MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

A New Level Of Arrogance

All I can say is, “Wow!”
Slandered by Patrick Goldstein in the morning… the attacking paper wanting free content for their effort in the afternoon.
The e-mail….
—–Original Message—–
From: Rushfield, Richard
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:09 PM
To: Rushfield, Richard
Subject: Your response sought
Dear Blogger,
As you may have seen, this morning the LA Times Calendar Section published a piece by columnist Patrick Goldstein taking on the phenomenon of online Oscar prognostication and the effect of blogs and the web rumor mill on entertainment coverage at large. You can read the full piece here:,0,2796255.story?coll=env-home-headlines
The Envelope, the Times’ awards site, would like to open up the debate on this question and invite you to respond to the Goldstein column. Over the next few days, we will feature on The Envelope site the responses of prominent bloggers and online entertainment reporters to the column.
If you would like to join the debate, please send your response to me at this address and we will post them quickly. Hope you can weigh in and share with us your perspective and experience on this issue. But please, as we are still a family corner of the internet, we’ll have to ask you to check any profanity at the door.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Best wishes,
Richard Rushfield
Senior Editor

Breathtaking. The first thing that actually generates any attention for The Envelope is a piece attacking everyone else. Think of the journalistic significance of that. The only thing left to build the LA Times film coverage on is bitter rage and the subsequent aftermath. Worthy of Karl Rove.
I will not be participating. I have said my share. And any discussion about whether the awards season has gotten out of hand will be on my own terms, not in response to Patrick Goldstein’s blathering.
But then again, Jeffrey Wells is already basking in the glow of being called “The Lewis Black of Oscar Blogging” and Tom O’Neil is sending out links to Goldstein and his lame response under the subject line, “OSCAR BLOGGERS BITCH FIGHT!”
Can we get any lower?

Be Sociable, Share!

13 Responses to “A New Level Of Arrogance”

  1. Blackcloud says:

    “Can we get any lower?”
    I feel confident in asserting that we will know the answer to that question sooner rather than later.

  2. tapley says:

    Hmm. Should I be upset I didn’t get such an arrogant email?
    (As I said in my own response – I just hope Goldstein loses my email address.)

  3. James Leer says:

    Hee. “Oscar Bloggers Bitch Fight.”

  4. PandaBear says:

    They got some balls. But I guess that is how they operate there.

  5. Angelus21 says:

    Did Goldstein have to look up what “blogging” meant?
    Out of touch.

  6. Josh says:

    Why do they have to solicit responses to something so blatantly terrible?
    Why not link up Dave’s response and his website? Or is that too much to ask?

  7. joefitz84 says:

    Tom O’Neil. Can you get lamer?

  8. tapley says:

    “Hmm. Should I be upset I didn’t get such an arrogant email?”
    Ha. Nevermind. It went to my junk folder. Tehe.

  9. Bruce says:

    The word “clueless” comes to mind.

  10. Blackcloud says:

    “Ha. Nevermind. It went to my junk folder. Tehe.”
    If I were Mickey Kaus, I’d say, “And so did the rest of the paper.” But I’m not, so I won’t.

  11. Sanchez says:

    Fine, I’ll say it. I trashed the rest of the paper.

  12. Blackcloud says:

    I stand corrected: Mickey Kaus has commented on Goldstein’s article. As Kaus might say, “At least Goldstein’s only covering the Hollywood beat, it’s not as if that’s important in L.A. or anything.”
    You have to scroll down a bit, it’s the second post after the long one on Bob Woodward.

  13. bicycle bob says:

    u think this guy feels a tad threatened on his little old perch?

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon