The Hot Blog

Srsly, Dave

Stop attacking other people (justified or not) and let your journalism speak for itself.

Is anyone really interested in whether or not Nikki Finke is a good journalist? Everyone that reads your blog knows she's an idiot, why must you drill it into our heads?

Because you aren't right about that, a loco.

Firstly, "my journalism" is irrelevant to the conversation. I don't know why this is so hard for people to get into their heads. The only way in which "my journalism" is relevant is that I - ironically, like Nikki, have the freedom to write what I want... and I have the power to write without worrying about Nikki doing anymore than she has already tried to do to me because, a) she's already tried her best to hurt me and has had no effect on me or my business, b) she knows that I know how she works and that I will not lay down just because she harasses me privately, and c) she will never acknowledge me publicly - in her gossip blog on by threatened lawsuit - for fear that her actions will lead to a further legitimizing of what I have always written about her, aka the truth.

The role this allows me is as a gateway to others... to let them know, loud and clear, that they do not have to be afraid of Nikki. Her "power" starts with the perception of the value of gossip in Hollywood, but it is mostly about fear; fear of being embarrassed... fear that people will assume that anything that is written and passed around as fact, no matter how far from the truth, will be tattooed on them for life... fear of Nikki's harassment and the awareness that, as with all gossip, one plugged leak will lead to another hole in the dike because there is always someone who has a motive to try to use the gossip outlet to their benefit and they only realize they are in a maze that has no good end once they are inside.

"Bad journalism" is not the problem with Nikki Finke. If it were journalism in any real way, it would eventually correct itself. I have seen this happen before in professional journalistic settings. And we will see it happen again. The journalism world has checks and balances and, usually, they work. But the brave new world of self-publishing pushes that aside.

And unlike AICN, where the players eventually grew up and realized that they could only be a marginal player if they kept “breaking” what was going to be “broken” soon thereafter and in some small part - more perceived than real - ruining the work studios were putting into movie marketing efforts that cost scores of millions of dollars and decided to go mainstream niche, Nikki has no worries about what she will be when she grows up. She is already quite mature and is more interested in wielding her newfound power – which is driven mostly by silence about how she works – than in building a business with a future. She is the proverbial terrorist with a nuke… though her weapon is only as powerful as it is perceived to be.

Does that make me George Bush, insisting in invading Iraq to get rid of weapons of mass destruction that are not really there? I don’t think so. I think it makes me the guy screaming at the top of his lungs that the weapons of mass destruction are not there and we are about to go into a trillion dollar war when all that is needed here is some intense sunlight on the dark work of this person... not The Internet… or Those Fucking Blogs. Because Nikki is the only one who is both equipped and willing to stoop this low. And while Variety and the LA Times and others have been obsessed with That Darn Internet, it’s never been the medium… it’s always been specific issues with specific players.

I'm sure someone will be around soon enough to tell you again that I am just carrying out a vendetta against Nikki. The state of the union at the moment is still set to play that out. The Variety thing is classic. Yes, Peter Bart is vulnerable to be all kinds of charges, including sexism and wanting to be like Nikki. But that doesn't make what Variety wrote wrong.

And I can tell you, again, that this tide is turning. People in the industry who are dealing with this shit every day from Nikki are ready to stop trying to play the game that she has so dizzyingly spun around herself from the very first LA Weekly pieces in which she attacked a past-broken Mike Ovitz over and over and over again.

So... I guess the answer to your question is... it's not about you or others who comment a lot in here. It's about a significant percentage of the people who never comment, but are here every day. Someone needs to be willing to speak to this over and over and over again because pretending that it's okay or just gossip or to allow Variety and others to be embarrassed into silence... it's not only wrong, but it is dangerous. I know that makes many people cringe. But it's true.

Hollywood and e-journalism have a long history of opening Pandora's Box and taking a long time to find equilibrium again... or not. I don’t know where the tabloid era is going. I don’t know whether the financial disruption of Traditional Media will lead somewhere great or into the pits of hell.

