comment #1

lazespud says ...

Weintraub makes some good points, but I just won't believe it until I read it in a real entertainment paper first, hopefully ten months after he's written about it.

Seriously, this is just bad, bad journalism.

comment #2

Edward Havens says ...

My guess, at least on Daily Variety's side... Peter Bart is so filled with disdain for this interwebs thing, he probably reasons if news is broken on some site like Collider or ComingSoon or LatinoReview or my own site, it's not really confirmed in their eyes.

One of the first times this happened to me was when Variety reported David Fincher had signed on to do "Lords of Dogtown" on January 23, 2003 (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117879400.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1&query=david+fincher+lords+of+dogtown), eight days after I broke the news (http://www.filmjerk.com/news/article.php?id_new=210). Granted, Fincher ended up not making it (nor did he ever end up making any of the nine other projects he was circling at the time), but still, give credit where credit is due.

comment #3

btwnproductions says ...

The Lone Ranger example isn't the best defense. The Collider item is written in off-the-cuff, heard-on-the-street style; THR's confirms the writers are in final negotiations, a full year later. That's a lot of sagebrush under the horse. If Collider had updated its entry with the hard-and-fast info, then it appeared in THR a few hours later, I'd see the case more clearly.

comment #4

Don Murphy says ...

People on teh Internets will report anything whether verified or fully made up.
Once a real paper has fully vetted the story what SHOULD they say? "Thanks to El Mayimbe for the half true rumor?"
I mean have you even read Cinematical? NINETY percent of that place is bull hockey.

comment #5

Kristopher Tapley says ...

"Peter Bart is so filled with disdain for this interwebs thing, he probably reasons if news is broken on some site like Collider or ComingSoon or LatinoReview or my own site, it's not really confirmed in their eyes"

Yeah, well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? As btwn notes, the net items seem to generally report on whispers rather than NEWS, and such whispers aren't justifiable linkage if you ask me. "My source says" isn't enough. It's as if every trade story should then also credit the backstage conversations people are having about activity that isn't yet in the public eye.

Are you kidding me?

I hate items like this, because they give the web community (of which I am obviously a member) a chance to spin the usual "Peter Bart hates the web" sort of bullshit (which really isn't the case and is always painfully simplified).

I understand the general beef, but items like Weintraub's prove an overriding desire for "first!" or credit for uncorroborated scoops that sometimes just go nowhere and didn't have to be printed in the first place.

And Weintraub's decision to refrain from linking to the trades is such an empty threat. I don't think anyone, especially the trades, will lose sleep over that. My opinion, the web community, with all its diligence, should simply continue to do what it does and, as always, strive for the integrity of corroboration and sound reportage. Rather than whining about not getting a shout-out.

I say all of that with the utmost respect, and I hope that's clear.

comment #6

Weinberg says ...

Wow, really? I'd say we're ZERO percent "bull hockey" (whatever the hell that means), but I'd love to see some examples of such.

comment #7

Steve Weintraub says ...

I understand posting a rumor is not the same as getting a quote. But look at the Latino Reviews story. They posted the full story and zero credit was given.

Also, what about all the times a website gets a quote from an actor or director that says EXACTLY what they’re doing next? The website posts a story. The news is now official. Then, Variety or Reporter weeks or months later reports it with no mention of the original story?

Right now a few people are compiling data to show the many examples of where no credit has been given for ACTUAL journalism. That means, real reporting...not a rumor.

Hopefully that will show a better side to this argument.

But, I do agree, many sites post rumors and hope they stick...but I am not one of them. I double source everything before I post it and I don’t view my stories as rumors...

Again, I'm not looking to change the world. All I want is when we post an actual news item - with a quote - and then it gets posted down the road on Variety or The Reporter… to get credit for the news.

I don't think that's too much to ask.

comment #8

Don Murphy says ...

to Weinberg
Your reply is just too laugh out loud funny to address. I'll simply ask you how that GREATEST AMERICAN HERO movie is going and move on. Pretty much ANYTHING Cinematical reports (as opposed to dumb reviews or interviews) can be relied on to be nonsense.

to Weintraub
I have never read Collider, and you just made sure I won't. An ACTOR says something therefor it is sourced and thus news? The trades have a WAY higher standard than that. Hell, just because I says something does not make it official. I could have an agenda to push. The trades rely on multiple sourcing.

It seems to me you both get the credit you deserve- noise on teh internets.

comment #9

jockgroove says ...

Kris,

You're a smart guy, but let's be serious here. This is hardly whining.

1) If you were not contractually employed by Variety (congrats on that, I think), would you not be upset if you broke a story on InContention only to have it run on Variety without any credit to yourself or your writers? How about twice? How about three times? Or once on your site and possibly once on Mr. Well's site?

2) Has Peter Bart turned on his computer in his office today? Or are the other editors still printing out stories off the web to show him? Don't say it's not true, because I know people inside Variety who say it happens every day.

3) Variety has had a long standing policy of back-publishing stories so they can claim "first!" and that they broke it first. They have done it to HollywoodReporter.com, the LA Times and NY Times. And, unfortunately, the propensity of Ms. Finke to do the SAME thing (many times, but not always, after stealing the story from one of the top sites) has only made it worse. It's EMBARRASSING.

4) If you are a major news outlet who wants to run your ship by journalistic standards, you credit the previous outlet who broke the story, plain and simple. It is whining when it occurs once or twice, but continually over at least the past decade? Come on. And we're not just talking the Latino Review's and Collider's of the world (whatever disdain editors at Variety may or may not have for them), we're talking the Reporter, LA Times, NY Times and, dear god, AP (who they have a business relationship with!).

There is a new publisher at Variety now. Hopefully his presence may convince some of these practices to be eliminated, but in this cutthroat world of "breaking news" where print is seemingly fighting for its life, I find that hard to believe.

comment #10

jockgroove says ...

Oh, I will add one thing. The Long Ranger example is somewhat bogus. Collider is not a big enough site to be on any major publication's radar (no offense Steve) and in ten months it was, no doubt,completely forgotten. Does that mean the reporter would have found it if he google'd it? Sure, but it's still way to long to not think it was an oversight in THAT CASE.

comment #11

breadlymoore says ...

"The Long Ranger"

Now THERE'S a movie to see.

comment #12

Gaydos says ...

I work at Variety so I will recuse myself from all of this EXCEPT this one point made by jockgroove:

"If you are a major news outlet who wants to run your ship by journalistic standards, you credit the previous outlet who broke the story, plain and simple."

Please explain this to the LA Times, NY Times, London Times, all the nets, cable news, ie virtually every major news publication/outlet in the world that routinely fails to credit Variety for entertainment business stories we've broken.

Not saying they never do, but just that they don't on pretty much a daily basis.

Variety has simply become the tip sheet for the broadsheets and b'casters and despite decades of complaining when they fail to credit us on important exclusives, the practice continues pretty much unabated.

This has been going on for, well, about 103 years.

comment #13

jockgroove says ...

With all due respect, and I love Variety, but that's the excuse for not crediting other sources? It would be ludicrous to waste the money, but I'd love to see an independent audit of other outlets NOT crediting Variety. Online, (um, the new print), what site doesn't? Even Perez Hilton will credit you and provide a link. When was the last time Variety.com credited an online source or print publication AND linked to their original site online?

comment #14

Kristopher Tapley says ...

jockgroove: I am actually not under a current contract with Variety. And I have indeed broken news that ran in the trades later and was not credited. Just so all that is clear.

I think there is an argument here for the net, I just don't know that it is being made succinctly, which brings me to...

"Right now a few people are compiling data to show the many examples of where no credit has been given for ACTUAL journalism. That means, real reporting...not a rumor.

Hopefully that will show a better side to this argument."

I very much look forward to that, Steve.

comment #15

E. Davis says ...

Don,

I'm not sure what your agenda is or why you've targeted Cinematical, but it's quite obvious to me that you're completely out of your mind and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Which is fine; I like crazy people.

Go read Cinematical on Monday and pull out the 90% of the information that's "completely made up." Please. As editor of the site, I'd love to see all the stuff we're pulling out of thin air. 90%? Really? Wow.

comment #16

Aladdin Sane says ...

Don's been out of his mind for ages. It's part of his charm.

comment #17

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Granted, print and online are totally separate worlds but I wrote up a story about S. Darko for Thompson on Hollywood after reading about it on Screen Daily, and while it's true that the original copy I submitted mentioned that site by name which it now does not, the final copy does feature a link to that site's story, which is a more than fair practice.

I agree that there are times I see an 'exclusive' Variety story that I've already read about on other sites, but as said in other posts above, Variety abides by the highest possible journalistic standards because they are the gold standard of entertainment journalism. And I see plenty of sites stealing Variety's stories without giving any credit. Anyone ever taken a look at IMDB's WENN news? Now THAT'S embarrassing. I realize issues exist with giving credit but c'mon, it goes both ways, and in the end, once the truth is out there, no one remembers where they read it anyways.

As for Don Murphy, granted I don't read Cinematical every day, but they're a pretty reliable site and it's definitely not 90% bullshit. I like their stable of writers. But they don't have Jeff Wells, do they Gruver? Yeah baby, keep kickin ass at Cannes and go see Afterschool, directed by Antonio Campos and produced by Andrew Renzi!

http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/05/cannes-watch-do.html

comment #18

Don Murphy says ...

E Davis
I have no agenda and have not targeted anyone. In an internet full of bullshit or just regurgitated Variety stories, Cinematical has struck me as the most full of crap. Not your opinion articles because who cares. Not your reviews. Not your coverage of festivals where you just parrot the consensus. News. You will repeat as a news story some completely made up story from bloody disgusting or dark horizons or some other fringe site. You will repeat it as a STORY even though you have done no research into it whatsoever. You are about as useful as comingsoon or superherohype. You aren't as completely distrustful as IESB as far as news- you'll get one right occasionally. But if anyone at all trusts your original reporting I would assume it was a retarded mongoloid in a cave somewhere.

That said one of your opinion columns turned me on to Remember the Night and I thank you for that.

comment #19

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Oh and Don, if that Greatest American Male script is the one I'm thinking of about the dude in the woods and there's some evil developer who wants his land or some shit... then you are absolutely right, that script was fucking terrible.

comment #20

Don Murphy says ...

Jeff
Your reading disabilities proceed you and since we have established that you are a moronic dick I don't have any motivation to help you out. Everyone else can just laugh at you as they do often.

comment #21

breadlymoore says ...

What the hell is Cinematical?

comment #22

Gaydos says ...

jockgroove

"With all due respect, and I love Variety, but that's the excuse for not crediting other sources?"

Where did I submit that info as an "excuse" for anything? You could also interpret this as meaning I sympathise with folks who aren't properly credited for their enterprise reporting.

I'd prefer that interpretation.

My first line said I recuse myself from the dialogue about sourcing here EXCEPT to share this one fact.

It's not an excuse for anything.

You can cite it as an excuse, but I didn't and don't.

As for doubting my veracity, I am sorry we live in such a distrustful world. Where is the love?

Some more info for you.

We had one editor back in the mid-90s who seemed to do nothing other than send letters of complaint about this.

And Army Archerd would come in every week complaining about the morning TV guys who regurgitated bits from his column without ever ONCE crediting him.

You could look it up.

comment #23

jockgroove says ...

Steve,

I understand that you sympathize with those who are not credited, thank for the clarification (it must be the heat). But as an executive editor at the trade, isn't this something you could help facilitate changing? Even from the auspices of Vplus?

And as for broadcast outlets, if it runs in the Associated Press, isn't it common practice not to credit it? (I'm not defending them whatsoever, but that was my understanding.) And since most Variety stories with big names or projects end up running as an AP story...couldn't that be part of the issue?

As for Army, I don't know where to even start with that. I was reading Variety in the mid 90's and I don't remember him breaking news that much. Perhaps my memory is fuzzy.

comment #24

Gaydos says ...

jockgroove: thanks for that and i will take your suggestion to heart and do the best to do my part on fathoming this issue.

The AP thing is a different issue as we did once have a deal with Reuters and currently have a partnership with MSN, but this daily pilfering is simply a case of familiarity breeding appropriation.

We function so much as a tip sheet that folks forget the niceties. At least, that's my theory.

And your memory isn't fuzzy, but the items picked up from Army weren't always big page one things. However....hearing him fuming about a certain TV personality whose initials are S.R., and who regularly appropriated Army items, sticks vividly in my brain.

comment #25

EOTW says ...

Don Murphy? Is that the same guy Tarantino bitch slapped in front of everyone years ago?

comment #26

Don Murphy says ...

EOTW
well not in front of you of course, since you aren't ANYBODY.

comment #27

Edward Havens says ...

"Please explain this to the LA Times, NY Times, London Times, all the nets, cable news, ie virtually every major news publication/outlet in the world that routinely fails to credit Variety for entertainment business stories we've broken."

Gaydos, if you would like, I could show you many clippings from the New York Times, the Post, the Daily News, the Los Angeles Times, Entertainment Weekly and many other publications that gave my site (and sometimes even myself by name) credit for movie and television news I broke first. And FilmJerk has never had the traffic Collider currently enjoys. So it can't be that Variety reporters don't look at our sites.

I've basically accepted Variety, with Bart at the helm, will likely never give proper credit to internet journalists. But I did find it quite interesting how many times I would post a story only to see a byline on Variety.com (often written by Borys Kit) basically repeating what I wrote within 48 hours. It wasn't just once or twice, but enough times to be noticeable.

comment #28

Don Murphy says ...

which of course makes sense since Kit has worked for the Hollywood Reporter for years.
Crybabies

comment #29

Edward Havens says ...

I'm not crying, Donald. The fact that at 2AM I forgot Kit writes for one Hollywood rag instead of the other does not invalidate the truth.

comment #30

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Don Murphy: "Your reading disabilities proceed you and since we have established that you are a moronic dick I don't have any motivation to help you out. Everyone else can just laugh at you as they do often."

"EOTW- well not in front of you of course, since you aren't ANYBODY."

Oh Don, you make me laugh, old chap. I didn't realize you were such a household name, forgive me. You know I'd worship the ground you walk on because of NBK, but since that will never happen since you hate me, I have no problem pointing out how fucking terrible your movies are. I hope you can sleep easy at night on your mattress stuffed with money after raping millions of childhood with that metal-infused abortion called Transformers, or that cartoon shit you call Shoot 'Em Up. I have ideas that would return you to prominence. Maybe even win you an Oscar if you (and I) were lucky. I mean, you produced some dark shit, Apt Pupil and Bully, both really good, underappreciated movies, but how long ago was that. I even liked From Hell and Permanent Midnight but how long ago were you truly inspired? Do you enjoy making joyless shit like Transformers. Do you enjoy taking a fine actor like Shia and turning him into a fucking puppet shouting "No!" every other line of dialogue. Do you enjoy the CGI bullshit you've been spending years of your life on? I mean, is that why you got into this business? Is that what you dreamed of doing, making shitty movies that make a ton of money? I'm a NOBODY compared to you and so is EOTW but for you to be who you are and come in here and acting like a fucking tough guy hotshot after the crap you've put us through the last 5 years, you should be ashamed. You should be embarrassed. And you should ask for help because there are good ideas out there, Don. Shoot Em Up just wasn't one of them. Better luck next time. At least you get one.

comment #31

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Don, if you brought me in as a reader I would find you gold within a month. People would whisper your name again at The Ivy. Valets wouldn't just park your car, they'd fill up your tank for you. You wouldn't have to go around town bragging about how your next picture has one of the most beautiful women in the world playing a lactating hooker. You should hire me as an experiment, just so you could come back in here in a month and say see, I told you all these Internet geeks can talk the talk but can't walk the walk. You wouldn't regret it. I'd never even give you the opportunity to say I told you so. I would blow your mind out the back of your head like that poor waitress at the beginning of NBK. I am the demon. Grab my horns and take the fucking ride, pal.