16 February 2001

THE GOOD & THE BAD: As I keep writing, I am quite pleased that the L.A. Times has decided to reflect openly on the state of the movie business and how it relates to media. Some people have criticized the coverage for being the same old, same old. But the mere fact that the conversation is happening is important.

That said, I was really looking forward to the Thursday segment, with the L.A. Times analyzing the L.A. Times. Before I had a chance to read the story, I got an e-mail from Roland S. Martin, publisher of Black America Today News Report E-Letter, pointing out that the Times' Claudia Eller had refused to be interviewed for the story without the conditions that, according to David Shaw, "one of her editors be present for the interview and that she be allowed to approve or veto before publication the use of any direct quotations to be attributed to her." Shaw soft pedals the second demand as "not uncommon in Hollywood," but I have to tell you that I have NEVER done an interview in which the interviewee got to approve or veto quotes. At the New York Times Magazine, one writer was recently said to have been fired for letting an interviewee see the story before publication. Interview subjects are free to say what is on the record or off, for attribution or not, and how some things can or cannot be attributed. But that's during the interview, not pre-publication. And, as Martin wrote in his letter, "My anger stems from the fact that a journalist who would be appalled at such a request by someone else would ask for the same thing from a fellow journalist -- at her own paper!" I would publish the whole letter, but it has already run at Jim Romenesko's MediaNews, which happens to be my favorite site, even if it isn't about movies. Romanesko has created a sense of community that spans the nation and brings professional media people and their ideas together. Martin's letter and others, including one of my own, appear here.

When I read the story, I was surprised to see that I was mentioned (though not attributed to any outlet???) in regards to one of Claudia Eller's columns which I felt was too hard on Cameron Crowe for no apparent reason, other than Cameron's failure to return Claudia's call before she went to press. Shaw allows Eller to deny that there was any bias by standing by her facts. But, as my column said back then, it was not the facts… everyone, including me, had already written about the troubled relationship between Crowe and DreamWorks… but the tone of the piece that was problematic. Of course, this is a theme throughout Shaw's series. What is a lie? What is just spin?

Shaw writes, "Poland said the only reason he could think of for Eller's story was that Crowe didn't return Eller's phone call." He continues, "Eller denies that. She says she had numerous sources on the story and stands by its accuracy." Well, I never said the core facts were wrong.

What I wrote was, "What I do think is that Ms. Eller's piece on Almost Famous' failure to light up the box office was a story worth telling. (I've been writing about it for weeks, as have others.) But I also feel that Ms. Eller went way out of her way to turn a piece about the box office into an attack piece. And the only reason that I can figure out for the attack, based on the article, is that Crowe didn't return Eller's phone call. Now, there's a good reason to slam a man, a studio and a movie!" (You can read my whole piece by clicking here.)

Shaw also goes light on Eller by writing, "…she said that Crowe was so pained that he `refuses to come to the phone now to discuss' the film." What Claudia actually wrote was, "Crowe is understandably pained. So much so that the man who granted tons of interviews before his movie's release refuses to come to the phone now to discuss it." The first is about his pain... about the story that there was tension. But what she actually wrote sure seems to me like a shot at Crowe's choices about how he makes himself available to the press. Maybe I'm crazy… you tell me. In my book, these are the subtle differences between strong journalism and attack journalism.

Shaw also fails to point out some of Eller's other history, such as the no-holds-barred attack on Disney's Peter Schneider, which ran May 12, 2000, in which she mocks the executive by writing about the lunch and his behavior at it, rather than the topic at hand (the Dinosaur mess). Again, a legit story. Again, attitude ahead of reporting. (You can read my piece by clicking here.)

And then there is her falling out with Jeffrey Katzenberg, which is said by many to have been about his decision to give the DreamWorks SKG scoop to someone else and then exacerbated by the L.A. Times' coverage of his separation trial against Disney. Or look at her love letter to Amy Pascal at a critical moment at Sony.

It is certainly not fair to single out Claudia Eller for having favorites or favorite enemies. There are few of us who cannot be accused of that. As Ken Turan pointed out in Part Two of the series, the danger is the slow, insidious seduction of everyone who writes about Hollywood. But, in my opinion, recent years have seen more and more of how Claudia feels in her writing and less and less straight reportage. (James Bates was an excellent balance in the Business section.) The L.A. Times has allowed Patrick Goldstein that freedom. Perhaps Claudia should have been given a column that was more clearly defined as a personality column.

Anyway, I actually wish Claudia no ill will. There is such a thing as being in this game too long and too close. And I hope that her new assignment for the Times serves her and the industry well.

PAGE THREE: David Gets Threatened