« Comic-Con Clean Up | Main | Universal's Bad Summer »
July 27, 2009
Mystery Solved?
Nikkiologists at NBC/Univeral have been trying to figure out exactly who was using Nikki Finke to tear down Ben Silverman and Jeff Zucker with the nastiest gossip (and why) for the last year-plus. There have been many theories, but little proof.
This morning, as Nikki melted down (a network head is fired and her headline is, "So Why Did NBCU Lie About This To Me?") trying to take ownership of a story that she (via her sponsor) has been out front of but then got scooped on when the action finally happened - by both Variety and Ryan Seacrest's Twitter account - she may well have outed her primary source for all things anti-NBC/U. And the winner is, Marc Graboff.
Of course, when things settle down, Nikki will count Ben Silverman as one of her "Nazi scalps." But will her operator, Mr. Graboff, pay the price... especially now that he didn't get the big promotion and Nikki has outed him as her ally? Will Ron Meyer, in turn, have to take one of his "time outs" from feeding her? It will be interesting.
Fact is, whether I like it or not, Nikki is the Niche Winchell in this tiny little world of show business insiders. She lies often, gets it wrong almost as often, but always thinks she is truthful and right. And I do believe that she really does believe that. Such is the nature of the sociopath.
The glory of the professional, morality-free gossip is that burnt bridges mean little, since there is always someone else there with a can of gas and some matches to hand you... since you are so happy to take it, spread it, and light it. But this is a small town. And when the gossip is too exposed - when everyone is paying attention - the dynamics of how people use gossips change. The price of getting caught feeding the monster gets higher and higher.
The advantage that Winchell had - aside from an era with a slower news cycle - is that he had a national consumer platform. His smears really could damage the public image of talent. Not so much Nikki. She is more the ugly mean girl with money in showbiz high school. And I don't mean that as a comment on Nikki's looks. She is a perfectly nice looking woman. What I mean to say is that she is the kind of mean girl who uses the power she gathers from someone else's power (in high school, her parents' money... in Hollywood, targeted information from powerful people) to feel better about herself by hurting others and feeling powerful in her own right as a result. And the people who gather to feed this manipulation? Weasels. Every one. Unless it is your job to service someone else's bad behavior - in which case, you have my sympathy - if you feed the cycle, all the while snickering about how you can control The Nikki, you are a small as the tool you use.
Are we seeing the beginning of the end? Not the end…. not for a long while.
Nikki is very much on the Ain't It Cool News journey. The big difference is that Harry & Drew & Co have always truly loved movies and while I would argue they have misstepped at times, they have always had a cause that guided their choices. They have always wanted to play in the pool with the people who do the work. Nikki is just about her own ego. Always has been. So I don't know that she can make the leap that AICN has to being mainstreamed. And if the town starts tightening up, the way it did around AICN's early, invasive style, she will soon be back to little more than vicious screeds, like the Ovitz stuff that started her not-terribly-successful early years at LA Weekly.
You can only feed on fear for so long.
Still, the fascination with the rule-breakers (or perceived rule-breakers), from the people who always have to stay within the rules and only pretend to be edgy, is intense. And here we are. But media is just as anxious to tear down what it builds as to build it.
As for me and the inevitable "your jealous" comments (mostly from people who don't comment here often... save Joe), there surely is a tinge of frustration when bad behavior draws the kind of attention that matters in enclaves outside the one we all work in (say, A1 of the NYT) and more serious, less salacious work does not. But that is the nature of the beast. I do understand that.
As I have noted before, if that was the attention I wanted, I would be doing what gets that kind of attention (See: The Wrap). If I wanted to be King of The Geeks, I would be obsessing on every comic book project... though in that case, I respect those who work in that area for being, at least, committed to a genre they genuinely care about. If my biggest concern was being famous, I'd be writing a book every year and dropping weight to make myself more TV-valuable. This isn't brain surgery. Preparing oneself for success in one arena or another does not assure that you will succeed... but any smart person knows that we all make choices and they all lead towards or away from goals that we prioritize. I am self-indulgent enough to seek my own path and live with all the pluses and minuses that come with that choice.
I can't do what Nikki does... because, seriously, I would vomit all day long. Muscling people with rage and threats is about the lowest form of journalism (or social intercourse in general) I can think of… and every time I raise my voice in an arrogant demand – because I forget and do that sometimes - I am sickened by the eventual self-reflection. Perhaps that makes me “weak.” Each of us must make that call for ourselves.
I don't know if The New Yorker will get the story right because I don't know who will go on the record or even on background to tell the stories that every single person who has ever dealt with Nikki know to be true. But we will see. I know the intentions are serious.
For me, it remains a very mixed bag. If, as some of you comment, you never read Nikki... well, that's fine. But she is a real piece of the puzzle in this industry right now and with a gunslinger shooting people in the back every day on turf that I also work, I can't afford not to pay attention to her. Ignoring her isn't a viable strategy. Wasting time every day on her b.s. is soul sucking. But here is this entry, my pound of flesh for her this week.
Now, hopefully, I can wash my hands of the slime and get back to more serious things… for now.
Posted by dpoland at July 27, 2009 10:43 AM
Comments
I just finished wading through her FIVE-PART piece on the Silverman fiasco. You weren't kidding.
Part of me wants to believe that she was kept in the dark for the personal satisfaction of denying her one of those cringe-inducing "TOLDJA" headlines she fires off so frequently.
That was a nicely written pound of flesh, by the way.
Posted by: bmcintire ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 27, 2009 01:12 PM
Okay, your headline for this entry is "MYSTERY SOLVED?" Your lead is two paragraphs discussing how Finke may have "outed her primary source"... and then you proceed to write 14 more paragraphs attacking her without giving one shred of evidence or one logical explanation on how exactly you've come to the conclusion that Graboff is that source. Then you turn this story about her into a story about you ("if that was the attention I wanted, I would be doing what gets that kind of attention") and your moral and ethical superiority to her.
Is this like a meta-level joke here? Can you not see the substandard journalistic parallels between this entry and most of Finke's stuff?
Poland. Can you not see that Finke is your very own Ben Silverman? Can you not see that you are stooping to her level, and the reason the "you're jealous" comments are indeed inevitable are because your obsession with her is so transparent and your rage is so thinly veiled that its the only logical explanation?
Because for the rest of us... this is getting ridiculous. And embarrassing.
Posted by: Biscuits at July 27, 2009 03:18 PM
"She lies often, gets it wrong almost as often, but always thinks she is truthful and right. And I do believe that she really does believe that. Such is the nature of the sociopath."
Physician, heal thyself.
Posted by: boltbucket at July 27, 2009 05:23 PM
Correction - SEVEN part piece on Silverman.
Posted by: bmcintire at July 27, 2009 05:24 PM
As usual, the flying monkeys show up for only one cause... the defense of Nikki.
Haven't you two (?) seen the end of the movie?
Posted by: David Poland at July 27, 2009 05:57 PM
I'm really looking forward to that New Yorker piece, if only to see some heavier hits than Carr had to offer.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley at July 27, 2009 06:22 PM
I'm not quite sure how you can misconstrue what I wrote as a defense of Nikki -- I called her journalism substandard and said you're stooping to her level. The post is pretty plainly an indictment of you... wanna bother defending yourself and your own blatantly irresponsible journalism (indicting Graboff as her source without any proof whatsoever)? Or would you rather just glibly shrug it off?
Posted by: Biscuits at July 27, 2009 06:28 PM
"Or would you rather just glibly shrug it off?"
You must be new around here. That is the only way Poland ever responds to direct criticism.
But for the record, I was just pointing out yet another example of David's gross hypocrisy. I wasn't defending that loon Finke. I can't stand reading that website. The Hot Blog, I still tolerate.
Posted by: boltbucket at July 27, 2009 07:09 PM
Isn't the proof about Graboff that he didn't get the promotion that he and Nikki expected, hence, they were both out of the loop?
Or did I mist misconstrue that since I haven't particularly been following the Finke stuff.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at July 27, 2009 11:38 PM
Remind me not to serve on a jury with you, because we have a very different definition of the word proof.
Now is Poland ever going to stop back by here and give us his definition?
Posted by: Biscuits at July 28, 2009 11:25 AM
Dave, gotta agree with Biscuits on this one. Nikki is the new Harry, and your CONSTANT whining about AICN visiting sets and violating embargoes drove me away for a very long time. Please...let us make our own judgments about DHD...and Waxman while you're at it. Quietly go about doing what you do best: your analysis of the business of film and even your reviews!
Posted by: jennab at July 28, 2009 11:56 AM
Post a comment
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.)