WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.459 Welcome back to the Deep Dive, the show that 00:00:01.459 --> 00:00:03.960 takes a stack of sources, articles, bios, you 00:00:03.960 --> 00:00:05.879 name it, and really just gets to the heart of 00:00:05.879 --> 00:00:08.080 what you need to know. And today our mission 00:00:08.080 --> 00:00:11.179 is all about media transformation. We're diving 00:00:11.179 --> 00:00:14.759 into the career of one of the most influential 00:00:14.759 --> 00:00:16.839 journalists out there, Christina Hambly Brown, 00:00:17.079 --> 00:00:19.480 Lady Evans. But everyone just knows her as Tina 00:00:19.480 --> 00:00:21.760 Brown. Exactly. And we're not just, you know, 00:00:21.760 --> 00:00:23.719 reading her resume. We're trying to figure out 00:00:23.719 --> 00:00:27.899 the blueprint. How? How did she manage to take 00:00:27.899 --> 00:00:31.300 these classic, sometimes really stagnant media 00:00:31.300 --> 00:00:34.979 brands and just completely revitalize them? She's 00:00:34.979 --> 00:00:36.990 the ultimate transformation. artist, isn't she? 00:00:37.070 --> 00:00:39.009 I mean, think about the scale here. She takes 00:00:39.009 --> 00:00:43.130 a stuffy British Society magazine, Tatler, the 00:00:43.130 --> 00:00:45.990 fading American glossy Vanity Fair, and then 00:00:45.990 --> 00:00:49.590 the big one, the super entrenched literary institution, 00:00:49.950 --> 00:00:52.630 The New Yorker. And turns them into cultural 00:00:52.630 --> 00:00:55.229 behemoths. She was a master at mixing high and 00:00:55.229 --> 00:00:57.109 low culture. Right. And you can see the proof 00:00:57.109 --> 00:00:59.250 of that success in the awards, not just the flashy 00:00:59.250 --> 00:01:02.140 covers. Oh, absolutely. It goes way beyond just 00:01:02.140 --> 00:01:04.980 circulation numbers. Under Tina Brown, her publications 00:01:04.980 --> 00:01:07.659 picked up, what, 10 national magazine awards? 00:01:07.760 --> 00:01:11.239 Ten. And four George Polk awards, five overseas 00:01:11.239 --> 00:01:13.980 press club awards. It's a level of success you 00:01:13.980 --> 00:01:17.200 just... You rarely see. Which is why, of course, 00:01:17.239 --> 00:01:19.579 she was inducted into the Magazine Editors Hall 00:01:19.579 --> 00:01:22.620 of Fame in 2007. It was inevitable. And it's 00:01:22.620 --> 00:01:24.659 important to see her as this transatlantic figure. 00:01:24.920 --> 00:01:27.280 She's both British and American, a journalist, 00:01:27.400 --> 00:01:30.400 editor, author. Broadcaster, too. And in 2000, 00:01:30.640 --> 00:01:34.140 she was appointed a CBE by Queen Elizabeth II. 00:01:34.459 --> 00:01:36.040 Commander of the Order of the British Empire. 00:01:36.280 --> 00:01:38.719 For services to journalism overseas, it feels 00:01:38.719 --> 00:01:40.340 like her whole career was built on this idea 00:01:40.340 --> 00:01:42.680 that smart content doesn't have to be, you know. 00:01:43.000 --> 00:01:45.640 boring and that popular culture doesn't have 00:01:45.640 --> 00:01:48.439 to be dumb but what's really striking when you 00:01:48.439 --> 00:01:50.500 look at all the sources is that this editorial 00:01:50.500 --> 00:01:53.719 dna this ability to find a great story and add 00:01:53.719 --> 00:01:56.159 some wit that wasn't something she learned on 00:01:56.159 --> 00:01:58.319 the job no it was there from the very beginning 00:01:58.319 --> 00:02:00.879 it was forged in her youth okay so let's start 00:02:00.879 --> 00:02:03.920 there the foundations of this subversive editor 00:02:03.920 --> 00:02:06.599 we need to go back to her childhood in england 00:02:06.599 --> 00:02:09.909 uh maidenhead and little marlo Her upbringing 00:02:09.909 --> 00:02:12.150 is just fascinating. It really sets the stage. 00:02:12.189 --> 00:02:15.050 It was completely steeped in storytelling, in 00:02:15.050 --> 00:02:17.550 visual drama. Her father, George Hambly Brown, 00:02:17.710 --> 00:02:19.569 who was a film producer, right? A pretty significant 00:02:19.569 --> 00:02:22.810 one. He produced those beloved Miss Marple detective 00:02:22.810 --> 00:02:25.310 films, the ones with Margaret Rutherford. So 00:02:25.310 --> 00:02:27.090 you have this mix of high -quality production 00:02:27.090 --> 00:02:29.830 and, you know, popular entertainment. And her 00:02:29.830 --> 00:02:31.409 mother was in that world, too, Bettina Core. 00:02:31.610 --> 00:02:33.629 She was an executive assistant to Laurence Olivier. 00:02:34.330 --> 00:02:36.909 on his Shakespeare films. Right. And her older 00:02:36.909 --> 00:02:39.949 brother also went into film production. So Tina 00:02:39.949 --> 00:02:42.349 Brown grew up surrounded by the mechanics of 00:02:42.349 --> 00:02:44.469 how stories are made, how drama is constructed, 00:02:44.750 --> 00:02:46.789 the power of a great image. It wasn't just a 00:02:46.789 --> 00:02:49.569 literary house then. It was a house focused on 00:02:49.569 --> 00:02:52.189 performance, on delivery. That's the key. She 00:02:52.189 --> 00:02:55.270 understood from day one that media, whether it's 00:02:55.270 --> 00:02:58.069 film or print, it requires a bit of spectacle, 00:02:58.250 --> 00:03:00.830 a compelling script. But she wasn't just watching 00:03:00.830 --> 00:03:03.750 the drama unfold. She was creating it. Very early 00:03:03.750 --> 00:03:06.240 on. The sources describe her as, and this is 00:03:06.240 --> 00:03:09.699 a quote, an extremely subversive influence as 00:03:09.699 --> 00:03:12.419 a child. How subversive are we talking? Expelled 00:03:12.419 --> 00:03:15.099 from three boarding schools subversive. Three. 00:03:15.759 --> 00:03:18.840 That's not just, you know, bad behavior. That's 00:03:18.840 --> 00:03:21.639 a pattern. That's institutional revolt. And that's 00:03:21.639 --> 00:03:24.199 the blueprint, isn't it? The willingness to challenge 00:03:24.199 --> 00:03:26.939 the establishment, and not just quietly, to do 00:03:26.939 --> 00:03:29.560 it with flair, with style, in a way that gets 00:03:29.560 --> 00:03:31.879 attention. Okay, give me an example. She organized 00:03:31.879 --> 00:03:34.979 a protest, a full -on demonstration. Against 00:03:34.979 --> 00:03:37.259 what? Against the school's policy of only allowing 00:03:37.259 --> 00:03:39.580 three changes of underwear a week. You're kidding! 00:03:39.800 --> 00:03:42.699 I'm not. It's this perfect, tangible example 00:03:42.699 --> 00:03:45.319 of her questioning authority over something that's 00:03:45.319 --> 00:03:49.460 just ridiculous. It's dissent as public action. 00:03:49.599 --> 00:03:51.740 And her wit was already there, too. The literary 00:03:51.740 --> 00:03:54.860 subversion. Absolutely weaponized. The most famous 00:03:54.860 --> 00:03:57.219 story, of course, is from her journal. She described 00:03:57.219 --> 00:04:00.039 her headmistress's bosoms as unidentified flying 00:04:00.039 --> 00:04:03.460 objects. Oh, that's brilliant. That is exactly 00:04:03.460 --> 00:04:05.580 the kind of smart, accessible humor she'd later 00:04:05.580 --> 00:04:08.020 put on magazine covers. It's high -quality shade. 00:04:08.319 --> 00:04:10.400 Right. I mean, you don't just get expelled for 00:04:10.400 --> 00:04:13.060 being naughty. You get expelled for being a spectacular 00:04:13.060 --> 00:04:16.620 writer. That ability to turn rebellion into a 00:04:16.620 --> 00:04:18.420 memorable phrase, that had to be the biggest 00:04:18.420 --> 00:04:20.449 sign of what was to come. And there was one more 00:04:20.449 --> 00:04:22.410 incident, wasn't there? Something about a play. 00:04:23.089 --> 00:04:25.490 Yes. And this one is maybe the most telling. 00:04:26.129 --> 00:04:28.290 Drawing on that film background, she wrote a 00:04:28.290 --> 00:04:30.550 play about her school being blown up. Blown up 00:04:30.550 --> 00:04:33.449 and replaced with what? A public lavatory. A 00:04:33.449 --> 00:04:36.449 literary bomb threat. I love it. It's a metaphor 00:04:36.449 --> 00:04:39.170 for her entire career. Don't just critique the 00:04:39.170 --> 00:04:42.029 institution, dramatically obliterate it and replace 00:04:42.029 --> 00:04:44.129 it with something useful. Maybe a little shocking. 00:04:44.540 --> 00:04:46.720 for the masses a public lavatory is democratic 00:04:46.720 --> 00:04:50.259 it's necessary it's the perfect symbol her subversion 00:04:50.259 --> 00:04:52.379 wasn't just for kicks it was about injecting 00:04:52.379 --> 00:04:55.220 some life some frankness into these stagnant 00:04:55.220 --> 00:04:57.620 places and yet she channeled all that rebellious 00:04:57.620 --> 00:05:01.740 energy into getting into oxford at just 17 st 00:05:01.740 --> 00:05:04.339 anne's college and got a ba in english literature 00:05:04.339 --> 00:05:06.680 but even as an undergraduate she was already 00:05:06.680 --> 00:05:09.139 honing her craft she was writing for isis the 00:05:09.139 --> 00:05:11.959 university's literary magazine and landing big 00:05:11.959 --> 00:05:17.259 interviews She was getting major names before 00:05:17.259 --> 00:05:19.459 she even had a degree. She just had that professional 00:05:19.459 --> 00:05:21.600 instinct from the start. She was also writing 00:05:21.600 --> 00:05:24.740 for the New Statesman. The editor saw this irreverent 00:05:24.740 --> 00:05:27.000 piece she wrote about getting invited to a lunch 00:05:27.000 --> 00:05:29.550 at Private Eye magazine and just... offered her 00:05:29.550 --> 00:05:31.750 a column. So she was already generating buzz 00:05:31.750 --> 00:05:34.230 just by writing about her own life. And winning 00:05:34.230 --> 00:05:37.329 awards for it. While at Oxford, she won the Sunday 00:05:37.329 --> 00:05:39.670 Times National Student Drama Award for a one 00:05:39.670 --> 00:05:42.110 -act play she wrote, Under the Bamboo Tree. And 00:05:42.110 --> 00:05:44.350 it was actually performed, right, at the Bush 00:05:44.350 --> 00:05:46.750 Theater and the Edinburgh Festival. It was. And 00:05:46.750 --> 00:05:48.850 she had another play staged a few years later. 00:05:49.290 --> 00:05:51.050 You have to keep coming back to this theatrical 00:05:51.050 --> 00:05:53.970 foundation. She understood performance. A magazine 00:05:53.970 --> 00:05:57.050 is a performance. The cover is a stage. So after 00:05:57.050 --> 00:05:59.230 Oxford, she launches her professional career 00:05:59.230 --> 00:06:03.029 in London, a weekly column for Punch. Freelancing 00:06:03.029 --> 00:06:05.389 for the Sunday Times, the Sunday Telegraph. And 00:06:05.389 --> 00:06:07.949 her work was so good, so sharp, that she won 00:06:07.949 --> 00:06:10.250 the Katherine Pakenham Award for the best journalist 00:06:10.250 --> 00:06:13.439 under 25. So by her mid -20s, she's already an 00:06:13.439 --> 00:06:16.220 award -winning playwright, an established columnist, 00:06:16.300 --> 00:06:19.160 a recognized journalist. The stage was set for 00:06:19.160 --> 00:06:21.920 her first big transformation job. And that takes 00:06:21.920 --> 00:06:24.439 us to the glamour game, The Resurrection of Tatler 00:06:24.439 --> 00:06:27.319 in 1979. So she gets this offer from the new 00:06:27.319 --> 00:06:30.199 owner, Gary Bogard, to come edit Tatler. And 00:06:30.199 --> 00:06:33.189 at the time, what was it? It was basically a 00:06:33.189 --> 00:06:37.350 fossil, an old, fusty society magazine clinging 00:06:37.350 --> 00:06:40.490 to the past. Her job was to perform CPR. And 00:06:40.490 --> 00:06:41.949 her strategy was brilliant. She didn't throw 00:06:41.949 --> 00:06:44.470 out the society stuff. No, she just changed the 00:06:44.470 --> 00:06:46.550 packaging. She turned it into what she called 00:06:46.550 --> 00:06:49.589 a successful modern glossy. And she did it by 00:06:49.589 --> 00:06:51.610 blending the high and the low. Right. She brought 00:06:51.610 --> 00:06:53.990 in her literary circle. Julian Barnes, Martin 00:06:53.990 --> 00:06:56.189 Amis, Dennis Potter, the art critic Brian Sewell. 00:06:56.730 --> 00:06:59.209 Real intellectual heavyweights. It was that synergy. 00:06:59.550 --> 00:07:01.870 Use the highbrow writers to elevate. the society 00:07:01.870 --> 00:07:04.569 gossip and use the society gossip to give the 00:07:04.569 --> 00:07:07.670 serious writers a huge new audience and visually 00:07:07.670 --> 00:07:09.750 she went straight to the top the biggest names 00:07:09.750 --> 00:07:13.089 in photography norman parkinson helmet newton 00:07:13.089 --> 00:07:16.639 david bailey She knew that a modern, glossy, 00:07:16.779 --> 00:07:19.699 needed world -class visuals. But she also got 00:07:19.699 --> 00:07:22.800 her own hands dirty. She wrote these sharp, satirical 00:07:22.800 --> 00:07:25.459 profiles of eligible London bachelors. Under 00:07:25.459 --> 00:07:27.680 a pen name, right? Rosie Boot? That's the one. 00:07:27.980 --> 00:07:31.019 It was perfect. She was covering the aristocracy, 00:07:31.199 --> 00:07:33.399 but she was also mocking them from the inside, 00:07:33.620 --> 00:07:35.800 which is always the most fun. It felt like insider 00:07:35.800 --> 00:07:38.459 gossip, not some dusty old report. And then, 00:07:38.660 --> 00:07:41.259 just through pure timing, she hits the cultural 00:07:41.259 --> 00:07:44.980 jackpot. Lady Diana Spencer. Suddenly. Tatler 00:07:44.980 --> 00:07:47.819 is at the absolute epicenter of this global fairy 00:07:47.819 --> 00:07:50.279 tale that was about to define the entire decade. 00:07:50.500 --> 00:07:52.959 And by covering Diana's rise, Tatler became essential 00:07:52.959 --> 00:07:55.639 reading. Brown became such an authority that 00:07:55.639 --> 00:07:58.839 she was doing commentary on the 1981 royal wedding 00:07:58.839 --> 00:08:01.279 for NBC's Today Show. Incredible. So what did 00:08:01.279 --> 00:08:02.779 all this do for the numbers? The numbers are 00:08:02.779 --> 00:08:05.060 just staggering. In three years, circulation 00:08:05.060 --> 00:08:08.120 didn't just go up. It quadrupled from 10 ,000 00:08:08.120 --> 00:08:10.720 to 40 ,000. An explosive success for a magazine 00:08:10.720 --> 00:08:13.160 everyone thought was dead. So successful that 00:08:13.160 --> 00:08:16.120 in 1980... the legendary condo nast owner, Samuel 00:08:16.120 --> 00:08:19.600 Irving Newhouse Jr., he just bought Tattler outright. 00:08:19.879 --> 00:08:23.610 And Brown's success did not go unnoticed. Newhouse 00:08:23.610 --> 00:08:27.170 had his eye on her. Which is how, in 1983, she 00:08:27.170 --> 00:08:29.350 ends up in New York advising on a struggling 00:08:29.350 --> 00:08:32.330 magazine called Vanity Fair. They had just resurrected 00:08:32.330 --> 00:08:34.230 it, but it wasn't working. It was floundering. 00:08:34.470 --> 00:08:38.230 So by January 1st, 1984, she's officially the 00:08:38.230 --> 00:08:40.690 new editor -in -chief. And she inherits a magazine 00:08:40.690 --> 00:08:43.610 with a circulation of just 200 ,000. Her diagnosis 00:08:43.610 --> 00:08:47.269 was famously brutal. She said it was pretentious, 00:08:47.470 --> 00:08:51.740 humorless, just dull. Exactly. Her mission was 00:08:51.740 --> 00:08:55.220 to inject it with life, with drama, with an edge, 00:08:55.279 --> 00:08:57.500 to make it a magazine he had to read. So she 00:08:57.500 --> 00:09:00.179 starts hiring writers who can deliver that drama. 00:09:00.419 --> 00:09:03.139 Her first contract writer was Dominic Dunn. And 00:09:03.139 --> 00:09:05.299 this is where you see her genius for finding 00:09:05.299 --> 00:09:08.379 a story. Dunn told her he was going to California 00:09:08.379 --> 00:09:11.259 for the trial of the man who murdered his daughter. 00:09:11.480 --> 00:09:13.779 And she told him to keep a diary. Right, as a 00:09:13.779 --> 00:09:16.039 way to process it. That diary became the article 00:09:16.039 --> 00:09:18.960 Justice. a father's account of the trial of his 00:09:18.960 --> 00:09:20.580 daughter's killer. It was a cultural phenomenon. 00:09:20.779 --> 00:09:23.419 And it launched Dunn's entire magazine career. 00:09:23.820 --> 00:09:26.820 But that's, I mean, that's pure Tina Brown, isn't 00:09:26.820 --> 00:09:30.480 it? It's both genius and, you could argue, ruthlessly 00:09:30.480 --> 00:09:33.580 efficient. She saw the narrative potential in 00:09:33.580 --> 00:09:36.440 his personal trauma and turned it into unmissable 00:09:36.440 --> 00:09:38.879 content. She built a whole roster of writers 00:09:38.879 --> 00:09:43.100 like that. Gail Sheehy, Marie Brenner. She mixed 00:09:43.100 --> 00:09:46.029 serious reporting with celebrity glamour. a perfect 00:09:46.029 --> 00:09:49.169 example is william styron she convinced the novelist 00:09:49.169 --> 00:09:51.070 to write about his clinical depression which 00:09:51.070 --> 00:09:53.570 became the article darkness visible and then 00:09:53.570 --> 00:09:56.649 a best -selling book she was giving real intellectual 00:09:56.649 --> 00:09:59.730 weight to these personal stories she was but 00:09:59.730 --> 00:10:02.080 let's talk about the visuals The shockwaves. 00:10:02.080 --> 00:10:04.320 Her relationships with photographers like Annie 00:10:04.320 --> 00:10:06.779 Leibovitz and Helmut Newton were game -changing. 00:10:07.000 --> 00:10:08.980 These weren't just photos. They were events. 00:10:09.279 --> 00:10:11.259 And if you have to pick one image that defines 00:10:11.259 --> 00:10:14.120 that whole era of Vanity Fair, it has to be the 00:10:14.120 --> 00:10:16.759 August 1991 cover. Oh, the Demi Moore cover. 00:10:16.960 --> 00:10:19.240 Naked and pregnant. It was a cultural detonation. 00:10:19.240 --> 00:10:21.519 It was provocative. It was intimate. It was something 00:10:21.519 --> 00:10:23.340 no one had ever seen on a mainstream magazine 00:10:23.340 --> 00:10:25.919 cover before. It became a front -page story. 00:10:26.609 --> 00:10:30.029 everywhere. It created buzz, controversy, and 00:10:30.029 --> 00:10:32.970 it sold magazines like crazy. It proved her theory 00:10:32.970 --> 00:10:34.610 that a cover could be a piece of performance 00:10:34.610 --> 00:10:36.730 art. But she'd been building to that for years, 00:10:36.850 --> 00:10:39.629 right? In 1985, the magazine was struggling and 00:10:39.629 --> 00:10:41.090 there were rumors it was going to be folded. 00:10:41.269 --> 00:10:44.230 Right. She needed to create buzz fast. So she 00:10:44.230 --> 00:10:48.350 used three huge stories that year. First, a Harry 00:10:48.350 --> 00:10:50.789 Benson cover of Ronald and Nancy Reagan dancing. 00:10:51.389 --> 00:10:54.779 It made them seem human. Then, a Helmut Newton 00:10:54.779 --> 00:10:57.360 portrait of the accused murderer, Claus von Bulow, 00:10:57.480 --> 00:11:00.799 in his leathers with his mistress. That's sex, 00:11:00.940 --> 00:11:04.279 crime, high society, all in one package. And 00:11:04.279 --> 00:11:06.500 finally, she went back to her roots. She wrote 00:11:06.500 --> 00:11:08.779 her own cover story on Princess Diana, The Mouse 00:11:08.779 --> 00:11:11.419 That Roared. She knew Diana was the center of 00:11:11.419 --> 00:11:13.220 the celebrity universe. So let's get to the bottom 00:11:13.220 --> 00:11:15.799 line. What did all this do for sales? They skyrocketed. 00:11:15.799 --> 00:11:19.080 From that initial $200 ,000 to $1 .2 million. 00:11:19.600 --> 00:11:22.879 Advertising pages soared. Single copy sales revenue 00:11:22.879 --> 00:11:25.539 hit $20 million. Okay, that single copy number 00:11:25.539 --> 00:11:28.559 is huge. She had a 55 % sell -through rate at 00:11:28.559 --> 00:11:30.740 the newsstand. Which is insane. The industry 00:11:30.740 --> 00:11:34.299 average was, what, 42 %? It means people weren't 00:11:34.299 --> 00:11:37.419 just subscribing. They were rushing out to buy 00:11:37.419 --> 00:11:40.379 the issue because she had created an event. But 00:11:40.379 --> 00:11:41.960 there was some debate about whether it was actually 00:11:41.960 --> 00:11:44.820 profitable, right? Some, like Professor Jeffrey 00:11:44.820 --> 00:11:47.039 Pfeffer, suggested it was losing money. There 00:11:47.039 --> 00:11:50.399 was that scrutiny, yeah. But the Condé Nast president 00:11:50.399 --> 00:11:54.019 at the time, Bernard Lizard, he completely refuted 00:11:54.019 --> 00:11:56.940 that. He said the claim was absolutely false 00:11:56.940 --> 00:12:00.179 and that Vanity Fair made a very healthy profit. 