When the promotional material for "Content" magazine came across my desk, I was thrilled.

A new magazine devoted to a becoming a watchdog of the media, a consumer guide for people who watch and read the news. Pointing out the foibles of the press. Exposing the biased, the unethical, the slipshod and the inaccurate.

I signed up for a subscription. I couldn't wait.

I got the first copy this week, but I already knew what was in it because it was in the news since last week when the first copies were available.

The editor and publisher is Steven Brill.

Brill, at age 28, founded the monthly magazine "American Lawyer." Later he started "Court TV." He recently sold his interest in that venture to Time Warner for $20 million, according to Associated Press reports.

The magazine arrived with the title "Brill's Content" on the front. That was different than the original "Content" title in the promotional material.

In a P.S. at the end of a "Welcome to our first issue" letter, Brill explains the change.

"No, it's not an ego thing, or something our marketing people wanted to do. Rather, because 'content' is such a generic word that others have used and still others might want to use, it's a simple matter of securing our trademark and avoiding litigation in a litigious world."

Yeah, sure. I wonder why they didn't think of that at "Time," "Life," "TV Guide," "People" or "Us."

Also in this letter to readers is the mission of the magazine. It says that the magazine is "about all that purports to be nonfiction. So our first principle is that anything selling itself to you as nonfiction should be true."

No argument there.

It goes on to talk about "Truth In Labeling And Sourcing. If a publisher is not certain that something is accurate, the publisher should either not publish it, or should make that uncertainty clear. ...If a source for an allegation has an ax to grind, that should be spelled out. It's a basic truth-in-labeling principle we think all nonfiction media should live up to."

Again, sounds great.

Then, the "No Hidden Motives" section that states there must be no hidden motives like "to curry favor with an advertiser, or to advance a particular political interest - unless those motives are clearly disclosed."

OK, I'll go along with that, too.

And finally, under "Full Accountability," Brill states that journalists must hold themselves as accountable as those they report about. They should be eager to receive complaints, ... to investigate the complaints diligently and to correct mistakes of fact, context and fairness."

Right on, Steve!

Let the complaints begin.

First of all, in regard to the "no hidden motives of the particular political interest," it is interesting to note that most of the articles on politics in the premiere issue lean to the left.

But it took reading a story in Associated Press to find out that Brill was a contributor to the Clinton campaign and several other Democratic candidates to the tune of about $7,000.

He made no contributions to Republicans.

When AP asked Brill about that he said, "I should have disclosed it." Too little, too late.

But the biggest storm of controversy about the magazine has erupted over Brill's story about Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

In it, Brill alleges that Starr broke the law by leaking confidential information to the press.

Starr did an hour-and-a-half interview with Brill.

Brill wrote a 28-page article.

Starr says the article borders on libelous. In a 19-page letter of response, Starr points out 14 factual errors.

While conceding that he has legally provided information to reporters, as other independent counsels have, he categorically denies any illegal disclosures of information gained from grand jury witnesses.

Now think about this for a moment. Whatever you think of Kenneth Starr, do you think he would tell Steven Brill that he illegally released information to the press?

In addition, six other people quoted in the article have claimed they were misquoted.

One of them, a Wall Street Journal reporter, apparently taped the interview he gave.

I think Brill will find it's tough to argue with a tape.

Of course, the White House is thrilled by Brill's accusations. There were all manner of sound bites on the Sunday morning talk shows from "gravely concerned" Clinton staffers.

But if they truly believed any of it was true, they would fire Starr.

Attorney General Janet Reno has both the authority and the sworn duty to do that.

Especially in light of the heinous crimes the administration pretends to believe that Starr has committed.

So here's the bottom line. While Brill's Starr article in the premiere issue of his magazine is controversial, it basically is much ado about nothing.

All this is not to say the magazine is without merit.

There are lots of good articles that will provoke thought and perhaps initiate change for the better in the journalism business.

I just think some of the stuff was a bit overzealous.

I have a policy against this newspaper taking potshots at other local media outlets. I let them stand on their own merit.

The reason is simple. We all live in glass houses. And boy, can those stones make a big mess. [[In-content Ad]]