website statistics

Archive for the 'Scandal' Category

What’s So Difficult About a Hat Tip?

A movie news and reviews website named Latino Review has a pretty interesting lead article on the front page right now, titled “Why both Variety and The Hollywood Reporter TOTALLY SUCK!” Here’s an extended excerpt, although there is much more in the full piece:

A little over a week ago, on May 14, 2008 we exclusively broke the news that Jason Reitman, the director of Juno was adapting the book UP IN THE AIR which you can read HERE. Later on that afternoon, Jason Reitman’s publicist Bebe Lerner of ID PR called me personally and asked me to update our story. Our scoop forced her to go into spin mode. Bebe wanted us to say that Reitman’s directing deal for UP IN THE AIR was not yet in place. We kindly obliged. In return, the only thing we asked Ms. Lerner to do was to tell the Hollywood trades to either mention or credit us with breaking the story. She agreed. As a precaution, when we broke the story we even emailed Borys Kit over at The Hollywood Reporter and a reporter at Variety. …

Later that night at Midnight (EDT), Variety posted the story on their site which you can read here. Guess what? We weren’t mentioned. We emailed Tatiana Siegel and Michael Fleming (Variety) and kindly requested that their story recognize our contribution and properly credit us. We were ignored.

An hour later at 1A.M., The Hollywood Reporter ran their story without crediting us over here. We were heartbroken.

Later that morning on May 15, 2008, we again emailed Ms. Siegel and Mr. Fleming at Variety and once again we we’re ignored. At least Borys Kit from The Hollywood Reporter was kind enough to email us back, apologize, and explain the situation.

That apology is bittersweet though because Borys Kit and Variety did it to us again today with the news of Jake Gyllenhaal being cast as the lead in Prince of Perisa which we first broke HERE ABOUT A MONTH AND HALF AGO ON APRIL 8TH. This not only happens to us but to all movie websites and bloggers that break exclusive news.

I’d never heard of the site before and unless you’re a serious upcoming movie junkie (once upon a time when I subscribed to Entertainment Weekly, I was) you may not have, either. But here’s one I bet you have: Ain’t It Cool News. According to Latino Review, AICN has been mentioned by Variety and THR “a grand total of 7 times.” That sounds awfully low, but it also doesn’t sound impossible.

Indeed, this not only happens to movie bloggers but all bloggers that break exclusive news or develop new stories. Blog P.I. has noted this phenomenon more than once:

Mickey Kaus, who left the MSM of his own volition for the relative freedom (”no money, no editors”) of the blogosphere, complained about this earlier in the week:

There’s an implicit model underneath [Newsweek’s Jonathan] Alter’s comments–blogs as the minor leagues, Off Off-Broadway, trying out storylines and scoops that may or may not make it to the Big Show. I have to admit I’ve embraced this model myself, as “Model Two.” I think blogs are (for the moment***) particularly suited to functioning as a sort of intermediate tryout area for burgeoning scandals (”undernews”). …

Alter makes big bucks because he’s called on to write about the story of the day at the precise moment it breaks out into the mainstream–and not a moment too soor! If the US bombs a Syrian nuclear reactor, the public wants to know about it right then–and Alter more or less has write about it or have a pretty damn good excuse why not. Newsweek’s editors, in effect, can make Alter jump. He’s very good at it. I’m not.

The problem with the “minor league” model of the blogosphere, is that it’s simply an extension of this “just in time” model of journalism–blogs are a conveyor belt, if you will, delivering news. ideas and angles to the MSM on a precise production schedule.

Of course, we also know that some of the brightest lights in the mainstream media both fear and loathe the blogosphere, simultaneously viewing them as competitors and parasites. To their mind, both are reasons to deny bloggers credit for the work they contribute in this asymmetrical media landscape.

The best defense they can offer, which Latino Review addresses in its rant, is the claim that blogger scoops are unverified gossip, while their reports are confirmed and fact-checked. They can say this without being effectively challenged because a) many bloggers, Kaus notoriously so, will write about unconfirmed stories that rise only to the level of gossip, and b) newspapers and magazines have multiple-source standards and established procedures for confirming their reporters’ work.

But it’s also true that sometimes blogs break legitimate news the MSM initially won’t touch or simply miss, and that sometimes the established news-gathering and -publishing processes break down. But never mind that — mainstream outlets hog the credit and spread the blame.

A blogger’s best hope is to be called up to the big leagues like Justin Rood, who went from TPMmuckraker to ABC News, or Brian Stelter, who went from TV Newser to the New York Times.

But we’re starting to get off track here, so let’s return to Latino Review’s narrow point: what to do when mainstream news organizations won’t acknolwedge true reports that originate in the blogosphere? In the short term, all anyone can do is raise the issue when it happens. Plagiarism is a serious issue in journalism, and eventually, some newspaper will be embarrassed enough that a visionary editor will require its reporters to acknowledge when a story they’re covering started online. Not only will this give credit where it’s due, but it will help news consumers look into the matter for themselves.

And when will this actually happen? My guess is about the same time the Pulitzer committee starts handing out awards for online journalism. In other words, I hope you’re very, very patient.

Shakespeare’s Sister, Meet Spitzer’s Hooker

I fully admit the title of this post makes no sense. I suppose I could conjure an overwrought analogy, but that would be no better than the equally senseless, half-baked uses of the word “Shakespearean” Stephen Marche rails against today at TNR.com:

Everybody’s calling Eliot Spitzer’s fall “Shakespearean.” I’ve seen the comparison made in The Wall Street Journal, on blogs, even on Fox News, and I wonder if other Shakespeare scholars find this as cringe-worthy as I do. Even if he did quote Hamlet in his high school yearbook, Spitzer’s story is in no way Shakespearean and he certainly is nothing like a Shakespearean hero. Not even a little bit.

Characters like Hamlet or Macbeth are destroyed by the virtues which lifted them to greatness in the first place. The most remarkable feature of the whole Spitzer debacle, his extreme hypocrisy, is maybe the one characteristic all Shakespearean tragic heroes lack. …

All [these pundits] are saying is that something dramatic has happened. “Shakespearean” used to mean a situation of extreme emotions in high politics mixed in with a measure of the unfathomability of fate. Now it is shorthand for any situation in which somebody becomes powerful and/or loses power. The whole range of Shakespearean terms has been debased. “Lady Macbeth” is shorthand for any ambitious woman. “Othello” is shorthand for anyone jealous. “Hamlet” is shorthand for anyone who overthinks. The time has come either to use these terms far more selectively or to retire them altogether.

Marche was the first to say it like an English teacher, but he is not in fact the first to say it at all. Dean Barnett at the Weekly Standard beat him to the “you’re no Shakespeare” punch by more than two weeks:

“Shakespearean” suggests a certain nobility of character that eventually lost out to the tragic figure’s flaws. Pardon me for playing Mickey the Dunce, but where, pray tell, was Eliot Spitzer’s nobility? As a prosecutor, he was a bully. As a husband and a father, he was a wretched failure who brought humiliation to his family while violating their trust in a serial manner. And finally, when the gig was up and he could have earned a small measure of redemption by showing a little honor and dealing forthrightly with his shortcomings, what did he do? He refused to face the music. He didn’t answer press inquiries. He uttered some rank rubbish suggesting he had a disease. And he hid behind the wife that he had treated so poorly.

This is, of course, a slightly different gloss on what “Shakespearean” is supposed to mean. But where Barnett says “nobility,” Marche says “dignity.”

Of the 76 results at Google News for Spitzer + Shakespearean, they aren’t all responsible for the cheapening of “Shakespearean.” Then again, those who object also have somewhat different notions of what “Shakespearean” is supposed to mean. But I’m inclined to think they all have a point.

Make sense?

All the Rage #1: Sir Arthur and the Green Knight

Today Blog P.I. launches a new feature, or what I hope will actually become one: a look at the Top 10 most-edited pages on the English-language Wikipedia for the past week, with an explanation for why each page made the top ten. Some will be obvious to anyone who keeps tabs on current events, so rather than giving a terse “duh” I’ll endeavor to pull a non-obvious detail or amusing factoid from the edit history.

This would be completely impossible without WikiRage, an online resource keeping track of the most-edited pages for various time periods and categories. We’ll be using the previous week and the raw number of edits. Also, credit for the concept goes to the podcast Wikipedia Weekly which has done something similar before. However, as I count just three episodes 2008 YTD, it is weekly in name only. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen to us. With that, let’s look at the list for the week of March 16-22:

  1. Article: Arthur C. Clarke
    Why: The celebrated author of “2001: A Space Odyssey” and many other science fiction stories passed away this week at age 90.
    Detail: His death loosed a number of obituaries and many, many edits clarifying many aspects of his life and stories.

  2. Article: 2008 unrest in Tibet
    Why: It’s more than a current event; it’s the worst political turmoil in mainland China since the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations.
    Detail: Despite China’s attempts to keep the lid on news coverage it has generated plenty, and no small amount of disagreement about what belongs in the article.

  3. Article: Deaths in 2008
    Why: Among the notables passing away in the past week: Science fiction writer Clarke, film director Anthony Minghella, actor Paul Scofield, former child aviator Vicki Van Meter.
    Detail: Not currently evident from the page, an editing skirmish over whether to include Abigail Taylor, a six-year-old Minnesota girl who drew headlines when her intestines were partially sucked out by the drain of a public swimming pool.

  4. Article: Britney’s New Look
    Why: It was the new episode of South Park this week. It was also about Britney Spears, which must count for something.
    Detail: Fans of the show take the plot summaries very seriously.

  5. Article: Bear Stearns
    Why: Facing imminent collapse, the brokerage firm sold to JP Morgan Chase for $2 a share, down from $30 the week before and $172 at its height.
    Detail: Bear Stearns has its defenders; the “Controversy” section dealing with the crisis itself is still yo-yoing between deletion and re-inclusion. Who will win? I’d bet on a slightly toned-down and retitled version of that section. One can’t argue the plunge in share price and sale is not a key event in the company’s history.

  6. Article: David Paterson
    Why: Not only is he the new governor of New York, but he’s already embroiled in a controversy over whether he abused state resources in conjunction with admitted romantic affairs.
    Detail: Prior to taking over for Eliot Spitzer this week, Paterson was said to be the first legally blind governor of any U.S. state. However, that may be a matter of dispute.

  7. Article: 2008 NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Tournament
    Why: Productivity plummets (not really) as March Madness sweeps office spaces across the country.
    Detail: This page is amazingly detailed. Whomever designed the bracket templates, I salute you.

  8. Article: Horton Hears a Who! (film)
    Why: It was the number one movie at the U.S. box office this week. Detail: Now that the film has been released, moviegoers are building out the entry. Oh, the things some people see fit to add to Wikipedia entries.

  9. Article: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
    Why: This staple of college-level English courses hasn’t changed in 500 years… right?
    Detail: Turns out there is a new translation of the poem out. At least, that’s where I think what is causing a number of edits aiming to emphasize Freudian and homoerotic subtext in the tale. However, other Wikipedians disagree — and both have been debated on the discussion page. Literary fight! Then again, some vandals want others to confuse it with Monty Python.

  10. Article: Brian Posehn
    Why: On March 19, the comedian and actor mentioned editing his own Wikipedia entry on Late Night with Conan O’Brien
    Detail: It’s amusing how would-be Wikipedia editors can’t even agree on what Posehn actually said.

Well, that’s it for this week. If you have questions or comments about this feature, please let us know.

The Swarm: From Zero to Spitzer

The Swarm Mini-LogoA few hours from now, Eliot Spitzer will surrender the office of New York governor to David Paterson. A few hours from now, it will be exactly a week since the New York Times posted the first report on its website about Spitzer being “linked” to a prostitution ring.

So what did that initial explosion look like, online? All it takes is a little bit of trial-and-error on Memeorandum, the live-updated aggregation of the political blogosphere, find out where the Spitzer scandal first popped into online consciousness. Specifically, it appeared about midway down the page of the 2:20 p.m. update like so:

Eliot Spitzer story first makes Memeorandum

Just kinda sandwiched in there between a couple other articles getting some contemporaneous linkage from around the ’sphere. Hats off to Jammie Wearing Fool and New York Magazine — one pure blogger, one blogging MSM outlet — for getting there first, even if some luck played a part in their picking up the Times report ahead of the pack. And it didn’t take an hour for the rest of the pack to join in. The article reached its highest point of linkage at 5:15 in the evening, just shy of three hours after it was first posted:

Spitzer scandal eventually rises to the top of Memeorandum

The rest is recent history: the offline mediasphere swooped in after, Gov. Spitzer threw in the towel after 48 hours’ thought, and his consort, Ashley Alexandra Dupre/DiPietro/Youmans joined Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails among the few musical artists to earn millions releasing music online. Aside from a “60 Minutes” interview a few years down the road (his) or a reality show on E! (hers) this story is about done. Coincidentally, just in time for the McGreevey sex scandal to make headlines and bloglines once again.

Bonus pre-scandal tidbit: Lest we fgorget, here’s Hotline’s Quote of the Day from Feb. 27:

“I’ll be there maybe later in the week or next week, if this continues.” NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer, explaining why he won’t be campaigning for HRC in OH 2/27

In retrospect, I’m sure he would have rather spent that week campaigning for Sen. Clinton.

Breaking Once, Breaking Twice… Broken!

Here is a rare peek inside my Gmail inbox, only minutes ago:

Politico's identical Breaking News alerts

And how are these two stories different?

Simple, really. You see, the first one they grabbed off the AP wire. The second one was written by a Politico staffer, Carrie Budoff Brown.

The first version contains this canned response from Larry Craig spokesman Sidney Smith:

“We’re still preparing as if Senator Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we’re able to stay in the fight - and stay in the Senate.”

Whereas the Politico’s version contains this canned response from Larry Craig communications director Dan Whiting:

“As he stated on Saturday, Senator Craig intends to resign on September 30. However, he is fighting these charges, and should he be cleared before then, he may, and I emphasize may, not resign.”

Was this worth alerting me twice? I can’t see how. I generally appreciate the alerts they send out. But right now, the only thing separating Politico from Fox News or MSNBC is a sound effect.

Update: Okay, at this point, I kind of just give up.

Cold Wind in August

It rained some in the District during August, but it was cold at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Among the Republican politicians and officials announcing resignations or retirements in the past thirty days:

Chuck Hagel could have a similar announcement within weeks. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, survivor (of John Thune and a kind-of stroke) Tim Johnson alone in the Senate remains a question mark. Heck, Lautenberg sounds like he’ll stick around to beat Strom Thurmond’s record.

Who am I missing?

P.S. That said, I think the editors at TNR Online are going about this all wrong:

John Judis on the 2008 Senate election

Judis’ actual piece is pretty much straight analysis, not at all implausible, and definitely not gloating like the long headline. And what’s with the short headline? Dear Editor, for the analogy to work, isn’t Judis arguing this will be a Blue Dawn? Remember, the Reds were the enemies.

Just Because You’re Paranoid Doesn’t Mean They’re Not After You

Macsmind laments an imbalance in attention to non-Larry Craig imbroglios this week:

Now on the same day that this story broke two other stories broke which contained absolute bombshells to both Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party in general. The first was the fact that George Soros’s defunked America Coming Together received the third largest fine in FEC history for voter fraud during the 2004 election. The other news of course - which hasn’t been told completely - is the growing campaign scandal involving several democratic candidate for president - including Hillary Clinton. Both stories were just about knocked off the page by the Craig story and the obvious question was who behind the witholding of the story - again for two months - as almost to emerge the minute anti Hillary Clinton or anti democratic stories unfold.

First I’d like to point out, these stories (plus the not-so-distant Vitter revelations) mark another example of a cliché that isn’t necessarily wrong: Republicans can’t have sex, and Democrats can’t have money.

Second, he’s not wrong — the Hsu story might have been observed as a sign for Democrats that a Hillary Clinton administration could be scandal-ridden like her husband’s (well, not exactly like). And the left accuses Republicans of election-stealing enough that the Soros group’s financial misdeeds could have been pundicized, and bore greater scrutiny. Instead it seems to have only bored.

In fact, this this IceRocket trend chart showing comparative mentions almost makes the above observations sound understated:

Larry Craig vs. Norman Hsu vs. George Soros

Indeed the GOP gay no-sex scandal carried the week, and while that may be unfair, it certainly isn’t surprising. While there may well be solid examples of liberal-leaning reportorial and editorial decisions to be found throughout all this coverage, one also cannot deny the human drama of Craig’s unraveling career is more compelling than improprieties by non-electeds. In a tabloidy way, of course. After all, sensationalism is a troubling media bias, too.

P.S. Less than a year ago, this blog defended Sen. Craig against rumors very similar to his Minneapolis bust. Whoops! But based on the evidence at the time, no apology is necessary. A whisper campaign that turns out to be right is still a whisper campaign. A named source would have been a different story.

P.P.S. Mickey Kaus has a point about what Soros did and didn’t do. What he didn’t do was anything that conservatives and libertarians think should be illegal. What he did do was run afoul of existing FEC regulations. But conservatives have lost those battles, at least for now. What should be done is to change those laws, not excuse Soros for breaking them.

Breaking: AP says Craig is out. And you know what I mean.