00:12:00.419 --> 00:12:02.679 So was it making money or was it just creating 00:12:02.679 --> 00:12:05.299 so much cultural capital for Condé Nast that 00:12:05.299 --> 00:12:08.350 Newhouse didn't care? Probably a bit of both. 00:12:08.470 --> 00:12:10.889 The buzz and the awards were priceless for the 00:12:10.889 --> 00:12:13.409 brand. But those commercial numbers, they speak 00:12:13.409 --> 00:12:15.350 for themselves. The transformation was commercially 00:12:15.350 --> 00:12:18.149 viable. She won four national magazine awards 00:12:18.149 --> 00:12:21.110 there. It was a critical and a commercial success. 00:12:21.470 --> 00:12:23.950 And the proof of that success was the next job 00:12:23.950 --> 00:12:26.909 they gave her. In 1992, they asked her to take 00:12:26.909 --> 00:12:29.409 on the impossible, modernizing the New Yorker. 00:12:29.629 --> 00:12:31.850 Which was a whole different challenge, a huge 00:12:31.850 --> 00:12:34.830 intellectual test. She became only the fourth 00:12:34.830 --> 00:12:38.210 editor in its 73 -year history and the first 00:12:38.210 --> 00:12:41.470 woman. She was walking into a literary monastery. 00:12:41.929 --> 00:12:44.850 And her initial approach was smart. She didn't 00:12:44.850 --> 00:12:47.230 try to make it Vanity Fair 2 .0. She went back 00:12:47.230 --> 00:12:49.710 to the old issues from the founding editor, Harold 00:12:49.710 --> 00:12:52.009 Ross. Right. She said she wanted to bring back 00:12:52.009 --> 00:12:55.169 his original irreverence, a lightness of touch. 00:12:55.529 --> 00:12:58.090 She reassured everyone that The New Worker would 00:12:58.090 --> 00:13:01.470 remain a text -driven magazine. But the old guard, 00:13:01.629 --> 00:13:03.720 they were not buying it. They were terrified. 00:13:03.860 --> 00:13:05.700 Oh, they were horrified. They'd seen the Demi 00:13:05.700 --> 00:13:08.039 Moore cover. They expected a celebrity takeover. 00:13:08.080 --> 00:13:10.860 The backlash was immediate and very, very public. 00:13:11.179 --> 00:13:13.240 This is where you get those amazing quotes. George 00:13:13.240 --> 00:13:15.259 Trow accused her of kissing the ass of celebrity. 00:13:15.480 --> 00:13:17.759 And her reported response was just classic Tina 00:13:17.759 --> 00:13:20.000 Brown. I am distraught at your defection, but 00:13:20.000 --> 00:13:21.720 since you never actually write anything, I should 00:13:21.720 --> 00:13:24.860 say I'm notionally distraught. Ouch. And Jamaica 00:13:24.860 --> 00:13:28.220 Kincaid called her Stalin in high heels. Garrison 00:13:28.220 --> 00:13:31.169 Keillor quit the day she was hired. She wasn't 00:13:31.169 --> 00:13:33.490 just changing a magazine. She was desecrating 00:13:33.490 --> 00:13:36.389 a sacred institution in their eyes. Their response 00:13:36.389 --> 00:13:38.990 was furious. But she had Newhouse's backing, 00:13:39.129 --> 00:13:41.590 and she just powered through it. She kept some 00:13:41.590 --> 00:13:43.690 of the old guard, like John Updike and Roger 00:13:43.690 --> 00:13:46.389 Angel, but she cleaned house. She did. She let 00:13:46.389 --> 00:13:49.950 79 staffers go and hired 50 new people who shared 00:13:49.950 --> 00:13:52.190 her vision. And the people she brought in became 00:13:52.190 --> 00:13:54.690 the future of American journalism. This is when 00:13:54.690 --> 00:13:57.539 she hires David Remnick. David Remnick, who she 00:13:57.539 --> 00:14:00.460 later nominated as her successor, Malcolm Gladwell, 00:14:00.659 --> 00:14:03.600 Jane Mayer, Jeffrey Toobin. She was building 00:14:03.600 --> 00:14:06.340 an intellectual dream team. And while she kept 00:14:06.340 --> 00:14:09.059 the long -form text, she blew up the visual identity. 00:14:09.539 --> 00:14:12.620 She appointed Richard Avedon as the magazine's 00:14:12.620 --> 00:14:15.120 first -ever staff photographer. That was a lightning 00:14:15.120 --> 00:14:17.600 strike. The New Yorker had never taken photography 00:14:17.600 --> 00:14:21.220 seriously. Hiring Avedon, a huge celebrity photographer, 00:14:21.600 --> 00:14:23.860 was a visual announcement that the magazine was 00:14:23.860 --> 00:14:26.080 now part of the global cultural conversation. 00:14:26.539 --> 00:14:28.759 And the covers became topical, controversial. 00:14:29.139 --> 00:14:31.460 Echoes of her school days, right. That Edward 00:14:31.460 --> 00:14:34.480 Sorrell cover in 1992 of a punk rocker in a horse 00:14:34.480 --> 00:14:36.899 -drawn carriage. It was her winking at her critics. 00:14:37.620 --> 00:14:40.379 Yes, I'm bringing in the punk rock, but don't 00:14:40.379 --> 00:14:43.019 worry, the carriage is still elegant. And then 00:14:43.019 --> 00:14:46.360 a year later, the Art Spiegelman cover for Valentine's 00:14:46.360 --> 00:14:49.000 Day. A Jewish man and a black woman kissing. 00:14:49.519 --> 00:14:52.100 It was a direct comment on racial tensions in 00:14:52.100 --> 00:14:54.899 Crown Heights. She was using the cover as political 00:14:54.899 --> 00:14:57.240 commentary. She also broadened the content, right? 00:14:57.320 --> 00:14:59.360 She did that whole issue on black in America 00:14:59.360 --> 00:15:02.059 with Henry Louis Gates. Unprecedented for the 00:15:02.059 --> 00:15:04.220 magazine. So after all that chaos and all those 00:15:04.220 --> 00:15:06.600 changes, what were the results? The numbers, 00:15:06.659 --> 00:15:09.639 again, tell the story. Newsstand sales went up 00:15:09.639 --> 00:15:13.139 145 percent. Circulation climbed to over 800 00:15:13.139 --> 00:15:15.700 ,000. But the old guard still said it was losing 00:15:15.700 --> 00:15:17.820 money. And that's where Newhouse's perspective 00:15:17.820 --> 00:15:20.299 is so important. He said he viewed it as a startup. 00:15:20.480 --> 00:15:23.080 He said, she did what we would have done if we 00:15:23.080 --> 00:15:25.779 invented the New Yorker from scratch. To do all 00:15:25.779 --> 00:15:28.039 that was costly. We knew it would be. It was 00:15:28.039 --> 00:15:30.559 an investment in relevance. And the losses were 00:15:30.559 --> 00:15:33.279 steadily decreasing under her. From $17 million 00:15:33.279 --> 00:15:36.659 in 1995 down to $11 million by 1997, she was 00:15:36.659 --> 00:15:39.200 turning the ship around. And winning awards left 00:15:39.200 --> 00:15:42.340 and right. 10 national magazine awards, including 00:15:42.340 --> 00:15:44.919 its first ever for general excellence. Michael 00:15:44.919 --> 00:15:47.639 Kinsley called her the best magazine editor alive. 00:15:48.019 --> 00:15:50.879 She managed to expand the circulation, cut the 00:15:50.879 --> 00:15:53.620 losses and win more awards than her predecessors. 00:15:53.759 --> 00:15:56.039 It was an astonishing achievement. But the story 00:15:56.039 --> 00:15:59.620 doesn't end there. In 1998, she leaves the New 00:15:59.620 --> 00:16:03.440 Yorker for this massive, ambitious and ultimately 00:16:03.440 --> 00:16:07.299 doomed. venture talk media a huge joint venture 00:16:07.299 --> 00:16:10.360 with miramax films so harvey and bob weinstein 00:16:10.360 --> 00:16:12.940 and ron galati the idea was to create this fully 00:16:12.940 --> 00:16:15.720 integrated media company books a magazine movies 00:16:15.720 --> 00:16:18.909 tv shows the centerpiece was talk magazine Launched 00:16:18.909 --> 00:16:21.830 in 1999. And the launch party itself was pure 00:16:21.830 --> 00:16:24.110 Tina Brown spectacle. It was. It was supposed 00:16:24.110 --> 00:16:26.429 to be at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, but Mayor Giuliani 00:16:26.429 --> 00:16:28.409 stopped it. So she moved it to Liberty Island. 00:16:28.690 --> 00:16:31.409 800 guests, including Madonna and Selman Rushdie, 00:16:31.490 --> 00:16:34.250 arriving by barge, eating under thousands of 00:16:34.250 --> 00:16:37.149 Japanese lanterns. It was a statement. The content 00:16:37.149 --> 00:16:39.470 was designed to make waves, too. The very first 00:16:39.470 --> 00:16:41.809 issue had that explosive interview with Hillary 00:16:41.809 --> 00:16:44.129 Clinton. Where she linked Bill Clinton's philandering 00:16:44.129 --> 00:16:47.379 to his childhood abuse. Right. And it had serious 00:16:47.379 --> 00:16:50.320 literary pieces, too. But critics felt it was 00:16:50.320 --> 00:16:53.059 sometimes a bit too cozy with Miramax stars like 00:16:53.059 --> 00:16:56.179 Gwyneth Paltrow. But what people forget is how 00:16:56.179 --> 00:16:59.259 serious some of its reporting was. Talk published 00:16:59.259 --> 00:17:02.320 one of the first major U .S. profiles of Osama 00:17:02.320 --> 00:17:04.619 bin Laden. That was before 9 -11. They were on 00:17:04.619 --> 00:17:07.759 top of major global stories. But it wasn't enough. 00:17:08.200 --> 00:17:11.660 Despite a decent circulation of around 670 ,000, 00:17:11.799 --> 00:17:15.829 the magazine folded in January 2002. The timing 00:17:15.829 --> 00:17:18.509 was just brutal. The advertising recession after 00:17:18.509 --> 00:17:20.950 9 -11 was devastating for the industry, especially 00:17:20.950 --> 00:17:23.990 for a new high -cost venture like talk. And Brown 00:17:23.990 --> 00:17:26.589 was very honest about it. She called it her first 00:17:26.589 --> 00:17:28.950 very public failure. But she framed it well. 00:17:29.049 --> 00:17:31.150 She said, no big career doesn't have one flame 00:17:31.150 --> 00:17:32.910 out in it, and there's nobody more boring than 00:17:32.910 --> 00:17:35.250 the undefeated. Right. And it's really important 00:17:35.250 --> 00:17:36.970 to separate the magazine from the book division. 00:17:37.470 --> 00:17:39.829 Talk Miramax books. Oh, that was a huge success. 00:17:40.069 --> 00:17:42.890 Out of 42 books they published, 11 became New 00:17:42.890 --> 00:17:45.849 York Times bestsellers, books by Rudy Giuliani 00:17:45.849 --> 00:17:48.630 and Madeleine Albright. So even within that public 00:17:48.630 --> 00:17:51.769 failure, there was this quiet, undeniable success. 00:17:52.150 --> 00:17:54.670 After Talk folded, she did a brief stint in television. 00:17:54.789 --> 00:17:57.549 Yeah, she hosted a weekly show on CNBC called 00:17:57.549 --> 00:18:02.250 Topic A with Tina Brown. From 2003 to 2005, it 00:18:02.250 --> 00:18:05.349 struggled to find an audience. Averaged about 00:18:05.349 --> 00:18:08.329 75 ,000 viewers. So she resigned from that to 00:18:08.329 --> 00:18:10.509 write her Diana biography. Which brings us to 00:18:10.509 --> 00:18:13.569 her next big pivot, into the digital world with 00:18:13.569 --> 00:18:16.829 The Daily Beast. In 2008, she teams up with Barry 00:18:16.829 --> 00:18:20.150 Diller to launch this online news site. A totally 00:18:20.150 --> 00:18:23.650 different animal. Fast -paced. online, needing 00:18:23.650 --> 00:18:26.390 constant traction. But it got popular very quickly. 00:18:26.529 --> 00:18:29.009 They had these high impact exclusives like Christopher 00:18:29.009 --> 00:18:31.470 Buckley's column endorsing Obama. They were making 00:18:31.470 --> 00:18:34.470 news. And they won Webby Awards for Best News 00:18:34.470 --> 00:18:37.930 Site in 2012 and 2013. So she proved she could 00:18:37.930 --> 00:18:40.130 adapt her buzz making skills to digital. But 00:18:40.130 --> 00:18:42.609 then came the merger. In 2010, the Daily Beast 00:18:42.609 --> 00:18:45.369 merges with Newsweek. And Brown is put in charge 00:18:45.369 --> 00:18:47.359 of the whole thing. tasked with reviving this 00:18:47.359 --> 00:18:49.839 dying print giant with her digital startup. And 00:18:49.839 --> 00:18:51.720 it was just an impossible challenge. The print 00:18:51.720 --> 00:18:54.519 collapse was accelerating so fast. By December 00:18:54.519 --> 00:18:57.579 2012, Newsweek published its final print issue. 00:18:58.039 --> 00:19:00.140 And that digital -only version didn't even last. 00:19:00.339 --> 00:19:02.099 They brought the print edition back after she 00:19:02.099 --> 00:19:04.259 left, which just shows how tough that market 00:19:04.259 --> 00:19:06.559 was. Even she couldn't beat the economics of 00:19:06.559 --> 00:19:08.720 2012 publishing. And there was some controversy 00:19:08.720 --> 00:19:11.500 there, too. An issue with some false reporting 00:19:11.500 --> 00:19:14.099 about a kidnapped Canadian journalist, Amanda 00:19:14.099 --> 00:19:17.660 Lindhout. It led to a retraction from NPR. So 00:19:17.660 --> 00:19:20.289 in 2013, she leaves. But Barry Diller's statement 00:19:20.289 --> 00:19:22.589 at the time was really important. He defended 00:19:22.589 --> 00:19:25.849 her tenure. He made a crucial distinction. He 00:19:25.849 --> 00:19:28.069 said, if you take away the failed experiment 00:19:28.069 --> 00:19:30.829 to revive Newsweek, the story of the Daily Beast 00:19:30.829 --> 00:19:33.309 itself is one of excellence. So the takeaway 00:19:33.309 --> 00:19:35.869 is, she could launch a successful digital brand 00:19:35.869 --> 00:19:39.349 from scratch. But saving a stinking print institution, 00:19:39.670 --> 00:19:42.420 that was a bridge too far for anyone. Precisely. 00:19:42.460 --> 00:19:44.740 And while all this was going on, she was building 00:19:44.740 --> 00:19:47.920 two other huge pillars of her career. Her work 00:19:47.920 --> 00:19:50.700 as a royal biographer and as a pioneer of live 00:19:50.700 --> 00:19:53.200 journalism. Let's talk about the books. The Diana 00:19:53.200 --> 00:19:56.259 Chronicles in 2007 was a monster hit. A massive 00:19:56.259 --> 00:19:58.559 success. Topped the New York Times bestseller 00:19:58.559 --> 00:20:01.559 list. She followed it up in 2022 with The Palace 00:20:01.559 --> 00:20:04.480 Papers. Another bestseller. She really established 00:20:04.480 --> 00:20:06.819 herself as the go -to chronicler of the modern 00:20:06.819 --> 00:20:09.730 monarchy. But the reviews were always polarized, 00:20:10.029 --> 00:20:12.369 which is so typical of her work. The Wall Street 00:20:12.369 --> 00:20:15.309 Journal called her the ideal tour guide. But 00:20:15.309 --> 00:20:17.690 others found the mix of serious reporting and 00:20:17.690 --> 00:20:20.710 gossip a bit much. The Spectator said some of 00:20:20.710 --> 00:20:23.410 the gossip was grossly implausible. It's the 00:20:23.410 --> 00:20:26.329 same tension. Using the sensationalism to get 00:20:26.329 --> 00:20:29.329 a mass audience for the sharp reporting. It defined 00:20:29.329 --> 00:20:32.410 her magazines and it defines her books. And then 00:20:32.410 --> 00:20:34.569 there's Women in the World, which she started 00:20:34.569 --> 00:20:37.690 in 2010. She called it a live journalism platform. 00:20:38.089 --> 00:20:40.690 Which was a genuinely innovative idea, taking 00:20:40.690 --> 00:20:42.849 stories off the page and putting them on a stage, 00:20:43.009 --> 00:20:45.849 amplifying the voices of global women on the 00:20:45.849 --> 00:20:48.809 front lines. And the scale was huge. These summits 00:20:48.809 --> 00:20:51.440 were at Lincoln Center. incredible lineup of 00:20:51.440 --> 00:20:54.380 speakers. Hillary Clinton, Meryl Streep, Oprah 00:20:54.380 --> 00:20:57.420 Winfrey, Angelina Jolie, Nobel laureates. Queen 00:20:57.420 --> 00:20:59.740 Rania of Jordan. It gave the platform immense 00:20:59.740 --> 00:21:02.799 credibility. And they took it global. Sao Paulo, 00:21:03.059 --> 00:21:05.480 London, New Delhi. It proved there was a huge 00:21:05.480 --> 00:21:08.319 appetite for serious, inspiring journalism as 00:21:08.319 --> 00:21:10.460 long as it was packaged with the right star power. 00:21:10.680 --> 00:21:12.900 It really showcased her commitment to serious, 00:21:12.960 --> 00:21:15.859 impactful journalism, which sometimes gets lost 00:21:15.859 --> 00:21:18.619 in all the talk about celebrity covers. Finally, 00:21:18.660 --> 00:21:21.039 just to round out her career, we have to mention 00:21:21.039 --> 00:21:24.440 the honors and her personal life, the CBE in 00:21:24.440 --> 00:21:27.380 2000. She's still a commentator for major royal 00:21:27.380 --> 00:21:29.720 events like the Queen's funeral. And of course, 00:21:29.720 --> 00:21:32.170 her late... husband, Sir Harold Evans, the legendary 00:21:32.170 --> 00:21:35.529 editor of The Sunday Times. She now hosts the 00:21:35.529 --> 00:21:38.170 annual investigative journalism summit in his 00:21:38.170 --> 00:21:40.369 name, which features people like Bob Woodward 00:21:40.369 --> 00:21:42.750 and Carl Bernstein. It keeps her firmly connected 00:21:42.750 --> 00:21:45.769 to that world of high level, rigorous journalism. 00:21:45.990 --> 00:21:48.589 And she recently wrote about her son, Georgie, 00:21:48.589 --> 00:21:51.210 who is on the spectrum and still lives with her, 00:21:51.289 --> 00:21:54.250 which really humanizes this. larger than life 00:21:54.250 --> 00:21:56.569 figure. It does. Her whole career is just this 00:21:56.569 --> 00:21:59.289 incredible case study in audacity and brand resuscitation. 00:21:59.529 --> 00:22:01.390 She was never afraid to take on the biggest, 00:22:01.509 --> 00:22:03.829 hardest jobs. So if you had to boil down her 00:22:03.829 --> 00:22:06.009 methodology, her core characteristic, what is 00:22:06.009 --> 00:22:09.089 it? It's her ability to use high stakes, personality 00:22:09.089 --> 00:22:12.970 driven stories, Diana, Demi Moore, a controversial 00:22:12.970 --> 00:22:16.869 cover to draw attention and, crucially, to fund 00:22:16.869 --> 00:22:19.849 high quality, intellectually demanding writing. 00:22:20.349 --> 00:22:23.430 She built a commercial engine for serious journalism. 00:22:23.529 --> 00:22:26.170 So what does her story teach us about media today? 00:22:26.619 --> 00:22:29.440 It teaches us about the cost and the sheer audacity 00:22:29.440 --> 00:22:32.180 it takes to revolutionize these legacy brands. 00:22:32.819 --> 00:22:35.839 She navigated that brutal transition from print 00:22:35.839 --> 00:22:38.519 to digital, and her career shows that relevance 00:22:38.519 --> 00:22:41.180 isn't just about quality. It's about constant, 00:22:41.299 --> 00:22:44.299 sometimes painful reinvention. The moment you 00:22:44.299 --> 00:22:46.579 get comfortable, you start to die. She definitely 00:22:46.579 --> 00:22:48.619 never got comfortable. Let's leave our listeners 00:22:48.619 --> 00:22:50.319 with a final thought then, something that goes 00:22:50.319 --> 00:22:52.339 all the way back to her beginnings. Think about 00:22:52.339 --> 00:22:54.619 the irony. This is the young rebel who wrote 00:22:54.619 --> 00:22:56.759 a play about blowing up her... school. And replacing 00:22:56.759 --> 00:22:59.039 it with a public lavatory. Yes. And she becomes 00:22:59.039 --> 00:23:01.460 this establishment figure, honored by the queen, 00:23:01.640 --> 00:23:03.720 the world's most famous chronicler of the monarchy. 00:23:04.099 --> 00:23:06.319 She used her subversive talent to get inside 00:23:06.319 --> 00:23:08.619 the elite, and then she told the most commercially 00:23:08.619 --> 00:23:11.319 successful, analytically sharp stories about 00:23:11.319 --> 00:23:13.559 their lives. That's the ultimate transformation. 00:23:14.440 --> 00:23:16.559 Proving the greatest distance in media is sometimes 00:23:16.559 --> 00:23:18.640 between the critic and the chronicle. Absolutely. 00:23:18.960 --> 00:23:21.480 The deep dive is a shortcut to being well -informed. 00:23:21.779 --> 00:23:24.599 And today, we are definitely well -informed on 00:23:24.599 --> 00:23:27.259 the dramatic career Tina Brown. We'll see you 00:23:27.259 --> 00:23:27.640 next time.