When you cut through all of the (self-imposed) clutter surrounding Julia Allison—the oversharing, the wacko pictures, the grandiose self-fascination—what you get, fundamentally, is someone who really knows how to get publicity. Today PRWeek (my old employer) interviews Julia on her PR strategy, and you might be surprised to discover she is way more savvy than 90% of the "new media" specialists actually employed in the PR industry. The guiding principle that has taken her this far: "I think that saying yes to things is smarter than saying no to things." See, Julia has actually prospered (in a publicity sense, okay?) by not following the advice of PR agencies:

Fired Vanity Fair writer Toby Young's How to Lose Friends and Alienate People (movie version forthcoming) chronicled the Manhattan media hellmouth of the 1990s. It would be much more difficult to make it in print journalism today, he admits to WWD. In fact, he says, if he were trying to start a media-career in the aughts, he'd probably be, like, working as a "slave" for this website in particular—and "sleeping on [Brit It Boy] Euan Rellie's floor":

Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim's $127 million investment in the New York Times Company made headlines this morning, but left unremarked upon, including by the Times itself, are the murkier aspects of how Slim made his fortune. Yes, Slim acquired control of telephone monopoly Telmex in 1990 when it privatized in part by smartly partnering with Southwestern Bell and France Telecom. It's also true he has strongly denied there was anything untoward about the $1.7 billion purchase price, even though the company just 14 years later was valued at $37 billion. But Slim's financial support for the ruling PRI party, including a $25 million donation at a notorious 1993 fundraising dinner, was at the very least leveraged in an unseemly manner elsewhere. Slim went on to use his "influence over the government" to fight off the entry of competing phone companies into the impoverished Mexican market — that according to the Times itself in 2006. And what of the billionaire as a "decent philanthropist"?

Do you ever have one of those days where you just want to pack it in because everyone else in the world is so patently, transparently intellectually dishonest and/or un-self-aware as to defy any and all stabs at serious criticism or even derisive mockery? Do those days ever last for the entire month of September? Are you outraged over Obama's lipstick remark or outraged over the outrage over it? Either way you are part of the problem! How does this shit happen? It's very simple. There's nothing happening. Except Palin. The conventions are over and the campaigns now are focused on debate prep and early voting drives. Those are the only things that actually matter, right now, for both campaigns. The rest is just back-and-forth noise-making. Except for Palin who is a media sensation! So everything Palin-related will make headlines. So McCain's team just made up a Palin headline, to keep her in the news. That's all. But you know that is not a very interesting post, is it? So let's pick through this in a sad and doomed search for anything relevant or even slightly interesting! We're trying to work through this rationally. Give us a minute. Did the McCain campaign think they'd be able to convince the media that they're genuinely outraged about a sexist comment made by Barack Obama? That didn't actually seem to matter—no one on earth thinks this outrage is anything other than a political ploy, that does not affect the serious coverage one iota. When the McCain campaign accused Governor David Paterson of "playing the race card" this week, it made headlines but got no real traction. This, though, is leading everything. The story is that Barack Obama used an ancient Washington cliche, while talking about McCain. A cliche every politician, including McCain, uses in an attempt to sound folksy. A cliche surely familiar to most Americans. The McCain rapid-response team seized on the term and applied it to Palin, with help from Jake Tapper. Now through endless repition they are attempting to implant the idea that Barack Obama called Sarah Palin a "pig," and that that is a sexist term. Which does not make sense. Because no one has ever thought of Sarah Palin as remotely "piggish," and "pig," we thought, was a term of derision for men. We can't figure out the strategy here, at all, on either side. Will the base get riled up about this? Sure, why not, but they get riled up over everything, that's why they're the base. Will the vast mushy middle think Obama was being sexist? Even if they do, will they care? In a 'rational' world, this would make McCain look defensive—the supposed usual position of stupid stupid Democrats. It's desperate and weak. Do the Democrats have the "guts" to use the "playing the sexism card" card? Are we going to shoot ourselves if we keep talking like this? We don't know the answer to either question. But we honestly don't think this will last through the day, this outrage, and as far as how it relates or adds to the ongoing 'framing' and 'narrative-building' by both campaigns, we're stumped. There is maybe some residual "Obama is a sexist" stuff from the primaries, but the vast majority of those complaints were lodged against The Dreaded Media. And "the media is biased against Sarah Palin" still seems to be a charge with a better chance of sticking. It has already stuck so well, in fact, that maybe everyone just seized on this to deflect criticism. And what should Obama do? Daniel Radosh has a sensible Rovian response but so far the Democrats just continue saying "this is a distraction, wtf, how do you get away with this," which is also how we feel about it but, you know, when you chant that so much for so long without getting anyone on your side, you might want to rethink your strategy. But frankly even though Obama clearly did not mean it that way he should now just continue on as if damn straight he was making a snide remark about Sarah Palin. Because you might as well paint Sarah Palin as a total bitch, which is, we seem to recall, what she painted herself as when she said she was a transvestite pitbull or whatever the fuck.

Keith Olbermann may have been pushed out of his gig anchoring MSNBC's election coverage, but the Countdown host actually made out pretty well, with the cable news network widely reported to be in the process of extending his contract. Far sadder is the case of Olbermann's fellow shouting head Chris Matthews, also ejected from the election team over his on-air feuds. Matthews' contract is up in 2009, two years sooner than Olbermann's, and yet no one is talking about buttering him up! That's probably because lantern-jawed Olbermann, by far the more overtly partisan of the two, has done more to gin up ratings. But apparently it's also because parent company GE's shareholders — that is, people primarily concerned with making money off a sprawling multinational corporation and with no expertise in running media operations — were unhappy with the network's convention coverage. Report the MSNBC haters at the Post:

Nonsociety—it's more than a website, it's a way to "Live Differently." Oh, how we laughed at dating columnist Julia Allison's new "lifestreaming" website that repackages her (and her friends') lives—and is thought to be a run-up to some sort of reality show/dating web show/something. (We called it a professional Tumblr!) But when the Terrible Trio started lifestreaming their search for a giant, airy live-work space, our laughter abruptly stopped. Nothing creates envy in a New Yorker like real estate envy. How does a website that doesn't generate any revenue afford it? We did the unthinkable and asked Julia.After the initial pleasantries were exchanged (Julia: "I thought I was off your radar. It was quite peaceful." Sheila: "It was peaceful for me, too."), Julia denied that Bravo, the network said to be producing a reality show starring the Nonsociety girls, was financing the space. But were they looking for a space that is... filmable, let's say? "Let's put it this way," Julia said. " We need office space that is ... unique. Cameras are a part of our everyday lives, and we anticipate significant filming. I will also be living in the space. Mary may be. Meghan owns a place already so she'll simply be working there." But what about the money? "If you look at it logically, most businesses pay about 5-6k for office space for 5-6 people, which is what we have. Add that to what I already pay for my rent ($2,500/month — Ed) and you have a financially sound decision." So, is Nonsociety—meaning the website's investors—footing half the bill? "Yeah, but it's money we've made, not investors." But how does the website even generate revenue? It's sort of impossible. We'd go so far as to say there is no revenue yet. Well, whatever—genius! They are about to score a sweet live-work pad (tax write-off!) and we're not. Fine, JA—you win this round.

Assuming that people are actually interested in how a story is formed and goes to press, Wired magazine is continuing how-to series with a blog about how a Wired article gets written. The article in question is about Being John Malkovich/Adaptation screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, so it's "meta." Wondered some editors, "What if we posted the edit—hell, the rough draft. What if we posted the pitch letter? What if we posted the emails about the pitch letter?" Haha, what if you exposed the sad quotidian details of our everyday work lives?

Anonymous sources can usually put some faith in the journalistic principle, that the anonymity of a source is a sacred thing, to be protected even at the risk of jail. But they should have less faith in a reporter's competence. Last week, a New York Times reporter withheld the name of a critic of the Chinese government but gave him away accidentally by mentioning the restaurant he owned. And there's an equally moronic slip in this week's cover story on plastic surgery in New York magazine.

Everyone loves New York Times reporter David Carr, who's just published Night of the Gun, an excellent reported memoir about his years of crack addiction and bad behavior. That's why the self-promoting spam e-mail that he sent to everybody he knows this morning is so easy to swallow. Most authors self-promote while falling all over themselves, trying to apologize. Not David! "As you can see from the non-customized hello, I am spamming you out of self-interest."He goes on to say, "I'd apologize for that, except there is an easy way to solve — don't hit 'send.'" So he spams us, shamelessly. Used to being spun, we're dazzled by the lack of pretense. Apologies are insincere—as everyone already knows, addicts are experts at talking their way out of their sins. So, damn it: we'll bookmark Night of the Gun.

Jess Roy, bright-eyed young literary woman and chronicler of sad old literary parties, just spent her last night in New York. [Jess and Josh Talk]

Food critic Giles Goren, who writes for the London Times, has a history of enraged letter-writing. He must be feeling silly this week, as a past blowup—over a line edit of one of his articles—was leaked to the Guardian. "It occurs to me it can only have been leaked by one of four Times staff. God, they must hate me," he told the Guardian's media blog. A sample: "This is someone thinking, 'I'll just remove this indefinite article because Coren is an illiterate cunt and I know best.'" Clearly!

Hey, looks like the content-providing news site Examiner.com is hiring!

Wired magazine's special issue on micro-celebrity includes a cover profile of Julia Allison, the college dating columnist who's garnered such internet fame. (Well, actually, the cover of Wired is about as much attention as she's ever drawn, so the article is self-fulfiling.) Anyway, I didn't remember the reported anecdote of my "meeting" with the then-editor of Gawker to demand coverage of this protostar; a trawl through the archives was called for. Here-in email, blog posts and comments-are those fateful days in late 2006 that gave the web Julia Allison.

Hey, Julia Allison's on the cover of once-important lifestyle rag Wired! Ms. Allison, who's moved beyond the "dating columnist/celeb talking head" thing to become a noted dater-of-rich-nerds, is the subject of yet another of those interminable stories about becoming Internet Famous in Three Easy Steps. We haven't read the piece, except that we already did in a different magazine like a month ago. More importantly: editors and contributors who perhaps have some doubt as to your value as a cover model may undermine the honor with unflattering photoshop work and coverlines. ("Even if you're nobody," eh?) Just ask right-wing comedienne Ann Coulter. And consider yourself warned.

Times editors can't stop lavishing praise on books linked to their corporate overlords — and one corporate overlord can't seem to keep her family members from enjoying the fruits of this self-dealing. Times board member Lynn Dolnick yet again has an immediate family member whose book is featured in her newspaper, and yet again there is no disclosure of the connection to the board or to publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who is Dolnick's cousin. And this time, the newspaper really went to town. A book by Dolnick's husband Edward about Dutch art forger Han van Meegeren got an early review ("engaging"), an "editor's choice" recommendation, a special plug on page A4, and a friendly write up on the Paper Cuts blog ("delightful book"). And the Times is not likely to be making any apologies for the situation, judging from its handling of Lynn Dolnick's last nepotism controversy.

Us Weekly's lead story right now is a rather substance-free bit on Dallas Cowboy quarterback Tony Romo shopping for a birthday present for his girlfriend, pop tart Jessica Simpson. But Us is doing its best to drum up something better; a reporter sent a vaguely ominous letter to Romo's dad encouraging him to talk, because "Jessica Simpson's side is controlling the media right now." Which is actually very good reporting! Any journalist worth his paltry salary knows how to use veiled threats, scary insinuations, and bluffs (lies) to get reluctant sources to speak up. We've compiled a handy translation guide; how to decode the most common threatening reporter doublespeak, after the jump:

Florida governor Charlie Crist is maybe gay, but now he's engaged to a woman, so that he can be John McCain's Vice President. Brilliant GOP political operative Roger Stone explains: "Politics runs on rumors and innuendo, and questions about bachelorhood persist. Getting engaged takes that off the table." See? Now no one will ever call him gay again. Roger Stone's record of political genius continues! [PalmBeachPost]

The low-budget Morning Show with Mike and Juliet (Julia Allison used to be a frequent guest, if that's any indication) tries so hard to report the news we need. Problem is, no one will return their calls ever! It's pretty bad when even Chuck E. Cheese doesn't think you're important enough to give a statement. They're forced to report failures like this almost daily, as this video demonstrates. (Thanks to Intern Shannon for the clip!)

Yesterday, we brought you news of an anonymous "well known author" seeking a $12-an-hour assistant via Craigslist. Kind of like Carrie Bradshaw's on Sex and the City, she explained, but you'll be paying your own taxes, doing "occasional light housework," and commuting up to White freaking Plains. She's been on the Tyra Banks Show, and stipulated that you had to be a girl—woman, whatever—without a criminal background. Through the collective wit and wisdom of the commenters, it was deduced that the author is probably:

US News tells us what to do if we love our job (but hate our boss)—or if we hate both! It's fairly oldfangled: "Write a journal about it... Rereading the entries at a later, less emotional time helped her gain perspective." Whatever, that's for teen girls. The cutting thing to do would be to keep an anonymous blog about your boss on the Internet (once you're OK with eventually being fired for it.)