Gay Patriot Header Image

Is Tina Brown all that savvy about the changing media market?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:10 pm - July 24, 2012.
Filed under: New Media,Random Thoughts

Commenting on reports that “the Harmon family is divesting interest in NewsWeeks Daily Beast online blog”, Sonicfrog wonders if this is a “a sign that daily Beast is going under“:

I can’t say. There is still time to save the product. But they have to get much smarter and much more accommodating to other political point of views if they are going to survive. Oh, and get rid of Tina Brown. She doesn’t exactly have a great track record for the last several years.

Read the whole thing.  His post led me to wonder if Tina Brown is all that savvy about the changing media market.  She does have good PR sense.  Now, to be sure, reports on various media ventures do seem to herald her ability to build an existing market or craft a new niche.

Her recent record, however, doesn’t seem to match those reports.  Brown does know how to promote herself (and get that favorable media attention), but does she know how to creating a well-trafficked web-site or build a profitable enterprise?

Contrast her latest on-line enterprise with Arianna Huffington’s most recent endeavor.  We may not share Mrs. Huffington’s ideological tilt, but do recognize her success. Perhaps, Brown was just trying to imitate Huffington.

And she just hasn’t realized that the liberal online marketplace has reached its saturation point.

UPDATE:  In a similar vein, Steven Hayward offers, “Under Tina Brown—probably the most overrated journalist/editor of our time—Newsweek has become just a lightweight version of The New Republic.”  (Via Instapundit.)

Share

45 Comments

  1. Tina Brown is very good at promoting Tina Brown. That’s about it.

    As for Newsweek, it’s last asking price was the same as a McDouble from the Value Menu at McD’s. What’s next? Goodwill?

    Comment by V the K — July 24, 2012 @ 2:18 pm - July 24, 2012

  2. Then there is the question I didn’t ask… Is it even worth saving? There are certainly plenty of places for all the unemployed bloggers to go if this thing goes belly up. And I have no idea why, but, when he’s not off the rails, i preferred the Atlantic version of Andrew Sullivan than the Daily Beast one. He somehow seemed so much more….. I don’t know…. Relevant then.

    Comment by sonicfrog — July 24, 2012 @ 2:21 pm - July 24, 2012

  3. A friend just gave up his longtime Newsweek subscription for The Economist. He said NW had become “the chick flick of news magazines.”

    Comment by EssEm — July 24, 2012 @ 2:24 pm - July 24, 2012

  4. Bravo for the last two posts, Dan.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 24, 2012 @ 2:55 pm - July 24, 2012

  5. Of all people you shouldn’t praise Arianna Huffington.

    Entering a farce marriage with a uber-rich gay to take advantage of his money and connection is anything but praise worthy.

    This squalid woman gets a pass as usual for the D next to her name.

    Comment by susan — July 24, 2012 @ 3:18 pm - July 24, 2012

  6. My account is suspended again at Twitter; I’m @BlueLantern02. #FreeBlueLantern02 Get the word out!!! Thanks.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — July 24, 2012 @ 3:39 pm - July 24, 2012

  7. From Wikipedia:

    Huffington met her future husband Michael Huffington in 1985. They were married a year later. They later established residency in Santa Barbara, California, in order for him to run in 1992 as a Republican for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, which he won by a significant margin.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 24, 2012 @ 3:43 pm - July 24, 2012

  8. Suspended again Shaw? Geoff Jones must really hate you.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 24, 2012 @ 3:43 pm - July 24, 2012

  9. Tina Brown is a niche market manipulator. She has great instincts for pinning ribbons on her market and leading them around by the nose. In 1992, S.I. Newhouse put her on the job of reviving The New Yorker which he had driven from high profitability to hemorrhaging money in a short five years of ownership and mismanagement.

    Tina Brown turned The New Yorker into the popular house publication of leftists and made them pay high subscription rates for access to the prescription snark and tailored just for them reporting and pampering. There was a huge market for such a specialized slanted publication and Tina Brown cultivated and grew it. Since 1998, David Remnick has carried on what she created.

