Jon Peters' new tell-all book proposal: Who had it first?

One of the great reads of the week was Nikki Finke's "exclusive" unveiling in her blog of "Studio Head," an irresistibly entertaining book proposal from Jon Peters, the former Sony Pictures studio mogul who was one of Hollywood's most colorful loose cannons. His tell-absolutely-all autobiography, written with William Stadiem, recently sold to HarperCollins, reportedly for $700,000. I still don't know what was better: Nikki's Def-Con Alert reaction ("I have never read a more vile betrayal of everyone and everything in Hollywood") or the unintentional humor of the proposal itself ("Imagine a contemporary, nonfiction 'What Makes Sammy Run,' but with a lovable protagonist").

Nikki's post was a great read, loaded with proposal excerpts that detail Peters' childhood, his hairdresser triumphs, his Svengali-like relationship with Barbra Streisand, his studio deals and his tumultuous partnership with Peter Guber (who gave Nikki a statement calling the proposal a "work of fiction"). Let's just say the tone of the proposal is distinctly "Dynasty"-esque. In the midst of an enthusiastic recounting of Peters' many amorous escapades, the proposal dryly notes: "When it came to women, Jon was fearless and Olympicly competitive."

I have to admit that I was impressed by Nikki's scoop, at least far more impressed than veteran Hollywood journalist Kim Masters, who complains that it's a stretch for Finke to call her post an "exclusive" when Masters did an incredibly similar post for the Daily Beast more than a month ago -- on April 15 to be exact. Masters' post includes many of the same details, including a few Finke didn't have. According to Masters, when Peters pitched the book to Random House, he not only sent a top editor there a huge pile of orchids, but included a note with an offer to cut her hair.

I'd be the first to say that Finke's post, which offers far more excerpts from the proposal than Masters' account, is the juicier read. But I also think Masters has a good case to make that, since she was first with the news, if anyone is going to brag about having an exclusive it should be her. Masters says her Daily Beast editor asked Finke to correct the "exclusive" tag, but to no avail. As I write this, it's still up.

So Masters, who co-wrote "Hit & Run," a dishy 1996 account of Peters and Guber's rise and fall, is feeling a teeny bit wronged. As she puts it: "It's funny because the book proposal recycles a lot of material that was in 'Hit & Run.' Obviously I don't have exclusive rights to the Jon Peters story but now it looks like I don't even have exclusive rights to my own exclusive. I guess you have to give Nikki credit -- she defends her exclusives even if someone else broke the story the month before."

Photo of Jon Peters by Kevin Winter / Getty Images

Comments

[saigon sheriff]

patrick - thank you for upholding the forth estates mandate of "truth in journalism" here in the non-fact-checked blogesphere.

kudos

[A former LA Times subscriber.]

So let me get this straight, Patrick: In April, Kim Masters wrote about this on the Daily Beast. You didn't write about it in the LA Times. Then Finke publishes the whole proposal letter in May, and suddenly it's news. But you're more interested in writing about the inside journalism of it all (really useful to your readers), than the book proposal itself. The only reason I found your piece at all is because of a link on Movie City News criticizing both of you for getting involved with this. (Which I disagree with, incidentally. Finke was right to priint the book proposal. Unlike you, she saw it as newsworthy.)

So here's the question: Who are you writing for? Do you have any news sense at all? How did the LA Times become an also-ran - a bit player - in show business news? Could this account not just for your ever diminishing circulation, but also for the fact you have virtually no traffic on this blog, (as per LAObserved.Com), and seldom get any comments?

I'm sure you won't publish this, or answer it here, but these questions deserve to be asked.

And having said that, you may now return to your obsession with Finke, and other matters of grave import that mean nothing to 99.9% of LA.

PS: As I'm sure you won't publish this, I'm sending it to your publisher, along with Finke, Movie City News, and Kim Masters at the Daily Beast.

[Christian Toto]

Ouch - re: the comments so far.

This post does have a heavy share of navel gazing, but I read this site often and it routinely offers sturdy information for movie buffs. Not every post is gonna kill, but Patrick has good inroads in the industry and he often delivers content that reflects that.

That said -- as a journalist the over-use of the term "exclusive" is downright silly. I see it all the time attached to celeb interviews when you know said celeb is talking to every media outlet he/she can to promote his/her latest movie.