TIME Media

These Are the 5 Best Donald Trump Headlines Ever

The billionaire has been the subject of more than a few clever headlines

For as long as Donald Trump has been making deals, he has been making headlines. The 69-year-old billionaire was arguably the star of the Republican debate held on August 6, leading as he has in both the polls and the hot rhetoric. Who won is a matter of debate; but, the name “Trump” grace many headlines on the morning after the 10-candidate forum. Here are Trump’s best tabloid headlines from over the years:

5. I’ll start un 1990. Spy Magazine‘s cover featuring an infantilized Trump throwing a temper tantrum demonstrates a younger, up-and-coming Trump. The story clipped together the turmoil he endured in the 90s like failed land acquisitions and chapter 11 filings.

1298467597coverjunkie.com

4. Perhaps unsurprisingly, New York’s liberal-leaning daily The Daily News has not typically been a fan of Trump. The tabloid pulled no punches when he announced his candidacy earlier this year.

CHs6NtQWgAAswMW

3. This 1990s New York Post Trump cover makes its way to number 3 with a story surrounding Marla Trump’s “best sex I’ve ever had quote.” This cover’s fusion of a smug Trump and a caption you only wish he had said himself merits noting.

new-york-post

2. The Post‘s “Don Voyage” cover was a comment on Trump’s Criticism of John McCain. This cover sports an eccentrically cartoonish photoshopping job of an adrift Trump and a simple, yet appropriate name pun.

getimagepressdisplay.com

1. Taking the number 1 spot is a headline reportedly appearing in Scotland’s The Daily Record. The story covers Trump’s attempt to sue the Scottish government in 2013 for a wind farm being built too close to his golf course. Its combination of clever punning—though likely “borrowed” from the wealth of internet Trump puns—and image.

ScottishNewsHeadline-thumb-1000x750-117216

TIME sexism

8 Sad Truths About Women in Media

Diane Sawyer signs off on her last broadcast as anchor of World News on August 24, 2014..
Ida Mae Astute—ABC/Getty Images Diane Sawyer signs off on her last broadcast as anchor of World News on August 24, 2014..

A new report shows how far women must go in order to achieve real gender parity

The Women’s Media Center’s annual report is out, and the status of women in news and entertainment is as bleak as ever. Little progress has been made in most areas, and there are some places—like sports journalism—where women have actually lost ground. Representation of women in sports journalism dropped from 17% to 10% last year.

And some of the media news in 2014 was particularly discouraging for women. “Two high-profile roles previously held by women — Diane Sawyer of ABC News and Jill Abramson of The New York Times—were changed in 2014,” said Julie Burton, president of the Women’s Media Center. “These veteran journalists were in positions of power at media giants, shaping, directing and delivering news. Both women were replaced by men.’’ The Status of Women in U.S. Media report, released Thursday, shows how far women still have to go in order to achieve real gender parity.

Here’s a list of some of the most depressing insights from the report, which draws on 49 studies of women across media platforms. (This is why some of the numbers are from 2012-2013, even though this is the report on 2014 and 2015).

1. The news industry still hasn’t achieved anything that resembles gender equality. Women are on camera only 32% of the time in evening broadcast news, and write 37% of print stories news stories. Between 2013 and 2014, female bylines and other credits increased just a little more than 1%. At the New York Times, more than 67% of bylines are male.

2. Men still dominate “hard news.” Even though the 2016 election could be the first time a woman presidential candidate gets a major party nomination, men report 65% of political stories. Men also dominate science coverage (63%), world politics coverage (64%) and criminal justice news (67%). Women have lost traction in sports journalism, with only 10% of sports coverage produced by women (last year, it was 17%). Education and lifestyle coverage were the only areas that demonstrated any real parity.

3. Opinions are apparently a male thing. Newspaper editorial boards are on average made up of seven men and four women. And the overall commentators on Sunday morning talk-shows are more than 70% male.

4. Hollywood executives are still overwhelmingly white and male. Studio senior management is 92% white and 83% male.

5. There’s bad news for actresses and minorities. Women accounted for only 12% of on-screen protagonists in 2014, and 30% of characters with speaking parts. There are also persistent racial disparities: White people are cast in lead roles more than twice as often as people of color, and white film writers outnumber minority writers 3 to 1. In 17% of films, no black people had speaking parts.

6. Women are losing traction behind the scenes. Women accounted for 25% of writers in 2013-2014, down from 34% the previous year. Women make up only 23% of executive producers (down from 27%) and 20% of show creators (down from 24%). For the 250 most profitable films made in 2014, 83% of the directors, producers, writers, cinematographers and editors are guys.

7. The stereotypes persist even in love. Black men are the most likely to be shown in relationships (68% of male characters in relationships are black) while Asian men are the least likely to have girlfriends on screen (29%). Latino characters of both genders were the most likely to be hyper-sexualized on-screen.

8. Latino characters are particularly under-represented. Latinos are 17% of the U.S. population and buy 25% of movie tickets, but have less than 5% of speaking roles in films. There are no Latino studio or network presidents, and from 2012 to 2013, 69% of all maids were played by Latina actresses.

But it’s not all bad news! There’s been some progress made. For example, at the New York Times Book Review, 52% of reviews in 2014 were written by women. At the Chicago Sun-Times, 54% of the bylines were female, and 53% of contributors to the Huffington Post are women. And in the top grossing films of 2013, the number of movies in which teen girls were hyper-sexualized dropped from around 31% to less than 19%.

Read next: See 13 Great American Woman Suffragists

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

TIME remembrance

Ben Bradlee’s Electric Glow

Ben Bradlee on Oct. 1, 1995.
Alexis Rodriguez-Duarte—Corbis Ben Bradlee on Oct. 1, 1995.

A former Washington Post reporter remembers a legendary newspaperman who lived off gossip, palled around with the Kennedys and was the most celebrated editor of his time

Charisma is a word, like thunderstorm or orgasm, which sits pretty flat on the page or the screen compared with the actual experience it tries to name. I don’t recall exactly when I first looked it up in the dictionary and read that charisma is a “personal magic of leadership,” a “special magnetic charm.” But I remember exactly when I first felt the full impact of the thing itself.

Benjamin Crowninshield Bradlee was gliding through the newsroom of the Washington Post, pushing a sort of force field ahead of him like the bow wave of a vintage Chris-Craft motor yacht. All across the vast expanse of identical desks, faces turned toward him — were pulled in his direction — much as a field of flowers turns toward the sun. We were powerless to look away.

This was after his storied career as editor of the Post had ended. I was the first reporter hired at the paper after Bradlee retired in 1991 to a ceremonial office on the corporate floor upstairs. For that reason, I never saw him clothed in the garb of authority. He no longer held the keys to the front page and the pay scales, so his force didn’t spring from those sources. Nor did it derive from his good looks, his elegance or his many millions worth of company stock.

I realized I was face to face with charisma, a quality I had wrongly believed I understood until Bradlee reached the desk where I was sitting and the bow wave pushed me back in my chair. It is pointless for me to try to describe this essence, because in that moment I realized that it cannot be observed or critiqued. Charisma can only be felt. It is a palpable something-more-ness — magical, magnetic — as rare as the South China tiger. I’ve met famous writers, directors, actors, athletes, billionaires, five Presidents of the United States, and none of them had it like Bradlee.

Which made him an odd fit, in a way, for the newspaper business. Set aside, for the moment, the improbable heroics of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, which would never have happened as they did without the peculiar protagonist Richard M. Nixon. The overwhelming bulk of the newspaper life is forgettable stories cranked out in mediocre fashion, the latest snowstorm, ballgame, traffic accident, charity dinner, Senate election, drought, chicken recipe. Having Bradlee sit down at your table in the Post’s lunchroom, where he often dined with the troops amid the plastic trays and sad salads, was like having Sinatra plop down beside you at a Trailways bus station. Great stuff, but you couldn’t help thinking that something was being squandered, that he really ought to be elsewhere, bedding Grace Kelly at the Hotel Hermitage in Monaco, or stealing the Mona Lisa, or outwitting Dr. No.

Ordinary news hacks — even the best of them — do not pal around, as Bradlee did, with John F. Kennedy and Lauren Bacall. They do not, as Bradlee did, arrange the sale of Newsweek by the Astors to the Grahams. They do not, as Bradlee did, have a sister-in-law whose mysterious death prompts a clandestine visit from the CIA’s top spymaster, desperate to retrieve her diary. They do not, as Bradlee did, live in a mansion that once belonged to Abraham Lincoln’s son.

Yet Ben wore all this with impossible ease, just as he wore his handmade shirts from London’s Jermyn Street as casually as a mortal wears Land’s End. God, those shirts — as beautiful and numerous as Gatsby’s, but minus the stain of anxiety. Only three types of men wore shirts like that: toffs, posers and Ben.

Anyway: impossible ease. He sized people up in an instant (of one failed job applicant he growled simply, “nothing clanks when he walks”) and met them as they were. He was the same fellow chatting with a movie star as he was with my father-in-law, a retired electrician with whom he swapped stories of card games in the Navy. When I introduced him to my nephew, another Benjamin, he bent to look the boy in the eye and said in a brotherly tone, “They can call you Ben, and they can call you Benjamin — but don’t ever let ’em call you Benjie!”

What made Bradlee a great newspaperman was that he had exactly the right blend of intelligence and impatience, plus an infectious hunger to be in the know. Feeding Ben a good bit of gossip was like turning over the last card of an ace-high straight, with his wide-eyed smile as the payout. He also had a restless attention span, so his reporters vied relentlessly to find stories sexy and important enough to catch and hold his interest. Whole sections of the Post went almost entirely unnoticed by him — his response to news that the paper’s dance critic had won the Pulitzer Prize was “Who the hell nominated him?” But the parts of the paper that Bradlee cared about were bright, bewitching and boffo.

(Ben had a thing about ballet coverage. He once summed up his animus toward the New York Times by noting, “it’s a paper with four f-cking dance critics!”)

As Shakespeare would appreciate, these gifts had a downside, and when it was revealed Bradlee experienced the low point of his career. A reporter named Janet Cooke decided to dazzle the editor with an invented story, because she couldn’t find a real one hot enough to do the trick. Plenty of people, inside and outside the newsroom, were skeptical of Cooke’s tall tale of an 8-year-old heroin addict with no last name and rather stilted diction. They noticed that the story was untethered by geography, dates and on-the-record sources. But Bradlee believed in it, and he was all that mattered, bigger than all the skeptics, bigger than the fail-safes, bigger even than the Pulitzer committee that awarded Cooke a prize for feature writing. The prize had to be returned when the lies unraveled.

It was around that time, 1981, that young Don Graham, successor-in-waiting to his remarkable mother, Post publisher Katharine Graham, clearly realized that there would never be — could never be — another Bradlee. Plenty of wannabes stalked the newsroom, wearing bespoke shirts and trying to copy Ben’s way of snarling out cuss words while grinning incandescently. When it came time to anoint Bradlee’s successor, however, Graham passed over all of them in favor of an unglamorous Midwesterner. Len Downie did not push out a bow wave. He was, in some ways, the anti-Ben. But if there was a better all-around newspaper editor, I don’t know who it was.

Ben sailed on as the one and only. In his later years, he groused amiably that he was just a museum piece, his office merely another “stop on the tour” of the Post. As newspaper circulation and profits sank year after year, Bradlee never indulged in second-guessing or armchair quarterbacking — petty pastimes that would have been beneath him. Though he was the most celebrated newspaper editor of his lifetime, perhaps the most celebrated of all time, he pronounced himself baffled by the competitive pressures of the digital age, and thankful that his era was the era of expansion and wealth.

I’m thankful too. For only the adrenaline charge of those go-go years, the generation after World War II, could have drawn such a man to the newspaper game. And the fact that Ben Bradlee was a part of it, never mind the prizes and the books and the movies — just the fact of Bradlee, the force, the charisma, threw an electric glow over the whole business and made it a joy to go to work. Though his ship passed over the horizon, he left a luminous trail dancing in his wake.

Correction: The original version of this story misstated the location of the London shirtmaker where Bradlee ordered his dress shirts. It was Turnbull & Asser on Jermyn Street.

Read next: Jill Abramson: Ben Bradlee Was Luminescent

MONEY Advertising

Newspapers Are Charging Extra … to Give You More Ads

stack of newspapers
iStock

Some newspapers plan on charging subscribers extra for certain "premium issues," such as one on Thanksgiving. What makes them "premium"? Loads and loads of Black Friday ads.

Jim Romenesko reported this week that both the Chicago Tribune and the Detroit Free Press have notified subscribers that they will be charged extra to receive issues of the paper published on Thanksgiving Day, and perhaps other days as well. The Tribune informed subscribers that special “premium issues” such as the one on Turkey Day will incur an additional charge of $2 apiece, while the Free Press plans on charging print subscribers the Sunday cover price ($1 more) for the Thanksgiving paper.

Why? Apparently, it’s because the paper will be overloaded with Black Friday circulars. “The Thanksgiving print edition includes Black Friday sale information, coupons and details about incredible door busters!” a Free Press letter told subscribers.

The Thanksgiving papers are heavier than normal editions, so they’re therefore costlier to produce and deliver. Still, ads have traditionally been sold in order to keep newsstand and subscriber prices down. Bizarrely, here we have an instance in which the presence of more ads is being used as a justification to charge customers extra. As the Consumerist pointed out, in the case of the Tribune, “they’re calling this paper a ‘premium issue’ even though the majority of the extra content is advertisements. That companies pay the newspaper for.”

Granted, “extreme couponers” and Black Friday shopping fanatics love such ads. Forrester analyst Sucharita Mulpuru has explained that the pull-out ad sections of Sunday papers are essentially a “destination” that a sizable segment of consumers enjoy wading into and exploring. The fact that Sunday circulars are more of a draw for some “readers” than, say, the editorials or even the sports section has to depress the already depressed journalistic masses to no end.

As for the loyal subscribers who actually read the paper and put up with ads in order to keep print prices down, they’re surely peeved by the moves being attempted by the Chicago Tribune and Detroit Free Press. At least both papers told Romenesko that if subscribers are upset with the extra charges, they can be credited the amounts by calling up customer service.

TIME Media

Here’s a Newspaper You Might Actually Want to Read

PaperLater targets an online audience that's nostalgic for newspapers

The days of reading a newspaper with a cup of Joe might be making a comeback. For those nostalgic for the morning paper — but yearning for the customization possibilities of online news — PaperLater might be for you.

It’s a news service that grabs user-selected online content and collates it into a printed newspaper that’s delivered to your doorstep.

Run by The Newspaper Club, a newspaper printing company based in the U.K., the project is currently in its beta phase and only available to Britons for now.

The company is optimistic. The Newspaper Club head of engineering Tom Taylor told PrintWeek that he expected to be producing thousands of papers per week as soon as more users joined.

But don’t expect the personalized newspaper experience to be cheap: each issue costs $8.37 (£4.99).

[PrintWeek]

TIME newspapers

Jeff Bezos Makes His First Major Move at the Washington Post

Jeff Bezos Launches Bezos Center For Innovation In Seattle
David Ryder—Getty Images Jeff Bezos

In an effort to boost The Washington Post's web traffic and increase its national presence, Amazon's CEO struck a deal with local papers to give their paying customers free access to some of the Post's subscriber content

Just a few months after buying The Washington Post, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is making his first significant change to the newspaper’s business model. Starting in May, the Post will lift its online paywall for subscribers of certain local newspapers, including The Dallas Morning News, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. The deal could boost the Post‘s web traffic while also increasing its national presence in areas where it is not distributed in print.

Like many news organizations, the Post allows people to view a limited number of articles online per month, then charges $7.99 every four weeks for unlimited access. The new deal will give subscribers of other papers free access to the Post’s website as well as its smartphone and tablet apps. No money is changing hands between the Post and the local papers, according to the Financial Times.

In the future, the Post could be bundled with other newspapers and even media properties in other sectors. Washington Post President Steve Hills told the Financial Times that digital subscription services such as Amazon Prime and Spotify could one day come packaged with the Post’s content. Bezos is focused on developing “a great digital audience 10 years from now, 20 years from now” rather than immediate profits, Hills said. The newspaper division of The Washington Post Company was losing money before Bezos announced he would buy the flagship paper for $250 million in August.

TIME History

Here’s How You Read the Paper on Your Computer in 1981

And by 1984, newspapers and magazines should have gone completely digital.

There are so many fascinating and wonderful things going on in this news report from 1981.

For starters, it’s about getting the newspaper on computers, so who do they send to cover the story? The science editor, of course.

Then the piece shows off that whimsical old-timey modem. We had one of those in my house: You’d dial a number by hand and then place the receiver down on top of the modem, and the two would scream at each other for a while. If someone called you when you were using the modem, you were disconnected. If you knocked the receiver off the modem by accident, you were disconnected.

This early program was fed by eight newspapers: The Columbus Dispatch, The New York Times, The Virginian-Pilot & Ledger-Star, The Washington Post, The San Francisco Chronicle, The San Francisco Examiner, The Los Angeles Times, and The Minneapolis Star and Tribune – my hometown paper. I was two years old in 1981.

The San Francisco Examiner’s David Cole tells the reporter about the experimental nature of the project, saying, “We’re not in it to make money. We’re probably not going to lose a lot, but we aren’t going to make much either.” Nowadays, we’re all in it to make money.

Then there’s this fascinating stat: The reporter says there’s an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 home computer owners in the Bay Area at the time, and that 500 responded by sending back coupons that were used to sign up for the service.

The man in the “fashionable North Beach apartment” who’s profiled in the piece says he’s excited about being able to print out things he’s interested in. Again: He likes the computer version of the paper so that he can print out things he likes on paper.

And here’s the best quote in the whole piece. The reporter says, “This is only the first step in newspapers by computer. Engineers now predict the day will come when we get all our newspapers and magazines by home computer – but that’s a few years off.” The piece then shows a guy selling newspapers, with the reporter saying that “for the moment, at least, this fellow isn’t worried about being out of a job.”

So by 1984, everything should have been completely digital, with delivery people and street vendors in the unemployment lines. Never mind that this system in 1981 took at least two hours to receive the paper, with a $5-per-hour use charge. That was up against a newsstand price of 20 cents for the physical paper.

How to Read the Newspaper on Your Computer in 1981 [Mental Floss]

TIME Carl Mydans

JFK’s Assassination: Portrait of an Era When Newspapers Mattered

Carl Mydans's famous photo provides, as clearly as one is ever likely to see, a graphic illustration of the old adage that journalism is "the first rough draft of history."

It’s difficult to say exactly what makes this celebrated Carl Mydans photograph of commuters on the day of John Kennedy’s assassination so compelling. Maybe it’s simply that, technically, it’s a wonderful picture. There is depth here, and tension — a kind of captive energy — that holds the viewer’s eye while urging it to delve further into the scene.

There is, of course, the simple fact that the photo is eloquent about our shared history. This is what it looked like, the picture tells us, on one train car in one major American city, on the afternoon of one of the most significant dates of the 20th century: November 22, 1963.

But on another level entirely, Mydans’s photograph is memorable and resonant because every single figure in the frame — and probably every person on the train that afternoon who could read — has his or her nose buried in a newspaper. Here, as clearly and as powerfully as one could wish, is a graphic illustration of the old adage that journalism is “the first rough draft of history.”

The truth of that adage would be just as evident if this photograph was made on, say, April 15, 2013, shortly after the Boston Marathon terror attack. Undoubtedly everyone in that photo would be staring at a smart phone or tablet, looking for the latest, most accurate, most reliable information about an unthinkable event. But the impulse would be the same as in 1963: Tell me what happened. Show me what it looked like.

Finally, the photograph acts as a kind of de facto eulogy for a time when readers in most American cities, big and small, had a slew of morning and afternoon newspapers to choose from. In New York alone, commuters could pick up the Journal-American, the World-Telegram, the Daily News, the Post, the Times, the Mirror, the Herald Tribune — and those were just the dailies!

There’s little doubt that much of the world’s population today has an infinitely broader range of choices when it comes to how, when and through which “brands” they’ll encounter the news than anyone enjoyed five decades ago. It’s unlikely, however, that the jolt we get today from urgent, breaking news is any more intense, or feels any more timely, than that experienced by each and every one of the commuters in Mydans’s great photo.

— Ben Cosgrove is the Editor of LIFE.com

[Buy the LIFE book, The Day Kennedy Died]

[See photos from JFK and Jackie’s 1953 wedding]

[See photos from JFK’s funeral at Arlington]

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com