..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

February 5, 2006

-----Original Message-----
From: Dretzka@moviecitynews.com
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 7:00 PM
To: nicole.laporte
Cc: david poland
Subject: gossip/news

A few observations on "Showbiz rumors trapped in Web," from a reporter who's served both as print editor and west-coast-based reporter (Chicago Tribune) and Internet columnist (Movie City News):

** More time has been wasted by reporters chasing pillow-talk gossip and unfounded rumors published as fact in the New York Times and trades (remember Mike Ovitz-to-MCA?), than all the gossip written for the Internet. Editors pay absolute attention to the New York Times and almost none to the Internet, often to their detriment.

When Bernie Weinraub wrote for the Times that WGA negotiators were more concerned about set and press-junket access than money issues in future contracts, reporters around the country were forced to follow up on a story they knew wasn't accurate. His report on Sony's revolutionary first-look deal with the industry's top screenwriters (wonder where he got that) also landed on Page 1, and it also was of dubious accuracy from word-one.

On a daily basis, Variety and Hollywood Reporter publish a dozen stories their reporters and editors know are based solely on wishful thinking, and primarily serve as trial balloons for agents. Why not research a year's worth of these rumors-printed-as-fact and see how many of the so-called deals actually came true.

** Defamer, as far as I can see, prints gossip that comes to it via several other sources (Page 6, for one), as well as its snitches within the industry. Only Variety, apparently, takes the items as gospel, or threats to the stability of Hollywood. It's widely read because of its editors' snarky, often hilarious approach to the material, not as a harbinger of the truth to come ... although it's right more often than it's wrong.

** In your slam against Movie City News, it's likely that you've confused one aspect of its coverage (David Poland's The Hot Blog) with the rest of its mission. Like any good blog, it not only provides space for other voices (mine included), but it also links to many other sites and sources (your's included). It gives credit (or blame) where it's due. If the material in The Hot Blog (or Poland's daily column, The Hot Button) is so consistently misguided, as you assert, why would anyone of consequence in the industry take it as seriously as you think they do.

** Your article leaves unremarked upon something else everyone in the business knows to be true. No power broker in Hollywood, or elsewhere, tells the truth ... 99 percent of all information voluntarily dispensed is spin and ego snot. Rumors and speculation are the coin of the realm, and truth is just another commodity.

** If official Hollywood wants to keep something secret, it will. The Ovitz-to-MCA story was stuck in an elongated spin cycle, before it evaporated. Ovitz-to-Disney was a done-deal before it could even become a rumor ... same with WB + UPN = CW, The trades are no more prescient than anyone else covering Hollywood.

** The trades are so dependent on "consideration" ads for windfall revenues, they've rarely, if ever, scrutinized the system that perpetrates the myths behind the Oscar/Emmy/Globes awards. Nor, do they address their other conflicts of interests, such as promotional participation in such events as ShoWest, NATPE and other show-biz gatherings and seminars. The trades have a rooting interest in the welfare of the industries its reporters are assigned to cover. All that's required of them is to correctly spell the names of their benefactors and partners in slime.

** The Los Angeles Times and New York Times now find themselves in the same boat. If it weren't for a competitive blogosphere, such ass-kissing columns as Envelope and Red Carpet wouldn't exist, and coverage of the Oscars, in particular, wouldn't overshadow that of the Nobel Peace Prize. They're by-products of initiatives forwarded by those papers' advertising and marketing departments,which lived in fear of declining revenues from movie ads.As such, they're yet another example of Old Media desperation.

** Fact-checking, like good copy-editing, has practically disappeared from every publication and publishing house, as cost-cutting has eviscerated tradition. Can anyone at Variety say, with a straight face, that its articles are fact-checked (as opposed to being copy edited for spelling and grammatical mistakes)? If they were, two sources would be required for each succeeding article that links such-and-such actor with such-and-such project (again, while also managing to spell the name of said star's agent correctly). Likewise, when reporting stories of substance -- or editing Peter Bart's column, for that matter -- why are the only quoted subjects already part of the industry infrastructure, who have a vested interest in spin? Is there no room for the voice of one or two learned observers from outside the aristocracy. Apparently, not.

** Why was there no effort made to discover where and how those rumors started, including the one about a dejected Gail Berman emerging from a meeting and immediately sending her staff home? Surely, the Defamer didn't invent this piece of gossip. Did Berman reject all of the points made in the blogged stories, or was her public pooh-pooh sufficient denial? We'll never know. Likewise, did the fact-checkers at Variety demand that you and Peter get response from Defamer and MCN, regarding these and other allegations. I didn't see any ... not even a "no comment."

Like the kettle, Variety is hardly in a position to condemn the pot for being black.

Thanks for listening.

Gary Dretzka