Media Death Match: Old vs. New
The Internet is getting its collective panties in a twist again. The big trades like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are routinely ’scooped’ by various Internet movie sites with news on upcoming projects. When the trades get around to making the news ‘official’, they never credit whoever broke the story.
Both Collider and Latino Review have had it and are now saying they won’t link back to the trades for any stories they pick up. Essentially they’re asking to be taken seriously by the establishment, but I suspect their efforts will be in vain.
For one thing, it’s hard to take any medium seriously that would live blog during a movie screening, but that’s probably the subject of another post. Ah yes, I see it here now.
Seriously though, this squabble raises several issues. First of all, what is news and who owns it? In the age of the Internet, the answers to those questions are increasingly less clear. A week ago, Latino Review broke a story about Jason Reitman’s next project and The Hollywood Reporter had the same info later in the day with no mention of Latino Review. The question is, is this even really news? It’s information, yes, but is it news? In the big picture, it’s such an insignificant item I’m not sure The Hollywood Reporter should be responsible for tracking down who first mentioned it. I saw it in my newsreader and I glanced over it like hundreds of other items that come up every day. I had no idea who had it first and I didn’t care.
Here’s another example. After the recent Foot Fist Way press conference I told you about, as folks were filing out the door, Frosty from Collider caught Adam McKay on tape saying that yes, he and Will Farrell were looking to do another Anchorman movie in a couple of years. Naturally, the information lights up the Internet for a few days and Anchorman fans are excited. Eventually, if the project ever comes to fruition (and I think we can all agree that just because one member of a team says he’d like to make it happen, doesn’t mean that it actually will) and an official announcement is made, are the trades responsible for crediting Collider when they report the story? We’re not talking about news of a break-in at Watergate here. These are low-level wire stories at best. A huge deal to a small contingent of hearty Anchorman fans, but fairly disposable, no?
Sure, it would be cool of Variety to source their tidbits, but it’s probably never going to happen. The thing is, to some people (me included), it’s not actually news until it’s mentioned by one of the trades. That’s what they’re for. They have a long history of sourcing their stories and they’re generally well connected. You can trust them. That’s not to say Latino Review or Collider or CHUD or AICN are lying or aren’t adequately sourced or fact-checked, but that sort of assumption comes with being a part of the establishment. That’s why it’s called The Establishment. News is only as important as the outlet reporting it.
Here’s an example of dubious news, something you wouldn’t expect to appear in Variety: MTV Movies Blog had a chat with American Idol Loser / Smokin’ Hottie Katharine McPhee, presumably about her upcoming role in The House Bunny with Anna Ferris, and they asked her who she’d like to portray in a musical film. She replied: Janis Joplin. Though she hasn’t been offered such a part and she even admits that she probably wouldn’t be right for it, the blog’s headline blares: Katharine McPhee Wants to Star In Janis Joplin Biopic.
Sure enough, CHUD’s Jeremy Smith picks up on it, repeats it and even offers a little analysis over what is essentially a non-story. A ’story’ is born, except it’s not. It’s the kind of item that delegitimizes news outlets that so desperately want to be taken seriously.
Even if it was a real story, in an age when information is so easily and quickly and cheaply disseminated, it’s getting harder to claim ownership of it, particularly with items that don’t require rigorous journalism in the first place. What you can claim ownership of is an opinion and an attitude and a personality. Being first isn’t enough anymore. Being right or being smart or being funny counts for more.
LiC is not in the business of breaking news so maybe I just don’t understand the grief of these hard working Internet reporters. Nevertheless, I’ll continue to pass on bits of information as I find them if I have an opinion on them. 90% of the time I’ll credit one of the trades with the information because that’s likely where I will have read it first. If I can pin it to an earlier source, I’ll do it, but the conversation that hopefully sprouts up around the story is what’s most important to me and that can’t be sourced.
Filed under: Opinion
Related Posts: - Friday Filler: LiC is One
- QT’s FP!K!K! - LiC says: BS
- More Critical Bloodlust
- Can a Billion Chinese Be Wrong?
- The Old Gray Lady Stoops…to Conquer?
A lot of writers for blogs that are information intensive live or die by how many hits their stories get. I keep reading horror stories of bloggers dying of heart attacks because they couldn’t handle the pressure of a 24/7 internet that might be scooping them on something while they are sleeping. Some even get paid based on the number of hits their pieces get.
In this instance, a trackback from one of the trades is an enormous boost, and for them to withhold that link can mean significantly lesser bank for the writer in question.
Whether or not this is the case with Collider and Latino Review, I don’t know. But for many full-time bloggers, it’s not about ego, it’s about eating.
My sympathies lie with the little guys, I just don’t ever see the trades acknowledging them for these scraps of stories.
I’ve tried for a half hour now to formulate an opinion on all this, but I’m a bit conflicted about it all. I can see a couple different ways of looking at this, but I don’t know jack about this whole issue so I’ll just save my breath and spare you me talking out my ass.
HOWEVER, this caught my attention: “Sure enough, CHUD’s Jeremy Smith picks up on it, repeats it and even offers a little analysis over what is essentially a non-story. A ’story’ is born, except it’s not.”
Having the web site that coined the phrase “Oh, Don Piano,” a way of describing the idiotic behavior of taking a random comment in an interview as a legitimate news item, be the same site that took an actual “Oh, Don Piano” moment and elevated it to news is sad and troubling. I’ve been losing respect for them for a while now, but that may just be the icing on the cake for me with CHUD.
I understand the feeling that every click is gold, and I’m sure it’s deeply frustrating for these people who spend their days scrabbling for nuggets of movie information goodness only to have the big guys swoop in and basically rob them of their hard work, particularly when this kind of info is just fodder for the trades, but it’s the life blood of the internet sources.
I think I would be more sympathetic if I took that type of information more seriously.
It was a little odd to see CHUD making hay out of the McPhee thing, though in fairness, neither site ever did claim anything was in the works, and Smith even joked that any excuse to run the picture of McPhee in the yellow dress was good enough for him.
I have to do newsposts also for the site I work for, and source them. Still, when I find something on one of the more informal sites (joblo, AICN), I go back to the trades and see if I can find the story there. If it’s there, THAT’s where I link….because you’re right, Craig, it isn’t news if it isn’t in the trades.
I actually have no clue why we even do the newsposts, since it’s just repeating stuff read elsewhere. But it gets hits.
It really is an issue though: instead of real reporting or journalism, more and more “news” on the net IS just repeating stuff read elsewhere. And with even papers now reporting on internet buzz like it’s actual news, sometimes you wonder what gets lost in the process.
i read Jeremy’s post AFTER I wrote my comment, and I’d agree that he does go at the topic a bit more playfully than I suspected in my outraged comment, but he still takes it seriously and still pretends as though it’s the scrap of a legitimate scoop. So I remain disappointed in CHUD for falling into the same trap they used to mock.
It’s all about the hits Hedwig. In my case, it’s about generating conversation and it’s also about giving people the motivation to check in regularly, more than it is about drawing in new readers.
I want to be a part of what other people are talking about, if it’s interesting to me.
Joel, I think even in light of his tone, your irritation is founded because posting like that encourages bad behavior. On the other hand, I understand the pressure to constantly provide new material. As another movie writer once said in defense of some pretty shabby posts, sometimes you have to go for the low hanging fruit.
On the other hand, my point was that this kind of attitude is one of the things that keeps websites from achieving legitimacy in my book. They’re still too desperate for the easy hits to be completely reliable.
There’s a fine line between low hanging fruit and pointless blather. I’d prefer that both didn’t clog up my RSS reader, but what’s a guy to do?
This is why you’ve struck gold with LiC, Craig. You’re not breaking these meaningless stories (and I agree with you that they can hardly be considered “news”), but you’re still keeping your readers up to date with what’s going on.
Even if I catch a story somewhere else, I’ll come back here to read/talk about it anyway.
Agreed, Daniel. Not only that, when Craig does give us “news” he does it with the appropriate amount of snark.
Snarky and clever definitely counts for something, plus you all make it all the more worth it with the entertaining commentary that always ensues.
(group hug)
Just to clarify, Craig, my comment was in no way a dig at your site. As said above: you don’t just post the dry news, but you a) add your own touch to it, like for example with the studio pinheads, but sometimes also with a short remark or two, and b) you provide us with a place to discuss everything. I admire your diligence with this blog, and I hope my comment didn’t come off as a criticism. It’s just that these bone-dry, pseudo-journalistic posts I have to write sometimes bore me to death. You add something to the trade news, and even if I keep up with them for my job, I always read yours posts also. We just translate and abbreviate.
Not at all Hedwig. Your awesome comment on the Pinheads post made my whole week so you’d be allowed a little criticism :), but I didn’t take what you said that way at all anyway and I didn’t mean to sound defensive.
I’ve struggled with the idea of providing that information and I was just explaining my take on it. That’s not to say anyone else’s take is wrong, it’s just not for me.
I never expected LiC to be the first place people turn in the hope of finding fresh photos of the Batmobile or whatever, but luckily as Joel points out there are enough interesting people in the comments section right now to make it worth throwing out little nuggets of info.
The big draw back is that I could spend 24 hours a day just searching for stuff and reprocessing it, to the detriment of the rest of the blog and the things I hope are its core…primarily movie reviews. I feel that happening lately. I haven’t written an actual review in quite a while and that needs to stop.
Of course, I go through periods sometimes where I’m not feeling the writing. In the past, I just wouldn’t post at all, so the news at least helps keep things alive while I have writers block.
Ok, there’s far too much thinking aloud going on right here. Point is, I didn’t take what you said as a criticism at all. And even if it was, that’s ok.
I don’t think Variety or Hollywood Reporter cares whether the smaller sites link back to them or not. Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I don’t see how it matters. The purpose of the trades is to break news about announcements, casting, etc. They’ve been doing it for years and years and years - before these websites even existed.
And I actually have no sympathy for those “news” websites. None of the shit they report is actual news. You’re right, it’s information, but it’s not news. It takes no effort to host a website like that. You post a link and a brief comment and expect to be taken seriously as a journalist? Fucking please. That’s not professional work - it’s blogging. Those sites have nothing to offer beyond linking to the trades and other sources.
The only person who does quality work at the big sites is Moriarty at AICN. He writes extensive pieces, reviews, etc. He puts thought and time into his work and doesn’t act like the absolute authority on what’s good or bad. It’s difficult to say the same for a lot of the others out there. This is why I appreciate your site, Craig, and also MovieZeal, Bowen’s Cinematic, Cinematic Passions and a few others. These are blogs with quality writing and thoughtful opinion.
Thanks for this article, Craig. It highlights that journalists are even fussier and more proprietary than academics, or kids with competing lemonade stands. I appreciate your site as well and imagine it lasting longer than the print editions of Hollywood Reporter or Variety.
Thanks for the shout out, Ari.
I think you’re wonderful. But you are a Woody Allen fan.
So it’s no surprise at all…
I’m glad you enjoy your time here Ari, and I largely agree with you on the Internet based ‘news’ outlets. I’d add Devin at CHUD as someone who not only appears to work hard at gathering news, but also writes well and is frequently funny.
I agree with you about Moriarty too.
The kind of information we’re talking about here is very small potatoes for Variety or Hollywood Reporter that I’m sure is just handed to them by a publicist 90% of the time. I know the Internet puts a lot of stock in being ‘first’, but we’re not talking the cure for cancer.
Always happy to have you drop in Joe. Your site and Chuck’s and others who do the heavy lifting of constant reviews without the fluffy filler in between amaze me.
On this issue I’m unconcerned about agreed definitions of news versus information, blather versus serious journalism, what has been fact checked or not, who is well connected or not. If I use someone else’s research in my professional writing I cite them. To me, the fact of being a prominent and well respected trade outlet doesn’t absolve its journalists of this obligation. Individuals whose work is not cited have a legitimate basis for complaint. I’m not saying that every post on every site needs to cite the original source. But to present yourself/organization as the “originator” of breaking news/information, no matter how small, through the absence of citation, is simply dishonest, misrepresentation.
Does it make sense to agree with you in principle, but to not lose any sleep over it in practice?
Completely, we need to pick our fights on principle otherwise we’d be overwhelmed.
Yet it’s not hard to see why Latino Review and Collider are pissed off. This kind of thing is their stock and trade.