But other than that, the assumptions of publicists, clients and journalists—that being featured matters, that being written about will drive awareness or sales or public image—are a collective chimera. The widespread belief is that the media has "reach."

Trust me, they don't. Not anymore. It's become almost pathetic.

It hit me the other day when I snagged a profile for a client on a well-known website. The day it ran, the editor sent me an email: "Hey, we hate to ask but could you guys be sure to tweet and share the article for us?”

Dear God, I realized, my client has more readers than they do. The website needed us to attract an audience for them. They wanted the subject of the piece to send his readers over to them rather than the other way around.

This is our new media reality.

Today, after a media outlet or a blog writes about someone or something, the outlet typically engages in a frank discussion with that subject on how they can promote the piece together. The bigger the draw or online presence of the subject (whether an individual or a brand) being written about, the more conflicted the media is. A publisher can hardly expect to do solid journalism when the real reason they’re agreeing to the article is because the person has a lot of Twitter followers or a big email list.

The problem is, unlike the old days, when a media outlet could count on a set number of subscribers or tune-in viewers or newsstand sales, online there is more competition for everyone’s attention and no guarantee of anyone seeing what gets published.

Check out Forbes.com or Business Insider, two sites honest (or stupid) enough to show their pageview stats. Despite the sites’ huge viral reach, it’s not uncommon to catch articles with 250 views. Or 25. Or 2. Gawker has a better floor, but from time to time you’ll see a post do less than 1,000 views. Sure, these numbers are better than nothing, but these sites claim to have millions of “readers” each month. Many sites get far less. Which means that placing an item (as we used to say) is akin to pissing in the wind unless you’re willing to do the extra legwork of promoting it’s existence.

Check online versions of articles from some major magazines and you’ll notice the same thing: Most pieces draw zero comments (another way of saying nobody read it or cares). It’s true for this column as well: if I don't get it started on social media, there is a risk it could go unnoticed.

In an environment with zero publishing constraints—where it doesn’t cost anything to publish and there is infinite editorial space—most modern media outlets have adopted the simple but self-defeating strategy of publishing everything they possibly can. Translation: throwing a bunch of shit at the wall and hoping something sticks. Well, most doesn't.

Unsurprisingly, readers have an awkward relationship with this kind of content. Mostly, they don’t value or trust it much. So nobody—or basically nobody—reads Business Insider every morning. They read articles from Business Insider (or Politico or Buzzfeed or Huffington Post or Bleacher Report), in a one-off capacity. Most readers have probably never even seen the home pages of these sites.

Pulling up one site and browsing for good stuff is increasingly rare. Instead, we read the links that get passed around or come up in web searches. Or we see them on aggregators like Reddit or Google or Yahoo News. In other words, we’re an audience of glancers, and sites have to do whatever it takes to catch our eyes.

Aside from the obvious implications of this One Off reality—which mostly means more of the kind of content that is easy and fun to share, like BuzzFeed listicles—it undermines an important power once reserved by media outlets. They used to have an audience they served and could count on. This gave them an upper hand when it came to what or what not to write about. It allowed them to preserve an editorial mission and perspective.

Either that or was necessary illusion, because when nobody really knew how many old media subscribers actually plowed through that 7000 word feature on Richard Gere, we could at least hold onto hope. The media was in the driver’s seat because there wasn’t sufficient evidence to dispute their right to it.

Today, when stories risk going unread or unnoticed, the subjects of such coverage must ask themselves why they should bother cooperating at all. (For a small business, the equivalent is when Groupon or LivingSocial asks you to advertise their offer to your existing customers. Um, I thought you had your own audience and if you don't, why are we working together?) The purpose of getting media is exposure, to spread the word through an impartial source. If the media no longer has a dedicated audience, what good is it? Why would Taylor Swift (21.3M followers) ever need the New York Times (6.7M followers)? In the future, the Times might think twice about bashing Guy Fieri, considering he’s got nearly 1M of his own followers, a television platform and I’m sure an enormous mailing list.

As PR person, this means I’m doing two jobs. I take one of my clients and get them an excerpt or an article or a guest post on a "respected" outlet and then also have to drive an audience to it if I want people to know that it happened. Why not cut out the middleman and publish myself?

Simply put, it’s more effective to borrow a publication’s name. It makes an article seem less self-serving, more objective. And the website goes along with it because they need the pageviews. We create the news and then launder it via your “trusted” media outlets.

The saddest part is how the desperation for traffic makes media brands so easy to hijack. Marketing firms—the smart ones, anyway—will get an article published, then drive tens or hundreds of thousands of "visitors" to it through paid traffic sources like StumbleUpon in order to make sure that the article seems like a hit—driving it to the front page or most popular lists. (The same happens on YouTube, where the first 50-100,000 views might well be fake.) From here, cumulative advantage takes care of the rest.

How much longer media brands can greedily spend down the credibility that took decades to build? They sure aren’t making many deposits these days. In my view, it’s akin to a high fashion brand that started off doing a little bit of licensing with third parties but then grew addicted to the cheap cash flow. At some point, when you say yes to everything, you start undermining the intangibles that made the brand worth licensing in the first place…and the whole house comes crashing down.

It's a short term play by both parties—exploiting the difference between perception and reality. Outlets hoping to catch handfuls of the audiences they've lost their grips on, marketers and brands leveraging their own access to fans in order to get the "credibility" that comes from being featured. The result is readers being fed more crap news.

It’s going to stay that way—and getting press will continue to be of less and less value—until media outlets start thinking about a new business model.

Until then, I, along with every other public figure, brand, and business, am stuck tweeting about my own article. So please, for the love of god, share this on Facebook and Twitter for me. Thanks!

Ryan Holiday is the bestselling author of  Trust Me I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator and a PR strategist for brands and writers. Follow him on Twitter: @RyanHoliday.

Ryan Holiday's "Trust Me, I'm Lying" (Amazon)

We're not sure if Mr. Holiday's link-baiting piece on Forbes.com this morning counts as "leaked," since he put his byline next to it, but it's definitely designed to blow up the Internet, starting with its craftily designed title "Your Favorite Bloggers are Literally Crazy (And That's Why They're Popular)." Almost two hours after appearing, the post has now been deleted from Forbes' website! How strange! Could this have anything to do with the multiple media outlets that were forced to "correct" articles relating to Mr. Holiday from yesterday's PR blitzkrieg?

Taking aim and Jeff Jarvis, Matt Drudge, Penelope Trunk, and motivational blogger Sebastian Marshall, Mr. Holiday's post reveals tantalizing factoids about his personal interactions with them, like the time he sat next to Mr. Jarvis at a tech conference and watched him like, totally not pay attention because he was too busy managing his Facebook account and Twitter before stepping up at the Q & A. (Okay, so it's not that salicious, but still...Jeff Jarvis!)

This is allegedly "adapted material" from the book...but then again, it could all be part of his master plan for us gullible media dupes, as his outline did state that his campaign would rely "on the fact that blogs and media outlets simply take for granted whatever is stated in a release." It appears that Forbes.com might have been embarrassingly duped into letting Mr. Holiday get away with false information, as was The New York Times, CBS, and Today.

The question remains though: if Forbes.com had an article yesterday titled "How This Guy Lied His Way Into MSNBC, ABC News, The New York Times and More," why would they put Mr. Holiday's article up the next...only to immediately take it down?

But we've started to doubt that such a time will ever arrive. First, the Stanford White-designed mansion on Fifth Avenue closed for $42 million on Friday and now Forbes chief operating officer Timothy C. Forbes has listed his Greenwich Village townhouse for $12.95 million. And we suppose if anyone should know about the market it's Mr. Forbes, son of the late Malcolm Forbes and co-president of his family's financial publishing empire?

Mr. Forbes purchased the historic house way back in 1987 (and we must say, it's just the kind of old-fashioned, classy-looking place we'd imagine a Forbes scion living). The listing, held by Corcoran brokers Sara Gelbard, Paul Kolbusz and Christopher Infante, emphasizes the house's historic character and old New York pedigree. Built in 1842 on land that was once part of the Wouter Van Twiller farm (1600s) and later granted to Admiral Sir Peter Warren by the city for his role in the capture of a French fort during the French-Indian War (1700s), the home's first occupant was a ship's captain.

We're not sure why Mr. Forbes has decided to list the 5-bedroom house. Maybe after the house was finished being "painstakingly restored" he found living in someplace so old-fashioned painstaking? The decor at 60 West 11th does seem to be torn between historic authenticity and contemporary furnishings, with some rooms firmly in the 19th century and others decidedly in the current one.

Still, historic houses offer some hard-to-beat features seldom found in more modern abodes, like six wood-burning fireplaces, pilastered windows, double parlors, mahogany detailing and ceilings covered with decorative ceiling roses. There's also a south-facing landscaped garden (great for connecting to the home's earliest history in the centuries before it was built).

kvelsey [at] observer.com

Please take a look at Thought Catalog founder Chris Lavergne's Q & A with Forbes contributor Matthew Newton, which is--unsurprisingly--quite canny.

Matthew Newton: With the traditional journalism model in perpetual upheaval, and brand-influenced content a pervasive and creeping reality, Thought Catalog seems to exist in a strange and sometimes controversial limbo between the two. Does the site have any guiding principles, or is that part still a work-in-progress?

Chris Lavergne: This is a layered question and I’m only going to be able to scratch the surface. On the most basic level, we are an experimental media website dedicated to providing great content. What defines “great content” is and probably always will be an open question and work-in-progress, but right now one of the things we are consistently striving for is to find a balance between commercial success and quality work. The two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, but there is definitely a tension. What is happening now with Buzzfeed is a perfect example of this gray area. Here you have a site steeped in viral, user-generated content now attempting to complement it with real reporting. Getting this balance right might be the new paradigm.

Still not ready to take Thought Catalog seriously? For the record, there are some things about the Q & A that are strange enough to reaffirm any doubts one might have about the company.

• The Thought Catalog founder is shown in a sexy, v-neck portrait shot by Noah Kalina.
• The Thought Catalog founder will not disclose his age or his previous employer, a Wall Street consulting firm.
• The journalist interviewing him has contributed over 60 articles to Thought Catalog.

News assistant Will Smith—yes, that one—hit three homeruns in three directions, prompting two DC Bullets to jokingly wonder if the 25 year-old was on steroids. He was, insofar as we could tell, not.

A rules question broke out involving the batting line-up. According to league regulations, women have to be evenly distributed through an eleven-person batter queue. There are no rules as to what happens when a twelfth batter is involved, but that may soon evolve. Media softball is still something of a boys club.

After the game, senior editor Mike Siconolfi headed back to the office to finish editing a page one story. “We never miss a deadline, but we also never miss a game,” he said.

As Mr. Siconolfi walked to the subway, the veteran softball player reminisced about long-ago games against High Times.  He recounted a blue haze of smoke rising above a besuited editor in an early days culture clash between the teams.

Speaking of stoners and capitalists, the legendary High Times’ Bonghitters  won a close one against Forbes, 11-10. The Bonghitters scored two runs in the top of the 7^th with two outs. “Poor Forbes, this is the 3rd time they've lost in the last inning this season,” wrote commissioner Steve Bloom.

Forbes may have a reversal of fortune soon, as Newsweek/ Daily Beast’s coach Randall Lane will be departing for Forbes’ greener pastures after Labor Day, and right before the playoffs, too. Awkwardness may ensue.

ksmoke@observer.com

In the hiring announcement, Steve Forbes cites Mr. Lane’s knowledge of the website side as a reason. “Precisely because Randall knows the print and electronic worlds, he will guide Forbes magazine with a sure, confident hand,” wrote Mr. Forbes.

This represents a homecoming of sorts for Mr. Lane. He worked at Forbes from 1991 to 1997. “It’s rare in life that you get a chance to go home again.  To return to the place I started and edit one of America’s great, iconic magazines is both an honor and a thrill,” he said in the announcement.

Mr. Lane will return to Forbes shortly after Labor Day. We don't know what this means for the Newsbeast softball team. After a rough season, they have been on a winning streak since Randall Lane, who serves as their captain, began pitching. They recently beat Forbes 15-6. Maybe softball talent is the real reason that Forbes snatched back Mr. Lane.

Although they had a rocky start to the season (and a broken nose), the team’s stats are now giving Tina Brown reason to celebrate the merger (recently christened again by the recent redirect of Newsweek's site to the belly of the Beast). Before The Daily Beast and Newsweek merged, they were the two worst teams in the Media Softball League. Now, they have a decent shot at the finals.

Earlier this week, NTDB beat WNYC’s broadcasters 4-2. Although thunder and dark rain clouds threatened to break the intense humidity, the rain held off and Tina's Terrors were able to continue their winning streak.

Last week, they bested Forbes 15-6, prompting New York Media Softball League Commissioner Steve Bloom to ask: “Is this the team in last place getting all the home runs?”

Newsweek/ The Daily Beast got three home runs, a triple and a double.

Captain Randall Lane was pitching, which spectators (mostly: The Observer) speculated may have been partially to thank for the team’s turn-around.

After a Forbes writer ran into Mr. Lane, the run was thrown out by the umpire, prompting a Forbes player to say “That’s the most stupid thing I’ve ever heard.”

“There was a collision at plate, and now the run doesn’t count,” Forbes investment writer Chris Barth succinctly explained.

Newsweek/ The Daily Beast had one ringer with noticeably nice skin who we can bet was wearing sunscreen. Randall Lane’s dermatologist helped the team win, but offered his services to Forbes as well. “I’m always open to a cancer screening – for either team,” said the doctor.

ksmoke@observer.com

The female George Gurley? (Getty Images)

It's been a while since we heard from Julia Allison--the hyperconfessional onetime princess of the Gawker-made "fameball" set, whose antics were brought to light, at a granular pace, on Gawker, and comprehensively in Vanessa Grigoriadis's New York article on web-era cynicism. The social-media socialite, famed for her writing on sex and relationships as well as for her woman-about-town presence at media parties, now has a syndicated newspaper column, which she promoted in an interview with Forbes.

Therein, she's asked whether people would react so strongly to her brand of photogenic puff-stories if she were a man. Ms. Allison said that she writes about her personal life less than did George Gurley, former Observer staff writer and beleaguered fiancé to "Hilly."

"He wrote years of columns, including transcripts of his couples therapy sessions with his girlfriend," said Ms. Allison, who implies that she does, or did, sort of, kind of the same thing.

We came up with a little quiz: Here are excerpts from Ms. Allison's Time Out New York writings between 2007 and 2009 and Mr. Gurley's New York Observer writings from the same period. Can you tell the two personal essayists apart? The answers lie in the links!

1. "Last week, I was at a party at the sophisticated Le Cirque restaurant on East 58th Street street for the HBO documentary Le Cirque: A Table in Heaven. I asked fabled Le Cirque owner Sirio Maccioni, a very elegant man who smelled great, what happens when his beautiful wife of 38 years, Egidiana, sees hot women all over him?"

2. "When I first got my shih tzu, Lilly, I couldn’t walk her without making people gush—so much so that eventually I refused to make eye contact, lest I never reach my destination. And when my ex–fiancé took her out? Mob scene."

