instead of the James S Brady Press Briefing Room.

The news outlets blocked from the press briefing include organisations who President Trump has criticised by name. CNN, BBC, The New York Times, LA Times, New York Daily News, Daily Mail, were among the news outlets barred from the gathering.

Instead, the press secretary hand-picked news outlets including Breitbart News, One America News Network, The Washington Times, all news organisations with far-right leanings. Others major outlets approved for t group included ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, Reuters and Bloomberg.

“Nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history of covering multiple administrations of different parties,” Dean Baquet, executive editor of The New York Times said in a statement. “We strongly protest the exclusion of The New York Times and the other news organizations. Free media access to a transparent government is obviously of crucial national interest.”

Several media outlets including the Associated Press and TIME Magazine declined to attend the briefing to boycott the President’s decision.

The White House Correspondents’ Association also criticised the decision.

“The WHCA board is protesting strongly against how today’s gaggle is being handled by the White House,” Jeff Mason, the association’s president, said in a statement.

“We encourage the organizations that were allowed in to share the material with others in the press corps who were not. The board will be discussing this further with White House staff.”

And it’s also anti-American, to boot.

'Fantastic Beasts' Sequel Rounds Out Cast, Major Plot Details Revealed

The as-yet-untitled follow-up has started shooting in the U.K., with Jude Law among the new additions to the wizarding world.

Principal photography has now started on the as-yet-untitled sequel to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the first Harry Potter spinoff that grossed some $814 million for Warner Bros. last year.

And alongside the chief returnees of Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander and Johnny Depp as the dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald, a host of additions have been made to the expanding wizarding world.

As previously announced, Jude Law has joined the cast as a young Albus Dumbledore, alongside Ezra Miller as Credence, Zoe Kravitz as Leta Lestrange, glimpsed in a moving photo as a woman from Newt’s past in the first, and Callum Turner as Theseus Scamander, Newt’s brother, a war hero and Auror.

Other names appearing include Claudia Kim (The Dark Tower, Avengers: Age of Ultron), a young woman introduced as an attraction at a wizarding circus, William Nadylam as a wizard named Yusuf Kama, Ingvar Sigurdsson as a bounty hunter, Olafur Darri Olafsson as Skender, who runs the circus, and Kevin Guthrie as Abernathy, the boss of the Magical Congress of the USA.

The screenplay — again written by J.K. Rowling after her debut in the first film — opens in 1927, a few months after Scamander helped to unveil and capture the infamous Grindelwald. However, the dark wizard was true to his word and escaped, gathering more followers to his cause. This time, it’s down to his former friend Albus Dumbledore to stop him, but with the help of former student Scamander.

The second in the five-part Fantastic Beasts series, being directed again by David Yates, is set to move the magic from New York to London and Paris, with some “surprising nods” to the Harry Potter films.

David Heyman, Rowling, Steve Kloves and Lionel Wigram are producing the film, with Tim Lewis, Neil Blair, Rick Senat and Danny Cohen serving as executive producers. The creative teams are led by Oscar-winning director of photography Philippe Rousselot, three-time Oscar-winning production designer Stuart Craig, three-time BAFTA Award-winning editor Mark Day, four-time Oscar-winning costume designer Colleen Atwood, Oscar-winning visual effects supervisor Tim Burke, and Oscar-nominated visual effects supervisor Christian Manz.

The film is being shot at Warner Bros.’ Studios Leavesden in the U.K., home of all the Harry Potter films so far, and is slated for release on Nov. 16, 2018.

(www.hollywoodreporter.com)

James O'Keefe sits down with The Epoch Times for an interview on the undercover journalism and tactics of Project Veritas.

James O'Keefe of Project Veritas confronts New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet for comment following Baqeut’s disparaging remarks regarding O'Keefe and his organization made on CSPAN and in a TimesTalk event.

During President Trump’s visit to Japan, he fed carp at a Koi pond with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. A CNN video deceptively portrays Trump as having improperly feeding the carp, while Abe did the same. This is just another video example of anti-Trump bias at CNN, as seen when we exposed how CNN’s Alisyn Camerota deceptively edited Trump voters to make them sound conspiratorial about voter fraud in a panel discussion.

The Consequences of Publishing Leaked Photos

At first glance, the Manchester bombing photos don’t reveal much. The tattered remains of a blue Karrimor backpack, spattered with blood. Charred fragments of a Yuasa 12-volt battery. A silver cylinder that may have been the detonator.

To The New York Times, which published the eight leaked photos on May 24, the images are news, and a rare glimpse into the mind and methods of a terrorist. “The judgement is that there is a public benefit to telling people how terrorists work,” said executive editor Dean Baquet, “including the makeup of their bombs, the kinds of packs they carry.”

(Continue Reading)

‘Lumberjanes’ Trade Paperback Goes to Fifth Printing; Live-Action Movie Announced

Holy Mae Jemison! BOOM! Studios is thrilled to announce that the first four printings of the Lumberjanes Volume 1 trade paperback have sold out at the distributor level in just seven weeks of release. The publisher is rushing back to press for a fifth printing of the collection that debuted at #7 on The New York Times Best Sellers list for paperback graphic books. In total, over 65,000 copies of the trade paperback have been sold into comic book stores, bookstores, and book club fairs.

Adding fuel to this latest sellout, 20th Century Fox has optioned the film rights to Lumberjanes as a live-action movie. BOOM! Studios will produce the film, led by Founder and Chief Executive Officer Ross Richie (2 Guns) and President of Development Stephen Christy. Senior Vice President of Film Adam Yoelin (2 Night Stand) will co-produce.

The Eisner and GLAAD Media Award-nominated Lumberjanes was co-created by BOOM! Studios Editor Shannon Watters, Grace Ellis, and New York Times Best Selling web cartoonist Noelle Stevenson (Nimona), with main series artist Brooke Allen (A Home For Mr. Easter). The series focuses on five, rad, butt-kicking best pals determined to have an awesome summer together…and they’re not going to let a magical quest or an array of supernatural critters get in their way! As part of BOOM!’s partnership model, the creators will share equally in all aspects of the publisher’s first-look deal with Fox.

“The entire team is excited for the opportunity to expose the comic to a wider audience and legions of young hardcore lady-types everywhere,” said Watters, Ellis, Stevenson, and Allen in a joint statement.

Stevenson added, “Read our book! They’re making a movie so it’s probably good, right?”

In searching for the ideal screenwriter for Lumberjanes, Producers Richie, Christy, and Yoelin went out to over 30 screenwriters before 20th Century Fox Senior Vice President of Development Kira Goldberg nominated Will Widger, screenwriter of The Munchkin, a highlight of the 2014 Black List, which details the best unproduced Hollywood screenplays every year. Goldberg bought the pitch and will develop the project for the studio working with Creative Executive Ryan Jones.

“I could not be more excited to start working on a Lumberjanes movie,” Richie said. “Shannon, Grace, Noelle, and Brooke have created a wonderful comic for everyone. Bringing a faithful adaptation to the screen and exposing even more potential fans to the amazing characters of Jo, April, Mal, Molly, and Ripley is something I can’t wait to dive into with the team at Fox.”

The Lumberjanes Volume 1 trade paperback will be back in print shortly and carries a retail price of $14.99 with a Diamond Code of FEB151172 and an ISBN of 978-1608866878.

CONGRATS shanito brookeallen gingerhaze pencilcat ohheygrace!!! 

Milo Yiannopoulos on Good Day LA ahead of his speech at Cal State Fullerton to talk about his thoughts on accusations against Kevin Spacey, his “alt-right” label and more.

Steven Crowder thoroughly debunks Charles M. Blow’s latest New York Times Op-Ed on “Checking My Male Privilege” as it relates to rape and sexual assault. Crowder provides a thorough fact-checking of Blow’s skewed polls, false statistics and flat out lies!

New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet just can’t stop talking about Veritas. On a segment on CSPAN, Baquet continued his verbal assault on James O'Keefe and Project Veritas. This time, he says what Veritas does “isn’t journalism." O'Keefe explains point-by-point each of Baquet’s comments.
See Baquet’s first response: https://youtu.be/9NykOtRVjkE

James O'Keefe of Project Veritas returns to his alma mater, Rutgers University, to give a talk on the power of undercover video in the age of Fake News. During Q&A, O'Keefe is served two legal filings.


The NYT should check their fake news propagandist sexist hypocritical ass :)

Congrats to Mr. Dean Baquet, 57, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and a former editor of the Los Angeles Times. who will become the first African American executive editor at the New York Times

“It is an honor to be asked to lead the only newsroom in the country that is actually better than it was a generation ago,” he said, “one that approaches the world with wonder and ambition every day.”

Song based AU's

 The A Team: Muse A is an addict who makes music for a living, while muse B is the posh kid from a rich family. When muse B birthday comes his/her parents hire muse A to entertain the guests, but as the party comes to an end muse A and muse B are already fond of each other.

Angel With A Shotgung: muse A is a troubled kid (could be addict, rough past, a nerd who gets bullyied, all of them, whatever you want) while muse B is an angel designed to protect him/har. As they get to know each other, they fell in love, so muse B has to chose, wings or love.

♣ The City: muse A is a small town girl/boy who moves to New York to try to succeed as a journalist. Muse B is the well known editor of the New York Times. When muse A finally gets an interview with muse B they connect immediately. Even though, muse A must understand that there’s no time for love in the big city.

 $TING: Muse A and Muse B are in a toxic relationship (like Sid and Nancy) They go clubing, partying and all the recklessness you can imagine. But gradually money starts to vanish, their love becomes more possesive and aggressive. In the end muse A ends up killing muse B in a cheap motel room.

Dear God: Muse A is an important executive that travels around the world and is never home. Muse B is his recently acquired boy/girlfriend. They send letters (or e-mails) to each other while muse B is away.

The Struggle: muse A was a nerd in high school, while muse B was the popular kid. A few years after graduation they find each other working for the same company. They secretly hated during high school and now that they are competing from the same job they’ll do whatever it takes to bring the other down.

Emma: Set in 1960, muse A is a good girl. At only 17 she’s an honor student and plans to get a scholarship in Oxford. But then she meets muse B, a 25 year-old man with millions of dollars in his bank account. What happens when this stranger burst into her life? Will she give up her dreams for the glamour that he offers?
In the end muse B is actually married with children but nobody knows and muse A finds out in the worst possible way (optional).

The Wire: Muse A and muse B have been emailing each other for over six months but, even though they are a both curious about the other’s appearance they have never met. They start to push each other and set up several meetings, but in each of them one of the muses always backs up and studs the other up. Will they ever get to see each other?

Skin to Bone: muse A is a werewolf who’s family got killed by hunters. Muse B is a serial killer hired by muse A to help him/her find the responsibles for the murder and kill them.

Somewhere Only We Know: muse A and muse B, two characters that are afraid of commitment, have a series of encounters with no compromise in the exact same place once a year, (perhaps a certain spot in Paris). But this time, both of them want something more out of their meetings.

We Must Be Killers: Muse A and muse B are vampire hunters (or any other supernatural creature) and go from town to town killing monsters. But at some point muse A gets possed by a demon. In the end muse B can either kill or save muse A.

________________________________________________________

This I do when I can’t sleep. 

Lots of love

The Mun. 

PS: send ♣ if you’re interested in any of them *please* 

O'Keefe CONFRONTS NYT Dep Managing Editor Clifford Levy About Employment of Unethical Staffers

This morning, James O'Keefe confronted Deputy Managing Editor Clifford Levy in the streets of Brooklyn to get comment on the status of Nicholas Dudich’s employment at The Times.

Nicholas Dudich was featured in Parts I and II of the American Pravda NYT investigation. He was caught on camera admitting his bias, and describing how he uses his position at The Times to achieve his personal agendas.

O'Keefe also asked Levy if he had seen the comments that Senior Editor Desiree Shoe made on hidden camera, which corroborated some of Dudich’s claims. Shoe was caught admitting that NYT journalists wrote articles to expose how “crazy” Trump is in hopes to influence voters.

Levy also was asked if he agreed with Executive Editor Dean Baquet’s description of James O'Keefe as a “sinner.”

Levy declined to comment directly to any of the questions.

See the whole series:


I’m eager for the next video, he said he will drop one tomorrow morning :)

When news broke that New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson was being replaced, it was surprising in that she has only been in the position for three years.