But I do know Nikki. And as long as I feel that I can support others in speaking truth to her behavior by speaking out, I will speak out. I am, to paraphrase 48 Hrs, her worst nightmare… a “nigger” with a badge. Or to break that down, I am someone who has both the freedom and uncontrollable nature of the mainstream disenfranchised that working on the web has always been and I have the earned legitimacy that empowers my voice at the same time.

And no matter what some readers feel about being dragged through it for years now, it is important… more important than much of what any of us do in this work. Supporting small movies that might not otherwise be supported and speaking out when I feel the truth is being trampled or endangered.

Otherwise, why am I wasting my time - and yours?

the truth is a line. and the line never moves.

i have no problem with those willing to point out that the line exists for a reason.

the problem is, once people start crossing that line, everyone else follows and little by little the line will only exist in hindsight.

I wouldn't call it the future. I'd say it's already here. Look at the declining number of true critics. And look at the popularity of gossip mongering websites. The future is here my friend.

But the thing is, there will always be those of us who respect the line and respect actual journalism/criticism. The Finke's of the world will come and go. Eventually they'll burn enough bridges to end up with nowhere to go. Those who respect the rules may not get the traffic, but they'll endure (hopefully) when the Finke's of the world are long forgotten.

"They" still get plenty of traffic, anghus. Nikki's numbers, even inflated as they are by Drudge, are hardly overwhelming. They are very good, especially for one page. But if Drudge ever does cut her off, the traffic drops in half overnight. And if she worked for some other outlet, there is a good chance that this would happen.

Just keep in mind that "50 million uniques" in 3 years in web math is really 320,000 page views a week or an average of 46,000 page views a day. but the actual number to look at is the weekly, since well over half of that comes on Saturday-Sunday-Monday Drudge links to the box office stuff... which is why Nikki keeps changing the headline, even when she does nothing else on her page for days.

Realistically, if you look seriously at her traffic, you are looking at the same 15,000 - 20,000 people who read many of us every day... same core as the trades (albeit with a higher subscription rate)... same core that we all chase every Oscar season.

I am not concerned about her traffic. I really am only concerned about the spread of her infection. And if you read the comments on her blog re: the Variety thing... it's scary. It's cult-like. These people just don't see anything other than this notion that she is an truth-telling outsider. And a guy like Patrick Sauriol - a good, decent, intelligent person - roots her along because he feels that he has been abused too.

Sigh...

The ironic thing is, I didn't know about Finke until DP started featuring her, and rarely visit the site unless DP is highlighting something.

Something funny in Finke's column: she rejects Kim Masters' assertion that there is no photo of her online that's of "recent vintage", pointing to a photo she released from summer of 2006. THREE YEARS isn't exactly what I'd call "recent", and moreover, Finke regrets making that photo available!

Mr. Poland,

I read your pages because I enjoy them; they are informative and provocative and even when I may disagree with you, or someone else, it is still enjoyable. The rain of hate rarely showers down around here.

But your article contains a lot of "if people... and but they". I think in a situation like this, focus on what is real and move forward. I firmly believe in the cycle of these things and Nikki Finke is the web equivalent of the Junior Senator from Wisconsin. She will self-destruct. Let her wander into her own demise. People remember their own lessons much more readily than the ones told to them, again and again and again. So, don't waste energy saying what most of already believe. If some of us don't agree... so be it. But I do think you're pretty much preaching to your own congregation here. We don't need persuading and those who are so misguided as to read and believe Nikki's scripture everyday... well, they read it because it is the same ink and bile that curses (sic) their veins.

I think your energy is much more fruitful when you can direct it into your DP/30. I liked Tony Gilroy's piece. I like the other things you write. I like most everything about the site. But I do find myself skipping over your Nikki pieces because I have made up my mind about her a long, long time ago.

Me and oodles of people care alot about this because Nikki Finke is Jim Kramer and she manipulates the market and David Poland is like Jon Stewart, so she needs to go on the Today Show and then go DP/30 with him to straighten this out. That would also solve the new photo of her, but she could do it behind a curtain; it's not fair to expose someone who doesn't want to be seen for whatever reason, valid no-doubt.

The Pope, you mean Jr. Senator from Wisconsin from 55 years ago, right?

As a daily reader and infrequent poster I too mostly skip over the Finke pieces. Its getting to be a lot lately, but I guess this is what is important to Dave and this is his space. I am a bit dissapointed that your reviews seem to have gone away. I know you view the Jan/Feb months as the garbage pile, but you are becoming a critic of other critics without critiquing movies themselves, and I honestly miss that. I treasure agreeing/disagreeing with your point of view and its what got me hear in the first place, along with the Box Office analysis.

Maybe because I live the Caribbean and a world away from Jeffrey Wells and Nikki Fink that the impact of their 'work' is non-existent in my world, but yours is one of the few movie sites that I truly respect and adore, along with its colorful characters, (even though Lex and IOIO can sometimes be an acquired taste/distaste), but Joe Leydon, and Kami, and Perm, and the regular bunch makes this my own little personal sitcom, and I wish you would get back to reviewing more movies, and while I am at it, lets get a early summer preview going. Those discussions are the best.

One other thing, is their a release date for Crossing Over going wide? Just wondering.

If you're posting about Finke more than Film...

then she must be radioactive... quick, give me a good movie about radioactivity.

T Holly: Godzilla?

Repo Man.

Or maybe the dinner scene in The Nutty Professor.

Jeffmcm,

Yup, I do mean from 55 years ago. I can't name the current Jr. Senator.

Radioactive: how much closer to being ripped apart, by your own worst fears, can this be? Running links to links running to your link: Variety Makes Failed Bid To Buy Leading Hollywood Blog... Then Orders Three Hit Pieces Against Blogger!

Pope, pretty sure the current junior senator from Wisconsin is Russ Feingold.

"Some think I am jealous - always a lame excuse, as there are many others who have things in this world, unlike Nikki, that I actually covet..."

David, you want to defuse this jealousy rap forever? Simple: Post a link to an objective source that will tell us how many hits you get per day, and how many hits she gets. Seriously: Show us that you're not just trying to take down someone who's immensely more successful, and no one will bring up jealousy ever again. (And before some blockhead tries to take a cheap shot: No, it's not the same thing as me, a film critic, criticizing a filmmaker. I'm not in the same biz, sport. Now if I start ripping, say, A.O. Scott, well...)

That just sounds too much like, show your yours, I'll show you mine, only it's his and hers.

show me yours, I mean, Joe. How big?

T. Holly: Gosh, shouldn't you buy me a drink first before you ask me that?

No. Really Joe, as a newspaper man, what do you think about the screaming and standards? Think about that while I walk the dog. It's this or Dave will go back to reviewing movies, and we know how that is... 2,000 words, min.

Mr. Leydon,

Why can't one be critical of another without having a hidden agenda? Is it not possible that Mr. Poland's criticism of Ms. Fink is motivated by a desire to raise the bar, to improve upon the standards and practices of his fellow "journalists" like Ms. Fink because he respects his trade and doesn't want to see it devalued any further by the morally and ethically-challenged, gossipmongers who insist on calling themselves journalists when they are anything but?

To suggest that Mr. Pogue is motivated by jealousy because his web stats might be less than those of Ms. Finks, is not only a moot point, but an illogical one at that.

What if Mr. Pogue's site received double the amount of unique visitors, page views, etc than DHD? (You use the word "hits", which is a clear indication that your knowledge is not simply lacking, but outdated) What kind of scurrilous reasoning would you have to create then to prove that his motivations are anything but sincere?

You said yourself that DHD is "immensely more successful" right below and in the very same paragraph where you are asking him to prove that his site is more successful than hers!!?? "Show us that you are not trying to take down someone who's IMMENSELY more successful" If she is IMMENSELY more successful, then why bother to ask him to provide you with evidence to the contrary since it is obviously a forgone conclusion in your mind, you arrogant fool?

You are clearly biased and could care less about Mr. Poland's actual stats are, even if they were double that of Ms Fink's--which I assure you, they are not. But you see, Mr Leydon, you already made up your mind, so again, what's your point? Why bother to try and question his motives under the guise of openness and willingness to hear evidence to the contrary when your own motives have been laid bare by your ridiculous "reasoning" since you have so clearly made up your mind?

Let's assume for a second that you are correct, that you believe that Mr. Poland is, indeed, motivated by some kind of personal or professional jealousy (which you clearly believe to be true), does that discount any or all of what he has said about Ms. Fink? No, not in the least. In fact, I would argue that has been quite tough, but also quite fair to Ms. Fink (who deserves far worse), and I would gladly provide evidence to bolster any of his claims.

I agree that Nikki Finke's behavior over the last two years is likely to catch up with her sooner or later. And if any other entity were to buy her site and have to take legal responsibility for her actions, it would likely be shut down or radically curtailed in short order.

Her consistent level of attack and vitriol about anyone in this business she perceives as a target has reduced the level of debate to something that unfortunately mirrors the political polarization we've watched in this country for more than 30 years.

I completely hear and understand bulldog68 in that he doesn't live here and would rather not have to listen to how much trouble Nikki is. But I do live and work in Hollywood and Nikki's bad behavior has the potential to affect my career and my life. If she had succeeded in her attempts a year ago, the WGA would have remained on strike for months longer, and many more people in Hollywood would have been forced to leave the business. (In retrospect, it's clear that she was hoping to see WGA and SAG line up in the summer to somehow collectively humiliate the AMPTP and everyone else she doesn't like.) It would be one thing if her intent was to help and protect the typical working person in Hollywood. But, based on her actions and her own writing, I have to agree with David that her priority is promoting herself and her own interests.

In one of her latest jaunts, she actually had the nerve to attack Anne Thompson. This is ironic, since Thompson held the entertainment op-ed position at the LA WEEKLY back in the 1980s, and if you contrast the coverage each of them did with the WGA strikes of their respective eras, you could learn a lot about the difference between Thompson's journalistic coverage and Finke's relentless attacks. If you go back and read Thompson's analysis of the 1988 strike, you can still learn things about the causes and effects. If you go back to read Finke's coverage in 07-08, there's a constant barrage of gossip and venom that makes it difficult to get through.

Er, Mr. Quill (or whoever you really are): Please go back and read what I wrote. I suggested that if David Poland (not anyone named Mr. Pogue) wants to end the cheap "jealousy" attacks, he should post the numbers. Until he does, he will be open to those attacks. That's all. That's just the way it is in the real world.

Oh, and BTW: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Sober up, or get lost.

You're going to regret that in the morning.

OK. It’s been a half-hour since my last posting. David, you might do well do tell your sycophants to post quicker if they want to maintain the flow of the give and take. This is boring, so I'm going to sleep now. Good night.

T. Holly: No offense, wasn't referring to you, didn't see your posting until after I posted mine. Good night.

Joe,

Let me first apologize to Mr. Poland and to you and the rest of the room for the typo regarding his name. I was multitaksing at the time, reading a column by the NY Times Tech Writer, David Pogue, which is why I referred to Mr. Poland as Mr. Pogue on a few ocassions. So, I'm sorry. I will try to do better next time.

You failed to actually address any of the substantive claims of my post and simply ignored what I wrote and not all that surprisingly, simply reposted your IDIOTIC comment, which clearly demonstrates a lack of reading comprehension skills on your part (I won't get into your writing skills yet cause my eyes are still watery from laughing at the junior high school-like graphics of your website as I couldn't help but think to myself, "Self, how could someone with such an amateurish, low-rent, eyesore of a website and blog, both of which look like they were put together in under five minutes by some Houston Community College freshman doing work study for his sad-sack Santa Claus-looking Professor of Film Studies, a man who, in his spare time writes for...for-sorry, I'm back, I fell on the floor laughing-Cowboys & Indians Magazine!! (hell, why not call it Cowboy & Injuns while you're at it?) sit in judgment of me or anyone else for that matter? But as, i said, I will get to your "writing" later on, perhaps in a future post, after I've cleared the copious tears from my eyes. Though, I appreciate the laughs, Joe, so thanks for that!)

My point was that Mr. Poland does not have to PROVE ANYTHING TO ANYONE. He doesn't need to justify himself to you or anyone else who might accuse him of sour grapes. He stated, quite clearly, that he was not jealous and that should suffice. But again, YET AGAIN, assuming that he is jealous of her so-called success (if you measure success by money, which, by the way I know for a fact she doesn't make as much as one might think cause she rents her site out to Village Voice Media, she doesn't make a profit directly from it as they pay her a monthly fixed rate which is not related to the advertising on the site) that doesn't discount anything he has said above. Not one thing. And that is why his motivation for writing what he wrote is IRRELEVANT because what he wrote is both fair and accurate whether the Fink apologists want to admit that to themselves or not. Got it now, Cowboy Claus?

If they want to attack him, so be it. If they chose to live in denial and/or fail to recognize that Mr. Poland's comments are not only justifiable but verifiable, then so be it.

Oh, and one last thing. Your "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" comment has a real vituperative quality to it, and I usually like that sort of thing. But given that you look like a man who enjoys a good fuck with a horse now and then, perhaps you should reconsider using such a tired and cliched expression of hostility. Just a thought, Joe.

Quill: Well ho, ho, ho, pardner. You know, I have to admit, some of that is pretty damn funny, in a faux George Sanders fashion. You watch All About Eve a lot?

But I repeat: David is going to have the jealousy thing tossed his way again and again until he produces the numbers. If he doesn't care, then fine -- because, frankly, neither do I. Seriously. I was merely offering a solution to a problem, not making an accusation. If I misinterpreted what he wrote, and he doesn't think it's a problem, hey, no problemo. As we say over at Cowboys & Indians, I don't have a dog in this hunt.

Now y'all will excuse me, but I have to go feed my horse. Yoo-hoo! Buttercup! Come here, girl!

Seems like I've wandered into Gun Fight at the O.K. Corral.

To Working AD: As I mentioned, I don't 'have to listen' because as I already said, I skip over most of these. This is Dave's space, and if Nikki Finke gets his panties in a bunch well he have every right to de-wedge yourself.

I think you miss the point the Joe, I don't think this is a pissing contest, but more of an ethical one. If you're a cabinet maker and some other cabinet maker was using shitty material and passing it off as high quality stuff and he sold his in the same Walmart as you, you'd be upset too.

My question though is, aren't you guys giving Nikki more power than she has by saying that she can actually affect the outcomes of strikes and so on. Is the world of Hollywood so filled with complete arseholes(english version), that they are completely ignorant of Ms.Finke and her machinations. It seems that when you dwell on her so obsessively that you are dousing the fire with fuel. I for one didn't know who Nikki Finke was until I started reading The Hot Blog. Let your work stand out for itself, continue making good cabinets, and people will see it. Spending so much time on a shitty cabinet maker just means you have less time to do good work yourself.

As for you Joe: I didn't know you were so 'street'. When are you droppin' your rap album?

One suggestion for the blog. It seems that the movies themselves get lost in all the catfights that go on here sometimes, just like BYOB, why not have a weekly review blog, where the readers can post their review of the weekly openers. Who knows, maybe this blog might give birth to the next great film critic of the 21st century. We bitch so much about the lack of good film reviewers, well lets take a crack at it ourselves and see what we come up with.

Bulldog: OK, I know I run the risk here of sinking even deeper into the tar baby, but… I never said David doesn’t have the right to criticize a professional peer/rival. I never said he shouldn’t. In fact, if you go back and read what I originally wrote, you’ll see I was actually AGREEING with something HE said. That is, when he does criticize Nikki, he runs the risk of being accused of jealousy. This obviously is something that rankles him, because he has mentioned this before, in other postings about Nikki. And, frankly, I can relate to that. Indeed, without going into specifics, I can tell you that I’ve been in a few awkward situations over the years when I’ve been pressed to comment on the work of people who either landed jobs that I had applied for, or worked for competing publications. My comment? “No comment.” Because, really, even a slightly critical remark, however justified, sounds pissy.

