The Press Box - The New York Times' Bad Headline and the Anonymous Source of the Week. Plus: Are Newsletters the New Podcasts? | The Press Box

Episode Date: August 9, 2019

The great New York Times headline controversy of 2019 (03:00), the Overworked Twitter Joke of the Week (18:00), how to hijack a football press conference (19:30), and the Anonymous Sources of the Week (22:15) Hosts: Bryan Curtis and David Shoemaker Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, it's Liz Kelly and welcome to the Ringer podcast network. Up on our site, The Ringer has just published their first ever fantasy football rankings. Our NFL experts, Danny Kelly, Robert Mays, Danny Highfits, and more rank and analyze the top 150 players in 2019 with with you with you, wherever you're drafting. To check out our rankings and for more preseason coverage, listen to the Dannessie Football podcast or head over to The Ringer.com. David, during this week's New York Times headline controversy, the conservative website

the Blaze semi-defended the times. Prominent liberals lost it over NYT headline that accurately characterized Trump's remarks about El Paso. What I want to know is what other strange bedfellow could you imagine the Blaze

defending? I mean, I don't know, but I'm going to go out in a limb and say there was probably the Blaze headline four years ago that was like Bernie Sanders correctly calls D&C corrupt. You think the Blaze went like like dip their toes into like John Delaney pulling ahead of the Democrat pack sort of John Delaney making a lot of sense territory you think they were in there think they were in all that

true teller we think there was a whole like Donna Brazil vertical at one point where she was going in on the Democrats yeah absolutely right yeah donna donna brazil cracks the code to the dnc I'm sure they have a lot of thoughtful ideas on how like Che Guevara t-shirts really prove the point of capitalism but you know that that might be a whole separate section of the website. We are the Blaze Pizza of Media Podcasts. This is the press box, a part of the ringer podcast network. Hello media consumers, Brian

Curtis and David Shoemaker here. Tons to get to this week. We'll talk about how to hijack a football press conference. We'll reveal the anonymous sources of the week. We're also going to talk about how newsletters became the new podcasts and about our encounter with

gin blossoms. Yes, gin blossoms. But David, why don't we start with the great New York Times headline caper of 2019. On August 5th, yeah, oh no. On August 5th, Donald Trump finally got around to saying presidential things about the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. And during this brief moment of presidentialness, the New York Times put out an A1 headline in the paper's first edition that read, Trump urges unity versus racism.

And given Trump's vast uvra of racist speech, that headline sucked. And it was immediately tweaked by Nate Silver by Beto O'Rourke. We had a rash of people say they were canceling their New York Times subscriptions. Hashtag cancel NYT, including GOP strategists and never Trump or John Weaver and the nation's Joan Walsh. Here's the first thing I want to say about this. I don't believe the people who say they're canceling their New York Times subscription. A marginal Times reader, you know, who gave the digital sub a little whirl there for a few months. sure. I'm glad that that's the first note we're hitting on, by the way,

I kind of think we have to. But do you think people who like Dwight Garner's book reviews and Amanda Hess's column and Mike Isaac's tech coverage that they read this headline and they said, that's it. I'm out. No, but there have been things. I mean, I can just speak from personal experience. There have been, you know, in various media, both print but also podcasts and television and stuff. There have been moments where I was just sort of exasperated or disappointed with the point of view to the point where I found myself not paying attention to that outlet much anymore, or at least for a little while. And I don't know that any of this reaction to the headline is going to affect the New York Times bottom line significantly. My guess would be

not at all. But if it affects their reach, especially to the people who, the kind of blue checkmark people who are, you know, who have some, who have reach of their own, and that's a, that's a substantive loss, but we'll, you know, we'll see if any of that really matters at all. I think that this is more an excuse to kind of express outrage. And I don't mean to belittle the situation. It was a just garbage headline, but that's obviously not what people are most mad about here. It reminded me of when I take a flight on American Airlines and my bag comes out in the bag carousel soaking wet and I go over to American Airlines.com and get on the customer

thing. And whenever I do this, like the second or third sentence after I've explained what happens is, I will never fly your airline again. Yeah. I don't mean that at all. I'm hoping to get like a $75 credit by being as nutty as humanly possible and aggrieved. But that's exactly what remind me. Like threats are a part of customer service. So

if we can do it for the airline, why can't we do it for the new york times again? I just love, but I just love, I just love, we'll get to the headline a second, but I just love John Weaver, GOP strategist.

Is he agreeing that he will never be quoted by the New York Times again? Can we get in the ethics of this? If they call up and say, we want a quote about how terrible Donald Trump is, you're going to just hang up the phone because you're so, so angry about that headline?

Come on. Come on. Anyway, none of this forecloses criticism of the headline, which was not good and was quickly changed to assailing hate, but not guns. And I thought about you, David, because you mentioned on the pod the other day that a mistake that reinforces what your critics already think about you is the worst kind of mistake. And this was the Times making that mistake. It was being backbreakingly newspapery in the face of political, racial calamity.

You're talking about the original one that everyone was, the one that everyone was mad about. I was just going to say that the revised headline was like the ultimate, like, retreating into like, you know, crouch position. The revised headline is so newspapery, it's illegible. Like, I have no idea what's going on there. There's like, the voice is so passive. It's like whispering. But yeah, I mean, I think that that's right.

I think that the initial headline, I mean, I think. think the most generous reading you could give it is that it was kind of supposed to be read with a with a wink is not quite right that it was supposed to come across with a little bit of irony or a little bit of sarcasm but and and and part of the reason why I think that is because of the reaction from the New York Times that like acknowledging that it was a failure because it wasn't a failure as a statement of I mean I guess it was a failure as a failure as a failure as a statement of fact, but it, but it, but it, but it seemed like it was, they were acknowledging that it didn't go over the way they intended it to, sort of. Is that, is that, anyway, that's right. I, I, I just think that it's, um, yeah, I mean, to, we, we are, we are, we are, we are, all, we are, all of us who work in the media are rightly very reluctant to join these sorts of, um, mobs because it's hard work and, and, and almost all the time the people being targeted, for bad headlines

or not the people that have anything to do with headlines and any end the people that did create the headlines you know or doing the best they can

most of the time but this is just just such a wild, wild misfire that one wonders just what the system of checks and balances even is. Well that's a really interesting point and Dean Bekay

who is the executive editor of the Times told the Columbia Journalism Reviews, Gabe Snyder, the print hub is not right in the middle of the news desk anymore. I don't lay out the page. I don't pick the front page stories. I don't think that's the role of the executive editor anymore. And what he's saying is newspapers have now advanced, or at least the time, so far into the future,

that him giving the initial once over to the front page, to the physical print front page, isn't really his job anymore. Like the Times has moved beyond that saying everybody who's consuming this or just about everybody is consuming this online. And that's for this, you know, select and shrinking number of people in the world who are actually reading a print newspaper. The funny part about that is, is that Tom Jolly, who is the Times' print editor, tweeted out the front page. Which then, I think eight minutes later, according to Snyder, is what led to Nate Silver dogpiling and then Beto O'Rourke gets in it. and then we've got a movement.

But the Times front page is this symbolic thing on the internet rather than something that, you know, lots of people are looking at the next morning. And it's just so, but it was just, it was just so striking to me that all of this is about stuff that isn't really, you know, isn't really setting the news agenda so much as a thing that happens online.

And then people are like, aha, look at that. That's, that's, headline you're you're canceled yeah I think that's right I mean it's it is a symbolic thing we've talked about people we've talked about this sort of art of tweeting covers before especially when it comes to like sports you know instant reaction to sports victories and stuff like that this is obviously this is a different category obviously but but you know it's

symbolic but it's also a traffic grab you know to be like here's a here is and here is a a JPEG that you will all that you will all react to better, you know, more, more urgently than you'll react to text in a tweet. But yeah, I mean, I take what Dean Bacay says at face value. I mean, the mechanics as you describe them seem a little bit wonky, but that's fine. And he did say that at times editor spotted the headline and raised a red flag pretty immediately and said, eh, this is not right. You know, let's change this before we do another edition. the paper. And it should be said, if it needs to be said, that the piece beneath it was wonderful. I mean, was, you know, very well put together and actually had a really smart point

of view. And there was a lot of really thoughtful commentary on, on Trump speech in the times that day. But, you know, the headline carries a lot of weight. I mean, that's literally, literally, I guess. I mean, it's a, it's a big deal. And, you know, I was getting at this before, but I think that I mean, I think it's pretty clear that the tragedies, especially the one in El Paso, have served as a sort of inciting incident for, well, you see in the Democratic candidates. It definitely served as an inciting incident for them to be, to openly discuss Trump as a racist, right? I mean, because they could have all said this man was clearly influenced by Donald Trump without saying he's a racist. Without, you know, without going the full, you know, without going, they were, it seemed that they were inspired by that moment or waiting for such a moment to break out the racism charge. And I think that this is that the incident did, I mean, was, was signaled the explosion of a lot of emotions in a lot of people, a lot of, a lot of voters who were against Trump.

And obviously what they're upset about, I mean, part of, was. what they're upset about with the New York Times is we're seeing all of our kind of like-minded outlets, our candidates, our friends, or whatever else, have reacted kind of defiantly to this moment, this tragedy that our country went through. And the New York Times is just sort of defiantly not doing that. They're like we said before, they're sort of cowering into newspapers. That's exactly right. And I think that is, I think that's a source of 95% of times angst. There's a lot of, and I don't want to say that there's not legit criticism, including

of this headline in particular, because it does. And the Times needs criticism and all media needs, we need criticism. But Snyder pointed this out, and a couple of other people pointed this out, that when Trump became president, it became a resistance thing to do to subscribe to the New York Times. That was like how part of how you took a stand and said, you know, we are. are, I am digging in. Trump hates the Times or Trump has this bizarre relationship with the Times.

These are the people that are investigating him. I'm standing on. And then you read the actual New York Times or maybe more to the point you read the Twitter accounts of New York Times reporters and you're like, oh, wait. These aren't resistance fighters. These are newspaper reporters. And there's just this huge disconnect between those two beings. in life. They really are. Yeah. And I think that's right. And I think you're right.

Like they, they see Beto cussing at the press. And they're like, why aren't, why aren't you as mad as Beto is? Yeah. What's wrong with you? And the Times is just saying, look, this is, you know, we can be mad on the editorial page and we can be mad here. But we see our job, rightly or wrongly, we see our job is not doing that on the front page. Yeah, speaking to what you said, I mean, Dean Bacay gave a number of quotes. Chris just sent him over to me. This is, yeah, from CJR where he says, I don't believe our role is to be the leaders of the opposition party. There's another one in the Atlantic where he kind of goes into more depth. But I, and I think that this bears mention, take this as a defense of the Times if you want or not,

I don't think Bacay ever really went there in any of his quotes. But we've talked a million times about how difficult the mainstream media has had in just covering Trump in the way that they've covered previous presidents, because he defies expectations, he defies conventions. No one knows what a tweet means, you know, one way or the other. And I think that this is, you know, it's really hard to convey in print, let alone in a headline that a speech which is, you know, nominally filled with, you know, calls for unity and calls against racism and everything else, that it's being read by someone who looks like they're reading it against their will and for the first time, you know?

I mean, there's no way to convey the experience of watching Trump, or it's difficult to convey the experience of watching Donald Trump read that speech. I mean, it's like, it's like watching, you know, a drunk coworker do karaoke when they should really be going home. I mean, there's just something like, there's such an inherent awkwardness and, and bizarreness to the whole thing that, you know, you kind of left with the decision as to whether or not to like cover it at take it at face value take the transcript at the White House is sent out or to go into more depth but either way I don't know I mean you get quickly into like

the territory of like the onions are dumb sentry or something where like the headline would have to be like what the fuck was that you know but to I mean that would almost be the closer than what they ended up with I guess but or or Trump Trump denounces racism through gritted teeth, something like that. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. And that's and that's and that's and even though we all believe that to be true, you can see why, you know, Dean Bacay or whoever else would think that's a judgment call that doesn't belong on the on the front page. Yeah. And look, there are lots of ways to, there are lots of ways to spin that. And I think the, you know, the times that they had to do over probably think it, you know, what Donald Trump said somewhat belatedly about this before he then commenced to. attacking, you know, Beto on Twitter again and Sherrod Brown on Twitter again may not have been that important. The Times doesn't have to write a lead story about what Trump said yesterday. His remarks could be further down in a piece. And I'm not even sure. Did you, did you even

note what Trump said other than through the Times headline controversy? I mean, I watched it. I watched the speech because I thought it might be significant. And so I, I, I guess, you know, put me in that camp. I can understand the argument that it is newsworthy that Donald Trump denounced white supremacy and racism. But I'm not sure if you've decided. That's where we are. Yeah, but if you've decided, I mean, so I understand how they got in this mess.