It was more surprising when NPR and New Yorker reporters explained a big reason why: she had complained about unequal pay after she discovered she was being paid “considerably less” than the male editor, Bill Keller, that she had replaced.

Read more.

O'Keefe Response: NYT Exec Editor Calls Him "despicable," Says Veritas Videos, "damaging"

In this video, O'Keefe responds to Baquet’s hypocrisy. O'Keefe also explains why the recent NYT Social Media Policy changes just aren’t enough.

Following the release of Project Veritas’ newest American Pravda series, NYT Executive Editor Dean Baquet responds, calling James O'Keefe “despicable.”

The Times also was forced to update their social media policies in the wake of the undercover videos.

time.com
Democrats Prepare for a Very Different Debate
After the Paris attacks.

The Democratic presidential candidates prepared for weeks for Saturday’s debate, a contest that was going to focus heavily on questions about the economy, immigration and domestic issues.

Then came the attacks on Paris.

With the City of Lights reeling from the deaths of at least 129 people after blasts and half a dozen firearm attacks on Friday night, the Democrats will seek to prove their mettle as strong commanders-in-chief in a perilous global moment. The Democratic debate is likely to be a subdued and somber affair.

Hillary Clinton will aim to affirm her status as a confident and collected leader during Saturday night’s debate, while challengers Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley will strive to show they are knowledgeable beyond their relatively limited foreign policy experience.

Keep reading

acorgiirl  asked:

With Donald Trump basically guaranteed to win the nomination, it seems like what the Republican Party wants and what the Republican voters want are two different things. Do you think that the Republican Party should split into two different parties to represent this? Or do you think that the Republican Party as it has been will start to phase out over the next several years?

I also got this question from @twinicegiantorbiters:

I know you prefer facts over speculation, but how might a successful Trump nomination affect the Republican Party? I know parties often will drift ideologically toward popular candidates, but not only is he *very* different ideologically from a ‘typical’ or ‘ideal’ republican, but many in the GOP have very publicly derided him. I can’t imagine that not having any negative effects on the GOP. Or, if you would prefer a more indirect answer, what historical precedents are there, if any?

And from @amischiefofmice

How realistic is this death or least a splitting of the Republican Party I keep hearing about?

I’m warning you all now: We may be taking this question out of the oven too soon. But considering how many folks have been declaring the death of the Republican Party following Donald Trump’s victory in Indiana and subsequent assumption of the mantle of presumptive party nominee, the matter is clearly on everyone’s minds.

The modern Republican party - that is, the Republican party since about 1964 - has always been a fairly contentious coalition of two seemingly contradictory forces: The movers and the shakers of the Republican Party are wealthy, intellectually conservative legislators who favor, among other things, free trade and a hawkish and aggressive foreign policy; in contrast, the Republican base is largely rural, working-class, white, and focused on “traditional” values - Christianity, hard work, the disintegration of the nation’s moral fabric, things like that.

We saw a preview of this race back in 2008, when Sarah Palin - remember her? - offered the Republican base a new brand of anti-establishment, anti-immigrant “aw shucks, isn’t America swell” populism. She got up on TV and said pretty much whatever she wanted, popularity or political correctness or factual correctness be damned. It’s no surprise that Palin has been one of Trump’s biggest supporters; they are, after all, cut largely from the same cloth. But during her Vice Presidential campaign, Palin clung faithfully to the ideal of intellectual conservatism, a trait that Donald Trump lacks, perhaps to his benefit.

Trump has instead embraced populism, tapping into a wellspring of discontent that lay for years at the heart of the Republican Party’s uneasy marriage. His gambit relied on the notion that the working base of the party, in the face of staggering job loss, doesn’t actually care about William F Buckley’s ideological conservatism. Maybe they don’t care about free trade when Rust Belt factories lie dormant. Maybe they don’t even particularly care about gay marriage or abortion anymore, so much as they care more about America being beset on all sides by terrorists and immigrants who just can’t wait to disrupt our way of life. The gambit seems to have paid off - in the perfect storm of this election season, with a Republican candidate pool in the double digits, Trump’s tribalism managed to scrape together a consistent coalition of 30% - 40% of Republican primary voters long enough to secure his party’s nomination, to the horror of the party leadership.

