The Press Box - Mueller’s Mulligan, the Sale of Sports Illustrated, and Naomi Wolf's Gaffe | The Press Box

Episode Date: May 29, 2019

Robert Mueller finally talks (03:00), Sports Illustrated is purchased by Authentic Brands Group (16:00), Naomi Wolf makes a “small” error (26:15), and more. Hosts: Bryan Curtis and David Shoemaker Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to the Ringer podcast network. I'm Liz Kelly. Fresh off of Talk the Thrones, the Ringer is introducing a new live Twitter after show covering season two of HBO's Big Little Lies. Immediately after each episode, the Ringer's Amanda Dobbins and ESPN's Mina Kimes will be going live to give their initial reactions and break down everything we saw in the episode. And to kick us off, there will be a special season two preview airing on Friday, June 7th at 12 p.m. Pacific. So join Amanda and Mina for Big Little Live every Sunday on Twitter. this week FS1's Chris Broussard said on the air that he was texting with Kevin Durant Durant came back and said that Broussard didn't have his number

and then Broussard came back and said well I didn't mean text I meant Twitter DMs, Instagram, that sort of thing what I want to know is is there any important difference between texting and DMing for journalistic purposes only by the way I think that in this case, can we all be wrong in this situation? I think Kevin Durant was, presuming this conversation did take place.

I think Kevin Durant is obviously like trying to, you know, split the hair as thinly as possible so that he can prove a point, even if it's not true at its core. But, you know, on the Broussard point, I mean, I don't, I mean, I think that in some cases there's not a distinction between DM, and texting, but clearly there is a distinction. Listen, I personally hope there's a distinction because I don't check my DMs on any platform

with any sort of regularity. So if someone thinks they're just like going to send me a DM and be like, hey, come to this restaurant or like, you know, hey, my house is on fire, can you help? They're going to be really, you know, it's going to be a really bad situation for them if they think I'm going to respond right away. We had quite an inferno over at the Curtis place last night,

and I really regret that you didn't answer my DMs. I just, yeah, I opened up like, what's app, and it's just like a series of like, like, please help, please help, please help, come right now. Yeah, David won an exclusive interview with the number of wrestlers. Sorry, we gave it away. This reminds me the scene in all the president's been, you know, where it's like they have one thing wrong in their report. And it's like, yeah, you got to have everything. You allow the Nixon administration to come in. Like, Brassard had everything right, but he allowed, he allowed Durant to do this thing that made him look like a fabulous, by the way,

even though almost clearly isn't. But made him look like it. It's like he allowed him to throw suspicion on the whole thing. It was really, really remarkable. I will say from personal experience, when a writer says, I spoke to somebody and it turns out that they were like in their Twitter DMs going back and forth, I do just sort of do a huge double take. It's not the same.

It doesn't feel the same. We are the Western Union Telegram of Media Podcasts. This is the Press Box, a part of the Ringer Podcast Network. The press box is the media podcast. We are not allowed to get fired from a magazine editor's job and then shoot a fashion photo of yourself walking out the door. What the hell was that? Brian Curtis and David Shoemaker of the Ringer here back from a long Memorial Day weekend

with three topics for your pleasure and amusement. First David, breaking news as we record this pod, Robert Mueller has talked and talked about the investigation into Donald Trump and the Russians. What did he say? we discuss second Sunday marked the end of an era David. No longer will I have people telling me month after month that Sports Illustrated's about to be sold. Sports Illustrated has been sold to a marketing company. Now what happens?

Finally, we've got so many news items to hit that let's roll with a giant notebook dump that includes such topics as Naomi Wolf, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Stephen A. Smith. What a dinner party that would be. All that plusy overworked Twitter joke of the week. But David, we've got to start with Mueller. The New York Times is reporting that speaking at a Justice Department press conference on Wednesday, I guess not a press conference because he just delivered a statement. Mueller, quote, declined to clear Donald Trump of obstruction of justice in his first public characterization of his two-year-long investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Here's the money quote from Mueller himself.

If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make it deterrence. determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited.

The special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. Okay, David, so the generally low-energy nature of that statement there by Robert Mueller gave rise to some fantastic overworked Twitter jokes. One is Mueller giving big, per my last email energy at the podium. the other one was this is a meeting that could have been an email. Thanks to our friend Matthew Sightland for those. I think my first question is, what is, what was the purpose of this? Because this seems to be to be media at its essence, which is, we knew this stuff,

but there was something important about Mueller going up and saying it, was there not? yeah i mean i think muller obviously felt like there was something important about him going up and saying it i mean i think the the the narrative here is that he botched the delivery the first time and and is aware of that now or at least wasn't or at least didn't foresee how it was going

how the the you know report was going to be conveyed to the to congress and to the general public um through attorney general bar the Trump administration, however you want to say it. And this is sort of his scramble to both put himself on, well, you know, the right side of history or whatever tired phrase you want to use, but also to try to get a duo, get a

mulligan on the delivery, on the present, you know, the presentation of his report. but that whole never get a second chance to make first impressions thing I think he's in here I'm not sure it's going to do any good you sound like my mom the high school counselor I do like the idea of Muller's Mulligan

that's funny yeah I guess the question is when he hears William Barr mischaracterizing his report hours after it's handed in why is he not

racing to a microphone or even issuing a statement and saying, by the way, not right? Well, I think that's a really good question. I think the racing to the microphone might be the sort of place to key in. I mean, he did write a letter, right? And I think that for all of the, I know it's, but, and you should be laughing. I think for all of the, the sort of noise we try, we seem to make on a daily basis about how

Donald Trump has, has, you know, dismantled the, all the, you know, the stateliness of the office. the traditions, the way things are normally done. I mean, I think it's easy to overlook how much just like the media environment has made it, has made most of those traditions totally outmoded, you know, with or without Trump. And I think this is one of those times where Mueller thought he was, in his weird way, thought that he had made a really compelling case for, you know, for Congress to, to proceed with impeachment charges. but, you know,

whatever he was, I mean, whether we're too dumb or whatever else, I mean, he just, he clearly didn't make the case. And then his recovery was to write a letter to bar that was, you know, then leaked to the media, which sternly worded letter. Which didn't even seem that stern.

I mean, it was, you know, even the most anti-Trump aspect, you know, parts of the media's, didn't seem to key in on that letter too much, or at least it didn't have much, it didn't have legs. And it took forever for anybody, to really get into the guts of the Mueller report,

even after it was released about, you know, the significance of what they had found. I mean, it seems like there are a million ways they could have done it better. And then this is the, this is finally his, his, like I said, his chance at recovery. I mean, he thought that he, he, I'm sure that Robert Mueller thought that he was screaming from the rooftops to start impeachment hearings at every

step along the way. And clearly, he failed at that. He, I was rewatching the social network the other night. And he reminds me of the Winklevoss twins when they think that, you know, Zuckerberg is stolen the idea for Facebook. He's like, look, first of all, we need to appeal to Harvard's honor code. You know, we need to go get a meeting with the president. Yes. Just like so ridiculously by the book.

I just, I find it incredibly, and I know you're not arguing for this, but I find it incredibly naive that you are investigating the president of the United States and his. his administration for obstruction of justice. But then you somehow believe that when you hand the report to the attorney general, that he is going to clearly communicate the guts of the report to the American public and not continue to obstruct, if not justice, than the meaning of the report. That just seems like the most naive thing in the world. It's mind boggling. It's mind boggling. And when they, you know, they talk about Mueller and any number of other FBI agents, you know, who are kind of by the book, whatever we refer to them as like good cops is like, you know, it's like, there's all sorts of like police metaphor that goes into there. But, you know, this seems like one of those cases where you want sort of like, you know, you want you want the handcuffs to be taken off metaphorically a little bit. You want the sort of cop that like has a little bit of vigilante in them to actually make.

make something, get something done. And I know that's the kind of police that Trump was agitating for back in his New York days. I was going to say that's like the dirty hairy of special counsels. I like that idea. I think Mueller, you know, was so, during the whole investigation, was so intent on being nonpartisan. He did not want to do the Ken Star thing where you just leak like a sieve and sort of, you know, build the case in the media against the president before you actually release the report.

He was so, so committed to being nonpartisan that he was ineffective because his ideas didn't transmit into the populace. There are various ways to transmit your ideas into the populace. And one of them is releasing a statement. One of them is going out and making a statement. One of them is countering something that is factually wrong with your own factually correct take. And here we are weeks and weeks later. And he's finally doing it. The other vibe I got from this is,

He's doing this because he doesn't want to go in front of Congress, right? This is, again, from the New York Times. He suggested he was reluctant to testify before Congress as the House Judiciary Committee has asked. My report is my testimony, Mueller said. He said he was closing the specials counsel's office and returning to private life. So you see Mueller is desperately trying to have it both ways. I wanted to be known that this is what my report said, but I don't want to talk about it anymore, especially in front of Congress when I'm facing open questioning.

And I would just like to go home now. Yeah. I just, again, there's a certain kind of, you know, gentleman scholar, old school, continental Congress, you know, kind of sheen of respectability to that. But that does not, that's not going to work. And that is not going to work in the age of Donald Trump's Twitter account. No. No. I mean, I think the most mind-boggling thing to me about this whole thing, and I know this is, maybe this is, verges into the dirty, hairy territory.

But how do you not, when you, when you submit the. report, how do you not have some intermediary give the one sentence takeaway from it to every media outlet? You know, like, how do you not get, how do you not help set the table for the perception of this thing that you've spent two years on? How are you not more careful or more aware or cognizant of how media works? It's just sort of befuddling. It's also a good reminder to journalists.

Never root for somebody who doesn't leak. There was kind of this, by the end, there was this kind of, you know, strange new respect for Mueller. You know, you got to give it to the guy. I didn't leak once over two years. I think I probably said about 10 times on this podcast. But we should root for people to leak. Leaking is good.

And, you know, sometimes leaking is like, well, you know, to compromise the investigation. Well, you know, sometimes you're going to compromise the fake, you know, take on the investigation afterwards. So a good reminder that media discipline, which I see saluted in politics, campaigning, everything, all the time is probably not a good thing. All right, David, time for the overwork Twitter joke of the week, where we celebrate a gag that was so obvious that all of media Twitter made it at exactly the same time. The best news of the last week was that our colleagues, Jason Concepcion and Jason Gallagher won an Emmy.

Yes. Of all the, of all the, I saw Gallagher today at a ringer meeting and I said, I just can't decide whether the Emmy or Halliluca, which one is 1A and which one is 1B. I just, I feel like we need a Simmons pyramid so I can just like fully work out, which is the awesomest thing that has happened in the last year. It was an overworked Twitter joke. By the way, there's a big enough story to actually warrant overworked Twitter jokes, mostly by other ringer staffers, but okay. It was an overworked Twitter joke to say that Jason Concepcion has already won the Egot because he won an Emmy and hosts a Game of Thrones podcast. Now, GOT, you see that?

And now you've grown, but that was Rembert and Michael Bauman who tweeted that. So blame them. In other news, David, did you see how everyone was dumping on the Wall Street Journal's tweet last Tuesday that read the Warriors would not be a dynasty without Steph Curry, Clay Thompson, Draymond, Greene, Andreie Guadala, and Kevin Durant? One of the great betrayals by social media of all time. A lot of funny responses. The Cowboys of the 90s wouldn't have been a dynasty without Troy Echman, Emmett Smith, and Michael Irvin was one. Another favorite, the summer would not be hot without the sun. but it was also an overwork Twitter joke to write

Found Magic Johnson's Burner account so thanks to our pals Isaac Chips and Andrew Buckholt's over at awful announcing for that one and finally in this week's awesomest news the liberalish anti-Trumpish Krasenstein brothers were permaband from Twitter the Daily Beast reports

for breaking the site's rules about operating fake accounts and purchasing fake interactions with their accounts So there are no, you know, when you're looking just kind of, you know, spending time in trending topics and you're like, oh my God, another Krasenstein tweet. That's not happening anymore. This is one of my, I saw this twice. So it counts as overworked. This is one of my favorite tweets ever. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people call them the Krasenstein's. Krasnstein was the doctor. They are Krasenstein's monsters. Thanks to Kristen M. Stewart for that one. That's a real high school English class. That's fantastic. Topping number two, David, Sports Illustrated, has been sold to a marketing company called Authentic Brands Group for $110 million.

Now, what is the generically named authentic brands, you might ask? Well, it's a company that has the rights to images of Marilyn Monroe and Elvis. They also manage Fredericks of Hollywood and Nautica, which I must admit are two brands I have not thought about in a while. Ben Strauss over at the Washington Post reports that the Meredith, which is the company that owns Essai now, will continue to print the magazine and manage the editorial side of Sports Illustrated,

dot, dot, dot, while authentic brands will license the magazine's brand and all of its content. Okay, now, how are they going to license Sports Illustrated brand? Sports Illustrated's brand, excuse me. Well, Strauss said it could include SI for Kids branded youth sports camps

or SI branded athletic equipment such as foosball or ping pong tables. So this is what they're going to do with it. An SI ping pong table. Variety reports via authentic brands Jamie Salter, presumably not related to James Salter,

quote, Salter envisioned possibilities including Sports Illustrated medical clinics, end quote. So they are, they are, they may take, yeah.

And then over deadspin, Laura Wagner reports that, quote, during an all hands meeting and SI staffer asked what a Sports Illustrated medical clinic would look like and the room erupted in laughter. So I guess I start here. What kind of vibes do you get with a marketing company buying the most illustriest sports magazine we have here in America?

I mean, you don't get any. There's no positive spin to this. At least it doesn't feel like there is so far. I think the positive spin is that nothing bad. editorial is happening right away. I think that's because I think there's a scenario where this kind of company buys a magazine and says, great brand you have there, we'll take it, and by the way, everybody's fired. So the fact that that did not happen on Monday, I think, is a positive.

Chris Stone remains the editor, Danny Lee, the publisher. S.I. for the moment, is still S.I. Yeah, I mean, that's true. But it's also, I mean, didn't they say specifically that you have, do they have two years? I mean, they've promised to do it for two years. Yeah, Meredith's going to run them for two years and then the deal can be renegotiated at that point. I mean, that feels a little bit like, I mean, I know this is probably too specific, but, you know, I mean, to my life, but it feels like, you know, when a building where like, you know, someone buys a bar in a gentrifying neighborhood or something and they say, you know, don't worry, we're not doing anything. We have, we've promised to keep it up and running for a year. And then, you know, and then you, it's basically just a countdown until they, you know, until the, the, the. the apartment building comes in.

But so, I mean, so, you know, you're right. People still have jobs now, and that's definitely a positive. And hopefully there's a, you know, they find there's a future. And I mean, obviously, there's a logical into this, which is, I mean, sorry, there's a, there's a logical version of this that is positive, which is that, you know, merit, I mean, that the new owners, the authentic brands groups are, you know, realizes that there is value in the magazine continuing to exist, especially with some editorial independence, and that's where it's not just a name, there's value in the content and in the institution,

and that they can do their licensing sort of separate and beside that. But, you know, I think that this is not what I'm about to say. I don't mean that this is necessarily a positive, But, you know, the future of media might not be the authentic brands group owning every legacy magazine. But it's going to look something like this in a lot of instances, right? Haven't help us. I mean, I think we can be a little bit hopeful about this. But also, I think that this is going to, you know, if we pay attention to it, this is going to be a little bit instructive about how we chart the way forward. You know, this isn't a, this isn't a, you know, rich industrialist that has been really.

the magazine his whole life and wants to preserve it and is sort of a you know the the benefactor for it i mean that that's one model but you know this this is another model that seems increasingly realistic in this day and age so you know let's try to figure out how it works well time magazine was the first model rich people that want to own time magazine and genuinely seem to want to own it and give it if not the you know full henry loose luster then give it you know give it some of that and keep it running and keep it as much as it can be a factor in American life in American media. And as you say, this is door number two. I guess I just want to pause for a second and just spend a moment saying just how depressing this sounds. Again, authentic brands

is going to get its run here and we'll see what happens. And obviously I want the best for the people who work at Sports Illustrated. But let's imagine somebody, a marketing company, the ringer. And they said, you know, it's amazing. The name you guys have, the brand you guys have, this is fantastic. We're going to make ringer branded basketballs. It's going to be awesome. We're going to have ringer jerseys. We're going to have basketballs. We're going to have ringer branded high tops. And you and I say, well, wait a second. What about the, you know, the articles and the podcast and NBA desktop? I said, well, that's great. That's great. But we just think the ringer is a great brand. And we can, we can make basketballs with this.

I just think whether the ringer soldiered on or not, that is an incredibly depressing idea. Yeah. It's incredibly depressing that what's important about Sports Illustrated is the name Sports Illustrated, not the actual shit that was in Sports Illustrated. Mm-hmm. I mean, that depresses the hell out of me. It really, really does. And again, like, maybe this is the best case scenario.

This dragged on and on and on. and it didn't seem like they were, it seemed like they were having a lot of trouble, you know, either closing a deal, I don't know finding a buyer, but certainly closing a deal. And so maybe this,

and again, maybe this, maybe scenario, the doomsday scenario was S.I. Just shut down. Somebody bought it and just stripped it for parts and that was it. So maybe this is better. But I just find it.

I want to say, I'm not, nothing, nothing will shake me from the idea that it isn't awful in some way that S. S.I. is a brand rather than an actual magazine. or a journalistic institution. No, I mean, of all of the sales of this sort of thing,

for some reason, this seems like the owners did, that Meredith did do their best. You know, I mean, they did try to find a good return that was also, that also had some respect for the legacy of the company. But it is, it's suppressing that this is, that this is the best they could do, you know? I mean, and you're absolutely right.

I mean, listen, we're not, you know, we have a, the ringer has a merch section. Everybody go check it out. But, you know, I mean, it's not. And Sports Illustrated has been selling all sorts of things that aren't, you know, hard journalism over its entire lifetime. But it is sort of a product of the modern era that the brand is, like you said, on T-shirts or medical facilities or whatever else, is somehow more valuable than the actual content. But at the end of the day, you still have to have content. Or one would hope that you do.

One would like to think that. And that's why I guess we're, you know, we've got a couple years before there's any sort of doomsday moment. but let's hope that that that proves to be true. That brings us to a tweet from Alex Weppren over at Media Post, and I like this. He said, I wonder what incentives Meredith has to run the magazine now. Cut to the bone to maximize profitability while keeping it alive, or do new owners expect a quality product to continue in order to retain strong brand equity? And I think that's actually a really good point.

Meredith wanted to unload this magazine. They are running it because that's the nature of the deal with the branding company. So if you're Meredith, what's your calculus here? Do you just need something called Sports Illustrated to be alive? Or do you need a good thing called Sports Illustrated to be alive or even a great thing called Sports Illustrated to be alive? And that's the question. Because as we've seen with, you know, lots of other horrible examples in media right now, let's say like, you know, the hedge funds buying newspapers, you know, there's a lot of value to them to have something called the Denver Post that sucks. and that has been gutted

and it just has to be, it just has to be on life support. And again, when we're talking about possible doomsday scenarios, I guess that's, that's one here too. Yeah, I mean, right,

I mean, as part of the, if we're going to be looking, if we're going to be thinking in doomsday terms. And why not? It's, it's, and why not.

I mean, obviously the Meredith is running it. I mean, there's a lot of, there's a lot of plausible reasons why, why authentic brands would want Meredith to continue running it.

And one being that they've been running it for, you know, and I mean, they have experienced, experience doing so. They know how to run magazines, yes. Yeah, but you know, you can also, it's also not hard to jump to the, jump to the question of whether or not they're doing it so that they can play,

they can play the villain before authentic brands formally takes over. Everybody's smiling right now, but we'll see. Good luck to people at Sports Illustrated. By the way, would you take your children to a Sports Illustrated medical clinic? Oh, I don't know. Is it going to be like one of those hair, like one of those, those barbershops that they advertised it have like ESPN playing on the TVs all the time. Is that, would that be the thing? Or it's like, it's not as bad as a regular haircut because you get to just chill and like,

like have a cigar and watch, you know, get up while you're getting your trim. Yeah. You get to read like some old Steve Russian classics or something. There's like, yeah, that'd be great. There's like 20 year old magazines in the barbershop, like an actual barbershop. And it's from the glory days of assize. It's like, oh, this is great. Usually I felt like an old issue of good housekeeping here, but this is, this is prime upside. All right, topic number three, David, I had so many things that I wanted to hit you with that we're just going to roll with

this till the end of the show. Jump in, tell me to move on, you know, contradict me as you will. I want to start with Naomi Wolf, who is the author of the new book, Outrage's,

She went on the BBC Radio's Arts and Ideas program. By the way, quite a run for BBC book interviews. We should just, we should just, I mean, we have Terry Gross, but I suggest just outsourcing everything else over to the BBC. And the host of Arts and Ideas, Matthew Sweet, pointed out a small error in her book. Take a listen. And this correct a misapprehension that is in every website

that the last man was executed for Sodomy in Britain in 1835. I don't think you're right about this. One of the cases that you look at that's salient in your report is that of Thomas Silver. It says, teenagers were now convicted more often. Indeed, that year, which is 1859, 14-year-old Thomas Silver was actually executed for committing sodomy. The boy was indicted for an unnatural offense, guilty, death recorded. This is the first time the phrase on natural offense entered the old Bailey records. Thomas Silver wasn't executed.

Death recorded. I was really surprised by this. And I looked it up. Death recorded is what's in. I think most of these cases that you've identified as executions. It doesn't mean that he was executed. It was a category that was created in 1823 that allowed judges to abstain from pronouncing

a sentence of death on any capital convict whom they considered to be a fit subject for pardon. I don't think any of the executions you've identified here actually happened. Well, that's a really important thing to investigate. you better believe it's an important thing to investigate. So what Sweet was saying there was that death recorded means that somebody was actually pardoned, not given the death sentence, as Naomi Wolf apparently claimed incorrectly in her book. Was it Apex Mountain that the guy's over on the rewatchables use?

Yes. Is this Apex Mountain for the BBC's Arts and Ideas program? Is it all downhill from here? Yeah, this is an all-time moment. For sure. So here's my question for you, Mr. former book publishing person. Oh, no.

We have this conversation every time this happens. Why don't book publishing houses pay for fact checkers? I don't know. I mean, I've discussed it in length before, but I don't know that there's an answer to why they don't have it. I mean, I think the answer is that it would cost a lot of money. I think the fact that the ringer has, you know, a real copy. desk and fact-checking department is sort of a novelty for new online magazines.

Yeah. The New Yorker does on their online stuff. Or they did. No, I mean, yeah, but for new, I mean, for new ventures. I think that the fact, yeah, I think that it's sort of, it's sort of a little bit unusual. And I think that's mostly a matter of, of cost, you know, and one can only imagine the difference between a 1,500 word, you know, online article and a 80,000 word book or whatever, and that those come, you know, with regularity in the book publishing world. It's a lot of money and it's a lot of, it's a lot of investment. You know, it's just not the way that things had traditionally been done outside of, you know, textbooks and that sort of thing. I'm sure there's examples. I'm sure there's, you know,

contrary examples that I'm not aware of, but I never worked at a place with the fact. department. I know that Penguin employed some in my time in publishing, but yeah, it's just a weird, it's, it's, it's just a weird thing that they leave that. I guess it's easier to leave that onus on the writer to, to pay for fact checking or to, you know, to see that fact checking is done rather than take it on themselves. And I guess that probably also helps in some certain, in certain liability cases, although publishers generally do a good job. of defending their, their writer. I just, I don't get it.

And I just, it doesn't make any sense to me that you're putting out this giant slab of nonfiction. And the tiny slab of nonfiction, as you say in the magazine would have been fact checked or and on various websites would have been fact checked. But the book, the seemingly definitive book would not have been. And even just basics. I mean, what if there were a fact checker just saying, hey, Jonah Lairer, where did you get this Bob Dylan quote?

You know, I mean, that might say it does a whole lot of trouble. And him a whole lot of trouble, by the way. Or, you know, with this one, again, it's just, it's not, as you say, fact-checking everything in the book might be a lot. But they're seemingly, you know, giving a number of the basic premises of the book some scrutiny would be a pretty good idea. I mean, listen, this is not a defense of the fact. I mean, if there were fact-checkers, it would have been caught. I think it's, there is probably a psychological aspect to this that the, like, the biggest, most central ideas are the ones that you just, like, stare through, you know? I mean, if someone comes to you with a book proposal and it's, like, uh, so centrally built around this, then that might be, I mean, you either question or you don't, but I can understand how someone, how it could be missed.

but it's not acceptable for that to, you know, make it out of the world. And, yeah, I just, it's just kind of, I just, it's hard, it's hard to wrap your head around, not just that, but why no, that she, no one questioned it. I mean, it's not even, you don't even, you don't need a fact checking desk for someone to, like, Google those words when the book proposal comes in, you know, you don't need a fact checking desk for like any of the I mean presumably she has

you know people that she works with people that she that she you know that that do work for her that would that would have you know had a chance to to look at that before it became a book um

it the whole thing is a little bit I mean it's just don't understand get your hands on a copy of Naomi Wolf's outrages if you can it'll be like the Rams 2019 Super Bowl Champions uh t-shirt of books from the Department of Overused Words, David, do you feel as I do that we in the media are overusing the word seminal? Seminal.

I bring this up because Michael Haney did an interview in Esquire with Quentin Tarantino and Brad Pitt and Leo DiCaprio about the new movie Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. And Leonardo DiCaprio uses the word seminal three times in the interview. Three times. I don't have a mention. I don't have the analytics here. But I just feel from Twitter and from pieces that I just see the word seminal all the time.

That it's just, we have read the, the American media, you might say, is covered in seminal. It really is. What do you, what do you make of this? They're totally silent. Okay, there we go. No, I just, I think that it's, I think that, I mean, I can't speak to why Leo DiCaprio. I mean, presumably that was like on his word of day calendar at some point in the recent past, But, you know, I mean, this is the, this is, this is, we're, it's all, everything's

clickbait now, you know, there's no reason to write about something if it's not seminal. And even if something's not, we'll call it seminal so that we have an excuse to write about it. Yeah, every movie from the 80s is seminal. That justifies us doing an oral history of it. Media exit of the week, David. And speaking of Esquire, their EIC, Jay Fielden is out. Fielden said in a statement, I have felt the lure of new possibilities. And then he put out a photo of himself walking out of the hearse building, carrying four designer weekend bags. Now, remind me, David, is that how Mr. Sean left the New Yorker?

Was that? I think it was a leather suitcase and an umbrella tucked under his arm, but it could be wrong. It was a satchel of some sort. You know, sometimes in journalism, David, you let the work speak for itself, and sometimes you let the designer handbag speak for the work. Jayfield chose the latter category. Some low lights of his tenure, the Brian Singer piece that couldn't get past Hearst Lawyers and wound up running in the Atlantic.

also the American male cover that we talked about here on the podcast. I like this Benjamin Fried tweet. If there's one thing I'll remember about Jay Fielding's run at Esquire, it's how phenomenal GQ was during the last few years of Jim Nelson's tenure. That's funny. I do feel that Fielden leaving is the end of this particular ideal of magazine editor. And it's not the ideal that I am, you know, Mr. Longform maestro myself. it is that this is a luxury position, right?

This is where I get, I get the handbags. I get the clothes. I look the part. I'm not, you know, this nebishy guy behind a desk. I'm kind of, you know, somebody who's ready to walk out onto a runway. And I feel that might have died with that Instagram post. Like we might be done with that now. Yeah.

Certainly that arrow is drawing to a close on its own, although I think it's clear that Jay was courting that sort of nostalgia in his entire career presentation. Good word. But yeah, I mean, I think that it is sad, you know, I mean, I think that going back to my time in book publishing, I used to always say semi-seriously that the 80s, you know, when book publishing was at its peak and everybody was getting hammered at the Odeon every night or whatever. There was this incredible era of brilliant assholes that were running the publishing industry.

and at some point after those people started fading away or moving to other jobs, whoever was in charge of hiring just got, just forgot about the brilliant part and just started hiring assholes. There's a little bit of like there's a, there's certainly an element of, you know, nostalgia of the grand old, you know, person of publishing, magazine publishing of that style. But the style doesn't, you know, make you a great editor. And it doesn't, and it certainly doesn't bring back some glory, you know,

the glory days of publishing. of magazine publishing don't return because you put a vest on underneath your blazer. I will give him credit for this. He fumigated Esquire of a certain skeezy horniness that that magazine had. We've talked about that before. He got rid of that. I mean, I did not read every issue of his tenure, but when I checked in, it was a totally different magazine. It was that all the way up to the end of the previous regime.

It really was under Granger. And it was like, it was kind of like, I can't believe this is still happening. It certainly wouldn't work now But you know He did get rid of that So I think that's a point in his column Godspeed Jay Fieldon David I have a Stephen A. Smith

Status report for you We talked last week about how Stephen A Had become weirdly and widely beloved Against all odds This week, oops He decided to go in on Baxter Holmes's ESPN.com piece about the dysfunctional Lakers Let's listen to that

I'm not happy about it one bit I got better things to do with my damn time. Better things to do. ESPN.com decides to come out with a story on a date of magic. And the crew are going to be here. Do I like the fact that I have to deal with it today? Hell no. Go check it out on ESPN.com.

Obviously it's very, very important. I mean, it's the cover of ESPN.com. It's a big deal, right? Go ahead and look at it. ESPN.com. Let's make sure we make sure we make. mention that. It's right there. Let's make sure we mention that. ESPN.com. What a plug. What a plug. Up to that point, it sounded a little bit like a Stephen A. Smith soundboard.

Just being, you know, someone just mashing a bunch of buttons. The last time, you know, last week we talked about Stephen A. We talked about how he was, I mentioned how he was constantly called into duty for like every single ESPN television and radio property to boost ratings. Now this is a direct plea for people to go to the dot com drive traffic there um it's all very strange the it's a really weird the whole baxter holmes stephen a i mean stephen a sort of acting is this sort of i don't know if he's playing heel in this situation or to to call back again or if he's gonna um you know if he's just the sort of rye ombudsman to this baxter holmes piece i'm not the whole thing is It's just one of the most bizarre spectacles ever.

And it sort of culminated with this NBA finals preview where he and Magic Johnson were sitting side by side as Magic Johnson was defending himself against this piece. But Magic Johnson was there as talent. You know, I mean, the whole thing was just like, just so bizarre. Well, that's what's weird because Magic didn't talk to Baxter Holmes for the piece.

He no commented Holmes, but then he's allowed to go on ESPN and sort of deny all the charges and have this big forum. I mean, I know this all, ESPN is a giant place and these things don't work together, and I'm sure they kind of don't have anything to do with each other. But there is a certain sort of seemingly institutional good to saying, okay, we can't put you on the air unless you talk to the writer. This is the way we are covering you. and you need to talk to the writer

in some way. And if you don't, it's really hard for us to then put you on the air and let you just go crazy all over the writer's piece with the assistance of Stephen A. That is very odd to me. And by the way, let me make it absolutely clear

with Stephen A, what I object to about this. I don't mind people at the same media organization going at it about a piece of journalism. I actually like that. Speaking of not leaking, I want people to make their feelings known. By the way, so how many people covering the Lakers would you like to hear talk about other people covering the Lakers at ESPN? Boy, I would with the way that that beat is sliced and diced and everything that's happened over the – I would love that.

But he didn't have any – Stephen A. didn't have anything to say about this other than this is inconveniencing me and actually making fun of one of the pieces of the article, which is that someone had a panic attack. It was induced by the atmosphere there in the Lakers office, and Stephen A was kind of like holding his chest like Red Fox and all that stuff. And like that's not, that's actually not funny at all. And so again, I support the idea. If he doesn't agree with what Baxter wrote, Baxter's a big boy, he can defend himself. I absolutely support him saying that and saying that on ESPN's air.

I'm not here to police ESPNHR. That does not interest me at all. but that was not a take at all. That was not, that wasn't a take other than I just didn't want this to happen and this inconvenience is me. No, and the, I mean, listen, we, he's a master at, you know, making very specific arguments or finding, finding the, you know, the most careful way into a very antagonistic argument. But his argument in this case was, I believe the quote was, the leaks are real and the news

is fake. Yeah. I, the, I'm not quite sure what the point is. You know, I mean, it just, it's like, you to have to find, I mean, obviously, this is a man is very good at finding something to argue about and subjects we all agree on. But I'm not quite sure what the exception he's making here. A couple more, we'll get out of here. This from the Department of Bad Media Criticism, and you sent me this, so I'm going to let you kind of take it away. But when did we start calling every investigative piece about a presidential candidate that people like a hit piece?

I think it's a really I think this is just one of those sort of meta subjects that jumped out of me this week you know it cuts both ways I mean for one thing we have we have major outlets that are doing you know deep dive research

into our presidential candidates past which is a necessary part of the process an important part of the process but but then in an effort to sort of, you know, shrug them off. I mean, for one thing, they're getting shrugged off. I mean, especially on the Democrat side, the Democratic side, the, you know, we have, you know, the Washington Post did a big piece on Elizabeth Warren's legal career prior to her political career

and that she, you know, made money from some less than, you know, some, from some places that may not reflect well upon her. And the New York Magazine blog post about it said, titled the piece, Elizabeth Warren did job and received hourly rate for it, shocking report fines. The Politico piece on Bernie Sanders money, I think from Splinter News,

had a headline that was Politico to Bernie, curious how you also participate in society. So, I mean, these are, it's funny that, I mean, it is interesting to see how, you know, I'm not sure if this is a continuation of kind of the stakes getting shifted in the Trump era, but people are just shrugging these things off more. I think it's just like this, it's savvy, fake savvy media criticism a lot of the time.

I'm, you know, I don't know Michael Cruz all that well, but I'm pretty sure he did not conceive of this as a hit piece on Bernie Sanders. I mean, he was not, he was like, how can I get Bernie Sanders? I'm pretty sure that dude from reading his work in his Twitter feed was like, I want to write a piece about the irony that Bernie Sanders is a rich guy and write about how he accumulated his wealth, which seems to me to be a totally fine time. You know, if you want to hit him for the way he presented it and the kind of, you know, if there were a few Inspector Cluso's sentences in there about, you know, aha, there's something here. That's fine. But I sort of think I want to know more about the candidates and I'm willing to forgive a couple of stray lines like that. Yeah, I think that the information is paramount. And certainly, you know, as an art director, the art for that Bernie Sanders Politico piece, I think was probably a little bit more, I mean, might have been a little bit more arch than the actual direction, you know, the editorial direction for the piece, although it was pretty smart.

But yeah, I mean, I think that this is, regardless of how it's presented, this is necessary stuff. And I guess the response to it is, is, you know, especially in the blogosphere, you respond with, you know, all the good humor that you, that you want to do that. I mean, these are, the responses that takes were funny. But the idea that this is inherently a hit piece, that this is that the point was to derail a campaign or something is just sort of mind-boggling. David, I've got the anonymous source of the week for you. Oh, yes. I've been looking forward to this, anonymous source of the week. This is from a Vanity Fair set report.

What? The upcoming movie, The Rise of Skywalker, Star Wars movie coming out this December. The writer had interviews with director JJ Abrams, Lucas Films, Kathy Kennedy, all the stars of the movie. And then they had anonymous sources, which just stuck out to me for some reason. Let me give you a few of these, David. Sources close to the movie say that Skywalker will it long last bring to the climax the millennia-long conflict between the Jedi Order and its dark shadow, the Sith. sources close to the movie are saying that the fight between the Jedi and the Sith will finally be over.

Sources say Ray will have progressed in her training since the end of the last Jedi to the point where it's almost complete. It is off the record, people, that Ray has progressed in her Jedi training. Also, sources at Disney also confirm that the long rumored knights of Wren will finally arrive in the movie. So, first of all, this is a couple of moments from here. just the general wojification of the set visit. This is not something I thought we were going to get into Anonymous Sourceville with. I mean, this is, again, this is, this is not like a script leak or

something like that. This is a, please come in and write about our movie. But I just sort of wonder how this went down. Was it, was it J.J. Abrams saying, like, you didn't get this for me. But Ray has progressed in her Jedi training. Just, just, just, I don't want my name anywhere near that. I want, off the, this is just for your information, but I don't want, I don't want to be quoted on saying that. I just, I guess I just don't quite understand how we got here. It feels a little bit like one of those anonymous White House sources that is clearly the president or his press secretary with the president sitting next to the press secretary, you know, like where it's, it's, it's so, I mean, the sources, I mean, it's so high, high up and the pieces, I mean, the information is

so deliberately planted that we have to go anonymous because otherwise it feels a lot like J.J. Abrams trying to curry the favor of the nerds, you know, of the diehard fans out there. Yeah, I mean, I guess I understand if you're JJ, you've taken an oath of silence on everything, on all like plot points. So you're like, I can't, I couldn't be doing this because then I'm just going to get asked about this for the next six months. So I just have to put this off the record. But anyway, I just thought that was fun. And by the way, I gobbled up all the anonymously sourced material because I wanted to know what happened in the movie. So, you know, I'm really part of the, this is not judgmental.

I was just, I was just a little struck by that. It was a very strange turn of phrase in that, in that beef. Time for David guesses the strain pun headline. No, okay. That's the obligatory David reaction, by the way, for that listener. Who sent that in last week. This comes from another listener, David, Jamie McCourt, presumably not the former L.A. Dodgers owner and current ambassador to France,

a different Jamie McCord. Would like you to try to guess the title of the CNN.com review of the new movie Aladdin. The CNN.com review of the new movie Aladdin. I'll just give you a slight bit of direction. It's a positive review arguing that moviegoers will like the movie. Positive review that moviegoers will like the new Disney Aladdin. And is it like an isolated phrase or is it just sort of a teased out sort of like head? Isolated phrase.

Very basic. We're not getting into lyrics of, you ain't never had a friend like me or we're just, we're just, just, just stick. with, I would say, genie iconography. I was going to say, is it like genius in a bottle? Pretty good? Genie. I mean, just Aladdin is, I mean, I'm trying to think of my actual phrase. Is it something magic?

If it were a bad movie, by the way, Genie bust would be kind of super inside, but kind of funny. That would be the ringer headline for sure. What do we know about genies? Lamp. Uh-huh, uh-huh. And maybe how do we summon the genie? Oh, you rub, you rub.

Oh. Uh-huh. Uh, giving the rub. Uh, God. Very, just, just, just tantalizingly close, David. I know. Gosh, rub a dub-dub. Um, rubbing off, rubbing, rubbing shoulders.

God, I can't think of anything. What is it? All right. Time's up, David. Aladdin should rub audiences the right way. Aladdin should rub audiences the right way. That is the headline of the CNN. Should rub.

Yeah. Aladdin should rub audiences. This is like, that's the most awkward construction of a headline ever. But listen, if it's all for the pun, I respect. I don't write the straight puns.

I just read him. He's David Shoemaker. I'm Brian Curtis. Our producer is Jim Cunningham. Chris Almeida helps us with research. More on the next edition of the press box. See you then, buddy. See you later.

David? Yeah. I get the handbags. I get the clothes. I look the part. I'm not, you know, this nebishy guy behind the desk. I'm kind of, you know, somebody who's ready to walk out onto a runway. Yeah, I mean, that's true, but it's...

We're going to make ringer-branded... D-shirts! It's going to be awesome. We're going to have ringer... Coloring book. Ringer. Lunchbox. Ringered.

Breakfast cereal. We're going to have ringer branded. Flames grow up. Hey, my house is on fire. Can you help? Hell no. Please help. Please help. Please help. Come right now.

Hell no. This inconvenience is me. Brilliant asshole. Godspeed. And by the way, everybody's fire.