Blogger attacked by (gasp) other bloggers!

Normally I resist the impulse to respond to attacks from other bloggers, having the attitude that if you dish it out, you should be able to take it. But I can't resist a teaching opportunity. So here goes. When the blogosphere was full of reports--inaccurate reports, as it turns out--that Baz Luhrmann had been pressured by top 20th Century Fox executives to change the ending to his upcoming epic, "Australia," I could have just passed along the unsubstantiated reports, as most bloggers do. But I confess--I'm an old-fashioned journalist. Instead of just repeating the same half-truths, I thought I'd go to the source--Fox Co-Chairman Tom Rothman. If anyone was pressuring Luhrmann, it would be Rothman, who is famous for being involved in nearly all production decisions--big or small--at the studio.

As luck would have it, I had a lunch scheduled with Rothman the next day. So I asked him about the reports, got some answers and put them up on the blog. The reaction in the clown-suit-clad blogosphere? Variety's Anne Thompson, who should know better, wrote that "Fox put co-chairman Tom Rothman together" with me "to staunch the tide of bad PR" coming out of Australia. Movie City News' David Poland wrote that after I had battered Fox with "attacks and attacks and attacks for no journalistic reason" that I got what I wanted--a "free lunch." Why? As Poland put it: "Because Tom Rothman wants to head off attacks on his most expensive production of the year."

Is that really true? Not at all. The lunch was set up by me, six weeks ago, not on the spur of the moment by Fox. One of my paper's best bloggers, WebScout's David Sarno, often writes hilarious posts about the bizarre fake news and conspiracy theories that bounce around the Web, propelled by the viral nature of the medium. Apparently this happens with Web film coverage too, largely because no one would ever dream of picking up the phone and doing any reporting, preferring to offer clueless conjecture. If anyone had bothered to ask me, they could've discovered the awful tedious truth: I got lucky, having scheduled the Rothman lunch way back in late September. Poland is right that I have been intensely critical of Fox in the past year--my contention being that the studio keeps top talent and producers at arm's length, preferring to work with more malleable filmmakers, the result being a string of critically drubbed films. Rothman believes I've been unfair to the studio and we agreed to have lunch to try to clear the air.

What I find depressing is that bloggers like Poland are so ignorant about how reporters get stories that they actually think there's something inherently unhealthy about us having lunch with studio executives, agents and producers. Sorry, Dave, but it's the way reporters actually break stories. I assume Anne is aware of that, since I saw her just last week having lunch with Paramount's John Lesher when I was having lunch with a writer-director at the same restaurant. I suspect we both got some interesting news out of the effort. (And just so you know, Dave, even though the writer-director makes a ton more money than me, it wasn't a free lunch. I paid.)

In fact, I've got more news coming soon from my lunch with Rothman. I'd be much happier sitting at home, looking out at the big old avocado trees in my backyard, but going out to lunch and working the phones is how you break news in Hollywood. Some bloggers know the score--for all her faults, Nikki Finke breaks story after story because she doesn't just drone on about the Oscar race; she has real sources. Most film bloggers have spent so much time knocking the old mainstream media that they've forgotten that reporting still has its virtues. It's OK to sit in front of the computer and spew out half-formed opinions, but I'd rather go to the source and get the real story.

B

Comments

[sleekraven]

I couldn't agree more on the blogggers, there is more to reporting on films than just churning out whatever one has concocted in one's imagination.

Also., why are these bloggers always so demanding, they have such a sense of entitlement, as if something is owed to them. Of course, they fantastically support their favourites. Most of them focus on the Oscar race because they don't understand film, Oscar races are always fun and easy and if they get it wrong, they just rant that the wrong person won. They cannot discuss film. Most of them cannot deconstruct a story and put it together again.

Ridiculous.

[Christian Toto]

Good points. Bloggers must adhere to the tenets of journalism ... at least if they want to be seen as trusted sources of info and reliable gossip. Otherwise, they give other bloggers a bad name and will leave to the format's decline.

The good bloggers keep sloppy journalists in check. The same should be applied to sloppy bloggers.

[David Poland]

Really, Patrick... you know better.

If you don't, you are an ignoramus.

If you do, you are a liar.

I would prefer to think it was neither.

I have never thought “there's something inherently unhealthy about us having lunch with studio executives, agents and producers.” I do it all the time. But I don’t start a paragraph in every blog entry, “When I sat down to lunch with XXX.”

I spent many hours arguing with editors at Entertainment Weekly, back in the day, because I knew, as you do, that top execs are terribly important sources of information. They felt I was wasting time with those meetings and discussions. Many of the relationships developed then served as the backbone of my work for the last decade.

But what I do not do is to get information from them – or any source with vested interests – and report it as news. Because someone telling me something is a press release, not news. Once it has been vested with actual reporting and investigation, then it is news.

You want to know why you don’t know who my sources are? Because I don’t parade them around like Thanksgiving Day balloons, trying to prove my worth to some conglomerate. And you know what they would do if I did? They would stop telling me the truth as they see it. They would try to work me.

You know who I talk to a lot? People who tell me the truth. You know who I don’t talk to a lot? People who always want to spin me. The only reason to ever dive into that barrel of high profile monkeys is to know what they are lying about this week. And really, I have you and Nikki for that now.

If you want to believe that Alan Horn (as an example) is telling you everything that is wrong with Warner Bros, that’s your funeral. And sadly, because you are at a big paper (big for now), you have the ability to drag the truth down into the 6 ft hole with you.

I’ve been through your version of journalism. I had a job where my call was answered in a flustered hurry by anyone, anywhere at any time. I had the return calls from boats and airplanes, in the middle of shooting days… all that. I learned the lesson.

Talking to most studio heads is like talking to a major movie star about a movie. They have no vested interest in telling me the absolute truth, no matter “good” or honest a person they are.

Have you ever read a Wall Street Journal writer writing about who they had lunch with? Do you think that I don’t know that they have lunch with execs? Do you think they scramble out of those lunches to tell everyone what the exec said?

Of course, that brings up the flip side… people who have lunch with a reporter exclusively so they will get ink. Those who have tried that on me have also learned, homie don’t play that either.

You are a smart man. But you have become myopic in your thinking. THAT is why I make fun of your endless announcements about who you had lunch with. Having lunch is part of the job… but it’s just PART of the job.

We’ll forgive you for idiotic entries like, “'Soul Men' delivers mixed verdict on Obama victory.” But the LA Times is not very good cover for intellectual laziness anymore. If you want to be Hedda to Nikki’s Louella, that’s your concern. I hope for you that it’s not your destiny.

[David Poland]

And I forgot to mention...

1) Nikki doesn't leave her apartment to do muhc of anything but go to the doctor and to rarely have lunch with someone who was in power in the last 80s. So how does her quality work jibe with your shots about blogger sitting at home and making calls?

2) Don't you realize that Tom Rothman knew what would be going on at his studio when he scheduled with you six weeks ago? Get it?

[Kristopher Tapley]

Poland must have missed the warning just below "add a comment."

[Parker]

Mr. Goldstein, thank you for your fitting blog post. There is a rash of unsubstantiated reports, rumors and gossip that are being passed off by bloggers as credible information. Unlike the film critics of the past these new bloggers feel no sense of accountability for their work. It is easier to gain readers and blog subscribers when you have the most interesting stories even if they lack evidence and could be completely hearsay. It is also very challenging for the casual blog reader to weed out the few quality blogs from the literally millions of unprofessional blogs that comprise the blogosphere. There are websites like Technorati that attempt to develop a ranking system for blogs however I personally find it a little too complicated. Do you believe that the average blog reader understands that most blog posts contain unconfirmed information? I’m surprised and extremely concerned to hear in your article that credible writers from sources like Variety are not doing the necessary research for their posts. Do you believe this may just be an individual case or have you encountered many gossip driven blogs written by professionals? I read another post this week by Steven Zeitchik of the Hollywood Reporter titled “Non-Screenings are the new screenings”. In the article Mr. Zeitchik discuses how major studios may be starting to follow a more discrete marketing plan in response to the truly bizarre coverage that plagues the blogosphere and the Internet. Do you think this is a growing trend? Thank you again for the intriguing and yet disturbing post.