Isn’t it so often the case that the silent majority is neither silent nor a majority?

I don’t mean to eulogize the Republican Party here, because as much as I try to avoid speculation, I’ll give you some here, now: They’re not going anywhere. Congressmen and Senators are already lining up to pledge their allegiance to Trump himself, or to give a strange and contradictory “half-endorsement” in which they say they’ll support the Republican nominee but not endorse Trump himself. (Who knew the Republican party was led by such talented contortionists?)

There are a few notable and high-profile holdouts. House Speaker and nominal head of the party Paul Ryan is “not ready” to endorse; Senator and former Presidential candidate John McCain is waiting for an “apology” from Trump (good luck); the Bush family is neither endorsing nor attending the convention. Conservative columnist and party elder Bill Kristol is reportedly in talks with Mitt Romney to mount a third-party bid, but as I explained in an earlier post, such a bid would likely only end up splitting the ticket in favor of Hillary Clinton. (The ostensible goal would be to win states with such ferocity that no party reaches the 270 electoral vote threshold needed to secure a victory in November, thus sending the decision to the House of Representatives, like in 1824. Good luck with that.)

This conflict will resolve itself one way or another. The face of the Republican party may change a great deal, and maybe a more “intellectual” conservative party will show its head above water, but when all’s said and done, the Grand Old Party will still be around. It survived Roosevelt, it survived Lyndon Johnson and Civil Rights, it survived the Tea Party. This is a sea-change, not Charybdis.

…probably.

See, I could be wrong about all of this. Maybe voters do identify with the intellectual wing of the Republican party over the immigrant-hating yee-haw attitude that folks like Palin and Trump represent. Maybe over the next six months, Trump will do or say enough absolutely nonsensical stuff, will alienate enough people that a third party actually does emerge with enough force and momentum to mount a serious challenge for America’s conservative wing.

We may be in the latter days of the Republican Party. And such events are not without precedent: Just ask the Whigs.

“In support of the Constitution and Laws” is not the catchiest political slogan I’ve ever heard.

The Whig party was once one of America’s most successful political parties, and is now relegated to the history books. Although they were only a political force for twenty or so years, during the early half of the 19th Century they elected governors, won seats in Congress, and even won two Presidential elections.

It’s important to realize that, despite what a lot of modern-day political rhetoric would have you believe, divisions among parties were not always situated on an axis from liberal to conservative. The “small government” vs “big government” dichotomy wasn’t what divided political parties in 1833. Rather, the Whigs were formed in response to what some saw as Presidential overreach by President Andrew Jackson.

Andrew Jackson, the brash, populist hero of the War of 1812 exercised the power of the Presidency more liberally than any executive had before. Jackson and his supporters fostered a deep distrust of the federal government; to that end, Jackson vetoed federal funding for infrastructure improvements like roads and railways and killed the Second Bank of the United States by withdrawing all government money from it and refusing to renew the charter (this is back when the US government was in the business of running central banks, you Hamilton superfans might be familiar with this).

In response, the Whigs formed in 1833, painting the President as “King Andrew” and rallying around the cause of a limiting executive powers, restoring Congressional primacy and improving the nation’s infrastructure (which at the time must have seemed like very sexy, compelling reasons to form a political party). They couldn’t hold a candle to the strong party unity and loyalty exhibited by Jacksonian Democrats, but the Whigs had a secret weapon: The New York Tribune’s Editor-in-Chief, Horace Greeley, was a Whig, and none too shy about using his paper’s record circulation numbers to push the Whigs’ political agenda, to great effect: in 1841, William Henry Harrison was sworn in as the country’s first Whig President, and over the next decade, the Whigs expanded their power base in gubernatorial elections in industrial states.

You’d think they could come up with a less cool nickname than “King Andrew.” I guess it was the “Dangerous Donald of its day.

Ultimately, slavery divided the Whigs about a decade before it would divide the nation. Southern Whig party leaders were all or nearly all slaveowners; Northern Whigs tended to represent industrial interests and favored strong national unity. Additionally, many of the Whigs’ modernization policies led to a robust economy, which discouraged many from seeking public service, including a young Illinois lawyer named Abraham Lincoln, the Whig party leader in Illinois. The Whig party all but disappeared in the South in favor of the Know-Nothings, and in the North, most prominent Whigs jumped ship to the young and growing Republican Party. By 1856, the Whigs were finished.

What can we learn from the Whigs? What lessons are applicable for the Republican Party? First, I would say that the Republicans have already conquered the biggest challenge that faced the Whigs: the modern Republican Party fosters a strong sense of party loyalty and party unity. It’s rare to see a Republican legislator break ranks with their caucus, and even if Trump wins the Presidential nomination, there’s not much evidence that it’s affecting Congressional races. Legislatively speaking, the Republican Party should remain strong at least until the next midterms.

I don’t think “is the Republican Party dying” is the right question to ask. The answer is “almost definitely not.” Instead, the question to ask might be this: Is Trump a one-off, or is he the new normal? Are we seeing a black swan event, or is Trump’s deviation from traditional conservatism what we can start to expect from Republican challengers? And that question is a whole lot harder to answer definitively. Win or lose, Trump has already indelibly altered the political landscape. We need new models for whatever is next.

Thanks for your question! As always, you can ask anything you like right here.


If you found this useful or interesting, how about supporting The Governmentalist on Patreon? Your monthly support goes a long way toward helping me create useful, enriching and interesting content for everyone! Thanks again.

This May, time has run out and Secret Wars, the landmark 8-issue event, is ready to shake the very foundations of the Marvel Universe as you know it. But first, on Tuesday, January 20th 2015 at 3 p.m. Eastern, we’re hosting the ground breaking SECRET WARS LIVE KICKOFF!   Streaming live from New York City’s own Midtown Comics next week, fans can head to Marvel.com/secretwars to get their very first Secret Wars info straight from Marvel’s Editor-in-Chief Axel Alonso and SVP, Executive Editor Tom Brevoort! Prepare for the coming of a new Battleworld and learn the first details of the strange, patchwork realm playing host to countless separate realities! 

Today Terry Gross spoke to the Executive Editor of the New York Times, Dean Baquet. He talks about the challenges of covering candidate and now President-elect Donald Trump. The Times has written major investigative stories about Trump, and Trump has threatened to sue the paper for libel, and has condemned it on Twitter for “inaccurate coverage and nasty tone.” One of the questions the Times faces is what word to use when Trump says or tweets something that isn’t true. “I authorized and pushed us to use ‘lie’ for the first time in relation to Donald Trump,” says Baquet.

Baquet will also talk about what he wishes the Times had done differently in its election coverage.

Listen to this interview.

Photo: Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

  • New York Magazine: Have you ever been fired?
  • Ira Glass: I am such a do-goody, people-pleasing kid — or I was — I don't think I've ever been fired, not even from an ice cream shop, magician for kids' parties, not even in my early jobs in radio. I was a temp secretary for a long time and I went at it with a passion and I tried to do a nice job in all my jobs. So sorry I'm not helping your angle at all.
  • New York Magazine: Jill Abramson was fired.
  • Ira Glass: I have no idea what you're talking about.
  • New York Magazine: Jill Abramson got fired from the New York Times.
  • Ira Glass: Okay. And she was who?
  • New York Magazine: The executive editor.
  • Ira Glass: Okay. I read the newspaper, but I live in my own little bubble. When did that happen?
  • New York Magazine: Wednesday. And it's been a massive … the blogosphere is going wild.
  • Ira Glass: I hate reading media news so I actively sort of — I'm not interested in someone getting fired. No disrespect to people that are, but I literally had no idea who she was, or that she got fired until this moment.
  • New York Magazine: Really?
  • Ira Glass: Yeah. I live in my own little world and we're putting together a show that we're putting up at the Brooklyn Academy of Music; I was rewriting the thing here at the Peabody's that I'm doing today and we are doing a radio show, so it has been pretty busy. I'm so sorry that was either the worst possible quote or a possibly useful quote. Am I, like, the only person in New York who hasn't heard this?
  • New York Magazine: Maybe.
  • Ira Glass: Well, I take that with pride.
  • New York Magazine: She was the first female editor of the New York Times.
  • Ira Glass: Okay.
  • New York Magazine: It was this big unceremonious firing.
  • Ira Glass: Honestly, like, I'm a superfan of the New York Times, but I know nothing about how they put it together and I really don't care.

jim-moriarty-is-back-deactivate  asked:

Hey, I have a Sterek prompt for you if you want to write it,or not,that's totally fine. But I love it when your fics appear on my dash so I'd love for you to do it. So,it's set in one of those universes where people are born with their soulmates name tattooed on them. Stiles has Derek's name but there are lots of Derek's so that doesn't mean much. And Derek has Stiles' real name(whatever that is)so although they both really like each other it takes them ages to realise they're actually soulmates

Whew! Done! This was a longer one, hope you like it! Unbeta’d so any and all mistakes are mine!

-

The name of Derek’s soulmate was hard to pronounce.  He had to ask two linguist specialists before he was able to utter is with any resemblance of confidence he wasn’t totally massacring it.  Now people say his accent is spot on, and he can’t help but preen a little inside.  When he was a child he often referred to his soul mate as just ‘S’ because that was the first letter and the only thing he could actually pronounce at the time.  His siblings always teased him about the name, saying whoever it was they must be hideous, or stupid, or both.  Derek always ignored them.  

They were only five after all.

By the end of high school Derek had been through a few relationships, all horrible save for one, and none of them were who he wanted.  He knew that people could live without their soulmates, find other people and settle down and be happy.  But Derek had a hunger that couldn’t be satisfied, he just felt like half of his was missing.  It was him that put an end to all his relationships, including all the ones he had through college and grad school.  There were mostly messy and angry because his partners could always feel he wasn’t fully ‘into them’. He always held something back and kept his distance, because they just weren’t ‘the one’.

Flash forward three years later and Derek was a journalist for the New York Times, one of the best in his field, and he had the corner office and name plaque to prove it, along with one maddening assistant.

Keep reading

He was our biggest champion, and his unending passion for journalism and for truth will be missed by his family at The Times, by his readers around the world, and by people who love journalism.
—  New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet, on columnist David Carr, who died today at age 58

The Fashion of No Fashion

The New York Times on whether Tim Cook – now a leader in wearable technology – should tuck in his shirt:

Is it time for Tim Cook to tuck in his shirt? Every time I see the Apple chief executive take the stage, as he probably will on Thursday at yet another exciting new product introduction, I can’t help wondering.

Much has been made, after all, of Apple’s recent cozying up to the fashion world: its supersecret unveiling of its watch to a few carefully chosen magazine editors last month; said watch’s introduction during New York Fashion Week; the pop-up display and dinners held in its honor during Paris Fashion Week; and its starring appearance on the cover of China Vogue’s November issue, attractively accessorized with a Céline dress and the model Liu Wen.

But as we enter the age of the wearable, might it not behoove the leader of such a brand to look the part? This is not a flippant question.

It is true that Mr. Cook does seem to have developed a signature personal style in the spirit of his predecessor, Steve Jobs, who wore a jeans-and-black-mock-turtleneck combo pretty much every time he appeared in public. To wit: a large, slightly wrinkled, untucked button-down shirt. Though the color may change (the shirt has appeared in varying shades of black, blue and even lavender), the form remains the same.

But unlike Mr. Jobs, whose look referenced a specific design language (Issey Miyake cool), Mr. Cook has a style that is more like the fashion of no fashion, to borrow an idea from George W. S. Trow. For a company that clearly wants to influence fashion, that is a confusing message to send.

You can read the rest here.

I'm a Great Friend

Today, after years as Executive Editor of Maxim, my friend Nick Leftley is starting a new job as content director of Time Out New York. Now, while Nick has lived here for many years, he is, undeniably, from England. Accordingly, I gave him some NY pointers for his first day, because I’m not an asshole. This was in his inbox:

Remember NYC is NOT the capital of NY,

Some poeple call our city THE BIG APPLE

LaGuardia, Koch, and Guiliani were all famous mayors Aves are longer than Streets and street numbers get higher as you go north Those things in the metal carts are called PRETZELS Although NYC has no museums (yet) we do display many classic originals in the street surrounding central park. Good luck on your first day!