Feb 18, 2003
 Feb 10, 2003
 Feb 3, 2003
Jan 29, 2003
 Jan 20, 2003
Jan 13, 2003
Jan 8, 2003
Dec 30, 2003
Dec 24, 2003
Dec 16, 2003
 Dec 3, 2003


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



When it comes to media gossip, the website journalists trust most is the one James Romenesko has organized at www.poynter.org. Simply referred to as “Romenesko,” it covers our self-absorbed world in a straight-forward and rarely opinionated manner, primarily by linking to stories in other publications, offering a forum for letters and other commentary, and letting the words speak for themselves.

So, when Monday morning’s column led with an item provocatively titled, “Critic: Why is Weinraub still covering Hollywood for NYT?,” and linked an article in the new Los Angeles magazine, it naturally attracted the attention of reporters toiling in the vineyards of La La Land. RJ Smith’s Media column asked a question the entirety of the Hollywood-based press corps has been pondering for most of the last six years, especially those during which the widely respected Times reporter has been married to Columbia Pictures chairman Amy Pascal. As far as appearances of conflicts of interests go in the media game – as opposed to having one’s work influenced by obvious conflicts of interest, of which Weinraub has neither been tried nor convicted -- it wasn’t even close.

Nonetheless, as Smith argues, the NYT marches to the sound of its own drummer. If the honchos in the New York office don’t consider Weinraub’s presence on the entertainment beat as broaching even the appearance of a conflict – Columbia-parent Sony, after all, has its hand in every pie worth tasting in Hollywood -- then, in their minds, it simply doesn’t exist. Asking the newly married Weinraub to accept another West Coast-based news beat would have been tantamount to admitting its reporters are fallible, and that concept really didn’t come into play until Jayson Blair was revealed as a fraud.

Despite a recent admission of paragraph borrowing, Weinraub’s present situation bears no similarity to the Blair case or any subsequent cans of worms at the Times. His reporting has been distinguished – if far from infallible – and it has helped make the NYT a must-read among movers and shakers in L.A.

Here’s part of what Smith had to say:

“So why, given a career that includes great reporting from Vietnam and deft accounts of presidential campaigns, a career that need not have culminated yet, why should Weinraub's reputation seem up for grabs? The answer begins in 1997, when he married Amy Pascal, now chairman of Columbia Pictures. As a result, the Times changed his beat. Today he doesn't quite cover the film industry, but he doesn't quite not cover it, either. He is now the paper's West Coast entertainment reporter, writing about television, music, and such epiphenomena as Schwarzenegger and the Anthony Pellicano prosecution. Although Times editors believe they have solved the problem of conflict of interest, they may be the only ones who do.”

That much, at least, is absolutely true. Few, if any, journalists or executives bought the ruse. But, since there wasn’t anything anyone could do about it – and no one wanted to piss off the Times by suggesting there was a problem -- they learned to grin and bear it.

If nothing else, his continued presence provided a convenient excuse for bad press in the nation’s most influential paper. The entertainment industry is so devoid of ethical behavior, after all, that its players are always willing to believe the worst of their peers in other industries. Why wouldn’t they? Good business for one is good business for all.

For journalists, though, the question posed in Smith’s column remains far more knotty.

Primarily, this is because of the NYT’s status in the world of journalism. It is partially explained by Sharon Waxman’s stated rationale for leaving a newspaper and a job she loved -- covering Hollywood for the Washington Post -- to accept what essentially is the same gig at the NYT: “Now, maybe, I’ll get my calls answered.”

As a former correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, and a freelancer for other publications of substance, I can attest to the fact that covering Hollywood for any other daily publication than the NYT, LAT, Wall Street Journal and the trades (USA Today, too, if one takes into account access to celebrities) can be a chore best described as Sisyphean. It’s not that we merely get lied to all the time – everyone does – it’s that the studios’ marketing departments have made it their job to make us feel as if we’re inherently inferior to reporters who work for those publications, and, like the junket press, merely another cog in the star-maker machinery. Publicists accomplish this by not returning phone calls and routinely denying reasonable requests for access to filmmakers, actors and executives, unless it fits their marketing strategy. (Nothing personal; it’s strictly business. Independent publicists do a much better job for their clients.)

Typical of Los Angeles magazine, though, none of these larger ramifications were addressed. Essentially, the piece was about celebrity, which, along with stories about the west side’s best dry cleaners and spas, is what the mag does best. Mostly, the columnist appeared unhappy that Weinraub’s continued presence as an entertainment reporter proved New Yorkers might not take L.A. “seriously,” as if we needed some kind of validation from the NYT that its Brahmins like us, they really, really like us.

“They had brought in Weinraub to show they were taking Hollywood more seriously,” Smith wrote. “Yet by leaving him in, the Times has suggested what they really think of L.A.—that it's a lightweight town, that it's about amusement, not real news. If a White House correspondent married a member of the administration, would the Times leave that person in? It's hard to believe they would.”

Yeah, it’s hard to believe … almost as difficult to believe as the events that led to the public disgrace of the NYT and its senior management in 2003.

I was still wet behind the ears on the beat when I learned my first important lesson in kowtowing to the studios. A couple of weeks before the release of Mike Nichols’ adaptation of Primary Colors -- a highly anticipated political comedy editors Back East saw as being of major importance to their readers – my bosses asked me to write about certain aspects of the film that fell outside the area of roundtable coverage. After begging for access, it became clear that Universal flacks pretty much were locking papers not referred to simply as “the Times” out of the process. They said only a very few reporters would have the movie screened for them, but neglected to mention that, among those very few, was the entire New York Times bureau.

It didn’t take me long to figure out that this method of currying favor was – and would continue to be -- standard-operating procedure on the most anticipated titles (half of the LAT film department often will show up for long-lead screenings not available to most other writers in town). Most recently, I was promised access to behind-the-camera personnel working on a picture since nominated for a major Academy Award, but, when it came time to talk, my requests were ignored. I found out later, that the LAT had been granted the same kind of access I had been promised (for a winter Sneaks piece) and I was aced out by an exclusivity deal. I wasn’t alone in that regard.

All of the studios are notorious for cutting exclusive deals with one or both of the Times, before letting other publications get a foot in the door of a specific project. The same wheeling and dealing occurs between studios, personal publicists and reps for morning news shows, talk shows, glossy mags and TV newsmagazines. As legend has it, some time during the ‘80s, a certain high-profile public-relations agency established the top-down pecking order of media outlets that has become standard operating procedure today, and, in effect, turned p.r. from an art to a science. With the best access limited to those companies on the top of the list, the agency pitted the top players against each other and demanded quid pro quos from even the most “incorruptible” of outlets.

This included demands for cover placement, photo and writer approval, release embargoes and guaranteed coverage, no matter how badly the movie stunk (as did Primary Colors), thus neutralizing the effects of any negative review. In return, the outlets would receive access to locations, unconventional settings for interviews and market exclusivity. Many high-minded editors turned a blind eye to these quid pro quos, mostly because exclusive coverage of A-list celebs was considered highly marketable, it spoke well of their publications, and, after all, movies were considered toy-department material.

Having a hard-news reporter, such as Weinraub, ensconced in Hollywood gave the NYT an edge that neither of the Times enjoyed at the time of his arrival. The hometown paper was considered squishy and malleable (a reputation it pretty much still enjoys), while the NYT represented serious enterprise and respectability. Moreover, the NYT was, indeed, the hometown paper for many of the studio heads, their families and their bosses. Leaking stories to Weinraub, at the expense of the LAT, became good sport, if nothing else. Even when his coverage served to ridicule their parties, benefits, politics and creative intentions, the subjects of the stories easily convinced themselves Weinraub was writing about someone else.

Eventually, though, studio and agency executives began treating the NYT as it did any other publication, like it was one of the trades. This first time this became apparent was in the coverage of Mike Ovitz’ machinations to become head of Universal, and the NYT and a few other major outlets were played like a violin. Manipulation was also on the minds of both the studios and the Writers Guild, when it looked as if Hollywood was about to become enjoined in a cataclysmic strike.

One morning, midway through the negotiations, a Weinraub story appeared on Page 1 of the NYT that suggested that the WGA was less interested in money issues, than such sidebar issues as access to sets and press junkets, and name-credit placement. Because guild members were made to appear petty and selfish, the story played into the studios’ strategy of demonizing writers. Besides being wildly inaccurate – the negotiations were always about money – the article allowed observers to insinuate a bias on Weinraub’s part that, perhaps, could be explained by his marital status … even if it that wasn’t the case.

I was one of several reporters who spent the larger part of that day trying to convince editors back home that the Page 1 piece in the Times was hooey. We did this by contacting our sources, most of whom openly laughed at such a notion, and pointing out what should have been obvious: while ego gratification is an immensely important force, the answer to all questions in Hollywood is money.

After similarly having been asked to chase our tails on the Ovitz story, many of us began applying a liberal dash of salt to stories leaked to the NYT by the usual anonymous sources. Our editors, however, remained convinced that whatever ran in the NYT – especially on Page 1 – was the gospel. Papers that subscribed to the NYT news wire were in a bind, as well, because the Times would rather run a picture of Jerry Lewis, receiving an award from the French ambassador, on the editorial page than admit a mistake.

(The same thing occurred recently with 60 Minutes, when Leslie Stahl was duped by the MPAA and studio reps on the extent of the piracy issue. Aside from providing a great deal of misleading data, the piece inspired hundreds of viewers to download software loaded with hidden debilitating pop-up links embedded in it.)

Ultimately, of course, Weinraub isn’t the issue here. He’s just another journalist who was trying to do his job the best way he knew how, and allowed his editors to cut him a wide path. Somewhere along the way, he was seduced by California and at least part of the industry he was entrusted to cover. It happens, and, maybe, he’s been a better juggler than most.

The bigger problem lies in editors who don’t have the slightest clue as to what Hollywood is all about, and want their paper’s coverage of the industry tailored in two conflicting ways. They ask reporters to treat show business as if it’s the Second Coming of the military-industrial complex, while also demanding the same powder-puff, gee-whiz celebrity stuff it always has.

This weekend will provide all the proof one needs of this contradiction in objectives. Overheated coverage of the Oscars – especially on the fashion side of it – will trump any and all well-considered reporting on why Hollywood no longer makes movies for adults, why racism remains a problem on and off the screen, and how runaway production is hurting the economy not just of California, but all America.

I doubt, as well, that Joan and Melissa Rivers will hazard a guess as to the actual damage done to the Hollywood economy by the academy’s decision to push the awards ceremony up a month, if only to spite the Golden Globes and other awards shows. We all probably know of at least one caterer, florist, limo driver, ad salesman or exhibitor who could have benefited from 30 more days to exploit the nominations.

But, then, who would be so rude as to rain on Hollywood’s big party?

- by Gary Dretzka

February 24, 2004


Home | Movie City News | Contact Us
Report broken links and other web problems to Webmaster
©2008. Movie City News, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Movie City Indie and MCG are trademarks of Movie City News.