Week Of July 31, 2006 - Mon / Wed / Fri

July 31, 2006

How Variety describes the evolution of the Gibson story...

"In early coverage Friday, the mainstream media (cable and broadcast news, newspapers) mostly treated the Gibson incident as a simple DUI arrest. Few mentioned Gibson's alleged outbursts. But the Internet was abuzz with the news, citing documents posted by TMZ.com and reporter Harvey Levin, which detailed Gibson's alleged anti-Semitic statements (as well as the report that he called a policewoman "Sugar tits")."

What really happened...

AOL/Time-Warner's internet gossip sheet, TMZ.com, broke the DUI story at 3:15p Friday, after all the Old Media types had headed out for the weekend. There was no knowledge of any anti-Semitic outbursts noted in any way in any medium. "Traditional Media" did the best they could with half-ass, all-but-unreported, based-on-TMZ stories on the DUI. TMZ.com then broke the tirade story at 9:15p, after all the "Traditional Media" was in bed.

Nikki Finke was the first to get the Sheriff's Department to confirm that the rant would be in the police report, though it is still unclear whether the denial of a cover-up was a cover-up itself. Anne Thompson was the first to publish the Alan Nierob apology from Gibson, though not on the Hollywood Reporter front page, but on her blog. And by the time the L.A. Times and N.Y. Times got to print, their stories - with little to add, except the 11 LAT reporters who found out that there would be an investigation about whether there had been any move to cover up Gibson's tirade - had been on their website for hours.

It is possible that Variety.com and Gabriel Snyder are the victim, in terms of how they pieced together the history of this, of another bad new web trend… updating stories instead of writing new pieces that leave a trail of the new additions with times and dates, so the development of the story can be followed. Others have used this scam, adding to a link that has already been picked up by other web sites, instead of indicating a new piece of information. So one can add small pieces to the puzzle, some reported, some acquired from the reporting of others, through the day and never blur the line of self-aggrandizement. History gets awfully blurred this way and it should not stand.

But my bigger point is, this has been an internet-driven story, first and last. It was not because "Traditional Media" was showing any restraint, but because they were too slow to get the news reported as it happened.

For me, the idea that a gossip site is driving the news cycle - and this is major news in Hollywood - is horrifying. But there are real reporters at TMZ.com, in spite of their low aim. And they won the day here. They deserve the credit.

We may never know whether TMZ.com acquiring those four pages of alleged original reportage by one of the arresting officers was the basis for the bigger story - Gibson's tirade -ending up in the police report… and whether those pages were slipped to TMZ.com by someone who wanted to make sure the whole story came out.

The same is true of the letter from Jim Robinson to Lindsay Lohan that turned up on TheSmokingGun.com last week. The mystery wasn't whether Lohan was screwing up. Another gossip site, Defamer.com, was, as it tags itself, unhealthily obsessed with Ms. Lohan, and followed every step of her week even before Jim Robinson's missive turned up on the web. Who knows? Perhaps their coverage of Ms. Lohan partying heartily through the night in spite of being "hospitalized for exhaustion and dehydration" and not being on set during the day was what embarrassed Mr. Robinson enough to send the letter, leak the letter, or both.

The dynamic is new, even if the song is old. The media has driven stories forever. But the range of stories and the intensity of the scrutiny has increased. For someone to get the Robinson/Lohan Letter into the media just a decade ago, they would have to go to a major paper, cough up the evidence, and then hope that a story actually came out the other end. The story could likely be squelched by any major player on the food chain, from the studio to the producer to the actor's agent. But even more importantly, the newspaper's editors had to find news value in the story. And in the days between receiving the information and running a story, the story would evolve… as in Ms. Lohan returning to work, as she has now done.

In addition, there is the gossip page - and the "mainstream" tabloid press - following this girl around, recording every step she takes in public. Are we really benefited by knowing what she drinks, what tattoos she gets, what bikinis she wears, and who she sleeps with? Any one of those might make a cover of an old school Hollywood scandal sheet. But these days, if all four don't get reported daily, it seems like a quiet respite.

What is "Mainstream Media" to do?

When that line between news and gossip gets too blurry to see clearly, relying on the old rules seems to fall somewhere between anti-competitive and moldy. But when two stories like this, which really do seem to be news, are reported first and exclusively by a gossip website, Traditional Media needs to learn to just clear themselves of their biases against the internet and move along on the story as they would on a story broken by one of their own. And then, they have to learn not to overreact to being late to the party.

The distinctions can wrestle you like a bear. As an internet writer who deeply believes in the values of Traditional Media, I find myself struggling with many of the same issues that plague the minds of those in print. How far does one go to be popular before one becomes a whore? How many outlets can opine on the same story before we are all choking on the "insights?"

Far too often, ideas bounce around the web and T.M. endlessly, taking on the colors of the opinions of others and not a clear and distinct editorial voice. The question I am always asking, whether considering our MCN coverage or looking for the best stories to link to about a given subject, is what the outlet is adding to the story. Adding is not enough. In fact, there is often subtraction by addition. Yet, if we stay within our own wake, maintaining a clear focus, it is all too easy to isolate ourselves into myopia. Balance is delicate.

And unlike the previous historic highpoint of "web journalism" - Drudge breaking the Lewinsky story - the reporting here was completely web driven, where Drudge was exposing Newsweek reporting that had been held up… by editors who were trying to give the story enough space to make sure they had it right.

In a few days, it won't matter where this issue broke. All that will matter is how the world, represented by the media, reacts and remembers. And for the media - all media - a lingering question… how much is enough? How much is too much? And is there any difference between an old whore and a new whore?

E Me.

---

Week Of April 3, 2006 - Life In the Bubble - Mon / Wed / Fri
Week Of April 10, 2006 - List Week - Mon / Wed / Fri
Week Of April 17, 2006 - Review Week - Mon / Wed / Fri
Week Of April 24, 2006 - Overlooked Week - Mon / Wed / Fri
Week Of May 1, 2006 - Mystery Week - Tue / Wed / Fri
Week Of May 8, 2006 - How We Watch Week - Mon / Wed / Fri
Week Of May 15, 2006 - Premature Week - Oscar Mon / Wed / Fri
Week Of May 22, 2006 - B-13 Mon / Inconvenient Wed / Fri
Week Of May 29, 2006 - Wed / Fri
Week Of June 5, 2006 - 666 Tue / Iraq Doc Wed / Seattle Fri
Week Of June 12, 2006 - SIFF Mon / SIFF Wed / Fri
Week Of June 19, 2006 - Cinevegas Mon/Deliver Us Wed/Prada Fri
Week Of June 26, 2006 - Pirates Mon / Super Again Wed / Fri
Week Of July 5, 2006 - Wed
Week Of July 12, 2006 - M. Night Mon | You, Me & Wed | Monster House Fri
Week Of July 17, 2006 - 8 A Year Mon / Water Wed / Revamp Fri
Week Of July 24, 2006 - Comic-Con Mon / Gossip Wed / Fri