Don't get me wrong. Like, if you've decided that that's the story, but you're still reluctant to call him a racist, then how do you put that into, how do you frame that? You know, I mean, it's a whole lot of problems kind of stacked on, stacked on each other. One point I'd like to make is the media world has changed so much. And I think the age of people who are reading newspapers online now has changed that they may forget, unlike people like us who grew up in the age of newspapers, that a lot of stuff in every newspaper sucks. It's just, or it's just boring. Or it's just, or it's just not good.

That's what a newspaper is. It's put together by hundreds of people. it's not going to be a perfectly edited issue of the New Yorker. I like reading the LA Times every day. Then I open the opinion page and I see a column by Jonah Goldberg. And I'm like, eh, I don't want this. This is not good. But I don't throw away the whole thing.

And that's just, again, newspapers are just big and unruly like that. And I think that gets lost a little bit. All right, David, time for the overworked 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. Please send your submissions to at the press box pod where they will be gratefully received. David, we've got to handle the feral hogs deal,

which was pretty much all of Twitter for the last 48 hours. A couple nominees. One tied the feral hogs together with the Neil deGrasse Tyson controversy. And it read far more people die from the flu than 30 to 50 feral hogs. Often our emotions are,

more to spectacle than to data, dot, dot, dot. Thanks to Ken Barrett for that one. Also, Twitter tied the hogs to the now notorious tweet from the man whose subs, aka people in a subdom relationship, had unionized. My 30 to 50 feral hogs have been unionized. Thanks to Dr. Blumen for that one. Good stuff. There was also a headline in the New York Daily News.

Senator Mitch McConnell breaks shoulder in fall at his Kentucky home. Sorry to hear that that Senator McConnell has broken his shoulder. It was an overworked Twitter joke to respond thoughts and prayers. Thanks to Eric Cannon for that. The thoughts and prayers response will never, never fully get old. All right, David, time for the notebook dump. And our first item, I would like to call the Art of Hijacking a Press Conference. This comes from the Dallas-Fort Worth area radio host Jake Kemp,

who told me about this at Cowboys Camp this week. It's from the press scrum held Monday by Art Bryles, the disgraced former Baylor football coach. Oh, no. Bryles is now head coach of the Mount Vernon High School Tigers in Texas. The hiring has been controversial because Bryles, of course, presided over the massive sexual assault scandal at Baylor. He did a press availability this week,

and reporters got explicit instructions that they were only to ask about the high school team the Tigers and not Baylor. You can ask about this very interesting high school football team. You may not ask about the other stuff. Listen to the final question from Rissa Shaw, a TV reporter in Waco. We got a scrimmage in 11 days, and I got to get ready to do that because we're not near ready. Speaking of support, y'all are the tigers?

Any talk about changing it to the scapegoats? Oh, none, none whatsoever. We're tigers. We're Mount Vernon Tigers. Thank you. Now, your first question may be, what? what what what was the point of that um rissa shaw explains on twitter many in waco field bryles was a scapegoat media were told not to ask questions about b u sex scandal only mountain vernon football related

questions so using the mascot was simply a quote sporty way of opening the door for bryls to respond to the theory of being a scapegoat so speaking of sinking into old media nonpartisanship. She's saying that there are people who feel Brawes was a scapegoat. I wanted him to respond to that. I didn't think I was allowed to exactly ask that question outright.

So I said, are you thinking about changing the high school team's mascot to the scapegoats? Yeah. Is that it? Did I get it? Yes, you nailed it. You nailed it. I'm not sure that it, you know, that really changes things that much.

When I heard about this, I thought she was trolling Art Bryles. But I don't think that's what she was doing at all. Yeah, I thought that my first reaction was that she was trolling him and missed the joke, sort of. Yeah, just didn't nail the landing. But yeah, no, it was, that's very weird. It's very weird. It does not surprise me particularly as a. proud Baylor grad that the prevailing

sentiment in Waco is that he was scapecoated. David, it's time for the anonymous source of the week, one of our favorite departments. We've actually got two this week, and I've asked our producer Jim Cunningham to lower my voice so that I sound like one of those corporate whistleblowers that used to put on Dateline NBC, because this material is explosive.

This is not something you'd want to be identified as saying. is anonymous. The first anonymous source of the week crawled out of the woodwork when Miami Dolphins wide receiver Kenny Stills pointed out something on Twitter, which is that Dolphins owner

Stephen Ross has a nonprofit devoted to improving race relations and Stephen Ross is throwing a $250,000 a plate fundraiser for Donald Trump. As Bimani Jones and then the Washington Post, Dan Steinberg pointed out,

Ross needed someone to explain this contradiction so he dispatched an anonymous source whose verbatim quote appeared in at least four outlets. I am quoting the anonymous source. Jim, get the effects ready. With regards to race, Stephen's record on fighting racism speaks for itself. It is possible to support someone on a basis of some things

and not agree with everything about them. Now, does that sound more like Deep Throat or the guy who runs the Dolphins' PR department? Anytime you have to say somebody's record speaks for itself, it's clearly not true. What was amazing is by Wednesday night, the publications had, publications had subbed in an actual quote from Stephen Ross

instead of the anonymous stuff. So, yeah, now it's like an on the record thing. So now it's sort of like, was it the Dolphins PR guy was just like, I don't want my name on this? I just,

I don't want, I don't want to be associated with this at all. why did we do like a 24-hour charade where we said that off the record? Or maybe it was Ross and maybe just Ross called up and he's like, you can't use my name

until we see how this plays and then once we've established that the quote's going to go over well we can put my name on it. And then I did not go over so well. The second anonymous source of the week, David, is from People. People magazine.

This arrived in my inbox yesterday. I get People press releases and I cannot turn them off. I have tried. but I cannot not manage to. It's four paragraphs, so I'm going to read the entire piece, and Jim can kick in the audio

when we get to the anonymous part. Quoting people, Brad Pitt is still one of Hollywood's biggest stars. He earned rave reviews for his role as a tough, loyal stuntman in Quentin Tarantino's once upon a time in Hollywood, his first film in two years.

Since his 2016 split from Angelina Jolie, the actor, 55, has worked very hard on it. to be a better, healthier person and to be the best dad possible. A source tells people in this week's issue. These were always

his priorities, that his career is going well is a happy bonus that he is thrilled about. So we went on background to reveal that while Brad Pitt wants to make great movies, his number one goal is to be the best dad possible. It sounds like they got like his

barber on background or something like that. What's the most surface conversation you could possibly have? And is that just because if people said Brad Pitt spokesman Riley McAtee told us that it would seem kind of less sexy and in the know? So we want to ascribe it to just an anonymous source who is obviously Brad Pitt spokesman? People isn't exactly the lowest level of tabloids. I don't want to impugn People magazine's integrity or anything, but it certainly is sexier than saying, you know,

we made up this quote about Brad Pitt and we made it as anodyne as possible so that he wouldn't be upset about it. I mean, I'm not quite sure that there's much of a distinction there if it's a real person or just a fabricated line. I've got a semi-provocative idea for you, David. Oh, good.

Everybody wants to write a newsletter now. Yeah, they do. I know newsletters go back to like the Anne Friedman days, you know, which were like 100 years ago in internet time. But Dave Weigel's writing a newsletter and BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith just started his campaign newsletter which is called The Stakes

and in its first issue featured him texting with Steve Bullock to answer your question yes Steve Bullock does use emojis but everybody wants to write a newsletter and is it true that the newsletter has in some way become the new podcast the new symbol of power in journalism

so it used to be like if you'd made it to a certain level you've got a podcast but now everyone has a podcast even us but not everyone has a kind of semi-opinionated, semi-reported, multi-topic newsletter that drops in your inbox every day or a couple of times a week.

And that's how you signal that you're a big shot. What do you think of that? I think that you have to... I mean, obviously, there's a lot of people who have newsletters who are not on the level of the bin-smiths of the world. And frankly, I mean, you know, the... I think Politico started sort of pioneer the modern age of political journalism

newslettering, right? I mean, wasn't there like morning email the big thing for a while? The Mike Allen years, yes. Yeah, I mean, but yeah, I mean, I think that your provocative take is exactly right. I also think that as quick as media is moving now. And you see this on social media platforms as well, though it's kind of stabilized a little bit. there's a constant need to go to a new medium, to go to a new platform,

to go to a new genre, so that, because at some point you just run out of all the names that you can name things. Like, I'm sure the stakes, I'm sure there's like four podcasts already called the stakes, but there's not an email newsletter

called the stakes so we can just clear every, you know, box out and just take, and lay claim to that. You know, I think that part of it's just the fresh terrain there. Yeah. I mean, it's funny to me because there was when you talk about the Mike Allen style newsletter that's kind of in the genre of okay here's a person who just has octopus arms and has a billion ideas and just can't be contained by normal journalism so they just the best way is for them to kind of funnel it into a newsletter but now there's kind of a glamour newsletter genre like Ben Smith or Weigel who are like big name reporters and they're doing it and what's funny to me is like right?

Reading a newsletter seems like grunt work, or it used to be grunt work. That was not the glamorous job. That seemed like, you're going to, you're going to aggregate the news all day. Like, oh, God, when do I, how long do I have to do this before I can do something fun? It does. It does. I mean, I think that, I think that it's at its core, the first kind of newsletter that you mentioned is always going to be what a newsletter is, right? It's everything that, I mean, there's a sense that it's just sort of the Internet coming full circle because, you know, for all of the,

writers that made it that, you know, the first generation of writers that kind of got famous on the internet, our boss being one of them, were writing things on the internet that like people couldn't find space for them to write in print, right? People didn't want to, you know, it was a little bit too, too unique, too personal to them to put in print. And then, you know, the internet media establishment sort of swallowed up all those blogs and all those bloggers and turn them into what we think of as journalists and writers, these, you know, formal writers these days. But there's still not a lot of space for you just to write whatever the hell you want, at least not on the platforms that, you know, that everybody traffics in. So this is a way to kind of speak directly

to people. And I think for people like Ben Smith, you're right. There is a lot of grunt work involved and it's a little bit less conventional, I mean, less of that personal stuff, but maybe that's always really interested in. Or maybe it is prestige, who knows. But I think to the world sort of changed when the column ceased to be the status symbol. It's just thinking about this. Go on. Yeah. Yeah, but it's just like we've been kind of groping around as a journalistic class since then to figure out, well, if being a columnist isn't the thing anymore, what is being the thing? And, you know, it's like when all these New York Times columnists are complaining about the Twitter mobs, you just want to be like, I'm less interested in the Twitter mobs than I am in

the waning power of the columnist. This seems like the cry that I have what used to be the best job in the world and it really doesn't matter in the same way he used to. Who is the guy, who is the guy we used to read growing up in the Fort Worth Star Telegram who wrote the scatter shooting column. You got Blackie Sherrod and Dallas Morning News? Yes. It was our Dallas Morning News. Yeah.

What is the modern newsletter, if not a Blackie Sherrod column, right? I mean, just like scattershooting, scattershooting while wondering whatever it happened to fill in the blank. And he could just touch on everything from politics to local eateries to sports. I mean, he was all over the place. Yeah. My neighbor Jones said this and everything like that. Yeah, that's good. I hadn't thought of Blackie is really the father of modern journalism.

but here we are. David, I'd like to reintroduce the segment we haven't done in a while. That is Australia Corner. We love Australia here on the press box. Yes. And this item was sent to us by Tom Fowles, a reporter in Sydney, formerly of Townsville and Toowoomba. And Tom Fowell says this Twitter headline from Nine News must get a shout out on the press box or he's rioting. And he is correct. Here is the headline that accompanies a picture of money floating in the water. Okay. So just picture money bills floating in the water. water. The headline is these $50 notes were

spotted floating down Mullet Creek on Bongbong Road this morning by a schoolboy. Sometimes Australia is just effortlessly itself. School boy is ice Bongbong road and then the school boy. It's the icing on the cake.

I think of a kid just like in in breaches or something coming by and look look dad. The money floating down Mullet Creek on my way to school. I love it. I can't wait for the Lil Nasaxe Bongbong Road remix. It's going to be great. Time for listener mail. Boy, David, do we have a big one to start off? We did a stupid intro last week about TV scientists facing off with 90s bands. Pegged his smash mouth and Neil deGrasse Tyson getting into it on Twitter. And we got a tweet response from gin blossoms.

the blue checkmark gin blossoms, not some imposter saying, I can't believe we got left out of the 90s bands. And Jim Cunningham pointed out that there's a hey, jealousy joke just sitting there to be taken. Well, yeah. But the gin blossoms, you know,

they don't need to be jealous. They deserved a spot. That was our categorical error. And I say this as a very unbiased person who counted the gin blossoms. amongst my like top three favorite bands through high school and saw the gin blossoms in concert in Dallas, Texas with the spin doctors and cracker. Wow. And on top of that, I would say that at least like 50% of the time when I'm in my car, I am with my family.

We are listening to like gin blossoms radio on Pandora. So this is this was a, I feel terrible about this. the gin blossoms tweeting at our Twitter account or accounts it was maybe the most starstruck I've ever been in my time as a professional podcaster and I just want to extend my deepest apologies to the gin blossoms and all in their entire family and fan base.

Can we make the gin blossoms the official 90s band of the press box? Is that the makeup call here? Please. All right. Yes. The official band of the press box for all I care. There we go. Fantastic. Thank you, Jim blossoms and our deepest apologies. We talked Tuesday, David, about how Playboy magazine is becoming a cannabis brand, which is the last stop for any brand before you disappear from this earth

entirely. Our correspondent McGillacutty writes, I think the last stage for brands after cannabis is blockchain. So point taken. Thank you very much. I called a Washington Post reporter Katie Gluck earlier in the week. It's actually Katie Glick. Sorry, Katie.

Thanks to Matt Zitland, who is now both our favorite correspondent and our um budsman. David, our friend Kyle Rather directs us to the latest use of the adjective seminal. As you know, I think seminal is the most overused word in the history of journalism. And today's Time Magazine

Obit for Tony Morrison novelist declares Tony Morrison seminal author who stirringly chronicled the black American experience dies at 88. Seminal. Tony Morrison. Wow.

Also a great author. Might want to think about that one too. All right, David, it's time for David Shoemaker. Guess is the Strain Punt headline. Tuesday's headline was legume, it may concern. Legume, it may concern. I also forgot to credit Steve Bonifero. Thank you, Steve, for that one.

That was a classic. Today's headline comes from Michael Lev, a great sports writer, who covers the colleges out there in Arizona. And Michael sends us a headline from the food section of the Arizona Daily Star. It's a story, David, celebrating the wonders of Pesto. Pesto makes for an excellent accompaniment to pasta during the hot summer months, et cetera, et cetera. So I'll give you a hand. The headline focuses on the fact that Pesto is made partly out of herbs.

Herbs. That's all you get. What is the Arizona Daily Star strained pun headline? I mean, there's so many puns you could, I feel like there's so many Pesto headlines you could do, but it's not based on Pesto. They buy pest Pesto. They went to herbs. Oh my gosh. Urban renewal.

That's funny. Herb. Herb your enthusiasm? You got it. Really? Oh, yes. Wow. Yes.

Herb your enthusiasm. That is the worst. That is a fantastic headline. that has nothing as far as I can tell to do with Pesto. No. I had to remind, I looked up the, I was like, is Pesto primarily herb-based? It's not.

But herb your enthusiasm. Yeah. Wow. The, uh, I guess if you're writing an article that's introducing the concept of Pesto to the readership, then you can go pretty basic. But that's also kind of wrong. So I'm not sure that that's, you know, that's okay.

We all kind of know, right? Pesto is in air. Arizona at this point, I think. I'm pretty sure they... There's an olive garden. They've got their Italian restaurants out there, right? We're all good. They're exposed to television and the internet.

Yeah, I think they know about it. Michael Lev sent the, a picture of the Arizona Daily Star page. And so I can see the headline below it, which is a perfect bite for your dessert menu. That's the other food section headline. He is David Shoemaker. I'm Brian Curtis. Research by Chris Almeida. Production by Jim Cunningham. Music by Jen Blosses.

More lukewarm takes. about the media on Tuesday morning. We'll see you then. See you later, baby. See you later, Brian. Why aren't you as mad as Beto is? Saw the Jim Blossoms in concert in Dallas, Texas with that? What?

What? The spin doctors and cracker. You're cancel. Yeah, I think that's right. Wow. What was the point of that? What's wrong with you?