November 30, 2005

Stop.

Reset.

It is time for a deep, deep breath.

This is a column I've been considering for a few weeks. I don't feel that I need to address any attacks that have come the web's way lately, though it is amusing to read Romanesko and see a new "newspapers are okay!" piece every day.

But my issue starts closer to home and I think it is relevant to others. I have been kindly called idealistic about the window situation in the film business. But I would argue that mine is a call for self-preservation as we ramble down a road to destruction, followed by a rebuilding of a solid, but much smaller film business. Of course, this is fine with the multinationals that own the studios, so long as the risk factor is reduced.

Deep breath. What is expedient and what is best in the long run?

My main issue here, however, is news. What is news? What isn't news? How do we distinguish news in the era of the internet, the blog, the shifting balance of power. Just as Vietnam was the first war to show its horrors live on film from the field, the internet has stripped away the façade of news in a way that was never before possible.

The New York Times may well find its feet again and excel in the New Media world. But the point is that the Times (and others) set the standard for decades. If it ran in the New York Times, it was a fact. But the only reason we know about Jayson Blair is that Jayson Blair got caught. There are few reporters who really believe Judith Miller was all that much more sucked into bad reporting by insiders than many other reporters are every day. But as soon as you start asking questions, Pandora's Box opens wide and is hard to shut. Everyone is suspect... which is not necessarily a bad thing. That is, unless you are running a media outlet and suddenly a structure that was based on trust is newly dependent on layers of distrust… at the same time when revenues are down and you are cutting staff, not hiring additional babysitters.

Vietnam on TV. Nixon forced to resign.

These were great, easy stories for a new, aggressive media. Proud days indeed.

Clinton's blow job. The Florida election.

Not so easy. People took sides. Truths were bent or disregarded in whole. The management of lies was key. Factual answers are still, somehow, subject to debate. Tone is all over the place.

Back in "the day," there were a few major print outlets, the newsweeklies, the network news, Sunday morning news shows and eventually, CNN.

Now add Fox News and MSNBC. Add Drudge. Add Slate & Salon. Add blogs.

Who do you trust? How do "the majors" react to new challenges? With 30 or 40 important editors in chief out there instead of 10, how is news defined?

Well, with "the majors" feeling less muscular, competition is defining what news is more and more. Don't want to be scooped by Drudge? Hurry up. Don't want to get attacked for making dumb errors by bloggers? Slow down. Want to really be safe? Re-report what everyone else has already run.

Want viewers? Run car chases. Want more readers? Start a gossip column in a paper that has always been above bold-faced names.

But I am now a distance from my original intent.

When MovieCityNews came into the world three years ago, it was simpler. Instead of rewriting other people's stories as our own, we linked to the papers and web sites who we felt did the best job with the stories or if we could, to the reporter who originated the story. We also created our own content - and a lot of it - with writers who were veteran professionals more than capable of handling top reporting jobs at any outlet.

But as the blog world grew, the discussion about the aggregated stories expanded. A thrown telephone could be discussed for months. And, as usual, the really important stuff that is hard to report slipped between the cracks in most quarters. Suddenly, tiny stories that were really quite meaningless started to become "news" because there were so many people looking to make news, that they needed more fodder.

And now we see a more aggressive approach to the web by traditional media. On the film side, there is The Hollywood Reporter's Anne Thompson assuring on hiring that her weekly column will be freely accessible on the web and then starting a blog of her own under the Reporter banner. The L.A. Times starts The Envelope, featuring a grand total of zero writers who have ever delivered news on a daily basis scrambling to do daily news (in an arena where there is almost no real news… ever). And never fear, the New York Times will be rolling out "The Red Carpet" before to long, treading the same well worn turf. Variety has its awards page… The Hollywood Reporter theirs… and on and on.

And in this din, whatever meat is fed to the lions bounces around like a bingo ball on a Tuesday night. The time that is needed to stop, think, and decide whether each of us, as people who deliver content, need to be delivering this content.

If it prints (on paper or in bytes), is it news?

No.

That is the difference between news and gossip. Of course, that line is drawn differently by different people and outlets. But the line must be drawn.

I know of anyone who would fight off the amount of hype around Defamer these days. But with due respect to Defamer… are we nuts? The most important site about Hollywood is a site that aggregates gossip and writes often smart, always snarky comments around it? Okay, if you say so.

So why don't we all just try to out-Defamer Defamer? Lots of sites out there do, but many others are trying to stay in a different arena than that site.

Within a week of Defamer's launch, a studio exec/friend said to me about a particularly raunchy MCN headline, "You know, you don't have to compete with Defamer." And he was right. That's not why we do MCN. But the seduction of competition with a very clever gossip site getting accolades for "covering Hollywood" is intense.

I have made the argument about the New York Times for years. As the standard bearer, I expect a higher level of journalistic professionalism from the paper. Maybe it seems unfair to you, but it is not to me. I want to have a gold ring for which to reach. I need to have that gold ring up there because I need to have a reason to stretch because you deserve me stretching.

The seduction of being on the web 24/7/365, whether posting headlines or blogging or writing this daily column (which started before blogs existed and has never been written in the format of a blog, which is as clear a distinction as writing for TV vs film), is to react to everything and to react quickly. And it has proven to be a terrible instinct to indulge… if you take anything you cover seriously.

I am guilty enough… I'm not just pointing fingers. In fact, today, I point the finger or responsibility squarely at myself.

I must be more careful.

I must be less reactive.

I must learn to shut up more often.

I must avoid thinking that "first" is always best.

I must manage my ego, both in keeping it down and letting it loose.

I must find my most stringent standards again an embrace them without counting us the cost of doing the right thing.

It may not be cool. It may not be "what the kids do." But it is the only choice that doesn't lead to blending into the puddle of media, waiting around for someone to make a random splash.

It's the same notion that suggests that movies delivered day and date will just be so much television.

And I can't blame all the other kids who do otherwise. It all starts with the individual. And that is the glory - and the painful responsibility - of the web.

E-ME.