Oh god stop it with the Obama Veep stories. Just, everyone, STOP. Argh. The AP sez Obama may announce later today!! Which, yeah right! If he's announcing today he'll do it early, because Friday afternoon is when you dump an affair, not a VP announcement. And if it's not in the next hour, it will be Monday. Or Tuesday! Or even fucking Wednesday. So let's all take a vow to not write about it any more until there is NEWS. [AP via Yahoo]

Vice magazine is suspending its letters page for a month, in protest of the fact that they now just get stupid emails, whereas they used to get real letters with "gifts inside." The hipster mag's editors instruct readers to send in "actual, tangible letters" printed on real paper if they ever want to see their precious letters page again. To increase your chances of publication, be sure to include a bag of coke, a photo of a wasted Williamsburg girl who looks totally ready to screw a Vice editor , and a BMW marketing proposal. [NYO]

A New Yorker journalist is calling around for a story on the "Real Arianna Huffington," the Post reported. The scribe is supposedly asking about the allegedly ballooning value of the Huffington Post, recently pegged at $200 million, and about whether publisher Huffington is a "cutthroat boss." Perhaps the New Yorker writer — former New York Post man Ken Auletta? — should ring up HuffPo senior editor Rachel Sklar, who just last night aired news that Huffington spiked her story about MSNBC because she wants to tightly control how politics is discussed on her site. From Sklar's message on Jim Romenesko's Poynter.org forum:

There's something adorable about how the Times mangles movie titles. This year's grisly Oscar Best Picture sounded much more approachable as Old Country For Old Men. Likewise, Tropical Thunder conjures visions of an action-adventure set perhaps in Cuba, not of a send-up comedy accused of trafficking in "vulgar" Jewish stereotypes. So far, none of the Times' big movie errors have made it into print. Perhaps the sleep-deprived, round-the-clock Web crew simply hasn't time for the luxury of movie screenings. Send those media soldiers out on some shore leave!

The Olympic Games have long promoted more than the amateur athletic spirit. Sponsors this year sell pharmaceuticals, laptop computers and luxury watches, among other things, mostly to consumers outside of China. But there's something particularly sad about the way the games have been co-opted to push sugary treats inside the host country. Mars Inc., for example, used street sports events and other Olympic gimmicks to help grow sales of Snickers bars 75 percent in China this year, the Wall Street Journal reports for today's paper. Then there's Coke, which spread its tooth-eroding product into China's impoverished, soda-deprived rural provinces by attaching itself to the Olympic torch relay. That and some other local uses of Coke's $400 million in global Olympic advertising helped erode Pepsi's lead in China, the Journal reported on its front page Tuesday. Both Mars and Coke seem oblivious to the moral issues raised by their campaigns amid heightened scrutiny, in the U.S. at least, of obesity-linked products. If they're not more careful, American sugar purveyors may find themselves shackled in the fashion of cigarette makers. After the jump, a look at a scene from Mad Men, in which tobacco executives begin to grapple with the regulatory noose begin to close around their own advertising in the early 1960s.

Former LA Times editor Andres Martinez's new lawsuit is a sad story of betrayal that should convince any journalist never to date a publicist, unless she can somehow find one who is not crafty and constantly scheming to leverage the relationship. Martinez left his job editing the editorial page amid scandal. He tried to have film producer Brian Grazer guest edit his section even though his girlfriend Kelly Mullens was flacking for Grazer. Dirty and stupid and unethical, right? Well, hold one one second: Martinez says in his suit that Mullens promised him she had recused herself from working with Grazer, a client of her firm, at least on this one project. This turned out to be an awful awful lie. Writes Matt Belloni at the Hollywood Reporter:

So. Yesterday, Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones died. And just about every news outlet you can think of reported as much. Fine so far, right? Except that when they all reported it, she wasn't dead. And then once everyone corrected, she died, for real. It was all pretty macabre. CJR tries to explain the whole weird incident with another criticism of media practices-anonymous sources and me-tooism or something. What no one (we think?) has pointed out is that the news probably came from her own staff ("Based on information from a reliable Democratic source and stories from other news outlets..."). Which is a pretty unimpeachable source! Until it turned out that they were wrong about their own boss's death. And then they weren't, a bit later. Awkward. [CJR]

Emily Brill, the daughter of media mogul Steve Brill and the "hardest" "working" heiress on the interwebs, is simply exhausted! Commenters made some snide remarks about her latest blog post on the edgy, underground world of rich kids trading their meds with each other. You anonymous online detractors just don't understand the drama of Emily's life. Try to imagine surviving her grueling schedule-the nonstop stress of being a professional blogger. Narrate for us, Ms. Brill:

Something called the Project for Excellence in Journalism has just completed a decade-long study on local television in America. You may be shocked to hear that this study, conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, found that people wanted more excellence in their journalism! According to their report, "the more local TV invests in quality reporting, the bigger its audience tends to be." Oh, "quality reporting" apparently does not mean "crime news and celebrity news," though where on the spectrum skateboarding dogs or tanning bed-related health scares is not specified. Hey, wouldn't you know, their methodology is flawed. As CJR notes, the study's claim that "hard news with high journalistic standards attracts viewers" doesn't take into account the cost of quality journalism, which may outweigh the benefit in audience size. Also, there is the correlation versus causation conundrum that (ironically!!!) bedevils pretty much all local tv "reporting" on "health" and "science." Like, maybe networks with large audiences and therefore high revenue can afford to do more and better reporting! And if their ratings drop they cut the budget and then can not longer afford real reporting. But the Project for Excellence in Journalism wishes very much that there was actually a market for Excellence in Journalism. Maybe there is! People always say they want better news. People also say they hate negative campaign ads. People also say they're totally going to eat better and work out.

You think NBC is making a good return on its investment for these Olympics? You don't even know what a good return is. NBC had to bid for these Olympic rights in an auction, and they ended up paying more than $1.5 billion for the most recent summer and winter games. But how much did CCTV, the national broadcast network in China, pay for the money-minting opportunity to carry the games in its home country? (Hint: there's nobody for them to bid against):

Such a pain! "It takes a lot of time and energy and she's sick of it. She's given them six months to figure out what to do without her." [Post]

Appeasing aggression simply invites more aggression, corporate people! First you caved in to demands from the Hydrox hippies that you bring back their subversive little devil snack and now look — you've got to consider bringing back Kellog's OKs cereal, Hit Parade cigarettes and the most awful thing ever made, Postum, which is beloved only by some Seventh-Day Adventists and a handful of Mormons and which was mercifully put out of its misery late last year. Some of the more terrifying information on Postum's Wikipedia page reveals:

In an effort to promote its poxy Windows Vista operating system, Microsoft is paying Jerry Seinfeld $10 million for an endorsement, the Wall Street Journal reported this morning. Yes, because if there's one surefire way to convince everyone Vista is cool, cutting edge and not liable to get frazzled by life's minor complications, it's hiring a 1990s sitcom star and professional kvetcher! Who, um, very visibly owned a series of Macs on his show. This is Microsoft's worst promotional concept since, well, since its last Vista campaign, the Mojave Experiment, which decisively proved that people hate Vista but will use it if they are tricked into thinking it's something else, like a stable, functional tool. Here's how Madison Avenue is responding:

Or maybe the cable network's program guide editor knows something interesting about how Kathleen Sebelius' husband likes to be addressed. Or how Bill Clinton will be known for the next eight years! Anyway, CNN already has not only the gender but also the NAME of the VP. [CNBC via Huffington Post]

Here's the Washington Post accidentally reporting a Congresswoman's death four hours before it actually happened. Whoops! Guess they got burned by their "Democratic source." So did the Associated Press. The Post is the paper that so distrusted the National Enquirer's reporting it refused to even discuss John Edwards' affairs in its pages. The AP is the news service whose "trusted, authoritative voice" would set it apart in "a realm in which gossip and innuendo abound." Both publications are arrogant and stupid, but points to AP for writing a story about its arrogance and stupidity instead of trying to blame the Cleveland Plain Dealer like the Post did, The End. [AP]

A screaming headline on Drudge, and a new Zogby poll showing McCain pulling ahead of Obama by five points means one thing only: media meltdown. Barring an Obama VP pick, this poll is certain to lead tonight on Chris Matthews, CNN and the rest of cable news – even though it's just one single data point that (for now) contradicts other polls, and even though Zogby's methods and accuracy are controversial at a minimum. ("The house of sand and Zog," Mickey Kaus memorably mocked.) It's one number, scarcely different from the last month's worth of data. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be way more worried. The Cocoon Frank Rich isn't worried. His Sunday column takes comfort in the race's underlying stability:

Viacom's oppressively gridlike new cafeteria layout is matched against in-house lunchtime eateries at other Manhattan media corporations. [Jossip]

"The Instant New York Times Bestseller," trumpets the full-page ad for NYT reporter David Carr's memoir in the NYT today. We'll congratulate him for that, as we are fans of his brutally honest addiction memoir. However, it must be pointed out that Night of the Gun has only hit the expanded bestseller list, which is for the runners-up and isn't printed. (Update: that was the Aug. 24th Times bestseller list. We've just learned that Carr made the regular August 31st bestseller list, at #12 for nonfiction.)

Rachel Maddow, liberal MSNBC pundit, was supposed to get Chris Matthews' show when his contract ran out, but MSNBC decided to capitalize on election fever and complete her transformation from feminist Rhodes Scholar AIDS policy wonk to television star right away. They gave her Dan Abrams show, even though everyone at the network loves Dan and his show's been doing well. But he's a soft-spoken legal analyst and she's a phenom in the making. She's the Keith Olbermann liberals won't be embarrassed to admire! Keith, stentorian wiseass and former sportscaster, is clearly a raving egomaniac. When his ire is directed outward at figures deserving of his scorn, it's incredibly watchable television. But you cannot ever escape the obvious fact that the man, admirable moral center or no, is a smug jerk in private and public life. Which is a plus in televised punditry, but it's exhausting. Maddow, smart and cool, is now poised to make the most of an Obama presidency. She presents a perfect liberal alternative to a Bill O'Reilley or Sean Hannity: not because, like them, she's a bullying cheerleader for Obama and his party (that's a little more Olbermann), but because she's principled enough to fight for the Democrats when they're right and criticize them when they're wrong, without engaging in the partisan horseshit of official party mouthpieces like Carville and Begala. (This, by the way, is the important difference between the liberals of MSNBC and the liberals of CNN: Olbermann and Maddow are angry constituents, not party operatives.) In other words, she's an idealized version of her theoretical audience (educated urban liberal), much like O'Reilley is a caricature of his own (enraged suburban/exurban male). And mark our words, we'll soon be seeing her on the front page of the Times Magazine or Newsweek as THE NEW FACE OF CABLE PUNDITRY and then will come the longer psychoanalytical think-pieces in New York and The New Yorker (she's slightly less suited for that Olbermann-profile treatment in Esquire but you never know). Which, it could be worse. We like her! Plus, as the 2000s have taught us, Americans are totally willing to and love out lesbians on their televisions (thanks Ellen!) as long as they're not really annoying (sorry Rosie). (And in the [totally likely!] event of a McCain presidency, Maddow might actually do even better, as advocate-y liberals always operate best in opposition—which is why they always undermine the Democrats so effectively.) [Photo: dipdewdog]