Comments on: If a trade paper has a blog, is it still a trade?

By: teefsralf

teefsralf — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:52:55 +0000

To me it is necessary to find

By: John August

John August — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:20:47 +0000

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.

By: Anne Thompson

Anne Thompson — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:19:51 +0000

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.

By: John August

John August — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:01:14 +0000

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.

By: Anne Thompson

Anne Thompson — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:18:11 +0000

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.

By: Johnny

Johnny — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:08:32 +0000

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.

By: John August

John August — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:54:51 +0000

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.

By: Theron

Theron — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:51:40 +0000

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.

By: Dave R

Dave R — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:46:14 +0000

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.

By: martin lazzarini

martin lazzarini — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:12:44 +0000

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.

By: Philip Morton

Philip Morton — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 06:39:18 +0000

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