Amid Donald Trump’s spasmodic summer, one member of his campaign (and family) has received a growing amount of positive—or at least not explicitly negative—press: Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Today, however, Esquire has published a long and excellent profile with lots of good dirt, all about who is this smiling fellow who through his narrow greed and ambition has sold out his faith for a suicide ride on the Trump train.
You may have heard about the latest dustup between Jeff Jarvis, a media futurist and journalism professor, and his satirical online alter-ego, @ProfJeffJarvis, who was created several years ago by a software developer named Rurik Bradbury to mock the jargon-laden prognostications for which Jarvis and his ilk are known. The two Jarvises have butted heads in the past, but the most recent incident—in which the real Jarvis, after airing legal threats on Twitter, successfully forced Esquire to delete a satirical essay carrying @ProfJeffJarvis’s byline—shows that, for all of his bluster about the power of free speech, Jeff Jarvis is a cringing hypocrite when it comes to the offensive but entirely legal speech of others.
Yesterday, Esquire.com published a piece of commentary by the author who goes by the Twitter handle @ProfJeffJarvis. @ProfJeffJarvis is not the former TV Guide critic and journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, but his online persona satirizes a mode of thinking that the real Jarvis is known for. After the real Jeff Jarvis complained, Esquire deleted the story. It runs below as originally published, with permission from @ProfJeffJarvis.
Penelope Cruz, breasts on radiant display, covers the November issue of Esquire, the storied magazine for men who wear statement socks. She is, for the moment, the Sexiest Woman Alive. But the article about her, by two-time National Magazine Award-winning journalist and Deadspin Good Writering Award winner Chris Jones, is not really about her. She evidently didn't feel like talking much.
Yesterday, Esquire's culture blog posted a review of the new HBO show that is just like your life or your friend's life or the life of that guy in your office whose shoes are always just a little nicer than they have to be, Looking. In "A Straight Man's Guide to HBO's Looking," writer Mick Stingley determines that the show about a handful of weed-paced gay friends in San Francisco "commits the heinous sin of being gay and boring." Stingley's bio that follows his piece states that he "loves Tom Wolfe and rock and roll and lives with his fiancée in Queens." He seems to have a lot in common with those gay guys on the show with the exception of the gay thing. Boring is the universal human experience.
Last month Esquire reporter Phil Bronstein scored a major scoop: An exclusive story about the "man who shot and killed bin Laden." The piece was a powerfully written profile of the anonymous member of SEAL Team 6, now retired and struggling to make ends meet while dealing with the psychological and physical scars of war. But problems with the story's claim that "The Shooter" had no access to health care arose almost immediately. Now it seems the core of the story is wrong as well.
Esquire magazine's editorial philosophy can be summed up as "Booze, Bacon, Bourbon, Books, Broads, Boobs, and Bros Talking About Fashion But Uh, Not in a Gay Way." Actually, we're just giving them a hard time. The real editorial philosophy of Esquire, as stated by Esquire's UK editor, is simply: "Women are objects."
Having bungled one of the two central premises of their story about the Navy SEAL who is supposed to have killed Osama bin Laden, the editors of Esquire are now arguing that they were secretly right all along. Yes, Phil Bronstein's piece did say that "the Shooter," as the story calls the SEAL, gets "no health care" after leaving the service, when in fact—as Stars and Stripes pointed out—he is covered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. But according to the editors, that's a distraction from the real point: