Q:
The long-running sitcom "Friends" ends May 6. The reality hit "The Apprentice" is described as its possible replacement this fall. Is the sitcom dead?"
A:
Michael Lafavore, editor in chief, TV Guide:
"The generation that grew up watching 'Big Brother' and 'The Real World' has come of age, and they are much more interested in the unscripted arc of reality shows than in predictable sitcoms with bad living room furniture and too-loud laugh tracks. In any case, the quest to develop another 'Friends'
was always futile. It's like saying 'Let's invent a group like the Beatles.' "
04/12/04
Q:
TV-Turnoff Week, April 19-25, is in its 10th year. Why should viewers turn off their TVs in 2004?
A:
Frank Vespe, executive director, TV-Turnoff Network:
"On average, American school children spend more time each year in front of the television than in the classroom; and American adults log about two entire months annually watching the tube. By cutting back on our television time, we can give children more time to read and do homework, play and be physically active, interact with friends and family, and just to be kids. We can give ourselves more time to pursue all those interests we never seem to have time for. We can turn off TV -- and turn on life."
03/29/04
Q:
How do you define broadcast indecency?
A:
Marty Kaplan, host of "So What Else is News?," a new program about the media, on Air America talk radio:
"Indecency is the right wing attempting to redefine dissent as unpatriotic. It's corporate chieftains being shocked that their profit centers depend on sleaze, violence and humiliation. It's audiences complaining about the content they keep lapping up. It's regulators exempting media from their
public interest obligations. It's pornographers hiding behind the First Amendment. It's grandstanding politicians going after artists and intellectuals. It's 11-year-olds' favorite way to taunt their
parents. It's nothing that any of us hasn't heard before."
03/22/04
Q:
In the Project for Excellence in Journalism's new 500+ page study on the "State of the News Media," which finding do you regard as the most eye-opening?
A:
Tom Rosenstiel, director, the Project for Excellence in Journalism:
"Perhaps the most encouraging finding is that people -- including young people -- do want to get news and get it by reading it. More than a decade ago, when the Age of Indifference study was done by the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press (pinpointing the fact that young people were not gravitating to the news as earlier generations had) there was a pervasive sense that maybe this was going to spell the end of print. This, of course, was 1990, before the Internet. It's possible that helped encourage some of the disinvestment we have seen in news. Today, 14 years later, we see that people are reading but in non-traditional places -- in alternative papers, in ethnic papers (and TV) and especially online. Young people 18-24 get news online in the same percentages as people 45-54 (about 55%) and much of that is from reading text. What is at risk in the future may be the one-size-fits-all newspaper or TV program. But the data now suggests that does not necessarily mean that journalism or journalistic standards are being rejected -- or that the written word as a means of communicating news is in peril."
03/15/04
Q:
Will your new memoir allow you to profit from your misdeeds at the New York Times?
A:
Jayson Blair, author, "Burning Down My Masters' House":
"I am grateful for the money. It is not going to make me rich. ... The real profit for me are the good things that can come out of this for myself, others and American journalism. I hope that it provides personal catharsis, allows me to come clean, and offers a roadmap to correct some of the problems facing American journalism today. I am advocating for stricter controls -- something akin to an inspector general in newsrooms who looks for fraud, waste and abuse, and randomly spot checks stories, expense records and other information to give others who might find themselves in my situation pause before cutting corners. I also hope that this book increases dialogue about substance abuse and mental illness, two topics that are very difficult for all Americans, particularly those in minority and immigrant communities. There is shame and fear involved in being diagnosed with a mental illness, and I hope that some of that is lifted."
03/08/04
Q:
Will the Martha Stewart brand survive?
A:
Tina Brown, host of "Topic A with Tina Brown":
"Yes, the brand will survive. Already Martha Stewart's fund of accumulated information has become a database that millions of women refer to when they want to know the best way to cook a turkey. The magazine is not lastingly damaged. A new editor with superb taste must be found, and as long as the information stays excellent it will have a life beyond its founder. Media coverage has wrongly focused on the notion that it was just Martha herself that was important. It was the content, the visual delight and the rigor of her information that women swear by. The future holds heartache for Martha but also regeneration. She is so infinitely resourceful she will connect with the women in jail and emerge with a new, winning idea. That's the fascinating paradox about Martha. In the end, her ideas were so empowering to average women. She made them feel their chores and household drudgery could be transformed by creativity into something glamorous, something unique. She will do it again."
02/18/04
Q:
Your site, SaveMichaelEisner.com, may be too late. Why did you create it?
A:
Gary Nowak, founder of SaveMichaelEisner.com:
"I felt that too many Disney news and fan sites were becoming excessive in mirroring the SaveDisney.com meanspirited attack on Michael Eisner. A certain point of view is fine, but be objective. There are a lot of impressionable Disney fans who will take what ever Roy Disney says as the gospel. My hope is that people will calm down and realize that maybe the sky isn't falling after all. In light of Wednesday's vote, Eisner should fire his PR guys; they completely ignored the powerful spread of negativity toward their CEO on the Internet and did nothing to rebut it."
02/16/04
Q:
What will your forthcoming book about the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times reveal that Blair's own memoir won't?
A:
William McGowan, author of "Gray Lady Down":
"My book will examine the Jayson Blair scandal within a larger context of the newspaper's long institutional and intellectual downward slide -- a slide that has put the New York Times at odds with its journalistic mission and with the values of much of mainstream America. Using the Blair episode as a springboard, the book examines the last decade or so at the Times, focusing on figures such as publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., fired editor Howell Raines and Blair himself as a way of understanding how an 'irreplaceable national institution' could become the butt of late-night Letterman and Leno jokes. How did the Times become so riddled with intellectual orthodoxy and political correctness and so committed to a tattered, out-of-touch liberalism? Who is responsible for squandering the finest legacy in American journalism and what are the prospects for its recovery? Unlike Blair's book, my book will answer such questions."
02/16/04
Q:
Why did you nominate Brian Roberts, president and CEO of Comcast, as Media Person of the Year?
A:
Jeff Chester, executive director, Center for Digital Democracy:
"Brian Roberts is the quintessential media monopolist. He wishes to dominate both the multichannel TV and the broadband Internet markets. Roberts is opposed to policies that would ensure an open and nondiscriminatory Internet. Comcast also claims that its 'First Amendment' rights trump the needs of communities that seek to secure local broadband services for their citizens. In his view, ABC News
is just another 'brand' or 'product,' as Roberts and Comcast president Stephen Burke claimed in announcing their proposed acquisition of Disney. As I said late last year when I made my nomination, stopping the expansion of the Comcast monopoly should be at the top of the public interest agenda for 2004."
01/12/04
Q:
What are the biggest challenges facing the media industry in 2004?
A:
Richard Parsons, chairman and CEO, Time Warner:
"My job requires me to think of challenges in both the near-term and the long-term. The most immediate need for our industry in 2004 is, without a doubt, a full recovery in advertising across all media businesses. In the long-term, we in this industry must learn how to take full advantage of its tremendous growth potential. People are steadily consuming more and more media and entertainment, and they are willing to pay more and more for it. Technological advances are only accelerating this fundamental shift by helping us deliver ever increasing value to consumers. At the same time, we need to be mindful that change is afoot in many of these industries. The same evolution in technology and consumer behavior that is driving greater consumption will also create real challenges, like audience fragmentation, commercial skipping and piracy. We, as an industry, will have to work hard and together to identify these challenges and meet them head on."
12/12/03
Q:
Who is your choice for Media Person of the Year?
A:
"The journalists who lost their lives covering the war in Iraq and the news elsewhere in the world during the past year. Why should we give publicity to any of the people on this list, so many of whom are garden-variety egomaniacs or simply bad people?"
— Jon Friedman, media editor, CBS MarketWatch.com
>>
MORE RESPONSES TO THIS QUESTION
11/21/03
Q:
"The Reagans," which was yanked from CBS, will air on Viacom sister network Showtime on Nov. 30. The next day, the cable channel will air a panel discussion with possible viewer call-ins to debate the merits of the controversial movie. Do you plan to phone in?
A:
"I will not be phoning -- it sounds like a snoozer. But 'The Reagans' is a smear. The Hollywood Left is so weak politically right now, this silly miniseries is about all they can muster. Showtime airing this smear does not reflect well on Viacom. But the CBS decision not to air it reflects very well on [president and CEO] Les Moonves. Let's face it: at the cocktail parties Mr. Moonves attends, Saddam Hussein is more popular than Ronald Reagan. It took guts, and a sound business sense, for him to ax the show two weeks out, and it looks like he'll win sweeps, in part, as a result."
— Michael Paranzino, policy consultant / founder, BoycottCBS.com
11/17/03
Q:
Which Web site gets more traffic nowadays -- SaveRosie.com or SaveMartha.com?
