MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Stuck In The Middle With Sludge

I guess I have no one to blame but myself, but I feel compelled to note this and it requires more than 140 characters…

When I write about the domino effect of low journalistic standards, I am usually supported. After a splash of Nikki news in the last 48 hours, The Daily is trying to jump on board the moving train after the bloodied their own nose with a scoop that turned out to be poop when the photo they had of Nikki turned out not to be Nikki.

The Daily, if you don’t know, is the iPad’s first Titanic, already in need of salvaging. And if you haven’t bothered checking in on your own iPad, it’s still running for free, even though the door was supposed to be closed to non-subscribers earlier this week. It seemed like a great idea by Rupert Murdoch, to make a great daily paper at a reasonable price for the iPad… but the content has been mediocre at best, which is shocking considering that they hired some very good people (some of whom are already ready to head out the door).

So, today, once we got past the 3 day old lead news story about Charlie Sheen… well, let me start again. After I got an e-mail and saw a tweet about The Daily having the scoop on why Nikki C&Ded Sharon, I went to the “paper” and saw that their lead story was Sheen. And then I saw Richard Johnson’s sad version of Page Six. He leads with a 2.5 week old story about Barry Avrich’s doc on Weinstein (the film premiered in Toronto on the 11th). Then the Nikki scoop is that he claims Nikki is blaming Sharon for giving Johnson Nikki’s address, where she was staked for 4 days before not having her photo taken.

But that’s not the scummy part. That’s just Johnson and The daily trying to make lemonade out of an aging turd they left on their own lawn. (Waxman is not the only one who says it’s not Nikki. Anne Thompson chimed in too. And based on the last time I saw Nikki, I would have to agree with them, though the vagaries of photography and possible plastic surgery make me an unreliable source after not seeing her in the flesh for about 6 years.) It was this that really disturbed me:

“Right or wrong, Finke blames Waxman for leaking her address.”

2 options. Either Sharon did give Johnson her address and he is hanging a source out to dry by bringing this up at all. The right thing to do – and does anyone do this anymore? – would be to shut the f*** up. Or Sharon did not give Johnson the address and he is leaving the door open to something he knows to be untrue. This is scumbaggery of the highest order.

Of course, the saddest part is that this is all over such low stakes… except for the bigger picture… which is the future of journalism, whether some want to seriously consider the chipping away at standards or not.

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Responses to “Stuck In The Middle With Sludge”

  1. bob cooper says:

    david…get a grip….your website is warmed over crap…nikki is it…period

  2. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Way to… miss the… point of… the… post

  3. JKill says:

    A scene from my Bob Cooper biopic:

    BOB COOPER types in his spartanly furnished apartment. Pizza boxes, McDonalds wrappers and empty bottles of Rolling Rock surround him as he types furiously onto his keyboard.

    CLOSE-UP of his monitor. The words form: “david…get a grip…your website is warmed over crap…nikki is it…period”

    BACK ON Bob, as he bites his lip and hits SUBMIT COMMENT.

    He clenches his fist.

    BOB: Toldja!

    A single tear drips down his cheek. Music swells.

  4. Foamy Squirrel says:

    I think all comments should be submitted in screenplay format from now on.

    (After this one, obviously. I’m too lazy to start right now)

  5. Dan says:

    You’re absolutely right, it’s a race to the bottom. And I don’t think the participants will notice that they are covered with mud at the end of it all.

    But isn’t it more interesting that all these determined journalists can’t get a single photo of Nikki Finke? That’s the real comment on the state of the H’wood news biz these days.

  6. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Maybe her laptop has become sentient and is merely continuing her last wishes, a la Totenkopf in Sky Captain?

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