More Talk on Talk
            

            Hi, Walter:

            Pleasure to share the pages with you. I warmed up this morning at my usual
Breakfast Table, the F train, whose passengers are the most literate and
convivial of any New York subway line I have ever ridden. On average, every
third person is reading a newspaper: There are the contortionists who fold the
ever-expanding Times into readable wedges, the tabloid readers (whose
papers are enviably scaled for reading in motion), and a scattering of people
clutching Spanish or Asian papers. The close quarters and the jostling
practically make eaves-reading inevitable, and the paper-bearers don't seem to
mind sharing. Today I saw a woman's eyes well up at the Times story on
live liver donations. I also saw three people contorting themselves to read the
very New York Post story you mention on Hillary Clinton's interview in
Talk .

            I was not one of them. My appetite for Talk has been weakened by
these "revelations," which seem as banal as they are carefully meted out. If we
are going to be subjected to any additional dirt about the Clinton's mystery
marriage, it better be loamier than the over-planted soil we seem to be farming
here. I agree with you about Tina Brown's domination of the media/PR complex:
amazing how she is reinventing old news--Bill Clinton's tough childhood and
repeated philandering--as the talk of the town.

            I suppose we'll have to reserve judgment until tomorrow, when the actual
magazine hits the newsstands. I'll make you a bet: If the interview shatters
any boundaries not already shattered by the Clintons' post-Gennifer Flowers
60 Minutes interview in 1992, I'll buy you a year's subscription to the
magazine. Are we on?

            My favorite Talk comment so far comes from Howard Kurtz in today's
Washington Post (in his straight news item on Page A2, not in his long
Brown vs. Remnick comparison in the "Style" section). Kurtz points out that the
interview gracefully negates Hillary's previous denials (real, Freudian) of her
husband's affairs, and might prevent her "vast right-wing conspiracy" sound
bites from being played ad nauseum during the Senate race. Aside from sheer
buzz (of which she's already got plenty), can you think of any other reason why
Hillary, finally striking out on her own, is rehashing her marital
troubles?

            I also want to ask you for help in reading the Wall Street Journal's
front-page account of Mark Barton's online-trading history. The story includes
a token caveat that "his actions can't be blamed just on day trading," but then
recounts exactly how his deep losses led to the massacre. How are we supposed
to read a story containing a one-line disclaimer that contradicts its entire
narrative thrust? Since Thursday, I have been wondering if an unlucky gambler
has ever opened fire in a Las Vegas casino, or if any of the stockbrokers who
committed suicide in '29 or '87 ever hurt anyone but themselves. Please let me
know if you've seen any stories that answer me.

            Until lunch,
Jodi

            P.S.: I love it when newspapers are deadpan. The terrific Times
biz-section story on the ad industry's all-too-sudden, profit-motivated
defection to the anti-smoking camp quotes an advertising executive named Alex
Bogusky.