3. "Ms. Mosbacher squealed at the sight of her friend Carl Bernstein and after they caught up, we asked the legendary investigative journalist what animal he most resembled.

“Cats!” he said. “I have a cat and I talk to her all day. She gets up on my keyboard and types. I’m independent like a cat.”

The male Julia Allison? (Patrick McMullan)

4. "Every once in a while, stay up all night talking and kissing, instead of thinking, What the eff time is it? I gotta get some sleep. Romeo and Juliet would so not go to bed."

5. "DR. SELMAN: Did you actually ask her to marry you?

[REDACTED]: I don’t think it even got to—I think she was so excited. One thing I like to clarify is that the prank Verdura gift box—I wasn’t trying to torment her. I had the other one, the real one, right on my lap, ready."

6. "Now, my theme song’s no longer 'Express Yourself'; it’s more like 'Hold On.' I wait for him to say it first, though I’ve been known to throw out stealth versions to surface the emotion (“I love you…when you smile/when you laugh/when you’re awake!”)."

7. [Quoting Ann Coulter] "What are her thoughts on feminism? 'This whole feminist movement has nothing to do with women. Until Bill Clinton, if a 70-year-old boss called his 60-year-old secretary "honey," they’d be screaming about white male patriarchal oppression.'"

8. "Holy crap—am I talking about Sex and the City with my grandmother?!"

ddaddario@observer.com :: @DPD_

Last weekend was a bad time to be Rupert Murdoch

The High Times Bonghitters and Journal Capitalists duked it out for first place in the league. Dazed and confused they weren’t: High Times was up 10-1 after three innings, when the Journal rallied with eight runs. The late game stimulus proved to be too little to late for the newspaper. High Times won 12-10.

Elsewhere, league newcomer Forbes trounced public radio powerhouse WNYC. The broadcasters took a dive after a short winning streak that included a 15-1 win against Newsweek/The Daily Beast, losing 10-3 to recently reorganized league newbies money mag. Music biz writer, Jay-Z biographer, and team co-manager Zack O’Malley Greenburg pitched until “his arm got tired” midway through the game. A raccoon passed by the Central Park field, eliciting the vague hope from WNYC that it would be a good omen. It wasn’t.

Earlier, High Times’ Bonghitters celebrated a double-digit win against Vanity Fair’s Veefers. The Marijuana trade mag beat out Graydon Carter’s glossy 16-1.

A sunglass-clad Hamish Robertson, the magazine’s online design editor, pitched low as his wife, writer Andi Teran, slapped at mosquitoes from the sidelines. High Times refused to swing until their pitching demands were met; a wide, manipulative strike zone they demanded. This resulted in Mr. Robertson and catcher Rebecca Sacks essentially playing a game of catch while a Bonghitter bided his time.

“They play junk ball,” said one Bonghitter, who explained that the term refers to pitching underhand hoping that the batter gets bored enough to swing. Seems that Mr. Robertson underestimated the Bonghitters not-negligible tolerance.

Two spectators wandered over, lured by the aromas...of baseball. After The Observer informed them who was playing, they went to the appropriate side–with lit up faces.

Despite a brief scuffle breaking out as a High Times outfielder closed in on the dirt for a female hitter, the tension had dissipated by the end of the game. The teams shared an only somewhat proverbial peace pipe and spoke of games past, those they could remember.

ksmoke@observer.com | @kbsmoke

- Times' columnists before-and-after hot-or-not slideshow. Spoiler warning: Maureen Dowd repurposes her old one. Boo. 

- A dude in Staten Island started selling fake Haagen-Dazs. Then he got sued. Oopzs. 

- Are you in the market for a 37-inch long replica of the Lusitania? It's your lucky day! Forbes is selling off the remainder of their figurine collection. 

- Why does Martha Stewart's Halloween costume look like a cross between David Bowie in Labyrinth and Marie Antoinette?