A:
"SaveMartha is the busiest site of the two. Rosie O'Donnell's case was civil, she never faced any jail time and the media circus only showed up at the end. Martha Stewart's case is criminal, and the media covers the case constantly. The prospect of Martha facing 30 years in jail has many millions focused on the case. At the moment I have 5,000 unread e-mails to sort through on SaveMartha; only a few hundred from SaveRosie. And I have received about 1,000 orders for Save Martha T-shirts and BBQ aprons since the Barbara Walters interview on Nov. 7. Thankfully, Rosie is saved. One down and one to go."
— John Small, editor, SaveRosie.com and SaveMartha.com
11/13/03
Q:
The Internet has been credited -- or blamed -- for spreading the news of the alleged "sexual incident" involving Prince Charles while the British press kept silent. Is the Internet a threat or a boon to traditional journalism?
A:
"The Internet is without a doubt a boon to journalism. It's quickly become the most effective way to communicate information, and opened up new storytelling forms. Competing with Internet journalism doesn't mean lowering your standards or printing rumor as fact. As readers expand their circle of news sources, media outlets that consistently get the facts right will win a loyal repeat audience. Competition with other Web sites simply means all journalists must be faster, sharper and more accurate -- which means readers benefit."
— Jonathan Dube, chair of the Online News Association conference, Nov. 14-15, and MSNBC.com managing producer
11/10/03
Q:
We've all seen the official CBS statement regarding "The Reagans," so we know what CBS public relations chief Gil Schwartz has to say about the controversial decision not to broadcast the miniseries. But what about Schwartz alter-ego Stanley Bing, the acerbic Fortune magazine columnist and business humorist?
A:
"Sadly, each of us has a policy of not commenting on the wisdom or activities of the other. This policy has stood us in good stead over the years, since on the whole we do not like each other all that much and would constantly be sniping at each other once that kind of thing got started. Suffice it to say that Bing has always been able to live with Schwartz, even at arms length, and vice versa. This case is no exception."
— Gil Schwartz / Stanley Bing
11/05/03
Q:
Multimedia mavens Rosie O'Donnell and Martha Stewart are involved in widely publicized courtroom battles. Will such skirmishes discourage media companies from developing celebrity-branded products?
A:
"At this point, I think the only celebrities that stand any chance of getting their own magazines are Colonel Sanders, Aunt Jemima or Mrs. Butterworth. Maybe David Pecker can do a deal with one of them for a new food magazine. In other words, unless you're either dead or fictional, I don't think any sane magazine company would want to risk allying with you right now. Actually, even if you're fictional, you're probably too risky. I'm not sure I'd trust, say, SpongeBob SquarePants with his own magazine."
— Simon Dumenco, "The Glossies" columnist, Folio: magazine
11/03/03
Q:
Last year's Foursquare conference, the industry powwow produced by the Quadrangle Group, featured commentary by media bigwigs Rupert Murdoch, Barry Diller, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and others. The second annual Foursquare conference this week is closed off to business journalists. "Too bad enlightenment has become an elitist act," says one. Your take?
A:
"Last year's Foursquare conference was also off the record, but at the same time the organizers were trying to get whatever positive press mentions they could, so I figured what the hell, and wrote about the damn thing anyway. I think it would be a nice tradition if every year one of the journalists invited to the conference were to stand up to the off-the-record rule. I can't be the only rebel in town."
— Michael Wolff, media columnist, New York magazine
The Foursquare conference has been cited as driving the narrative of Wolff's new book, "Autumn of the Moguls."
10/29/03
Q:
You wrote in The New Yorker that the Bancroft family, which controls Dow Jones & Co., has little interest in selling the company, but resistance "may be softening." What would move them to consider a sale or merger?
A:
"I don't believe the Bancroft family wants to sell, but it dawns that they may have to sell. While most media companies grow larger, Dow Jones is actually smaller today than it was a decade ago. While media companies have diversified, Dow Jones is dependent on one division -- the Wall Street Journal -- for about 70% of its profits. When ad sales go South, as they have the past few years, there are no other strong divisions to compensate. Which leads to cost-cutting. Which threatens quality journalism, which is expensive. Which forces family members, and Dow Jones executives, to think of a merger partner. Privately, they whispered to me that the one suitor who could steal their heart is the Graham family of the Washington Post Co. They worship at the same church, one that extols independent journalism and quality. Unlike the New York Times, the other great newspaper that has pleaded for their hand, the Post has not communicated its ardor. Unlike the Times, the Post and Journal have few overlapping readers or advertisers. The rub is that the Graham family is notoriously cheap, and might not make a generous offer. If they did, a wedding could take place at any moment."
— Ken Auletta, media columnist, The New Yorker
10/23/03
Q:
Young men are reportedly deserting prime-time television in droves this fall. Why are they fleeing?
A:
"Canaries in the mineshaft, maybe. In their hair-trigger, dude-this-sucks fashion, young men are just the first to declare emphatically that the broadcast networks have lost the will to put on interesting new series. They (and I) would rather play Grand Theft Auto III than watch 'The Lyon's Den,' 'It's All Relative' or 'The Handler.' And their fast embrace and abandonment of momentarily sexy reality shows just affirms what young women already know about young men: they're all over you for a little while, then suddenly they don't want to know you."
— Kurt Andersen, pop culture observer and host of the radio show "Studio 360"
10/27/03
Q:
Many issues were addressed at this year's American Magazine Conference, which wrapped up last week. What are the most important messages that you hope attendees took with them?
A:
"Magazines are undervalued and need to gain share in the media mix. The retail distribution channel is broken and needs to be fixed. Publishers should not have to defend audience quality by source of circulation. No other media does so, and we already have audience measurement systems used by advertisers to make buying decisions."
— Daniel B. Brewster Jr., president and CEO of Gruner + Jahr USA and outgoing chairman of the Magazine Publishers of America
10/20/03
Q:
The White House is displeased with the news coverage of the war in Iraq, so President Bush is bypassing the national media and granting interviews to regional broadcasters, which Bush aides regard as "less analytical." Is local TV news "softer" than national news?
A:
"Local news is the most watched genre of television in our country, and the journalistic credentials of leading news stations, and the quality of their news reporting, are on par with the best of the television networks. Against the backdrop of the controversial media ownership rules and the debate about localism, the White House effort to reach out to local stations on occasion, rather than rely only on national networks, is a good reminder about the value of a diversity of voices in the coverage of news stories of all kinds."
— David J. Barrett, president and CEO, Hearst-Argyle Television, one of the broadcast groups that interviewed President Bush in recent weeks.
10/16/03
Q:
The possible sale of New York magazine has attracted many suitors. Why is New York magazine such an appealing acquisition target?
A:
"I love this city. I love the New York media market. And I love the New York magazine brand. When I came to this city in the early '80s it was my bible. [The magazine is] still doing a lot of good things, and I like the changes in design and editorial direction. But it just doesn't have the same vibe that it once had. My goal is that if I were to go to dinner with you and your husband or wife, and my wife, I want the conversation to start off with, 'Did you see that article on _________ in New York magazine?' And we don't need Bernie Getz and Hedda Nussbaum to accomplish this. Boy, did I just date myself!"
— Paul Corvino, a former media exec who on Oct. 15 announced his interest in acquiring New York magazine
10/13/03
Q:
According to a new study by Knowledge Networks/SRI, many children now have a variety of media devices (TV, PC, DVD) in their bedrooms and are increasingly media savvy. How will these kids differ from their parents' generation in terms of media consumption?
A:
"Children today grow up in a far different media world than did their parents. With marketing and entertainment so intertwined, we have the prospect of ending up with kids who believe marketing is organic to programming, or kids so desensitized to marketing that reaching them in adulthood will be a much more difficult proposition."
— David Tice, Knowledge Networks/SRI VP, Client Service
10/10/03
Q:
As the founder and former editor of New York Press, a free New York City weekly, what do you think are the prospects for amNewYork, the free New York City daily launching on Friday?
A:
"I doubt amNewYork will make much of an impact on a very crowded and competitive marketplace. New Yorkers don't need another dumbed-down daily to read on subways. There's already the New York Post, which I happen to like, for readers with an aversion to 'big' words, and the New York Times, for those who want their political biases reinforced. No Wall Street Journal reader will treat this new paper as anything more than the trash it's bound to be."
— Russ Smith, weekly columnist for New York Press and Baltimore's City Paper
10/06/03
Q:
You first told I Want Media about your new book, "Autumn of the Moguls," more than two years ago. It's coming out this fall, coincidentally, as you are rounding up investors for a possible bid to acquire New York magazine. One wonders: Are you interested in joining the ranks of the media moguls just as they are -- as you suggest in your book -- entering their decline?
A:
"I'm an anti-mogul. If the group I've put together succeeds in buying New York magazine, it will have restored New York magazine to independence. When I first came to New York 30 years ago, the city was full of independent magazines -- it was what a colleague of mine calls the late Renaissance of the magazine business. Then began the age of consolidation and virtually every interesting voice in the magazine business was snuffed out or homogenized. So my goal here for New York magazine is the exact opposite of media moguldom. It's deconsolidation. Atomization. Going against the grain. The point is to stand alone and be counted."
— Michael Wolff, media columnist, New York magazine
10/02/03
Q:
Best of luck to you on your campaign to buy a "Save Martha Stewart" billboard in Times Square in time for Stewart's Jan. 12 trial for insider trading. What quality does Martha Stewart possess that would inspire fans to donate money for such a cause?
A:
"Martha Stewart represents all that is good about democracy and America. A woman of humble beginnings became the first self-made billionaire in America's history. How? By helping others improve their daily lives. Millions of fans want to help her simply because she has helped them. And just in case this happens again, I have registered SaveRosie.com and SaveOprah.com. History often repeats itself."
— John Small, founder, SaveMartha.com
09/29/03
Q:
You said in a recent interview that, due to an overabundance of magazine titles, a "correction is brewing" in the magazine industry and "there will be a lot of magazine failures in coming years." Which categories do you see as vulnerable?
A:
"The dual-audience general-interest titles are the most vulnerable, followed by the general-interest women's magazines. Magazines without a unique selling feature are going to give way to new, vibrant titles, albeit they maybe published in the same category as the ones they are replacing. O, The Oprah Magazine and Lifetime are two examples of such new rising entries in an overall declining category. Will the new ones have the same staying power that the established declining ones enjoyed for years? I doubt that, but they will have a good five-to-ten-year joy ride."
— Samir "Mr. Magazine" Husni, Ph.D.
09/25/03
Q:
A new Harris Interactive poll says that only 14% of Americans believe U.S. news reporting has improved since the events of Sept. 11, while 36% think news coverage has grown worse and 45% think it has stayed about the same. What are the possible implications of this data for media companies?
A:
"Over the long haul, when the perceived deterioration of quality takes its toll on the financial success of the news media, the media will be highly motivated to change. A sensible approach would be to examine why the public sees this deterioration and to make appropriate adjustments. A public that remains informed about local sensational crimes and small fires, but finds itself as ignorant about the next threat to national security as it was about Osama Bin Laden will blame the media for its ignorance."
— Robert Leitman, president of policy and media research, Harris Interactive
09/22/03
Q:
During a commercial break on "Will & Grace" this Thursday, NBC is scheduled to air its first one-minute mini-movie -- an attempt to keep viewers glued to their sets during ad breaks. Will it work?
A:
"Advertisers and TV networks are increasingly concerned about the effectiveness of traditional commercial television because of audience fragmentation and consumer-empowering technologies such as TiVo. One of the solutions being explored is the intersection of entertainment and advertising, to infuse ads with an appeal that will make viewers agree to spend time with them, even seek them out. Some ideas won't work but these are necessary steps to figuring out the future."
— Scott Donaton, editor, Advertising Age
09/18/03
Q:
As the author of the first of at least four new books about the turmoil at AOL Time Warner, what's your opinion of the reportedly imminent removal of "AOL" from the corporate name?
A:
"Hacking off 'AOL' from the AOL Time Warner corporate name is essentially a symbolic gesture -- although apparently one worth a few pennies on Wall Street. (The stock traded up partly on the news.) It's also a stunning move. Think about it: Just a few years ago, AOL was hailed as the dot-com darling, revolutionizing the media world with its takeover of venerable Time Warner in the largest merger in U.S. history. Now, AOL is merely a unit of a division of the combined company. Beyond that, the name change is a smart move by Dick Parsons, the company chief executive, who is finally responding to the chorus of Time Warner officials who've been clamoring for action. The question now is, Will the company sell off the online division? If things get much worse, it may very well happen."
— Alec Klein, Washington Post staff writer and author of "Stealing Time: Steve Case, Jerry Levin and the Collapse of AOL Time Warner"
09/16/03
Q:
Publishers in several markets, including New York, are launching free newspapers in hopes of attracting younger readers. Maxim is a success at attracting the male half of that hard-to-reach demo. What advice would you give newspaper publishers on how to appeal to younger audiences?
A:
"Newspapers could certainly learn a lot from magazines in terms of presentation. Look at what USA Today was able to do with a splash of color, a simplified structure and a fistful of entertaining graphics. The dailies have always worn their stark ugliness like a badge of honor, but their "credibility exemption" is running out. When newspapers were the first source for news they could afford to disregard their appearance. But now I get the news from CNN and the Internet. I no longer need newspapers ... so they've got to make me want them. A free newspaper targeted at a young, media-savvy demographic, if it is clever, should be able to compete favorably. But it's got to start with a modern, eye-catching design. We're no longer compelled by the gravitas of newspaper news. We've got to be seduced."
— Keith Blanchard, editor in chief, Maxim
09/10/03
Q:
