Tim Gunn Takes Top Honors, Again

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Tim Gunn
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Like most Project Runway viewers, I think the highlight of the show – and sometimes the only classy part of the program – is Tim Gunn. He's unfailingly polite, honest, professional and, unlike the judges, he manages to give the designers honest critiques without making them feel worthless.

So I was pleased that Gunn made an appearance on The Daily Show last night to plug his latest book, Gunn's Golden Rules: Life's Little Lessons for Making It Work. I had not been planning on buying the book before I saw the program, but after watching him discuss Anna Wintour with host Jon Stewart, I have to get this book.

They discussed an incident in which Ms. Wintour – the legendary editor of Vogue magazine – was carried down five flights of stairs because she couldn't get down fast enough in her shoes. I've defended Wintour on this blog in the past, and I think much of what I wrote still holds. She's an extraordinary editor and leader in her field. But Gunn's critique (and his hilarious response to Vogue's minions who tried to pressure him into removing the item from the book; watch the video above) show him to be perceptive and even brave. He's not being catty; he's making a serious criticism of the bloated egos in the fashion industry.

Which makes him something of a rarity. When will we get Tim Gunn's fashion magazine? Need an editor?

Hillary Clinton's Media Move

The U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, is in the news in a big way, featured in magazines and newspapers and web sites.

The new issue of Vogue (pictured) includes a very long feature story about Clinton.

The New York Times has a long article on Clinton's high-stakes role as the Obama administration's point person for trying to get Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, to reform his government. That was apparently the news hook of the week, because BBC News features much the same storyline. (But the World Socialist Web Site didn't like her performance in Kabul. If World Socialism -- whatever the heck that is -- is against you, shouldn't the rightwingers like you more?)

This and other coverage will probably go a way to muting the people who've said Clinton's been too low-key since taking the State Department role. (It doesn't hurt that she's helping to take some of the limelight from former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.) So if the pro-Clinton Daily Beast (or at least Tina Brown) and the quite anti-Clinton Huffington Post can both be caught up in this, it's something worth watching.

Media Roundup: Vogue, Redesigns, Berlusconi, & More

This week's roundup of media news from the worlds of magazines and newspapers:

• After enjoying The September Issue, the documentary about the making of Vogue's annual back-breaking mega-issue, I decided to purchase my first-ever copy of the magazine to see what it's really like. It took me more than a week to find a store that still had copies. I checked multiple Borders stores, a magazine shop, groceries and pharmacies that sell magazines -- all places I've seen the title before -- until I finally found a Safeway that still had a few copies.
• The Vogue edition, which notes on its cover that it's "the REAL September Issue!", includes about 584 pages (you could fit 10.4285714 copies of the latest issue of my magazine in that page count), is three-quarters of an inch thick, has its first contents page on page 112 that jumps to page 126 that jumps to page 146 that jumps to page 176, and is heavy enough to be dropped by Predator drones on suspected terrorist hideouts in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
• The Magazine Death Pool blog has its own fall preview. In its case, it's a preview of expected magazine deaths this autumn (when red ink will be the new black). You might quibble about some of their choices (after all, The New Republic has never been an advertising magnet), but it's at least snarky enough to perk up your morning caffeine intake.
• What does an otherwise modern country look like when more than 90 percent of its residents don't read a newspaper? Italy. Architecture and food's great, but you get Silvio Berlusconi, a walking nightmare for good-government types (hey, I'm from Wisconsin). Financial Times has a good overview of the current political situation for the Italian prime minister and prospects (dim) for Italy coming to its senses. They might want to start by getting a subscription to the FT.
• Folio: and the MPA report that magazine circulation has held up quite well in this media death season. It's advertising that hasn't pulled its weight. (Oh, how many times must I suggest that a few more magazines just think about rebalancing their revenue models to rely more on higher circulation revenue and less on advertising? Whatever.)
• Samir Husni (aka Mr. Magazine) interviews Christianity Today's senior managing editor, Mark Galli, about the magazine's new redesign. Galli repeatedly notes that the redesign was made because editorial was moving ahead of design in terms of how stories and news were handled. Will be interesting to see how they handle it. (Read the interview for a few examples.)
• Oh, let's finish up with Vogue again. Over at the Glossed Over blog (a very critical look at women's fashion magazines), they did a "live blog" of reading the giant September issue of the magazine. Wish I'd thought of that, but after turning all those pages, I think my fingers would be too tired to type.

My previous media roundup.

The September Issue Movie Review

Judging from the clothing on the other audience members at the Kabuki Sundance Cinema crowd with me this afternoon, most people who paid to see The September Issue were there because it highlighted the fashion industry. I, however, was there for the fun of seeing just how they put together the magazine. Magazines 'R' my business, and my interest.

The September Issue is the new documentary focusing on the creation of Vogue's mammoth September edition. We see the issue come together as editors plan photo shots, discuss which clothes to feature, meet with designers to see their collections, travel to Europe for photo shoots, and much more. Running the entire process is Anna Wintour, the much-feared and much-accomplished editor in chief, and heading up most of the photo shoots is Grace Coddington, the magazine's creative director. There are other characters -- other editors, magazine designers, clothing designers, photographers, ad sales reps, Ms. Wintour's daughter, and many others -- but it's when Coddington or Wintour are on the screen that the movie is at its best.

This film more than lived up to my expectations. Wintour shows herself to be an extraordinarily talented and clear-sighted leader. She knows what she wants, and she doesn't waste time dithering over what's right. When she makes a decision about a potential cover photo having too much teeth or a model in a billowing dress looking pregnant, she's quick with her decision -- and she's correct. That's her job. Such editors are very rare, and I'm sure she's worth every dollar of the reportedly multi-million dollar salary Condé Nast pays her.

Whether the audience likes her or not is likely to depend on the individual audience member's attitudes about quality, publishing, strong women, and whether they liked their boss. I've worked for bosses who were tough. Sometimes I could see the what and why of their behavior; other times, I could comfortably conclude they were just jerks. My feeling about Wintour (as is probably already more than obvious) is that she might not be the most touchy-feely boss, but she'll make you better and she's damn good at her job.

There's no villain in this movie. And there's no drama about whether or not they'll put together a successful issue of the magazine. We already know they will (it was the September 2007 edition, the fattest edition in Vogue's history) and we can clearly see that the magazine's staff is competent and professional. But for me the drama came from seeing exactly how they made decisions and exactly how the issue came together.

Though I was not like the large portion of my fellow audience members in that I was more interested in the magazine part of the story than the fashion part, I think there's a lot of similarity between the two topics. Readers of high-fashion magazines, or car magazines, get much of their pleasure from seeing things they'll never be able to buy or own, at least not completely. (They might not be able to afford the entire ensemble that the model is wearing, but they see in the photo layout how they can add a specific accessory to their clothing to get the desired effect.) For me, it was nice to watch how a magazine at the top of the market is put together. How they spend tens of thousands of dollars on photo shoots, have large staffs that can pull off anything they deem neccessary for an issue, how they can worry about doing the right thing and not just whatever they can afford.

The September Issue is worth picking up.

Men's Vogue -- Don't R.I.P.

It seems Condé Nast 's Men's Vogue refused to run an ad because it featured two gay men. Just another reason not to mourn this now-dead magazine. Can't even remember its name and I typed it just two sentences ago...

Now do I have to re-visit my nice comments about Vogue chief Anna Wintour?

Anna Wintour Documentarian and the Professional Editor

Over at The Daily Beast, Kim Masters gives us a peek at the man who made the documentary that gives us a peek at Vogue and its iconic leader, Anna Wintour. R.J. Cutler directed the new movie The September Issue, the story of the creation of that annual mega-thick issue of Vogue, and he tells Masters his thoughts on Wintour and her myth. (Just a hint: He seems to be impressed with her.)

When I watched this trailer below, I didn't see anything in it that makes her look like the dragon lady she's supposed to be. She doesn't snap, she doesn't bite off any heads, and she is decisive. I will have to see the movie to get a better sense, but I also have now watched her on 60 Minutes and Letterman, and my general impression is that she's in an industry filled with people who have very large insecurities -- so their complaints about her might not be the most objective. When she says she doesn't like something they did, they take it as a personal insult. When she questions something her staff is trying to put into the magazine, they think they've been slapped in the face. But her job is to have the highest standards. An editor should question everything from the typeface on the cover to the various impressions that a model in a photo might give to readers.

I once worked with a woman who was a former U.S. News journalist. As she edited a newsletter I'd created, she noted that the phrasing of one headline created an unintended double entendre. Said she, "Editors have to have dirty minds." What she meant, of course, is that editors and writers need to be able to look at what they create through the eyes of their readers and to spot possible unintended impressions the readers might have. It doesn't necessarily mean you avoid using that photo or wording or design that might be troublesome, but you are aware of it and address it, if need be.

Watch the trailer. Wintour is looking at everything that goes into that magazine. That's what she's paid to do. The fact that she must do it very well is the reason why she has been at the top of the magazine profession for two decades.

Now, I don't know Wintour. I've never purchased or read a copy of Vogue. And I'm well-aware that my exposure to her is confined to her chosen public campaign. But if we understand that The September Issue is a documentary and The Devil Wears Prada was not, then shouldn't we be filled with more respect for all that she has accomplished and not imagine that she attacks dull-witted models with machetes?

Anna Wintour's Letterman Tour

Vogue editor Anna Wintour appeared on David Letterman's Late Show and did a good job of dealing with the criticism she's received, and the perception that she's not a cuddly softie.

Anna Wintour on "60 Minutes"

On May 17, 2009, "60 Minutes"'s Morley Safer interviewed and profiled Vogue magazine editor Anna Wintour. Naturally, the comparisons have to be made with Meryl Streep in the film of the novel The Devil Wears Prada, but the reality seems more interesting. That's because this überpowerful magazine editor is both a lot like Streep's characterization and also different -- more human, and probably smarter.

The behind-the-scenes shots of Wintour at work in her office (which does look a lot like Streep's Miranda Priestley's office in Prada) and of her staff of scary-skinny worker bees (who do look a lot like the ones in Prada) gives viewers a sense of what it's like working in luxury-brand magazine publishing. I hope young journalism students don't watch that and think there's any chance in hell that they'll work in such a situation. Most magazine offices are made up of cheap cubicles, cranky copy editors, and -- if you're lucky -- free bagels on Fridays.

The video of the segment is below; read a transcript here.

Magazine Errors: Guest Editors

A thankfully infrequent but unthankfully not extinct publicity stunt that some magazines pull is the use of a celebrity guest editor, someone who helps plan, write, design and -- of course -- promote the issue.

I'm tempted to try to come up with some fake guest-editor/magazine pairings, but the reality has been even sillier: Remember Roseanne guest editing The New Yorker? Or how about the latest: comedian Stephen Colbert guest editing an issue of Newsweek?

Yikes. Now, I love Colbert's work. He's not only funny, I think he's got real intelligence and rare understanding of the importance of the things he targets with wit. (Yes, count me among those who thought his performance at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner was a rare act of valuable court-jestering in a country that has come to believe that film and television is only for entertaining, not for actually making a point.)

But Newsweek? I also like the new Newsweek, as I've noted here. So this isn't a case of me disliking either the guest editor or magazine. But I think Newsweek will undercut its credibility as a serious journalistic enterprise with this stunt. A few more 25-year-olds might pick up that issue, but probably a few less 50-year-olds (you know, the consumers with all the money) will do so.

Empire magazine, a large film monthly from the UK, celebrated its 20th anniversary with a special issue guest edited by Stephen Spielberg. Again, I have no problem with either the magazine or the guest editor; Empire is consistently a high-quality publication that probably only errs in occasionally giving more attitude than substance; and Spielberg is an extraordinary talent as well as being a man of brave social conscience. But one can't read Empire ever again and think it's providing an independent look at the film world. How much can you criticize a film if the director is a potential editor? How much can a reader trust your positive review of a film from a potential editor? How important is the magazine's independence compared to the extra copies they expect to be bought because of Spielberg's involvement?

My biggest problem is just that the practice of using guest editors undercuts the very magazine it's trying to promote. A magazine is not an internet public forum. It is a particular world view designed and shaped by a team of editors and publishers. It's their take on whatever subject matter is the focus of the magazine (the week's news, the music world, science fiction films, whatever). And readers need to be able to think that they're getting that point of view (however broad or narrow) straight and not filtered through too much whoring for money (yeah, not through too much whoring -- everyone knows there'll be some).

So, what about Meryl Streep guest editing Vogue? Or the Octomom guest editing The Economist?

Nah, I just can't top Roseanne and The New Yorker.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Saudi Arabia Press Restrictions
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Keyboard Cat

How Retouching!

Doesn't anyone have consumer education classes in school anymore? Did those die out in the last right-wing attack on education? I'm assuming most high schoolers are no longer learning about how products are marketed toward them, or how articles are written, or how television programs are designed to influence them -- because people are getting very overworked about things that should not surprise them one bit.

The New York Times recently reported on the shocked-yes-shocked reactions of people to the amount of photo retouching that goes on in fashion magazines. The article refers to some egregious examples of cover models who have been Photoshopped to hell and back in attempts to make them look thinner. (Notice how they never Photoshop them to make them look smarter? Now that would be a nice touch. Er, retouch.) But most of the slant of the Times piece seems to be that showing more "real" women, untouched by a redesigner's effort, will enhance women's self-esteem and body-image. Phil Poynter, a photographer and/or designer (hard to tell from the Times' description of his work), said that “the big discussion in the fashion business has always been about should we retouch girls, should we create a portrait of a girl that is not achievable by a real girl.”

Two things:

1) Yep, the fashion (and show-business) magazines present an unrealistic image of women and girls. They do the same for men, of course, but that's usually ignored in the discussion.

2) People flock to the newsstands to buy these magazines. No one that I know of has been forced at gunpoint to purchase Vogue, Elle, or Us Weekly (though that's the only way I'd buy them). I don't write that as a libertarian whatever-the-consumer-wants-must-be-right statement. No, I mean that they could change their approach completely, but women would just start buying different magazines. People buy those magazines because they want to see the perfect, the unachievable, the unattainable, for the same reason people buy car magazines featuring expensive Porsches and Jaguars. Other people may not like that, but it's human nature and fact.

There was another flare-up of this controversy a while back about magazines altering the skin color on its cover images, making African Americans look either darker or lighter. That could, indeed, be a reprehensible practice; one would have to know the exact details of the situation to make a judgment (but when did that stop Americans from making judgments?).

But we should also make the obvious point, at least the obvious point from the perspective of practically anyone who's worked in magazines: All magazine photos are Photoshopped to some degree. Portions of them are made darker or lighter (often for reasons normal readers would never suspect, such as the need to offset the effects of the particular paper they're using or their printer's likelihood of printing darker or lighter than it should). Images are cropped to focus on a portion of the picture. Blemishes are removed, even if they're not trying to make the person look "unattainably beautiful," because if there is a prominent blemish -- a pimple, a scar, a rash, whatever -- on a person's face that is featured on a magazine cover, it doesn't look real so much as it looks like you're trying to feature the blemish. A magazine cover is not a capture of a split-second of reality; it's a framed highlight that focuses the viewer's attention on the cover image and on any noticeable feature on that image.

But then, a little consumer education would have told people how the real world works. An educated viewer/reader/consumer doesn't need to overreact when they are told that Vogue is trying to get them to buy a magazine or that Bank of America wants them to accept a credit card offer. No kidding, Sherlock.

Is Everyone Really Nervous at Condé Nast?

Keith Kelly in today's New York Post suggests that it's nail-biting time at Condé Nast, just two days after the big-ticket failure of Portfolio magazine. Kelly writes, "One insider said that many staffers are nervously watching for what might come in July, when Vogue, Vanity Fair, GQ, Glamour and others that have largely escaped the 5 percent reduction in staff will be shipping their September issues."

Those September issues are the ones you always marvel at on the newsstand. Huge, with cover lines such as, "Our Biggest Issue Ever," or, "730 pages of fashion." They mean big, big money. So if those perform poorly, then CN chiefs are expected to be cutting expenses further. Then again, mail carriers might be relieved.

Condé Nast Tightens Its Belt

As I arrived at my desk this morning, I slowly opened up my Coke Zero (had to be careful that it didn't explode, because I had dropped it minutes earlier) and took out my Balance bar for my scrumptious, executive breakfast. Then I poured out a small handful of mixed nuts, but a couple rolled onto the floor. I looked around for the button to summon an underling -- a butler, maid, vice president of editorial peanut cleanup, anything -- until I remembered there was no such thing. Sighing, I reached down and picked up the nuts myself.

Such is the life of an editorial director at a major nonprofit. A subway ride to work, bring my own lunch, perform editing and writing and planning and managing chores, write blogs, take meetings, and pick up my own breakfast off the floor.

I'm sure Anna Wintour feels my pain.
But word has it that Condé Nast is reportedly cutting back on its famed perks for the editors of its magazines, as it reacts to a severe downturn in the luxury goods advertising market. Keith J. Kelly writes in today's New York Post that there have already been cutbacks in lunch expenses, tuition reimbursement, and pension contributions. And worse may yet come at a company where top publishers and editors get to zoom around town in their company-provided towncars.

The publisher of Vogue, GQ, Vanity Fair, and a slew of others is being hit even harder by the recession than many other publishers. Those $5,000 wristwatches apparently can be advertised in other magazines for less money, which makes the Swiss happy as they keep a tight fist on their Swiss francs. (Yes, that was a stretch, but you get the point.)

Condé Nast is famous (and envied) in the magazine world for not discounting off its rate card. I won't pretend to know enough about this successful company's history or business plan, nor do I think I am an expert on the luxury goods market (my watch is a $55 Skagen bought on Amazon.com), to qualify me as being able to predict their next move. But I will be interested to learn who has the most pull when it comes to seriously depleted budgets: Advertisers with tempting wallets, or spoiled editors with high expenses.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go check my 401(k) to see if I'll be able to retire before I'm 90.

Ellie Award Nominations Announced

Also see May 1, 2009, update: Ellie winners announced.

The list of nominees for the American Society of Magazine Editors' Ellie Awards reads a bit like the nominating committee walked up Park Avenue South or Broadway and picked candidates by location. GQ. Esquire. The New Yorker. New York. Vogue.

Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit. There are folks from the provinces, as well. San Francisco's Mother Jones.Texas Monthly (which calls itself "the national magazine of Texas," and one wonders why no one likes Texans). And so on. But it's still dominated by the Gotham crowd, who also hold records for the most Ellie nominations and wins in the past, as well as the most multiple-nominations this year.

Is GQ really one of the greatest magazines around? I live and work in San Francisco with educated, media-savvy people (many of them veterans of the magazine, newspaper, internet, or TV industries). Not once have I heard anyone cite a GQ article. Never have I heard a young J-school graduate list working for GQ as one of their goals (and I meet a lot of J-school grads in my line of work). I do hear such things about Esquire and The Atlantic, and there's often talk about New Yorker articles.

But I'm not picking on GQ. It's a fine magazine, for what it is. I frankly don't know what its aspirations are beyond hitting the revenue marks for its publisher, but there are worse crimes than putting out a successful magazine. My only point is: Really? That's the magazine that ASME nominated for 8 awards this year? New York has some of the best newsstands and magazine shops in the country (one of my favorite things about living in Manhattan was walking the four miles between my apartment on 82 and Second and my office on Park Ave. South and stopping at numerous shops full of magazines from around the country and all over the world). Surely they could have gotten some nominations a bit farther afield?

Condé Nast Hit Hard

The usually high-flying Condé Nast publishing empire has hit some severe turbulence as its stable of luxury goods advertisers cuts back on spending, reports the New York Post's Keith J. Kelly. With Portfolio and Wired both down about 60 percent in advertising (the industry norm lately is much less), things are serious.

Quoting publishing people who say Condé's "overstaffed and overpaid," Kelly notes, " Much of the problem rests with Condé's policy of never discounting off the rate card.'Advertisers are finding that they can buy around them,' said [a] former executive."


It is, of course, pretty easy to change a policy about rate card negotiation -- assuming there's not a big mental block on the matter among the company's leaders. But serious economic times have a way of changing things.