Click to enlarge.

Both of today's Times columnists, added together, do not equal one Maureen Dowd ($3.42). Someone's gotta do something about this, it's getting embarrassing.

After over a month of the Times' new Thursday Styles section, we've become more or less inured to its metrosexual spin — it's all a big, gay blur to us. That's why we've taken to using MSWord's AutoSummarize feature to condense the Styles' front page, telling us everything we need to know in 100 words or less:

Congratulations to John Tierney on making his first appearance on the prestigious most emailed list. Putting women in their place continues to pay off. -AP






Most Emailed List [NYT]
Off the Record [NYO]

Today the New York Times Company proudly announced a "targeted staff reduction" plan, in which 190 employees from the Times and the Boston Globe will be relieved of their cost-inducing positions. To our knowledge, this pink-slipping parade will have minimal impact on the papers' newsrooms, but we're more fascinated by the memo sent to shaking employees. Per usual, the email is sent from the "Arthur & Janet" account, which seems so genial — like they're inviting you over for pie or something, except that you're getting fired.

Sure, it's easy to say "I'm not gonna pay a lot for this conventional wisdom" when the Times offers up their back bench, as they did yesterday. But today we've got a Pundit Phenom, he of the dapper mustache and the mixed metaphor, Thomas "$4.10" Friedman, a flat-Earther who likes his love like he likes his trade: free. Unfortunately for betting fans, a meaningful rating system for today's page is impossible with Dowd on the DL and unranked Matt Miller pinch-opining. If you want my opinion, Slate readers'll be cracking open their checkbooks by the time they finish their coffee this morning — everyone is so darn reasonable over on the OpEd page today. Trying to sweeten the deal with completely unobjectionable arguments, perhaps?

You didn't really want breakfast, anyhow.

Tuesday Time-Waster: Match the excerpt to the source. Half are from from the Times' current series on class. The others are from from their advertising kit. The results may surprise you — no cheating!

If the Times wants you to pay for content, the least we here at Gawker can do is persuade you it's not worth it.

What a tense and terrible and exciting morning it's been. When I began this job at 7 a.m., I had a list of about 3 topics I knew I wanted to cover. Unfortunately, I ran through that list in two hours or so and was forced to write about Donald Trump by lunchtime.

As part of its continuing, multi-part, in-depth, expose on the roots of Upper West Side liberal guilt, the folks over at the Times website put together a handy to guide to "class." (Don't worry, it's free.) The "Interactive Graphic" tells you how much money you should be making, had you made at least one smart career choice in your life. It's a particularly good reminder to young media professionals. Get out now. The LSATS aren't that hard. Trust us. -KEW

Go ahead and act surprised: Jon Landman has finally bid adieu to the Gray Lady and is stepping down as Culture editor (or, if you prefer, he has gone to the nondescript land of "masthead," where his next position has not been annouced). His replacement? None other than Sam Sifton, formerly of the Dining section. Why Sam? Well, for starters, he's "coherent," and he can "make you laugh," even when he's firing you because your stories are too damn long! Assuming an "enlarged deputy" role (which sounds rather naughty) is Sam's partner, Jim Schachter. After the jump, the memo from Times editor Bill Keller, who's positively delighted to see a deal cut months ago finally take shape.

After making the top of the list for two days now, we have to wonder if the elusive Times' exploration of the elusive ladytickle has helped just one woman live the dream. And, if so, we're totally back on the dating market.




America's Continuing Love Affair With The Female Orgasm Continues [Roving Flashlight]

One of the drawbacks of going on a meth-fueled Radar binge is that we've hardly had a spare moment to comment on the Times' haute new TimesSelect, which will hide OpEd columnists like Thomas Friedman and MoDo behind a $49.95 wall. Times SVP of Digital Whatever Martin Nisenholtz defended and explained that the new fees were necessary for the Gray Lady's ultimate plan, which involves — you guessed it — bloggers (cue dramatic music):

Click to enlarge.
So this is how the Times wants to compete with the Wall Street Journal? Jayson Blair would be proud.

The Times is boldy greeting the 20th/21st century with "a bold, thoughtful and innovative" scheme that involves charging readers $50 a year to get "exclusive access to Times Op-Ed columnists." This so-called TimeSelect project is set to be launched in September 2005. (Print subscribers—if there are any left by that time—will get the service for free.) We're thrilled, really.

If one of your major competitors were preparing to launch a new weekend section, how would you respond? By launching a pre-emptive redesign, of course! (Redesigns are so fucking hot right now.) To wit, the Times debuts a "new and expanded" Business Day. (OMG, does that mean more Kurt Eichenwald? Our breath is beyond bated.) The motherlode comes this Saturday, with "a column by prize-winning finacial journalist Joseph Nocera and new features on personal business, including a Q&A with an executive in the news; an investing column; alternating columns...blahblahblah." Who cares? If it's only half as gay as the new Thursday Style section, we're sold. -KEW

Yesterday's Times contained what is arguably the best correction we've seen since Judith Miller didn't find any WMDs under her bed. Regarding David Carr's profile of director Don Roos:

As spring kicks into high gear and summer quickly approaches, it's time for the inevitable discussion of sunshine and skincare:

The editorial page of The Times, in the person of Brent Staples, turns its attention to hip hop. Decrying the genre's descent into misogyny, materialism and murder (coincidentally the working title of Dr. Dre's new album), Staples argues that inner-city listeners who are already at risk of dying prematurely are being fed a toxic diet of rap cuts that glorify murder and make it seem perfectly normal to spend your life in prison. While the debate over art's effects on human behavior is hardly a new one, we're somewhat surprised by Staples' contention that [the fact that] this lethal genre of art has grown speaks volumes about the industry's greed and lack of self-control. Is it possible that it might also speak volumes about consumer interest? How many units did the last KRS-One record shift? AB