If a trade paper has a blog, is it still a trade?
Question: Would The Hollywood Reporter sneak into Sony Pictures late at night, grab the director’s rough cut of a new movie, then publish a review of it the next morning?
No. They’d lose all credibility and respect of the filmmakers and studio folks who constitute their readership. There would be outrage.
Instead, The Hollywood Reporter (like its fellow “trade” newspaper, Variety) waits to review movies in their finished form — or at least, in a public screening, such as a film festival. The reviews aren’t always positive, but the circumstances surrounding the review are fair.
Would The Hollywood Reporter run a review of a script in production?
Highly doubtful. To my knowledge, they’ve never done so. Likely, that’s because they recognize what a disservice that is to the filmmakers. Movies change significantly over the course of production. Reviewing the screenplay while the movie’s in production would be (in my opinion) worse than reviewing a rough cut, because it’s not acknowledging the role the director, actors and other departments play.
So I was concerned to see this entry in the Hollywood Reporter’s blog:
Thanks to Stax, IGN FilmForce’s resident Bond maven, for this link to a description of the new James Bond script. If you don’t want to read the spoilers, don’t go there!
If you followed the link to IGN, you’d see it’s actually another link to Latino Review, which has the actual article. To be clear: The Hollywood Reporter blog didn’t publish a review of the script. They published a link, which in turn led to another link.
Still, this seemed pretty unusual for The Hollywood Reporter. So I called Anne Thompson, the deputy editor whose picture runs alongside the text on the blog. We had a good conversation about her decision to include the piece, and the challenging distinction between capital-J journalism and what happens on the internet. She was thoughtful and forthright, and ultimately revised the piece to remove the link — one of the real benefits of the digital age. You can see the amended version here.
I consider that specific issue resolved, and thank Anne for attending to it so quickly.
Part of the reason the issue resonated for me is that I’m in the middle (okay, beginning) of writing a public lecture that I’m giving in a few weeks as Trinity University. I had to announce my lecture title months ago, so I picked: “Professional Writing and the Rise of the Amateur.” And this is certainly a good example.
It is easy to empathize with the frustrations of a professional journalist who gets “scooped” by film geeks still in high school. Writing under a pseudonym at Ain’t It Cool News, YoMamasBeeeotch can spill all the dirt on an upcoming James Cameron project, without the burdens of truth, accuracy or grammar. When criticized, these writers generally fall back on the defense of, “I’m not a professional journalist! I’m just a fan who wants great movies!”
The central question of my lecture — for which I don’t currently have a meaningful answer — is what does it mean to be a professional writer? It can’t just be getting paid, because in the age of AdSense, the blogger can out-earn the reporter. It’s not the size of the readership, because many blogs attract more eyeballs than traditional papers do.
My hunch is that the distinction between professional and amateur lies in the implied contract between writer and reader. The professional writer is promising a certain level of accuracy, consistency and forthrightness.
That’s why I chafed at seeing that link in The Hollywood Reporter, when I wouldn’t have blinked an eye if it were in CHUD. But these are murky times.
Articles
February 13th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
I disagree with your hunch. Inaccuracy in information is the very nature of CHUD+co’s type of journalism - the reporting of rumors. Incorrect grammar is part of their personalized “I-got-my-first-superman-doll-when-I-was-six” style. It’s like criticizing jump-cuts in a Lars von Trier movie. I agree however with the distinction, HR promises its readers accurate data on the biz. AINTITCOOL promises interesting rumors. Both are valid forms of journalism.
February 13th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
You raise an interesting question, John, and it comes at a interesting time for me.
I’m just beginning my major in Journalism, with which I hope to, you know, become a journalist and editor, and I also have my blog on which I babble about whatever’s on my mind, and there’s such a dichotomy between the two forms of writing. My mindset is completely different depending on what I’m working on.
On my blog, I tend not to care so much about format or “proper” grammar (though I am a stickler for spelling) or even necessarily getting my facts straight. Much of the time it’s nothing more than stream-of-consciousness stuff.
But with journalism, there’s that inherent expectance of professionalism, like fact-checking, balanced reporting, accuracy, etc. There’s much more at stake when writing a professional piece rather than a gossip blog.
Anyway, for those of us unable to attend your speech, I don’t suppose you’ll post the text of it when you’re done, will ya?
February 13th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
I think it might be interesting to explore the rise of podcasting in relation to amateur vs. professional. Especially in the context of audience expectation. I am certainly an amateur filmmaker (Though I am working toward becoming a professional screenwriter.)
When I first launched my video podcast, I ran into two types of people. The first enjoyed the podcast for its content, ignoring the low production values, and I believe understanding that it was an amateur trying to create something entertaining for a certain industry. The second set of resposes could do nothing but criticize the technical quality (which is poor, admittedly.) As I’ve had more time to reflect and speak with viewers, I think it comes down to the expectation we have of professionals. A “professional” short film should look and sound good, besides having an original and interesting story. An amateur is given a little more wiggle room.
The same seems to go for bloggers vs. journalists. The level of expectation, whether for accuracy, quality of production, or consistancy. This could seperate the professional bloggers from the amateurs.
February 13th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
dave –
Yup, I’ll post the speech after I give it. Assuming I really get it written.
johnny —
I think you’re misreading me: I agree that lack of accuracy and grammar are part of the “cred” of many film web sites. That’s part of the reason when studio publicists try to influence opinion in these forums( “PLANT!”), they deliberately get some things wrong.
I think AICN is a media outlet. I don’t think AICN is journalism. Trying to defend and/or explain that distinction is what I’m wrestling with.
February 13th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Wonder how many people besides me Googled, “YoMamasBeeeotch” to see if it was a real person?
February 13th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
I think that the last useful definition of professional vs. amateur that remains in this context is that the professional profits from the activity.
Here’s the reason: If you stack up 100 random pieces of journalism-like web writing, some of which has been written by paid writers and some of which has been written for free, I have a hunch that the quality of the writing, basis in reality, and overall truthiness will bear no particular correspondence to the axis of paid writer vs. not-paid writer. It becomes impossible to draw a line between professional and amateur based on those criteria, in part because they’re so subjective.
In my opinion, this is why general media literacy skills have become critically important, and will probably become moreso in the future. You’ve got to be able to glean from context — spelling, grammar, corporate context, style of writing, author’s historical work — your own personal estimate of a given piece of writing’s overall quality.
I think that all this is probably a good thing. (Though it becomes harder and harder to make a living as a writer, since so many good writers are giving it away for free.)
February 13th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
It was actually a topic we touched in my Journalism class. Well, actually, the topic was more of “what’s the difference between a journalist and a blogger?” Is there a difference anymore? Fairly enough, a journalist is expected to be truthful and harbor a certain degree of professionalism. Of course, in a few years, private corporations shall rule the internet and the typical blogger will be pwned (or something like that). We shall see.
I have a quick question. It’s about the picture of you at IMDB.com. Do you like it? I’ve seen it enough times (on websites) that I think you should like it, because it’s the picture most people see of you.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
I would like to think that the implied bond of trust applies regardless of status, and that this would take precedence over gotcha-tactics and other such 15-minutes-of-fame-type maneuvers. Sadly, because I am not an optimist, curiosity will always work in their favor.
I look forward to read about your lecture. Independently of this previous question, because I would very much like to know whether you sense the difference as far as the creative process goes, and when, if, you felt that you have transitioned from one to the other.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Journalism is becoming less of an information medium, and more of a game of Chinese whispers. Since there’s a little invention called the internet, perhaps we should destroy the many newspapers and news sites, and instead let only the official sites (i.e., let’s say Pixar) give us the information, most likely through RSS feeds, instead going through third parties.
-shrugs.- Who knows. I’m not a journalist.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Hi John. I loved your movie “Go.” What else are you working on?
Also, when would you consider doing “punch-up” duty on another writer’s script? I never understood how that worked.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Also, thought I’d mention John, that your February 13, 2006 edition for Ask @ IMDb.com has Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow as an upcoming film. I know it’s a question that’s listed in your archives, but maybe you could’ve made it a little less anachronistic. ;P
February 13th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
I think you’re right about the difference between pro and amateur lying in the implied contract with the reader, and it’s a pretty simple distinction: the pro writer promises accuracy, the amateur promises to give the reader the story first. He has to. The competition has the money and resources — not to mention the credibility — to get the facts and the full story on behalf of the readers.
The only thing the amateur has is the ability to get the story faster than the pro. And his reader knows this. He knows the amateur has sacrificed, or lacks the expertise, to check facts and verify sources — and he doesn’t care. The amateur uses his “insider” status (real or manufactured) to feed the reader’s desire for the same. In return, the more readers the amateur gets, the more his insider status is confirmed and amplified. That’s the other thing about the amateur: he tends to put himself above the story.
Of course, the pros have chased the scoop for as long as there has been journalism. And many have sought the spotlight as well. But that has never taken prominence over the promise to get the story right. And pros who have sacrificed accuracy for speed have, when there busted on it, paid for breaking that contract.
In most other enterprises, the amateur’s main goal is to join the ranks of the professional. Strange how amateur journalism seems to be one of the few where the amateurs are fine where they are. Or, rather, they are trying to go pro in some other area.
RED
February 13th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
John:
It seems that you are struggling with two different issues - (1) how is journalism different from blogging, and (2) what makes AICN a media outlet rather than a journalism outlet?
IMHO - (1) Blogging is driven by a different set of goals, and even those goals differ for various blogs. Usually, the goal of a blog is to advocate a point of view. Advocating a point of view is not journalism. It is self-expression of an individual, for better or worse. This is not new. Consider Rush Limbaugh, who himself did nothing new. He simply advocated a point of view (at the cost of facts or truth or ethics). Many bloggers do the same thing. Some of them respect facts, truth and ethics - but his does not make them necessarily more popular or successful. Blogs are not ruled by these constraints.
(2) In the case of AICN, it is a media outlet instead of journalism because of its subject matter. The material is not what we consider newsworthy. Rather, it is similar to the content of “Inside Hollywood” or “E!”, only unbounded by their commercial constraints. Because the general public does not rely upon the reporting for anything more than making moving-going decisions, neither do they have the same set of expectations or requirements for entertainment-reporting. We accept any shlock it tosses out because we just want to be entertained, and hearing an inside scoop about Hollywood is very entertaining, even if it is false or damaging to Hollywood players. That’s nothing new - just canned in a new format. It goes with the Hollywood territory.
Just my P.O.V.
