The Big Picture

Patrick Goldstein and James Rainey
on entertainment and media

« Previous Post | The Big Picture Home | Next Post »

Golden Globes: Is the media too obsessed with a second-rate awards show?

Cher After reading the avalanche of coverage about Tuesday's Golden Globes nominations, including a lengthy post focusing on the hapless nature of the awards from yours truly, a friend in the business asked a fair, but uncomfortable,  question: If all you guys in the media think the Globes are so lame, why do you give them such wall-to-wall coverage?

I started to argue with him -- journalists are congenitally defensive about criticism -- but I had to admit that he had a valid point. Entertainment TV and showbiz bloggers fell over themselves doing Globes updates while my newspaper devoted most of Wednesday's Calendar section to extensive Globes coverage, even as we pointed out all of the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn.'s many flaws, including nominating for best picture for comedy/musical such critically drubbed clunkers as "The Tourist" and "Burlesque."

For years, reporters have published embarrassing stories about the HFPA, whose 81 voting members are for the most part obscure foreign entertainment journalists with little of the cachet of the 6,000-plus voting members of the Motion Picture Academy. Globes voters have been involved in all sorts of scandals and gaffes over the years. If you talk to the top award-season consultants, they can barely disguise their lack of respect for the HFPA members, who often put themselves in indelicate situations, as with this year's crew, which took a Sony-sponsored trip to Las Vegas to see Cher in concert, then gave her film a stunning best picture nod.

So why do we lavish so much attention on the Globes? The honest answer is that we are largely following Hollywood's lead. The movie studios campaign hard for Globes victories, running tons of Globes-centric trade ads and making all of their stars available for post-nomination interviews as well as other events leading up to the awards ceremony. It is a firmly held industry belief that a strong Globes showing can help influence Oscar voters, even though the Globes' track record as an Oscar barometer is scattershot at best. For a number of years, their nominations portended Oscar triumph, but since "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King's" win in 2005, only one Globes best picture winner ("Slumdog Millionaire") went on to win the top prize at the Oscars.

The Globes are sort of the Hollywood equivalent of the New Hampshire presidential primary, which inspires a tsunami of media coverage, even though as a small state its voters represent a tiny fraction of the overall presidential voting public. Like the Globes, it once had a reputation as an accurate predictive force, but in recent years its winners have a barely better than .500 batting average: Only two of the last four Republican primary winners went on to land their party's nomination while only three of the five last Democratic winners went on win their party's nominations (and some of those winners were sitting presidents). So why give New Hampshire so much respect? Old habits die hard.

The same goes for the Globes, which are a star-studded equivalent of an early presidential primary. There's no getting around it. If you put a ton of celebrities in a room together, the media will show up, which is why Comic-Con International in San Diego inspires days of endless blog dispatches, even though the event has long since evolved from a bona fide fan festival into a giant Hollywood promotional vehicle. No one can say we didn't cover the Globes with a critical eye, but I'd be the first to admit that the media now finds itself lavishing far too much attention on an awards show of questionable importance. 

-- Patrick Goldstein


Photo: Cher, left, with Christina Aguilera at the Crazy Horse cabaret in Paris, promoting "Burlesque." Credit: Jacky Naegelen/Reuters

Comments () | Archives (18)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Hmm. Or it could be that the HFPA is a naked emperor that only exists because Hollywood has made the HFP the Golem it is and the press and people have fallen into lockstep?

The GGs are simply perception plain and simple. The press would cover Angelina Jolie picking a scap so spare me the righteous high ground buddy. You all simply supply the grease that runs the town and you surely must know that. Covering the awards makes them important, because they are important, the actors want them, and because the actors want them, the press covers it and because the press covers it, the GGs are ... . voila! Important.

Didn't get your HFPA payola check, did you?

It all reverts back to Hollywood's narcissism and the media's willingness to pounce on all things "celebrity."

These awards really put the year's movies into perspective. Looking back, this has been a lousy year on film!

the media is too obsessed period!

Maybe publications cover the Golden Globes because most readers like movies and are interested in reading about TV/Movie stars? Now, I know the LA Times likes to cover LACMA and Operas and "High Entertainment", but columns on
the Opera/LACMA and NPR Awards wouldn't sell papers. I hope one day the LA Times gets it that they don't have a duty to elevate the masses. We're doing just fine.

I saw Cher on Letterman a couple of weeks back and she looks like a puppet of herself.

Is this not an article about Scarlett Johansen then? I thought you were going to write about golden globes...

Most people in America, and around the world, are star struck. They love so many elements of these events, the clothes, the glamour, the romance, the gossip, the fantasy. As long as the public maintains such intense interest in these awards shows, as long as they continue to generate such money and publicity for all involved, they will continue to grow. There are few fantasies left for most working people of the world. They are the ones who spend the money and read the magazines and watch the shows - so real or surreal, these kinds of shows do serve a purpose for the people as well .

It sounds very xenophobic.
Where are the stories about HFPA members being lame? Being "obscure foreign entertainment" reporters?

Maybe it's your problem because you don't read in Italian? Or Russian, or Spanish? Let them vote.

It seems to me American journalists are very jealous.

1 2 | ยป


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...

Stay Connected:

About the Bloggers



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: