[Josh Friedman](http://hucksblog.blogspot.com) stepped away from his duties at Skynet to shake the dust of his blog.
Four for four, or Hooray for Chad
Longtime readers will note that my former assistants have done well for themselves. [Rawson](http://imdb.com/name/nm1098493/) has directed two movies, [Dana](http://imdb.com/name/nm1401416/) has become an in-demand screenwriter, and [Sean](http://imdb.com/name/nm1091301/) is a TV staff writer with a pilot in production.
I’m happy to add [Chad](http://imdb.com/name/nm1548657/) to the list of successes. After many delays, his script “Sydney White” is going into production on February 12th, with [Joe Nussbaum](http://imdb.com/name/nm0638271/) directing. Variety has [the story](http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117956518.html?categoryid=13&cs=1) in today’s issue.
“Sydney White” is basically Snow White set in college, with Amanda Bynes playing the titular character, and seven outcasts taking over as the dwarfs. The project is a family affair; Chad’s wife Dara is co-producing. You may recognize her as an occasional poster on the site.
What’s the secret behind my assistants’ success? It’s certainly not me. I rarely read their scripts, never take them to meetings, and only sporadically offer advice. I think one main factor may be that there’s only a limited amount of work to do in any given day, so that leaves lots of time for staring at the computer monitor, wondering what the hell they should write.
Another common factor: except for Sean, they’re all [Starkies](http://cinema.usc.edu/producing/index.cfm). So I’m hiring from a pool of people who are likely to be successful regardless. But that doesn’t make me any less happy for them.
Raining on my Parade
It’s ironic that your “bitchy queen” piece features your own [idiocy on parade](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/idiocy-on-parade). Doesn’t Mr. Hollywood Big Shot realize that Walter Scott is a mouthpiece for hundreds of publicists? His job is to mix the press release morsel in with a bit of trivia to make it seem like gossip, and therefore, interesting. Then he adds a question that leads to the fake-gossip answer to make it seem like Middle America is dying to know.
Often, they make up the questions. Other times, they just collect and file questions, and then look up the celebrity in the database when something comes from their publicist.
It’s called publicity, John. Buy a clue.
Kisses,
— TruthInAdvertising
How dare you…no, how dare you suggest that any weekly newspaper supplement featuring Marilyn Vos Savant is less that 100% truthful? She’s a [goddamn genius](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant), sir. You think that she’d be fooled by fake letters? Hardly.
Walter Scott’s Personality Parade is pretty much the pinnacle of true grass-roots celebrity journalism. To suggest that it’s simply a collection of ham-fisted intros to publicist-supplied blurbs is cruel, TIA. I reject your conciliatory kisses. I can only imagine where your mouth has been.
What’s worse, your disbelief does a huge disservice to the Mary Jansen and Toby M.’s of the world. Would a newspaper like the Los Angeles Times risk its reputation by regularly running complete fabrication as “news?” Of course it wouldn’t.
No, the only imaginary person here is Walter Scott himself. The column is written by Edward Klein, who is a well-known editor, writer, and lecturer with a distinguished career in American journalism. 
Look, here’s a picture of him. He exists. In fact, he’s married to Dolores Barrett, a “well-known public relations executive.” So to insinuate that he’s in bed with publicists in only conjecture. For all we know, they sleep in separate beds, like Rob and Laura Petrie.
The point of my re-answering questions sent to Scott/Klein was not to imply that he was doing less than a spectacular job, but rather that it was the readers — specifically, the question-writers — who weren’t living up to their end of the bargain. Please, readers: Stop wasting Mr. Scott’s time with questions that could be easily answered with five seconds on Google. Rather, why not ask open-ended questions that allow him to freely express his pseudonymous opinions, such as…
![[q]](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/Q.gif)
Pete Rose, banned from baseball since 1989 for betting on games, wants to manage again. Should he get a second chance? —Arnold Rosenberg, Fort Myers, Fla.
![[a]](http://johnaugust.com/Assets/A.gif)
No. After years of lying, Rose, 64, finally admitted he bet on games. He has shown no real remorse and doesn’t deserve reinstatement.
— February 26, 2006
See! That’s something I couldn’t have figured out by myself. So until readers let up on the dumb questions, I intend to keep up my vigil.
Ands and Ampersands
For “written by” credit, what is the difference between “and” or “&” in cowritten scripts? I recall reading that one is a collaboration and the other is a writer rewriting someone else’s work. Thanks.
— Dennis
Winnipeg, Canada
You’re pretty much right. The decision about which writers’ names are listed in the credits, and the conjunctions between them, falls under the jurisdiction of the Writers Guild.
The ampersand (e.g. “Al Gough & Miles Millar”) means that the two writers are a team, and are treated as one person for WGA purposes. The other version (e.g. “Josh Friedman and David Koepp”) indicates that the writers worked at different times. In this case, the [screen credits manual](http://www.wga.org/subpage_writersresources.aspx?id=171) says…
The order of writers’ names in a shared credit may be arbitrated. Generally, the most substantial contributor is entitled to first position credit. Where there is no agreement among the arbiters as to order of names, or where the Arbitration Committee determines that the credited writers’ contribution is equal, then the Arbitration Committee shall order the writers’ names chronologically.