February 13th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Hey John. Your theme is quite timely as the nature of professional writing is actually being changed by amatuer writing. Journalists who for decades had prided themselves on accuracy of reporting and fact checking are being trumped in ratings and readership by inaccurate reporting, scripted story lines (in the sense that the news no longer gives all the facts) and sloppy reporting. The amatuer blogosphere is having impact in sheer numbers on both sides of the political spectrum and can even have a powerful affect on mainstream media if they focus their energies on specific targets. Biographers (professioals) are admitting to taking creative license and creating fictional scenes in their books (recent biographies of Reagan and Ted Kennedy did this), “reality shows” have to be scripted because reality (truth) isn’t interesting enough. There’s a sense that we’re not getting the whole truth from the mainstream press, so the explosion of amatuer writing is exciting because we feel the truth is coming in from them raw and unfiltered, yet each blogger has their own slant, agenda, or carefree sloppiness - a badge of honor actually - the further complicates gleaning any real truth from them. Michiko Kakutani has a brilliant article on “A Million Little Pieces” the semi-fictional memoir that was a stellar hit - and how the world of writing and reporting in non-fiction and news has become relativistic, in the sense that the truth is relative, so that any person reporting anything can claim truthfullness. So your amatuer reporters can write whatever they want with the fall back - this is my truth. And if they’re wildly successful, they put that message out into the world with no care for checks or balances because they don’t have to. It’s why the amatuer writing can be sexy and exciting, and why it’s a deadly threat to professional writing. Link to her article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/books/17kaku.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=b94eee9e396664ca&ex=1140066000 Knock ‘em dead, best Phil Morton http://www.screenwriterbones.blogspot.com
February 14th, 2006 at 1:12 am
Sure, none of this is helped by the fact that what passes for reporting leaves much to be desired, even in the trades. And even if I could excuse a reporter’s initial reticence about making the distinction between amateurs and pros, given that it can be read as self-serving by the readership, this much is now clear: It did not happen by chance. Pretty much everyone else has helped blur the line, beginning with the studios’ p.r. machine and the media itself. And it’s about time we call it by its name: Ethics. Once they traded access for objectivity (or call it subjectivity) then ‘access’ became the name of the game, right? Now, can this lead to an economic incentive for them to draw a distinction? Perhaps. I hope it does. As to the particular case involved, sure, we can call it amateur so as to deny them any other status but- and it may be the Olympic feeling in the air these days, and not wishing to sound funny -I feel this may be an insult to the honorable pursuit of amateurism.
February 14th, 2006 at 7:46 am
AICN waves the flag of fandom, but is nothing more then a self serving, manipulative, farce. The creators use the power of their site to get “presents” and further thier own careers. “Friends” of the site enjoy positive reviews of their films, while non-participants(filmmakers or executives that don’t pander to or bribe the AICN staff) suffer the attacks of “spies”(even though most of the content is cut and pasted from more legit websites.)
Look at the career of Drew McWeeney, aka Moriarty. This guy has used the perceived power of AICN to shoehorn his way into writing jobs. A great deal of attention has been given to payola in the record industry, what about the internet?
Thank you John, for raising some of these issues.
I would love to hear your lecture on a podcast.
February 14th, 2006 at 9:51 am
What kills me is that these average fans have such a poor grasp of grammar and spelling. I know this doesn’t necessarily speak to topic, but America is doomed if this is the best the schools can do these days. I can barely finish an article on AICN because of most of the writers’ terrible command of the English language. Even Harry, the owner of the site, is awful. I know an editor would fix these things, but the writers should at least be able to write and spell at a high school level. At least…
Okay, I’m done.
February 14th, 2006 at 10:54 am
If you compare medium-by-medium, you often have the “real news” version running side-by-side with the “entertainment” version.
TV News: You have CNN versus E. The Nightly News vs. Access Hollywood. Magazines: Newsweek versus Us Weekly. Newspapers: NY Times vs. Page Six.
I think what’s tricky about the internet is that it’s harder and harder to distinguish the “real news” version from the “entertainment” version. At a glance, you can’t tell if a site is run by a team of a hundred reporters or one guy in his mom’s basement. I think that’s part of the reason we look for “news brands” to let us know how seriously to take the information. Having read the printed version of The Hollywood Reporter for years, I’ve come to believe it largely credible. Yes, there is some spin and manipulation, but there is also fact-checking and corrections. (Perhaps one standard: I believe a reporter would be fired if they lied, or reported something they suspected was untrue. )
So my reaction was largely cognitive dissonance: The Hollywood Reporter brand wasn’t doing what I expected it to do, which shook my confidence in it. It would be like Mickey Mouse punching an old lady. It kind of freaks you out.
February 14th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Seems the big question is: are FACTS the defining factor as to what is journalism, and what is not? Tricky, especially considering the amount of dis/false-information coming from resptected media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, etc. An example: Harry says The Rock is the next Superman in a remake written by John August = Harry ain’t no journalist. Fox news reports Bush has won the election for president = you fill in the blank. Good luck with the lecture.
February 14th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
This discussion is fascinating. A blog has to be unfettered and unsupervised to be a proper blog. I have not run unsubstantiated rumors (as the NYT’s < ahref=”http://carpetbagger.nytimes.com/?p=342″>Carpetbagger has). I do provide links to other blogs and websites and provide my own commentary, skeptical or otherwise. Other more independent sites like IGN Film Force, AICN, Hollywood Elsewhere and MovieCityNews can run things that have not been checked out. At riskybizblog, there are certain lines drawn. Linking to a website that had a description of a script that was clearly not final was a decision I had no trouble making. It wasn’t a link to a post of the script itself. Nor was it a review of the script. The guy was writing a description of what was in it. But I had to listen to John’s reservations, which were that the rules that operate at THR should also apply to the blog. This script is a work in progress on a movie that hasn’t even been shot yet. So I deleted the link. On my blog there are strong objections to my removing it. Their argument is that John (who can be seen as an extension of Sony, the studio with which he is most affiliated) should not be dictating when and how I reveal information about a project on the blog. In the end I let readers know where they could find that information, if they wanted to track it down.
February 14th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Anne,
Obviously, I find this all fascinating, too. So don’t take my further prodding as argumentative, but rather provocative. I’d like to suss out more of the issues.
You write that “a blog has to be unfettered and unsupervised to be a proper blog,” but obviously yours can’t be because of the situation. So is it a blog, really? Or just a column with blog-like features? A faux-blog?
The bigger question: Can a person be both a Hollywood insider and an outsider? A cynic would say you’re trying to have it both ways. You want the authority of THR, and the freedom of AICN.
I think it’s a stretch to consider me an extension of Sony, considering I haven’t been on the payroll there for years (Big Fish being the last thing). One could more convincingly argue that The Hollywood Reporter is an extension of Focus Features, considering the campaigning for Brokeback Mountain alone could keep both trades in business. (Not that I want to get into the split between editorial and advertising, which is its own sticky issue.)
But, for the record, I didn’t work on the Bond movie. I don’t know anyone remotely involved with it. My objection to script reviews is long-standing, and exacerbated by a completely fabricated review of Charlie on AICN during production.
February 15th, 2006 at 8:19 am
You may want to fix the sloppy code in my comment, if you would…Good to know you are no longer on the Sony payroll. I didn’t think you had any affiliation with the Bond script. As for the blog issue: It is possible to do an unsupervised blog and work at a trade paper (at the THR, at least, sales and edit do not mix), if you follow certain professional guidelines. There are things we can’t do, obviously. The question with an affiliated blog like this is whether those limits are the same as the ones in the print or online edition. The form is different (faster, shorter, more responsive, more candid). The interaction with readers is different. This blog does not permit me to play fast and loose with what is accurate. But it allows me to link to others who may not have done all the reporting or followed the guidelines I have to follow. Risky biz is not a personal blog. It has a mission to share information about the movie business–like yours, it is a professional blog. Is that an oxymoron? I don’t think so.
February 15th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Via TaZ, here’s another reason why leaked scripts may be a bad thing:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/14022006/344/bond-tube-shooting-plot-attacked.html
“According to reports, a leaked script reveals that Bond kills an unarmed bomb suspect, only to find it was the wrong man. ” Which the article claims mirrors what happened with the London Underground bombings. Of course the victims’ families are “shocked.” If you ran up to them and asked, “How do you feel about the James Bond movie mocking your son’s death?”, you’d probably be guaranteed a shocked response.
You can’t get any more vague or unsubstaniated than “reports” of a leaked script. But now the producers will have to answer-slash-defend something that was likely never in their movie, or at least never meant to resemble the aforementioned incident.
Grr.
February 24th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
To me it is necessary to find