16 February 2001

THE UGLY: Apparently, Anita Busch and The Hollywood Reporter feel that I have some vendetta against Anita based on yesterday's column. On Thursday night, I received the following:

"February 15, 2001

http://www.davidpoland.com

Mr. David Poland - TNT Roughcut
Re: The Hollywood Reporter / Anita M. Busch

Dear Mr. Poland:

We are the attorneys for The Hollywood Reporter and Anita M. Busch, the editor of The Hollywood Reporter. We have received a copy of an article written by you on Thursday, 15 February 2001 and which is included on a TNT Roughcut web site – which in part states (respecting Anita Busch) "However, Anita came inches away from being fired on that story…". Your comments respecting Ms. Busch are false, defamatory and outrageous. They are totally reckless, unsubstantiated, irresponsible and uncorroborated. Your article egregiously violates the rights of our clients, and you and TNT Roughcut and its affiliated enterprises ("TNT") will be held strictly accountable and liable for any and all damages sustained by our clients.

As you are no doubt aware, your publication of false statements, which have not been substantiated or corroborated, and which consequently lack any credibility or truth, are clear evidence of actual malice on your part and on the part of TNT. Your malice is evidence of your failure to undertake a proper investigation, fabrication of information, and reliance upon persons who lack appropriate knowledge, among other factors.

We hereby demand that you and TNT forthwith cease and desist from any further use or publication of any reference whatsoever to Anita Busch or The Hollywood Reporter, and that any such references be forthwith redacted and removed from your article. Demand is furthermore made that you forthwith print on your web site in a conspicuous and prominent manner and position designed to reach the same readership as the offending article a retraction and apology acceptable to my clients with reference to this matter. Do not misunderstand the importance of this communication as it will not be one of a series of demand letters regarding this matter. Your reckless publication of the subject article has struck at the essence of our clients’ reputation, character and professional activities and business. We will not permit or tolerate the good names and reputation of The Hollywood Reporter and Anita Busch to be sullied by your reckless and wanton disregard for the truth.

This letter does not constitute a complete or exhaustive statement of all of our clients’ rights, claims, contentions or of the remedies of our clients, and does not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of any of our clients’ rights or remedies, legal or equitable, all of which are hereby expressly reserved. It is the intention of our clients to hold you and TNT responsible for your irresponsible behavior.

Yours truly,
FREDERIC N. GAINES
FNG/cm

cc:   Ms. Anita M. Busch (via telecopier)
cc:   Mr. Robert J. Dowling (via telecopier)"

I responded to the note by letting Mr. Gaines know that I no longer work for TNT, so they have no responsibility for yesterday's column. I also let him know that if the point of contention here is whether Anita was close to being fired or not, even though I did have more than one source 17 months ago when I first wrote about this issue, I will be happy to take Anita and Bob Dowling's word for it and retract that comment. There is nothing else in the column that isn't clearly noted as my opinion or sourced material. There is nothing that is remotely actionable. As for the future, I'm pretty sure that The Hollywood Reporter cannot tell me what to write in my column.

By being the one to print this e-mail, I have probably given up my right to litigate against The Hollywood Reporter for maliciously suggesting that I have EVER fabricated news. But I believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant. There has been exactly ONE example of a subject claiming I misrepresented them in my entire journalistic career. And I had the interview on tape. He said what I wrote he said. End of story. I have nothing against Anita and I haven't criticized her for any professional choices, as I can recall, since this incident. Why? Because she never did anything like it again. I won't speculate as to why, lest I be threatened again. I respect Anita's work. In fact, she was the one who helped me make my first contact with Entertainment Weekly, over five years ago, which led me to where I am today. I'm sure she'll hold the grudge, but I don't. She is a public person and, as such, she is open to professional criticism. You want a defamatory comment. Sue Peter Bart for saying that he doesn't really take THR seriously as competition. But don’t waste your money and time harassing me with your lawyer.

BAD AD WATCH: My favorite absurd ad this week is from Columbia, which built an entire print ad around Dannah Feinglass (you know, the Burly Bear Network critic) and her quote, "This comedy is off the charts. Funnier than There's Something About Mary!" So all the characters are on a chart! Worse? None of the characters are actually off the chart. Oops. The updated Big List O' Quotes can be found by clicking here.

READER OF THE DAY: El BeeGee: "For the longest time now I've been one of the few people I know of who gets vocal about vocal people in a movie theater.  Yes, I'm the guy in the auditorium who helpfully informs the idiot behind me (how do they ALWAYS know to sit behind ME??) that nobody's interested in his play-by-play commentary about the plot, and that if his friend wants to know what he missed in the last few minutes he should have refrained from walking out of the screening to answer his cell phone which SHOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED OFF IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The point of this is that my job just got tougher.  In today's Variety, they report that a new chain of movie "megaplexes" will be created that offer "dinner-quality" food (if they have to redefine the quality of food currently served, where exactly do those Ready-in-90-second chicken fingers rank??) and, if you can believe this,"possible waiter service at patrons' theater seats"!!!  Can you imagine a more insulting gesture to film lovers than that?  So what now...are movies to be considered merely background ambiance to keep the natives happy till their nine layer dip arrives?  Don't we have enough horrors being thrust upon us when going to the movies (rising ticket prices, immature employees who let ten year olds in to Hannibal screenings, a ratio of about 13 to 2 in terms of Coke ads to actual trailers for movies) without having to endure a couple arguing over what a proper tip to leave on two Diet Sprite slurpees and nachos is? 

It's all pretty depressing, actually.  As someone who is in love with movies and going to see movies in theaters, it seems more likely that my only refuge from this callousness is to simply watch everything on DVD.  At least in my own home I have the good sense to turn the ringer off."

E ME: So much to write about… have a great weekend. I'll be starting my legal classes.