Noted crazy man Jim Cramer muses today that in the coming year, as stock of the New York Times Company continues to current NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg could buy that bad boy, just for fun. He correctly notes that the price would be “spare change” for the bored billionaire, but prudently sets the odds at 100-1.

I still wouldn’t bet on it.

SF Weekly today takes a look at MediaNews CEO Dean Singleton and his distaste for newsroom unions. Which is unfortunate, since the MediaNews-owned Contra Costa Times is currently in the midst of an ongoing unionization drive, funded by half a million dollars from the Newspaper Guild.

The quandary is that as the newspaper business continues to spiral downwards, layoffs increase, salaries are frozen, and hiring suffers. What does that lead to? An increased desire for unions among employees, who want some formal protection in their shaky jobs. This will be an ongoing dynamic to watch.

David Hazinski, who once toiled as a less than telegenic NBC News correspondent, is fed up with all these so-called “citizens” committing their so-called “citizen journalism” with their newfangled cellphone cameras and such. In an op-ed in the less-than-stellar Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Hazinski — who is now a journalism professor — says this:

Supporters of “citizen journalism” argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don’t provide. While it has its place, the reality is it really isn’t journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend.

Yes, Kommandant! We must crush these citizens before they can speak again! In his mission to replicate the straight-faced absurdity of an article in The Onion without the irony, Hazinski goes on to say:

Journalists generally don’t like any kind of standards or regulation. Many argue that standards could infringe on freedom of the press and journalism shouldn’t be regulated.

You fools! Think of what could happen:

Having just anyone produce widely distributed stories without control can have the reverse effect from what advocates intend. It’s just a matter of time before something like a faked Rodney King beating video appears on the air somewhere.

Hazinski then burned a copy of the First Amendment.

Dow Jones CEO Richard Zannino announced today that he’ll be leaving the company once the sale to News Corp. closes later this month. He said it was his own decision, and I have absolutely no reason to doubt him. Nevertheless, I will now rework on the situation as I imagine it in his mind:

“I understand Rich’s decision to seek new challenges. During nearly two years as CEO, he proved himself to be an effective leader [WHO WAS BUSY PLAYING THE KAZOO IN THE CORNER WHILE HIS COMPANY WEAKENED TO THE POINT THAT I COULD BUY IT AGAINST THE WISHES OF EVERYONE IN THE WORLD]….We thank him for his good work and look forward to building on this foundation and taking Dow Jones to even greater heights as part of News Corporation [A COMPETENT COMPANY, UNLIKE DOW JONES, WHEN IT WAS RUN BY RICHARD ZANNINO. NOW WHERE IS MY WRINKLE CREAM?]”

Zannino’s replacement has not been named, but leading candidates are rumored to include Skeletor and Rupert Murdoch’s dog.

No, News Corp. operative Les Hinton as CEO, and Times of London editor Robert Thomson as the new publisher. Skeletor, we’ll keep your resume on file.

The Denver Post today brings us news of the internet world: Craigslist, that site you thought was only for cookie recipe exchanges and selling your gently used Bibles, is totally harboring some sin!

Just below the better-known free classifieds for housing, goods and services, the “discussion forums” frequently descend to exchanges of racial and homophobic epithets, sexual fantasies or bad-driver diatribes. Did you hear the one about the Indian and the prostitute? Or why Bill Clinton was the first black president? Thanks to Craigslist, your kids probably have.

Thanks for the tip, Denver Post! We’re always looking for new jokes.

The Bad Pitch Blog has published a collaborative list of “The top ten things you should never say to the media.” It is a fairly accurate compilation of things that make people like me want to either laugh derisively or punch holes in walls, such as:

“You’ll be sorry tomorrow if you don’t cover this news.”

or,

“You should be interested in this because (the competition) covered it in their last issue.”

But the one I would really like to highlight is #3 on the list:

“Can I review or edit this before it gets published?”

This question tends to infuriate me more than any other. I am asked this occasionally, and it seems to come from either a fresh-out-of-school PR grad who doesn’t know any better, or from a relatively high-level PR executive, usually one who is a good source with important clients, who decides to try to finagle a little extra out of our relationship.

No respectable reporter at any respectable news outlet will agree to this request. The fact that we get asked it sometimes leads me to believe that some sources consider PRWeek more a propaganda organ for the industry than an actual news outlet, and that is not a good way to “build relationships,” to say the least. In a VERY SMALL number of cases where I have judged it to be absolutely necessary, I have allowed sources to review their QUOTES ONLY in order to check them for accuracy and intent before publication. I’ve done this in instances where the story was important, the source was vital, and they were very touchy about cooperating. In general, I simply pledge to quote people accurately (and uphold that pledge). The request to review copy itself prior to publication is a no-go, period.

Unless you are dealing with OK! Magazine.

According to a new Project for Excellence in Journalism survey of reporters in Iraq, Iraq is dangerous!

87% say staff cannot identify themselves as working for a news organization
51% say “most” of Baghdad is too dangerous to travel in
89% say Iraqi insurgents are “hard” or “nearly impossible” to get as interview subjects
73% use armed guards
57% has had local staff kidnapped or murdered in the past year
42% say the war’s impact on Iraqi civilians is under-covered

I still harbor a small hope that reporters can get these points across with their reporting, as opposed to having to get them across in a PEJ survey.

For my upcoming media analysis on the reviled world of magazine lists, I sent some questions about how the growth of the internet might be affecting the annual explosion of lists to Victor Navasky, the legendary longtime editor (and current publisher emeritus) of The Nation. His response, in full:

Here is my end of the year list on your end-of-the-year list question.
10. They are written by people who want to get jobs writing David Letterman’s lists.

9. What about end-of-the-year lists on the internet?

8. Movies and books and all the rest are organized by the seasons, so to produce middle-of-the-year lists or beginning of the year lists make little sense.

7. Years ago, David Wallace wrote a bestselling book of lists — could it sell in the era of the internet? Why not, especially since it lends itself to internet pickup?

6. Actually, the internet, with its low-attention span length requirements, seems ready-made for lists.

5. Does anyone put out an end-of-year list about magazines, and if not, why not? (Actually, the man who calls himself “Mr. Magazine at Ole Miss. (Samir Husni)‚ used to publish an annual list of magazine start-ups and busts.) If he doesn’t do it any more, there may be your answer.

4. It seems to me the internet has expanded best-seller lists in the book bus. (The Times Book Review publishes an extended bestseller list online, doesn’t it?)

3. Does a list of one (like Time’s “Man of the Year” qualify as a list?)

2. The multi-candidate early presidential primaries and the polling accompanying them, seem to have added innumerable listings both in print and on-line.

1. To answer your question(s), then, no they don’t seem to be declining; yes, they are there to sell magazines (not to mention the subjects of the lists themselves); no, they are not becoming less relevant, because they were never really relevant.

I hope this helps.

Victor Navasky

PS Please take me off your list. (Just kidding.)