To repeat: The only way on God’s green earth that David can avoid the “jealousy” snipes -- can avoid being accused of trying to tear down someone more successful than he -- is to post his numbers. I’m not saying he has to do that, or that you should dismiss everything he has to say if he doesn’t. And, again, I don’t care if he does or doesn’t. But unless my memory is playing tricks on me, at some point in the not so distant past, David claimed that MCN actually gets more hits than Nikki, Variety and any other similar site. If I am incorrect – and, hey, at my age, I’m losing grey cells every day, so I could be misremembering – I sincerely apologize. But, to repeat one more time, David, not I, brought up the “jealousy” accusations. I offered a solution, I did not make an accusation. OK?

My 2 cents is that David is right because Finke makes everyone look bad in the "entertainment journalism" field.

A good example of this is how one of those Variety tri-Finkta pieces lumped this site in with Wells and Finke. I've experienced such thinsg first hand when one journalist is awful to people and then festival goers, folks who work at the hotels and venues as well as volunteers. They all become suspicious of us writers all because of one persons bad behavior.

As for numbers, Perez Hilton beats Finke and Poland....does that mean he's justified as an entertainment journalist because he traffics in rumor, innuendo and gossip? Where's the line between Finke and Hilton? I say, it's tough to see if it's there at all.

bulldog68, I hear you - you have a point that discussion of Nikki Finke can make it sound like she has more power than she really does, and can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So I'll try to be clearer. I don't believe Nikki to be more than a nuisance, but particularly over the past two years, she has tried to use the pulpit of her blog to do more than that. There are many people in Hollywood who likely have never heard of her and couldn't care less what she thinks of the state of the business. But there are also a lot of rank and file cast and crew who think she's the bees' knees when it comes to embarassaing and shaming their bosses. When she has posted things that disclose this or that tidbit about the pettiness of the moguls or the latest celebrity flap, her point of view is clear: an unmistakeable contempt. And many people are drawn in by that point of view.

The point is that when she starts taking advocacy positions regarding labor actions, there's a potential that the half-truths and invective she inflicts may affect the way other people in the business may act. Some times she is more effective than others. At times during the WGA strike, she managed to get information out that either raised or dashed hopes throughout the town. (Usually, she dashed whatever hopes were in hand that the action would end.) For those of us that work in the business, it is important to recognize when things are being passed around the town that are half-true or completely untrue, and past that, to correct the misstatements.

If Nikki Finke can just say whatever she wants without any challenge (and she bans most challenges from her site), then many people may be fooled into thinking she's told them the truth. I spent much of the strike trying to correct the record as friends of mine called me with the latest Finke rumors. I watched in horror as she attempted to extend the strike, first by castigating the DGA's work to end it, and then by trying to rile up the WGA members to vote the contract down. And for a few tense days last February, if you had read the comments on her site, you would have sworn that all Hollywood was up in arms and ready to strike forever. Thankfully, it turned out that most WGA members were actually quite moderate, and were more concerned about the impending loss of health coverage than they were about Nikki Finke's opinion.

Over the past 9 months at work, I would constantly be confronted with the rumors coming from Finke's site. Background artists on my show thought that a strike was imminent last July based on Finke's columns. I had to remind them that the SAV had to be taken first. Recently, people on my set got confused about the amount of AFTRA pilots versus SAG pilots this year, after Nikki posted an erroneous bit about AFTRA only having 21 pilots this season. I corrected this by talking with our SAG rep (who could only confirm a single SAG pilot in her area) and by checking with everyone I know working pilots this year (all are AFTRA). That's just the latest bit of untruth that Finke refuses to correct or acknowledge.

My other concern here is that when the history of this period is written, the record will need to show the facts of what happened, and not just Nikki Finke's opinion. If we let her set the record without pointing out her inaccuracies, we run the risk that people ten years down the line will buy her book on the subject without knowing it's way off the mark.

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: