By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com
Pile On du Jour: David Carr
Here’s how I see much of the profoundly insightful criticism of David Carr in Page One and resulting media exposure…
Who Wore It Best?
Smacking David Carr for being the Will Rogers/Steven Tyler/Ron Jeremy/Tallulah Bankhead of media journalism is like hating comic book movies for being comic book movies… waste of time… and often, missing the fun of a really great show.
No one has been more snidely about David’s rosey glasses regarding his home team, The New York Times. But if media types could get past the pain that it’s not them who is emerging as a (bigger) star in a documentary – a.k.a. knowing they have a job for the next decade, short a revelation involving penis tweets or proof that he never inhaled – they would appreciate that the film is about them as much as it’s about Carr & Co.
In my view, it’s about the idea of journalism… layers of thinking… not just vomiting up whatever enters your earhole and may amuse a wide audience… challenging yourself so you have asked the key questions about what you are covering. This is what’s now missing from most journalism and what the NYT aspires to continue to represent.
Of course, you’ll still screw up. And if there is a missing act of Page One, it’s the idea of this machine dealing with a major f-up.
But expecting a documentary to be a comprehensive look at an organization as expansive as NYT, short of a 30-hour Ken Burns piece, is silly. Add in Bill Cunningham: New York and another dozen not-yet-made docs, including one on Judith Miller and in a few years, one on the pay wall, and you will have a complete-ish picture. But whining about the limited narrative of this film is a little like getting laid on a first date and complaining about being asked to wear a condom to do it.
So, David is now a target for some, a victim of being a compelling personality and not being too modest to let it fly.
Of course, most of the press response has been good. And being as turf-aware as David is, he saw this coming and has been acknowledging trouble might be brewing since my first conversation with him about the movie. He is a homer, but he genuinely wants to share it all with his colleagues at The Times (and elsewhere). He does not want to be The Brand. He always seems pleased and honored to have his place of work be a “higher power” that he can love and respect and remain in some awe of, even when it stumbles. NYT is bigger than Carr and Carr doesn’t doubt this. He explicitly keeps himself aware of any moment in which he might think himself equal to or greater than the institution, as that way lies bad things.
I admit… I am a Carr fan. We disagree on some of the things I consider most important. But I never doubt that he is an honest broker. And the list of those about whom I can say that about in this game is short. Very short. So I am that much more of a fan of those who are.
Shouldn’t we all be?
