MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Weinstein Butt Boy, Roger Friedman, Angles For A Settlement

The irony of Roger Friedman’s idiotic suit against Fox News/News Corp is that by looking away from Roger’s incredibly porous journalistic standards for so long, the many reasons other than the Wolverine foolishness to fire Roger can’t really be brought into play in defending this claim.
It’s a very similar road to the one that Nikki Finke took years ago when she sued The NY Post for firing her for cause – on a fact which she still doesn’t admit she was wrong about, but was, 100% – and claimed that Disney was colluding with the paper to have her fired. The case was not quickly thrown out of court, and after a few years, quietly settled. Nikki claims to have “won,” but as with all things Nikki, the facts about her actions are not available to anyone other than her and she is free to spin them into whatever variation of the truth she likes. (Only recently have other journalists been so comfy selling the hype… as they want, as the old When Harry Met Sally joke went, what she’s having. The joke was funny, even if the orgasm was fake.)
If Friedman is suing for $5 million, you can be sure that he and Martin Garbus are looking to walk away with something a million dollar settlement, paid to make it go away. He likely picked the Scientology angle because their organization doesn’t much like to be forced into the public eye. And by angling his case by positioning a wealthy Scientologist – who recently lost a child and wants to be out of the public eye – as his victimizer, he’s probably hoping that $1 million means so little to The Travoltas that they will pay to make it go away.
Roger is scum. Has been for as long as I’ve known of him. His very first spoken words to be were outright lies and scurrilous attacks. Little has changed. May he receive all that he deserves.

Be Sociable, Share!

4 Responses to “Weinstein Butt Boy, Roger Friedman, Angles For A Settlement”

  1. Cadavra says:

    Would that include the eight minutes he got on The Today Show this morning yammering about you-know-who? Sheesh…

  2. tfresca says:

    Isn’t it a little hypocritical to decry someone’s journalist ethics while at the same time throwing around the words but boy. Roger’s column was always entertaining and quiet often correct on some issues. It was obvious he’s in the bag for Harvey but so what. He’s a gossip columnist and he makes no effort to hide who he sucks up to. I also have to say I think his firing, if over the Wolverine thing, was very bogus and wrong. These same studios do business with AICN which made it’s bones dealing stolen or embargoed material. I don’t know how true these claims are about Fox and scientology but I wouldn’t put it past them and neither should you.

  3. boltbucket says:

    “Roger is scum. Has been for as long as I’ve known of him.”
    White suit in a shit storm, anyone? Anyone?
    Bueller?

  4. Lettie Preston says:

    If he calls you friend he will write anything for you. Example: Always tries to make Sam and Joyce Moore look innocent in the Billy Preston estate battle.

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