Sharp-eyed readers of this morning's Wall Street Journal may notice that editor and Briton Robert Thomson has imported to the financial paper not just the starchy crispness of his old Financial Times but a dash of London's Fleet Street, as well. Read to the end of the front-pager on Lehman Brothers shopping itself and you'll find, as Daily Intelligencer did, that the Journal has truly redefined what it means by "Heard On The Street." In addition to being the title of the paper's bread-and-butter finance column, the phrase now literally describes how Journal reporters collect information. From the article:

It's always fun to see a journalist fall on his sword. It has that righteous feel of a principled but stubborn man putting on his dinner jacket to sit calmly on the deck of the sinking Titanic. Except in the case of the newspaper industry, that man would eventually float to the surface and go into PR. Anyhow, the editor of a Southern California business paper called The Business Press got himself stone cold fired for blasting out an adorably serious email about how design changes are eroding the paper's credibility. He was promptly ejected from the building! Fey big city media elites who mock traditional newspaper values can learn something from the memos below. (How to get fired):

Times food writer Kim Severson spends her time these days not with restaurateurs but in Alaska, where her background at the Anchorage Daily News has suddenly become a very valuable asset. Severson today reeled in a tasty scoop: Confirmation, first, that Levi Johnston, the teen father who is marrying into Sarah Palin's family, has in fact dropped out of high school, as rumored, amid slipping grades and unwelcome pressure from his family to play hockey. Severson also delivered the most credible explanation yet for why Track Palin, son of the Republican vice presidential nominee, enlisted in the Army. The rumor mill had him caught up in a drug bust, or perhaps nailed for vandlizing some school buses, and under pressure to join as a corrective. It sounds, for now at least, like the reality is more mundane, if still quite sad. It seems Track, a top Wasilla hockey prospect prone to rink rage, met his fate on the ice:

Apologies are in order to Charles Gibson, widely presumed to be too soft to credibly interview Sarah Palin. If anything, the ABC News anchor's first exchange with Palin, aired last night, is all the more embarrassing to Palin precisely because Gibson was hand-picked by her handlers. The Republican vice presidential nominee's awful performance is apparent enough from the transcript, which contains her horribly stilted answer to a question about Iran, invoking "nucular weapons... given to those hands of Ahmadinejad" and already compared to Miss South Carolina's famous thoughts on "the Iraq" at a teen beauty pageant. But things are even worse on video, as seen after the jump.

If you're even remotely curious about oft-vilified media mogul Rupert Murdoch or his News Corporation empire, there are plenty of gems to pluck from Esquire's lengthy interview with the mogul. There is, for example, Murdoch's baldfaced assertion that Fox News Channel is "very, very fair;" his wild accusation that Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger tried to bar the hiring of white males for five years; and the mild rebuke that Fox host Bill O'Reilly "shouldn't be so sensitive" to Keith Olbermann's attacks. The biggest takeaway, though, is that Murdoch is softening in his old age, despite a punishing work regimen. The quotes in the Esquire piece reinforce the idea, floated by Michael Wolff in Vanity Fair earlier this month, of this change in Murdoch toward the "magnanimous" and "further nuanced:"

The editor of the National Enquirer drops a Dostoevsky reference and the words "philippic" and "verisimilitude" in a WSJ op-ed to tell the mainstream media: You're just mad you got scooped on the summer's best fucking-related stories. [WSJ]

Attention, teenage girls: all that talking to your friends is bad for you. So stop it! That's not just what everybody, from your geeky classmates to your dad to strangers trapped on subway trains with you thinks; it's the doctor's advice! Oversharing has officially been deemed bad for humanity's mental health. Vindication at last! Consider the opinion of psychologists, Julia Allison:

Yesterday CBS had a new John McCain attack ad pulled from YouTube because it took footage of Katie Couric out of context. Hey, "out of context" is the theme of the ad! Elitists. Now the McCain campaign itself has apparently gotten embarrassed enough by the ad—which pointed out that elitist Indonesian celebrity candidate Barack Obama called hockey mom Sarah Palin a dirty pig—that it has removed it from McCain's website. "Today is not a day for partisanship, it's a day for remembrance," a McCain spokesman said by way of explanation. Here's a clip of average American Bill O'Reilly (who, in a total coincidence, recently scored a nice interview with his friend Barack) graciously taking the side of the black man, blaming the "pig" uproar on the media. "We are driving the pig train," says Bill. Indeed. Click to watch. [Mixed Media, video via Huffington Post]

Good, the do-gooder magazine founded by a rich young trust funder in order to raise money for charity, is, of course, a business failure. Because who wants to read that kind of magazine, really? Last time we pointed this out, angry commenters said we should give props to Good founder Ben Goldhirsh for putting his inheritance towards a worthy cause. We do! But that doesn't mean we would pay a nickel for his magazine. Clever riposte: Good is now going the Radiohead route by letting you pay whatever you want for a subscription. Ugh, is there some kind of moral imperative now? All the subscription money goes to a charity, which you can choose. You're definitely a bad person for not subscribing now. But! You can't in fact only pay a nickel; the lowest price offered is $1! Outrageous. But pay $20, and your subscription comes with a year's free admission to Good parties. I've been to one of those and let me tell you my friend, their desserts were mad off the hook. So pay $20, go to the next party with a spare bag, and you have gourmet cookies for a month. Everybody wins. Except the magazine, which will continue its inevitable slide towards bankruptcy (sorry). [via FBNY]

Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim's $127 million investment in the New York Times Company made headlines this morning, but left unremarked upon, including by the Times itself, are the murkier aspects of how Slim made his fortune. Yes, Slim acquired control of telephone monopoly Telmex in 1990 when it privatized in part by smartly partnering with Southwestern Bell and France Telecom. It's also true he has strongly denied there was anything untoward about the $1.7 billion purchase price, even though the company just 14 years later was valued at $37 billion. But Slim's financial support for the ruling PRI party, including a $25 million donation at a notorious 1993 fundraising dinner, was at the very least leveraged in an unseemly manner elsewhere. Slim went on to use his "influence over the government" to fight off the entry of competing phone companies into the impoverished Mexican market — that according to the Times itself in 2006. And what of the billionaire as a "decent philanthropist"?

Key difference between Barack Obama and John McCain: Unlike his notoriously temperamental Republican opponent, Obama tends to keep his cool even in the most trying of circumstances. For communicating that message to voters, Obama's appearance on David Letterman last night was effective politics. The presidential nominee joked about the ginned-up scandal around his use of the phrase "lipstick on a pig," and that phrase's alleged ties to McCain running mate Sarah Palin. He even got in a clever wisecrack about being jealous of Palin's celebrity. The only snag is that Letterman's audience, at least compared to its competitors, tends toward the younger coastal "elites" who were already going to vote for Obama. Sigh. At least we'll always have the clip. Click the video icon to watch. [via Huffington Post]

It's already been thoroughly documented that all the really funny pictures of Sarah Palin that you saw on blogs or anywhere else are just unpatriotic Photoshop forgeries. Everybody, including CNN, was fooled at first, but now nobody believes anything unless they personally snap it on a Polaroid. It's not just idiots screwing around, as you may have suspected; it's an important political trend, demonstrating that "average citizens were exploiting their expanded capacity to manipulate and circulate images to create the grassroots equivalent of editorial cartoons." PBS says so! That happens to be true, though. Elections have turned on far less exacting smears than these. Why are Palin and McCain so much more popular Photoshop victims than Obama? 1. More liberals are good at Photoshop, and 2. Photoshop Obama and watch how quickly you're accused of racism. It's a dangerous game. In the spirit of civic education, a composite of some of the best remixes that the Republicans have inspired:

The pressure of financial woes at the New York Times must be getting to its Metro editor Joe Sexton. (That's him, dancing to hip-hop on the last day in the paper's old W. 43rd Street building last year.) Remember, his section is the one they're planning to consolidate with sports. His most recent memo takes comfort in a bought-out Des Moines journalist's farewell speech. The Bible is involved!

We're hearing from inside Bloomberg News that the newswire is chopping up the Bloomberg Way, the cultish journalism guide assembled by tyrannical editor Matthew Winkler. Winkler believed in the manifesto so deeply he used it to raise his teenaged sons, and its rigid prescriptions became gospel. But what was once a rulebook has now reportedly been demoted to a set of guidelines. Said to be out is the proscription against the word "but" along with the 850-word cap on stories. Pressure to produce "Greet The Week" features (whatever those are) has abated. The changes, long anticipated, should come as no shock, but Matthews' closest underlings may be getting nervous over the continuing accumulation of power by Winkler's internal rival Norman Pearlstine. Said a tipster:

The ultimate confluence of a prestige media restaurant reviewer and prestige media restaurant has finally occurred: Frank Bruni has reviewed Michael's for the Times. At this point we should skip all the background, because those who don't appreciate the import of this moment will never be invited to Michael's anyhow. Suffice it to say that the city's most famous critic visited its most famous media power lunch spot, and, in a blinding flash of meta-media honesty, declared that it sucks big time:

"Back in 2000, after John McCain lost his mostly honorable campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, he went about apologizing to journalists—including me—for his most obvious mis-step: his support for keeping the confederate flag on the state house." That is Joe Klein, an exceptionally annoying Time columnist. He sorta gets why that is ridiculous, now, but in case he isn't all the way there, let's try to break it down for him:

Do you ever have one of those days where you just want to pack it in because everyone else in the world is so patently, transparently intellectually dishonest and/or un-self-aware as to defy any and all stabs at serious criticism or even derisive mockery? Do those days ever last for the entire month of September? Are you outraged over Obama's lipstick remark or outraged over the outrage over it? Either way you are part of the problem! How does this shit happen? It's very simple. There's nothing happening. Except Palin. The conventions are over and the campaigns now are focused on debate prep and early voting drives. Those are the only things that actually matter, right now, for both campaigns. The rest is just back-and-forth noise-making. Except for Palin who is a media sensation! So everything Palin-related will make headlines. So McCain's team just made up a Palin headline, to keep her in the news. That's all. But you know that is not a very interesting post, is it? So let's pick through this in a sad and doomed search for anything relevant or even slightly interesting! We're trying to work through this rationally. Give us a minute. Did the McCain campaign think they'd be able to convince the media that they're genuinely outraged about a sexist comment made by Barack Obama? That didn't actually seem to matter—no one on earth thinks this outrage is anything other than a political ploy, that does not affect the serious coverage one iota. When the McCain campaign accused Governor David Paterson of "playing the race card" this week, it made headlines but got no real traction. This, though, is leading everything. The story is that Barack Obama used an ancient Washington cliche, while talking about McCain. A cliche every politician, including McCain, uses in an attempt to sound folksy. A cliche surely familiar to most Americans. The McCain rapid-response team seized on the term and applied it to Palin, with help from Jake Tapper. Now through endless repition they are attempting to implant the idea that Barack Obama called Sarah Palin a "pig," and that that is a sexist term. Which does not make sense. Because no one has ever thought of Sarah Palin as remotely "piggish," and "pig," we thought, was a term of derision for men. We can't figure out the strategy here, at all, on either side. Will the base get riled up about this? Sure, why not, but they get riled up over everything, that's why they're the base. Will the vast mushy middle think Obama was being sexist? Even if they do, will they care? In a 'rational' world, this would make McCain look defensive—the supposed usual position of stupid stupid Democrats. It's desperate and weak. Do the Democrats have the "guts" to use the "playing the sexism card" card? Are we going to shoot ourselves if we keep talking like this? We don't know the answer to either question. But we honestly don't think this will last through the day, this outrage, and as far as how it relates or adds to the ongoing 'framing' and 'narrative-building' by both campaigns, we're stumped. There is maybe some residual "Obama is a sexist" stuff from the primaries, but the vast majority of those complaints were lodged against The Dreaded Media. And "the media is biased against Sarah Palin" still seems to be a charge with a better chance of sticking. It has already stuck so well, in fact, that maybe everyone just seized on this to deflect criticism. And what should Obama do? Daniel Radosh has a sensible Rovian response but so far the Democrats just continue saying "this is a distraction, wtf, how do you get away with this," which is also how we feel about it but, you know, when you chant that so much for so long without getting anyone on your side, you might want to rethink your strategy. But frankly even though Obama clearly did not mean it that way he should now just continue on as if damn straight he was making a snide remark about Sarah Palin. Because you might as well paint Sarah Palin as a total bitch, which is, we seem to recall, what she painted herself as when she said she was a transvestite pitbull or whatever the fuck.

Democratic strategist Peter Feld, who recently warned Radar readers that the polls are indeed bad news, checks in occasionally to rain on your parade. Today he explains the visceral appeal of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

I wouldn't have counted on Maureen Dowd to illustrate the cluelessness of the liberal media who are losing the election for Obama. But she did. The conceit of today's Dowd column — burdened, as so many of hers are, with an ill-fitting pop culture framework (My Fair Lady, this time) — is that Sarah Palin's interview later today with ABC's Charlie Gibson is a moment of high peril for the putatively unprepared VP candidate. Dowd mirthfully suggests a few questions for Gibson to ask Palin, such as: "Why was Sarah for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, and why was she for earmarks before she was against them? And doesn't all this make her just as big a flip-flopper as John Kerry?" It's a question a lot of the fight-the-last-war press seems to be asking. The savaging of Kerry four years ago still rankles Joe Conason, whose Observer column today about Palin is subtitled: "She was for ill-conceived pork projects before she was against them." And, like Dowd, Clarence Page still expects America to wake up and notice that McCain didn't vet Palin sufficiently. Like Dowd — and the Obama campaign — Page believes that when Americans learn that Palin once supported the bridge boondoggle she now boasts of stopping, her selection will "backfire" on McCain. And Politico counts yesterday — a day when six fresh polls showed McCain even or ahead of Obama — as an Obama victory, because his campaign had succeeded in getting the media to fact-check Palin's bridge-blocking claims. "Bridge to nowhere" is an apt name for this Obama strategy. What Obama ("You can't just make stuff up!") and his sputtering media supporters miss is that the "for-it-before-I-was-against-it" quote damaged Kerry, not because America hates a flip-flopper, but because it captured exactly what made him seem so ridiculous. It was a line Kerry had used on himself, something Palin would never do. Palin may be many things — unprepared, phony, right-wing, LensCrafter model, aerial wolf-hunter — but she's not John Kerry. Her appeal, as at least Tom Friedman seems to understand, is visceral, not logical. The swing voters who have to decide between McCain and Obama recognize themselves in her, something the Obama campaign considers unimportant. The indignant, sputtering media think that they can undo that appeal with careful fact-checking of Palin's record. Good luck — if someone doesn't wake up soon, it looks like you'll have the chance to fact-check Palin for the next four years.

If you don't feel the spirit of love in the artwork above, your heart is made of stone and your abs are likely flabby. What you see is the actual Valentine's Day present that Dave Zinczenko, editor of Men's Health and the most inspirational American next to Obama, received this year from his girlfriend, the Brit actress Melissa Milne. Eat your heart out, Julia Allison! Ladies, take a moment to soak up the romance of this gift. The painting is a one-of-a-kind special by Kurt Walters, the boyfriend of MH design director George Karabotsos. And the artist finds Dave Z to be a true inspiration: From Kurt Walters' blog:

As we more or less said, before, MSNBC's switch from all-crazy-pundit all-the-time (their two most unbalanced talking heads anchoring convention coverage? what can possibly go wrong!) to the more traditional "boring old guy who'll accept your bullshit with a smile" approach is a cowardly retreat by MSNBC president Phil Griffin, giving in to the outdated old methods of NBC News head Stave Capus and NBC head Jeff Zucker. It's a return to the "beat CNN at their game" idea, only that "game" is boring and they'll never beat them at it. Today's Observer explores the decision to kick Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews back down to their pundit kids table. It's a victory for the "serious" journalists of Washington, DC, and a terrible defeat for people who enjoy television.