    But, she is essentially a one-trick pony and the insular leftist market is not nearly large enough to sustain all the leftist news and commentary interests who are lined up for a bite of the apple. Ask the NYT, Newsweek, Time, The WaPo, ABC, NBC, CBS, HBO, Vanity Fair, CNN, and the invisible left wing of talk radio.

    The world is somewhat larger than Chelsea, the Upper West Side, the Hamptons and Palm Beach enclaves. Tina Brown can still make big waves in her selected pools. She just does not have the Murdoch touch to actually build and expand a general market.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 24, 2012 @ 3:44 pm - July 24, 2012

  10. In the following video, Huffington describes her time in the Republican party. When the “squalid woman” entered her “farce marriage” she had an ‘R’ “next to her name.” I’m sure it was an oversight on Susan’s part.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 24, 2012 @ 3:50 pm - July 24, 2012

  11. I’m back on Twitter; it might have had a glitch.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — July 24, 2012 @ 7:18 pm - July 24, 2012

  12. What is the Daily Beast? Also, what is Newsweek?

    (note: rhetorical questions)

    Comment by Rattlesnake — July 25, 2012 @ 12:58 am - July 25, 2012

  13. “In the following video, Huffington describes her time in the Republican party. When the “squalid woman” entered her “farce marriage” she had an ‘R’ “next to her name.” I’m sure it was an oversight on Susan’s part.”

    Cinesnatch, as usual, your limited mental capabilities do not allow you to fully grasp the sense of what is written.

    Gays like yourself usually spit venom on closeted homosexuals especially when they enter a scam marriage to protect their status/position etc. The woman in the scam is a willing participant therefore deserving of contempt. Nobody knew at the time, it came out later when she was already cheering for the democratic party (using her deceased husband’s money, what a class act).

    I repeat that this woman is a POS of the worst kind, it does not matter at all that some years ago, when it was convenient, she was republican in light of a marriage she entered exclusively for $$$ or to be able to stay in the US. This makes her even more despicable.

    The fact that whenever she opens her mouth, she is unable to make a coherent sentence adds up to her being an empty headed buffoon. But I guess it’s all ok for you since she plays for your pathetic democratic team.

    Comment by susan — July 25, 2012 @ 2:50 am - July 25, 2012

  14. Of all people you shouldn’t praise Arianna Huffington.

    Entering a farce marriage with a uber-rich gay to take advantage of his money and connection is anything but praise worthy.

    This squalid woman gets a pass as usual for the D next to her name.

    susan, yes, indeed.

    One of the late Peter McWilliams’ books detailed his time in a New Age cult with the young, to-be Huffingtons. That cult was where Arianna met her husband, who (according to McWilliams) displayed homosexual tendencies and married Arianna as a beard; she, in turn, married him for the money, and the fame that would be hers if his political career were successful. Not very long after his career bombed, she divorced him, got a giant settlement which financed her new ventures, and “the rest is history”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 25, 2012 @ 5:07 am - July 25, 2012

  15. (continued) As for her having an ‘R’ after her name in those days: Who the hell cares. Squalor is squalor. Some people, the GOP is better off without.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 25, 2012 @ 5:10 am - July 25, 2012

  16. Ah, the book was McWilliams’ “Life 102: What to Do When Your Guru Sues You”, shown briefly here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heGwChoXBLQ

    Arianna proclaims herself a “born-again Christian” at 3:39. I’d forgot about that. I didn’t believe her, even at the time.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 25, 2012 @ 5:17 am - July 25, 2012

  17. Gays like yourself usually spit venom on closeted homosexuals especially when they enter a scam marriage to protect their status/position etc.

    Actually, I have come out for actors who want to stay in the closet.
    From a comment I made on eighteen months ago about a blogger’s criticism for Kevin Spacey not coming out:

    His life, his decision.

    Criticizing the blogger taking Matt Bomer to task for not coming out:

    You ignored the part about him saying he has a network and a show riding on his shoulders.

    Hell, I even dug up a quote where I defended Elton John singing at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding:

    Not sure why you still doubt his intentions with the Limbaugh wedding. I buy it. And we don’t know what he did with the $1M. For all we know, he donated it anonymously to marriage equality.

    In short, Susan, like your cronies ILC, ND30 & Co, you lie.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 25, 2012 @ 10:18 am - July 25, 2012

  18. “In short, Susan, like your cronies ILC, ND30 & Co, you lie”

    I am afraid I have to resort citing your limited mental capabilities.

    The point is not coming out or not, the point is entering a scam marriage. Being out or not is not performing a scam. You can avoid displaying your sexuality as you would hide your salary, religion or political affiliation.

    Entering a SCAM marriage is different.

    To make it more simple, if instead of Arianna it was me entering a scam marriage with a wealthy ultra liberal gay you would think the worst of me.

    I do not see why a squalid person like Arianna gets a pass. ILC said it better, glad that this scum is proudly on the democratic side.

    Comment by Susan — July 25, 2012 @ 11:32 am - July 25, 2012

  19. “That cult was where Arianna met her husband, who (according to McWilliams) displayed homosexual tendencies and married Arianna as a beard; she, in turn, married him for the money, and the fame that would be hers if his political career were successful.”

    the uber-bitch got also lucky that he died fairly young so she can say whatever she wants about her ‘past’ without the fear of being caught.

    Comment by susan — July 25, 2012 @ 12:49 pm - July 25, 2012

  20. Interesting.

    Donna and I never got married. We considered it, but didn’t feel our relationship ‘rose’ to the level of marriage.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 25, 2012 @ 2:36 pm - July 25, 2012

  21. Susan, what part of the evidence that contradicted “gays like yourself usually spit on sham marriages” did you misunderstand. There is nothing wrong with a straight woman marrying a gay man or vice verse. This is a free country. If Kelly Preston and John travolta are happy, more power to them. And, no, wrong again. I did not judge Liza when she married David guest.

    Huffington, by this thread, had shown to be duplicitous, regardless of what letter follows after her name.

    You know knowing about me. Stop fronting like you do. And if you’re going to accuse a commenter of being anything, back yourself up and use evidence. Otherwise, you’re operating from nd30’s level, which some people on here actually have the audacity to defend.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 25, 2012 @ 2:41 pm - July 25, 2012

  22. One of the things that I never miss is reading the comments section to editorials and news.

    Very frequently the comments of self proclaimed gays about closeted or not-so-out celebrities was always the same: “Bastard, he enjoys priviledges that other gays won for him, without contributing himself to the cause by coming out”. I read this about A. Cooper before he came out, Adam Lambert before he came out and more or less every other closeted or semi-closeted known.

    Considering that for the almost totality THE most important thing is that gay celebrities are visible and are actively pushing up the quota, I can understand the vitriol and hatred for the closeted and even more the married to women out of convenience (ever read the comments about Michele Bachmann’s husband?).

    Having said that you might pretend you are not of the lot, simply I do not believe it given so much evidence of the other mantras followed by the group you belong to.

    Comment by susan — July 25, 2012 @ 3:40 pm - July 25, 2012

  23. I provided evidence. You didn’t.

    Enough said.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 25, 2012 @ 4:37 pm - July 25, 2012

  24. no evidence provided, you simply said the others are lying. This proves exactly nothing.

    Comment by susan — July 25, 2012 @ 4:42 pm - July 25, 2012

  25. Please refer to post #17.

    Feel free to find the posts by googling the quotations exactly and also adding “boyculture,” if necessary (the name of the blog). I am on my phone today, which only allows certain functions.

    Or just continue lying.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 25, 2012 @ 4:52 pm - July 25, 2012

  26. According to Wikipedia, Michael Huffington isn’t dead and is bisexual.

    “Bastard, he enjoys priviledges that other gays won for him, without contributing himself to the cause by coming out”.

    Oh good lord.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — July 25, 2012 @ 5:15 pm - July 25, 2012

  27. Susan, I can’t believe I didn’t include this epic exchange regarding “gays like [my]self … spit[ting] venom on”defending the rights of “closeted homosexuals.”

    FIFY, sweetie.

    P.S. One can support one’s decision to stay in the closet while also celebrating their choice to come out, if one finds them a person worth supporting, regardless of their political persuasion. You know, it’s that thing a person does when they balance two different thoughts at the same time sans judgment.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 25, 2012 @ 10:51 pm - July 25, 2012

  28. In short, Susan, like your cronies ILC, ND30 & Co, you lie.

    Those who lie ever accuse those who don’t, of lying. I don’t know, probably on the theory that the best defense is a strong offense.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 26, 2012 @ 9:52 am - July 26, 2012

  29. And that quote being at #17, makes this one at #21 the more brazen:

    And if you’re going to accuse a commenter of being anything, back yourself up and use evidence.

    susan, in the main you have it right. Kudos to you.

    As to this:

    There is nothing wrong with a straight woman marrying a gay man or vice verse.

    Cinesnatch, as usual, dropped the relevant context: “… a straight woman marrying a gay man -specifically to earn money, in helping him deceive the world-.” Yes, there is something wrong with it. Cinesnatch would be aware that freedom includes the right to be squalid, but seems to forget that people still oughtn’t to be.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 26, 2012 @ 10:15 am - July 26, 2012

  30. I’m flattered by your interest in the matter, ILC, but post 17 addresses a particular line Susan wrote that was a lie. Please stick to that particular quote.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 26, 2012 @ 11:19 am - July 26, 2012

  31. Susan accused me of being one who usually spits venom, asserting that it is common behavior for me to criticize a gay man for being in the closet, without providing proof. I supplied evidence to the contrary.

    It sounds like you are choosing to support her lie masquerading as doing her bidding for her. But hey, you are not interested in “my agenda,” right?

    Dude, like the finale for The Full Monty, let it go.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 26, 2012 @ 11:28 am - July 26, 2012

  32. Or just keep up your cherry-picking “litigation.”

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 26, 2012 @ 11:31 am - July 26, 2012

  33. a particular line Susan wrote that was a lie only a narcissist would try to construe as a lie (something deliberately false)

    FIFY

    I’m flattered by your interest in the matter, ILC

    Of course you are.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 26, 2012 @ 11:33 am - July 26, 2012

  34. FTR, in #17 Cinesnatch responds to this quote of susan’s:

    Gays like yourself usually spit venom on closeted homosexuals especially when they enter a scam marriage to protect their status/position etc

    Perhaps we should add **bold stars**, for the comprehension of the reading-impaired:

    **Gays like yourself usually** spit venom on closeted homosexuals especially when they enter a scam marriage to protect their status/position etc

    The subject of the sentence is clearly “Gays like Cinesnatch”, i.e., left-wing gays generally. Not “Cinesnatch”. Naturally, Cinesnatch thinks otherwise. But susan underlined her real intent further by adding “usually”, which allows the possibility that Cinesnatch might indeed think differently from his brethren.

    In fact, susan wrote something true. Gays like Cinesnatch – i.e., left-wing gays generally – do usually “spit venom on closeted homosexuals especially when they enter a scam marriage to protect their status/position etc.” So naturally Cinesnatch must accuse her of lying.

    Cinesnatch: You have been informed directly of the facts. Any further accusations that you may try to make on susan in this matter, to the effect of her lying, will not only be falsehoods, they will be falsehoods that you state intentionally after knowing the facts: that is, lies.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 26, 2012 @ 11:46 am - July 26, 2012

  35. Oh boy. When liberals, for example, say “a@@holes like Rush Limbaugh,” I didn’t realize they meant he was a lovely person to spend time with. You’ve taken the blinders off, ILC. At risk of sounding like I’m making “further accusations on Susan’s lying,” I will just say that anyone who has kept up with this thread (God bless them) has reading skills. They can draw their own conclusions. But, if anyone can infer something out of “draw their own conclusions,” other than what it means, it’s Susan’s new Knight in Shining Armor, ILoveConsistency–sounding more and more like ND30 everyday.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 26, 2012 @ 11:58 am - July 26, 2012

  36. Not only is Michael Huffington not dead, but is an active film producer and occasional contributor to his ex-wife’s media venture.

    Comment by RSG — July 26, 2012 @ 12:09 pm - July 26, 2012

  37. When liberals, for example, say “a@@holes like Rush Limbaugh,”

    Wow. You’ve made the leap that including someone in the plural “gays”, would or should connote an intention similar to including them in the plural “a–holes”. How instructive, Cinesnatch. For the record, I do not agree with you. I do not view gays generally as a–holes. I’m sorry, that you do.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 26, 2012 @ 12:10 pm - July 26, 2012

  38. I do not view gays generally as a–holes.

    No, I believe you view them as tops.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 26, 2012 @ 12:14 pm - July 26, 2012

  39. (more precisely, the leap that including a person in the simile “gays like you” somehow would or should connote an intention similar to including them in the simile “a–holes like you”)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 26, 2012 @ 12:14 pm - July 26, 2012

  40. No, I believe you view them as tops.

    Which, by employing the class and restraint for which you are renowned, shows I hit a nerve. Thank you for letting me see that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 26, 2012 @ 12:18 pm - July 26, 2012

  41. Thank you for letting me see that.

    Thank you for being either disingenuous and/or willfully ignorant, while feigning some self-righteous notion that you stand for the truth. Because my sadness is that statement is all there is to see.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 26, 2012 @ 12:31 pm - July 26, 2012

  42. Sorry, should read “Because my sadness in that statement is all there is to see.”

    Comment by Cinesnatch — July 26, 2012 @ 12:32 pm - July 26, 2012

  43. ??? Should read just as you had already made it read, the first time?

    I know I often get your goat… but reducing you to THIS level of gibberish (none of #35, #40 or #41 saying anything remotely coherent) is new.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 26, 2012 @ 12:42 pm - July 26, 2012

  44. As to the (rather silly) charge of cronyism here: I have no financial connection with either susan or NDT. I don’t know who susan is; she seems new to me. I admire her clear-seeing about Arianna Huffington. I may well disagree with whatever she has to say next, but I welcome newcomers; and my welcome MAY (at my discretion) extend to providing a bit of support against the intimidation and deception tactics of the indecent. NDT is someone I sometimes disagree with or disapprove of, but I know him to be a very good human being and proudly think of him as a friend. I suppose that “crony”, in this context, could be a dysphemism for “friend”; since, as Tolkien tells us, “he that sees through the eyes of Morgoth, willing or unwilling, sees all things crooked.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 26, 2012 @ 1:22 pm - July 26, 2012

  45. One has to remember, ILC, that conservatives think liberals are misguided, while liberals think conservatives are evil.

    Furthermore, as studies have shown, liberals are extremely inept when it comes to understanding and interpreting conservatives’ behavior.

    Cinesnatch is having trouble here because he is a liberal, steeped in the correctness of liberalism and the belief that anyone who disagrees with liberalism is evil. In Cinesnatch’s world, it is impossible for people to disagree without hating each other, because that is his rule: if you disagree with me, you are wrong, you are evil, and it is your fault.

    It’s pure projection. Cinesnatch’s entire schtick is to force you to agree with him and suborn your own interests. That’s why he whines about how mistreated he is, that’s why he complains about how bad you are, and so forth; it is all a carefully-calculated game to play on other peoples’ inherent sense of sympathy, decency, and fair play to get what he wants.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 26, 2012 @ 3:30 pm - July 26, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.