..Gary Dretzka
..Leonard Klady
..David Poland
..Doug Pratt
..Ray Pride

So, why is someone who writes for a website as obsessed with the Oscars as is Movie City News taking potshots at the NYT and LAT? Certainly, their existence makes the Carpetbagger and Envelope competitors for the kinds of ads, information and access that fuels MCN, and, thus, there exists the appearance of a conflict of interest. Or, perhaps, I'm jealous of the fact that the employees of those papers make more money covering Hollywood than I do.

Maybe, maybe not. I used to work inside the belly of the beast as a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, and, before that, I had to deal with the academy as both an editor and writer. Now, I write columns for MCN, mostly on my own time and dine, and also freelance pieces for other outlets.

There's no easy excuse for forwarding what many would consider to be a conflict of interest. Nonetheless, on my editor's insistence, I will try.

In the nearly 20 years I've devoted myself to the coverage of our culture -- popular, and otherwise -- I've witnessed a dramatic relaxation in the standards applied by Big Media to its presentation of entertainment news. Editors on publications large and small have allowed publicists to call the shots on coverage, and the studios, in turn, have begun treating reporters (especially the junket press) like unpaid interns. Reporters on the LAT and NYT are allowed greater access than those at the Chicago Tribune and Washington Post, who are accorded greater access than those in Omaha and Albuquerque, and the same holds for TV, radio and magazine outlets. (But, don't take my word for it, ask Pat Kingsley.)

As Peter Parker might argue, however, with great access comes great responsibility.And, I don't believe that either the NYT or the LAT are exercising that on the Carpetbagger and Envelope sites. By all indications, they're playing the game exactly as the studios and academy would want them to do, by distancing web content from their print product. The LAT does this by relying on freelancers, while the NYT has played it safe by merely adding commentary to its links to other sources. The idea is to sell ads, not information.

How is this different than what we do at MCN? Essentially, in the same way that an indie picture is different from a studio project. It's already difficult to convince the Academy and studios of the value of coverage on websites that don't always toe the company line, and access to major events has been extremely difficult to achieve.

It's improved, lately, but the increased presence of sites sponsored by malleable Big Media concerns could reverse all progress that's been made. This, of course, ultimately leads to diluted coverage by everyone.

Awards coverage on the indie sites is obsessive, but it's because their operators are obsessed with every aspect of the entertainment industry. They are as serious and passionate about the inner-workings as anyone who drives a Mercedes to work at the studio each day.

There isn't much chance they'd rejoice if some editor told them they were being transferred to another beat or a desk with a window in another part of the building, as, I'm guessing, these blogmeisters would be. Most indie operators would waste away, if they had to depend on their earnings from banner ads and the nourishment of popcorn and diet pop. If Carpetbagger and Envelope start losing money for their parent companies, they'll be dropped like a hot potato, and their employees will either be transferred or given a pat on the butt for severance.
Neither of which options are available to those of us who do this for reasons other than a paycheck.

So, if the big boys are getting into the game of covering the awards, it would nice if they played by the same rules as everyone else.

December 14, 2005
- Gary Dretzka

.