The Hot Blog

actually, that was mussolini.

in a poll last year a majority of journalists answered that they believed it was the duty to interpret the news, not just report it (i don't have exact details at hand, but can post later if anyone really cares). so, i'm not surprised at this at all.

I just asked this question to a friend the other day and this reminded me...

If I'm shooting a doc or some kind of footage, I have to get signed waivers from everyone on camera OR put up a sign that says if you enter this area, you may get filmed. If I accidentally get someone on tape and they didn't agree-I have to blur out their face.

Why does the paparazzi have the right to shoot celebs and air tapes like this Ledger drug use one without express written consent from the subject? Is there implied consent because they're celebs or is it just a law that gets trampled on??

Any ideas or reasons why would be GREAT!

celebs are considering a part of public domain. the reason for a waiver is because of a person's right to privacy. a famous person waives that right as a result of being a celebrity. it's about reasonable expectation of privacy.

ET is scum. Digg this.

Petaluma -- I don't think news journalists are required to get waivers from everyone they film; if they did, we could never film a war. I suspect the "news" definition has been stretched and distorted to include entertainment news. But movies, even docs, are categorized as entertainment (as are TV shows like COPS, which blur out perps' faces even though local newspapers and TV news may show them), and have different rules than "news."

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems like a plausible explanation.

Couldnt agree more. I'm forwarding those 2 emails to everyone I know. Also, I love how Nikki Finke got thrown into that verbal "fuck" fest. Keep up the amazing work David.

Shameful is pulling out the old Holocaust analogies to hammer a point home. Is it just me or is there complete double standards when it comes to our perception of a famous person.

Anna Nicole's labia being sold on ebay before she's cold won't raise an eyebrow...but an introverted talent pills-out and the same coverage via Hollywood hacks since the 1950s suddenly causes blogging piques.

Nothing has changed Dave. There were no good old days. I understand your anger but the only thing that's really changed is the speed of delivery.

The scum covering the same old ground, still smells the same to me. Its not right but it's the place where you butter your bread Dave.

So swallow the contempt and have another sandwich big guy.

Is it known how long ET was sitting on that video? In any case, David is right - these people have no shame or soul. It's sad that another one of the bad side effects of the WGA strike so far has been that the already tiny standards of the journalist community have been lowered even farther.

This is the show that went from a piece about Heath Ledger on moment to a piece on Jessica Alba's increasing bust-size the next. So...

So well written, David...I paraphrase John Lennon as far as the tabloid approach of so-called "entertainment" shows nowadays....How do they sleep at night?

Was ET *always* scummy?

I seem to remember that in its early days, it was harmless puff-piece B-roll with Burt pimping his latest, or the cast of Dynasty getting lobbed softballs, presided over by innocuous Mary Hart.

Last I paid any attention to it, they seemed to be milking the Anna Nicole story for months and months and interviewing plastic surgery freakshows.

Leonard Maltin is still on there? Whatever his flaws as a (squeamish, stuffy) critic, he's a reputable film historian and smart, likable guy... Shame some good people are still sticking around on a show that's nearly hitting TMZ levels.

Yes, this net schlock must've changed the game for E.T.

They used to be a simple venue to promote the latest stars and flicks coming out (with a few Cindy Crawford stories thrown in), but now they appear to be the worst of the worst.

Lex, generally it's just as you described it except instead of Dynasty it's their constant "exclusive" on the set of Desperate Housewives and harmless puff pieces presided over by Mary Hart (she's still there).

And then there's Cojo. A man/woman who is like nails on a chalkboard. Has he actually become so effeminite that he's now technically a woman?

Of course they now take person tragedy and make it into like a sick competition. It happened with Anna Nicole and then Britney and now Heath and it'll continue.

The campaign to lean on Paramount worked. AP (via NY Daily News) says "Entertainment Tonight" will not air that Heath Ledger video.

Then again "ET" might not have aired the tape tonight thanks to Ms. Spears being committed.

You couldn't be more wrong, JBD.

It's not the same. Traditional Media is lowering its bar.

Increased ease of access to immoral things is not nothing. And yes, there is a tendency in the world to feel all ancient and think the sky is falling.

Issues like video sharing are complex and "immoral" versus "it's the future, dude" need to be discussed and debated seriously over years as technology evolves. But watching the car wreck on the side of the road will always be the same.

And you, jumping on the last sentence of a long post to try to win the day is cheap and avoids of any real discussion.

I'm not pining for the controlled "good ol' days," but this is not "same as it ever was" and your cynical apathy is pathetic.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: