Send via SMS
Shots In The Dark
Friday, April 14, 2006
  Jared Paul Stern Spins for His Life
Unbowed by the fact that he's been caught on tape asking for $220,000 in payola, Jared Paul Stern is taking his case to any forum he deems friendly.

In this q-and-a with Gawker, Stern presents his side of the story.

My error in judgment* was combining discussions about an investment in my clothing company* with one about advising him on media coverage,**** especially in such a way that it could be twisted out of all proportion**** by the slimeball, billionaire lapdogs at the Daily News*****.

Let's parse this, shall we?

* Nice! It wasn't a crime, an act of blackmail or just sheer greed. It was "an error in judgement." Hey, could have happened to anyone!

** Wow. So all along, billionaire Ron Burkle was really just spending hours of his valuable time desperately trying to invest in Stern's "clothing company," Skull & Bones," oddly named after a secret society Stern wasn't in at a school he didn't go to. Because, you know, that's how billionaires make their money—one six-figure investment in moribund clothing lines at a time.
Tote Bags
Ron Burkle: Apparently saw gold in them there tote bags.


*** Advising him on media coverage...and here I thought that Stern was just asking for money to keep Burkle's name out of the paper.

**** Because if the shoe were on the other newspaper's gossip columnist, the New York Post would never, ever, even think of twisting anything all out of proportion.

***** The slimeball, billionaire lapdogs at the Daily News.... As opposed to the slimeball, billionaire lapdog who owns the New York Post. But then, the fact that Jared Paul Stern always fancied himself a rich, elitist socialite certainly shouldn't stop him from playing the class card now.

jpsheadshot.jpg

Jared Paul Stern: Just another workin'
fella, sticking it to The Man
.

What's really interesting is that Gawker gives Stern all this space to spin what is clearly complete bullshit—please, please tell me that no one is falling for Stern's "I was set up!" line— and then omits its usual snarky rejoinders.

But wait! Turns out that Stern has assigned book reviews to the people who write Gawker!

Which, given the Gawker folks' rather, um, slender credentials for reviewing books (apparently they've read some), basically means that Stern was using his position as an editor to buy warm words for himself on Gawker.

And—wait for it!—here's the Gawker plug, from April 26, 2005:

New York Post scribe Jared Paul Stern, having decamped to the Catskills, had some time on his hands and came up with a product as twisted as the truth in the hands of the gossip columnist he sometimes still is. His new preppy-punk line of ties and polos, Skull & Bones (debuting tonight at a party at A.S. Parker, 1001 Madison Avenue) replaces "fuckin' cutesy critters," as he puts it, like alligators and polo ponies with the sign of the Jolly Roger.

Do I hear the sound of two hands scratching two backs?

(Full disclosure: Gawker has slagged me at least once that I can remember.)

(Whoops, make that twice.)
 
Comments:
This doesn't hold up. The very Gawker post to which you link includes the line: "The resulting media tizzy since has suggested that Page Six is corrupt, Stern is a slimeball, and Burkle is a creepy control freak. All of which could be delightfully true." The questions themselves are also pretty nasty. Previously, they've called him "sleazy-to-reprehensible" and today referred to consumers of his clothing line as "ironic preppy homos shopping for $95 polos." So in what way is Gawker cutting him any slack?
 
By Gawker standards, this is a big wet kiss. It's the whole, "even when we say something nice about someone, we're going to coat it with irony" approach.

If you read Gawker consistently, you'll see that they've been unusually nice to Stern.

And frankly, at this point I think Stern would be happy to be labeled only a "slimeball" by Gawker, as opposed to a blackmailing alleged criminal.
 
If it weren't about you...could you admit the "Blow-cum-Bradley" line in the Gawker story you linked to is funny. Love you Rich, but I laughed.

I think you make a pretty good point about the intertwined worlds of the gossip hounds, but I think Gawker has been having a field day with the story and not been going too easy on Stern.
 
Oh, I have a sense of humor about that stuff--it doesn't bother me. (I mean, do you really think I would have linked to it if it did?)

I don't know, I still think that Gawker's been sort of casual about Stern, and that if he wasn't someone whom they knew, and who has paid them money, they'd be much more vicious than they have been. Their approach has been a bit like, "We're just taking the piss out of you because we like you so much," kinda thing.
 
Also, thank you for loving me.
 
Speaking of ethics, Randy Cohen once again papers over the problem with this answer today:

Q. "I am married to a wonderful man with whom I share moral and political values. He runs a managed-health-care company that sometimes supports political candidates we believe are taking this country in the wrong direction. To my chagrin, he has also given these candidates contributions from our personal account. How can we reconcile his obligations to his company with our values?" Anonymous


A. You can't, not if his duty to act in the best interests of his company compels him to give strong support to candidates you and he detest. If that's so, then something's got to give — his job or his self-respect. Even if he stopped writing personal checks to dubious candidates after work, he'd still be on the hook for his company's political activities. Life cannot be so neatly compartmentalized: our actions in the evening do not erase what we do during business hours.

What's needed, however, may not be reconciliation but forbearance. If the gap between your husband's personal and professional political activities is narrow, that is something to be tolerated. We all vote for imperfect candidates, with whom we agree on some issues but not others.
 
Why and how do any of you blog so
late? This includes you, Rich.

And I don't know if I completely
buy"it doesn't bother me". How
could it not?
 
Oh, mostly because I don't take it seriously. There's lots of worse things to be said about a person than to make fun of his name.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
Politics, Media, Academia, Pop Culture, and More

Name:richard
Location:New York, New York
ARCHIVES
02/01/2005 - 02/28/2005 / 03/01/2005 - 03/31/2005 / 04/01/2005 - 04/30/2005 / 05/01/2005 - 05/31/2005 / 06/01/2005 - 06/30/2005 / 07/01/2005 - 07/31/2005 / 08/01/2005 - 08/31/2005 / 09/01/2005 - 09/30/2005 / 10/01/2005 - 10/31/2005 / 11/01/2005 - 11/30/2005 / 12/01/2005 - 12/31/2005 / 01/01/2006 - 01/31/2006 / 02/01/2006 - 02/28/2006 / 03/01/2006 - 03/31/2006 / 04/01/2006 - 04/30/2006 /


Powered by Blogger