The Hot Blog

Wow! I had not read her response until you linked to it. So many places to begin/end, but I'll try to be brief:

"I'm too superficial to read The New Yorker because it's so unrelentingly boring. "

The New Yorker is probably the most prestigious magazine in America, and is in no way boring if you care about anything other than yourself. It can be pretentious at times with the "Talk of the Town" pieces, but, we're pretty much dealing with the pot calling the kettle black there. At least she admits that she is superficial (even if it's ironic, which is the signature of the New Yorker-are we getting meta yet?)!

Say what you want about Tad Friend and his writing, but my immediate reaction is "Who the f*** do you think you are Nikki Finke?"

And to insult David Remnick in the process of all this? Really? Obviously I don't know the guy, but his writing is great, his taste in articles has been great since he took over the New Yorker, and I wouldn't believe for a second that he gives a shit about Nikke Finke. Does she really think her readers are this dumb?

Oh yeah, they are! One of her blog commenters wrote this:

"You are right, which you always are, but New Yorker has become a rag, not a mag. My bird certainly treats it as it deserves when I line his cage with it."

Well, congratulations-you pay $40+ a year to line your bird cage with a magazine that you apparently hate-way to go genius!

Dave, your response to all things Nikki has gotten downright operatic, like one of those modern operas where people sing disconcertingly in English, and you're all with your booming baritone, "Nikki is a FINK, she's a FINK..." and then she appears behind you, ample bosom spilling out of her blouse, helmet with those horns on her head in her shrill soprano, "Toldja! I...tooooooldja.." "...a FINK, a FINK!" "Toldja! Exclusive!" "Nikki is a FINK, a FINK!"

Let. It. Go. She is the new Harry Knowles, and you come off as petty and jealous and downright nasty when you write about her. Let your readers make their own judgments. PLEASE!

Jennab,
To compare Harry Knowles to Nikki Finke is both a huge insult to Knowles as well as damning him with feint praise. For better and for much worse, I see Finke, like so many do, as a latter day, more vitriolic versions of Hedda Hopper or Louella Parsons. The difference being that, however venal they were, both of them were social animals: they actually got out of their habitats and interacted with living people. As far as I can make out, Finke operates at the end of a phone/mouse. All of which reminds me of the deep seated paranoia to which Stalin withdrew at the height of his powers and the end of his days. Finke does not seem to like movies, people or the world. I don't think it is any wonder that she suffers so frequently from ailments: that amount of bile would make anyone sick.

That you say David Poland is jealous of her and and that other people say that she commands respect is to miss the point.

Fear is sometimes mistaken for respect (it often disguises itself as such) and those who fear Finke and claim it is respect are only trying to mask their own delusional pathologies. So, as for being jealous, I will refrain from repeating my lines about ailments and paranoia.

What would "disciplining her" entail? Cutting her off (from information/tips)? Going exclusive to her competition? Giving unflattering quotes about her to the NYT or the LAT? I'm curious.

thanks for being the only blogger to really stand up to Nikki...sad that her only apparent competition on the horizon is Sharon Waxman and that Sharon is such a dim wit it will only make Nikki look better. Can't wait to read more Sony/Pascal love from Nikki..they def. fall into the 'favorites' category

Hey, Pope: I'm comparing Dave's current rants against Nikki to his former rants against Knowles & Co. Were you not around for that era? He called AICN out for all manner of tomfoolery and chicanery and then...what? Are they not breaking embargoes anymore or does it not seem that important?

If David takes umbrage with her reporting, then in a dispassionate manner he can simply state: "It was reported on DHD today that the earth is flat when, in fact, it is round." Why the need for lengthy ad hominem attacks?

And if Nikki is a spoiled child, Poland is her whiny older brother always complaining, "Mooo-oom! It's not fair!" I would argue these posts do nothing to enhance Dave's credibility or that of the site.

Tam - It would be as simple as people who say they don't want anything to do with her to not play her game.

It will happen, bit by bit. As it has with all the bullies.

The problem is that execs, particularly publicists, are all about covering their asses. They don't like surprises and they all seem to agree that the best way to control Nikki's mania is to feed it, not to starve it.

The problem with dumping her - and I have seen this a few times before - is that one unhappy exec or actor or director can make life hell when they get attacked and if they start demanding attention be paid, all the refusals to play fall to the side and all of a sudden, you're back into feeding the monster.

There are people who think I am a prick, but I have to say, I have been conscious for a long time that the biggest weakness in my power game is that I am not actually vindictive and I am actually interested in being fair. Without that constant threat, studios can become complacent about how you are handled. They respond more intensely to fear than to positive reinforcement.

Ironically, Jenab repeats what I long heard about how I felt about Harry Knowles' practices. ("Jealous!" "Enough already!") Sadly, time have proven me right about everything I ever said about AICN 1.0. Test screening reviews have not improved anything about the process... in fact, it has made it worse. AICN evolved into not printing stuff found by readers on studio desks on its own. They have evolved into a completely reasonable web creation... they have become what they claimed they were at the start... a fan-friendly geek film advocate site.

Sharon can't compete with Nikki because she's not smart enough. Wells can't compete with Nikki because he is too self-righteous play the pawn aggressively enough. Patrick Goldstein, Peter Bart, Michael Fleming, and Anne Thompson are too inhibited by their history.

The thing about Nikki is she doesn't have that many readers (the weekly Drudge box office link is what inflates her figures... and they still aren't overwhelming), she will never make money for Penske, and she is a self-created niche. No competition will ever emerge. But people will lose interest, just as they did with Defamer. She will always have readers. She will have moments of increased activity. But in time, she will be put in perspective, the people she has backed for the last few years will be out of work, and the next gen will intuitively know to stay out of her way, even if the short term benefit is attractive.

And I don't expect Sharon Waxman to have a business by this time next year... maybe a year more than that. She's already talking about a pay wall... which is comedic, given that 90% of her content is not proprietary in any way.

Finally, do consider what Nikki has actually influenced. Answer: nothing. She has no ideas of her own, other than in creating the image of herself. On that score, she wins. But is there a single bit of change in this industry that Nikki considered, foreshadowed, suggested, demanded that has actually happened.

I know that there are many who would like to get the e-mail or phone call from the insider an hour early, as Nikki now often does. But is that really the standard? Or is that Old Media thinking in a New Media world?

I respect Nikki and Sharon's skill set. And managed by someone who has journalistic standards and a working knowledge of the industry, both could be great assets to news organizations. But neither works well with others, neither can be reined in by editors, and both have become much more interested in building their image than anything remotely like journalism.

You can draw the line on 75% of what she does to Sony, Brad Grey, Terry Press, Ron Meyer, and Ari Emanuel... lately Robinov, Rob Friedman and Joe Drake... and obviously, someone at Disney (I don't want to speculate, but I would bet he is nervous about keeping his job in the new regime). There is one source accusation in Friend's piece that makes sad sense, since Nikki's favorite game is not running stories in exchange for more stories... and the person accused of sourcing was digging out of a Nikki hole at the time.

My issue is not so much with Nikki being a nasty gossip. Nothing new. It is the pretend game that she is more than that which pisses me off. It's that people don't understand that virtually everything she writes is fundamentally someone else's self-serving position ghosting under her byline. If people get that, I will be at peace. Until then, it will irk me.

and so it goes...

"she doesn't have that many readers (the weekly Drudge box office link is what inflates her figures... and they still aren't overwhelming)"

It's moderately amusing to read the various comments decrying, for example, Michael Moore and stating that this is why they have no interest in the movie industry.

"The thing about Nikki is she doesn't have that many readers"

Oh DP, here is where you are wrong. No way she gets name-checked on Entourage if that were the case.

Not only does she have readers but she has fans. She has a lot of haters but she has a lot of supporters too. The reason she hates people who feed her information is because she's smart enough to know they are using her and they don't give a fuck about her. I don't think she's a saint, but I think where she and Harry Knowles share something in common with you is in your failure to acknowledge what they have achieved.

And I really don't want to have this fight.

I am actually a fan of hers. I've been reading her since the Disney/Post stuff. She was the only person covering the Ovitz story and she's broken some other stories since then. Does she have some relationships with sources, probably. It doesn't necessarily mean her reporting is suspect. Dave you have sources too and have admitted giving certain people the benefit of the doubt. I like her work and I'm glad she's around. All of this stuff ripping her is not needed and I think I'd rather read your content Dave than read you taking about what she's up to.

Yes, Sasha... the writers on Entourage go to ComScore to decide how to write scenes.

Nikki is very, very big in a very, very small community. No one understands that better than me.

And I completely appreciate what Harry and Nikki have both achieved. I also understand that it can be a double edged sword. And much more so that you ever have, I live with the response in the industry every single day. It affects how Hollywood responds to everyone... including you.

I haven't had a negative contemporary thing to say about AICN in years. I don't have a problem with AICN 2.0. Good for him that he become the king of his niche and that he adjusted. Are there still moral issues about who gets what treatment on that site? Of course. But that's true of the New York Times too. Sometimes even MCN.

But a dozen years ago, AICN made it very, very difficult for people who were serious about being on the internet. Wells was the next generation of problem, as the Old Media came onto the web and with him as an early rep, often poisoned the well. Nikki is next... but her evolution is more dangerous than either of the earlier problem children because so many journos are attracted to the attention she gets and have started lowering their standards to almost as low as hers, trying to compete. And it is a part of reducing an already iffy part of journalism into an increasingly stank cess pool.

What I hear in what you wrote, Sasha, (and you are not remotely alone) is an admiration for what Nikki has achieved and a strong disinterest in considering the price, which includes a price paid by you, even if you don't know it.

Nikki has never done anything that I know of nearly as heinous a the anal rape of a drugged child... but the principle of this defense of her is not unlike the defense of Polanski. It is an argument that is normally only made by people who are not at the point in their lives when they consider the costs of their desires in a serious way... they feel that "achievement" is the end and not the means to a greater end.

I admire achievement of a higher level. If you can't tell the difference between David Carr and Nikki except by what outlet he writes for and how much she was paid for her blog, I can't help you. The difference is massive.

Harry is not a bad person. He may be some unpleasant things at times, but he comes from a place of good intentions. I have never felt or said otherwise.

Nikki is a bad, bad person. Her self-loathing overwhelms all else, but it's no excuse for how she treats others and how she recklessly disregards the truth. That said, those who read her and don't understand what's really going on... those who follow her breathlessly like being name-checked for running fictional photos of an agency head trying to get laid, makes her a rock star... those who know exactly what she is up to and remain silent like the sheep they so don't want to be seen as... they are at fault for the higher level of ugliness here.

She could not be a worse role model, but really, I believe her when she says she has no intention to be role model. She's just trying to get through the day as best she can... just like every villain in every story ever written.

If you don't want to have a fight, don't push "post" next time...

Sasha:

Wouldn't you agree that Nikke is the Drudge of the film world? She'll link to anything, without any proof, to get web hits. And then, she'll correct whatever she was wrong about, without admitting that she was wrong! At least Drudge has had the decency in the past to provide links that argue against the links that he obviously agrees with!

Dave:

I resent this comment, only because the last time I got involved in posts, you made fun of my 'young' age (of 27):

"It is an argument that is normally only made by people who are not at the point in their lives when they consider the costs of their desires in a serious way... they feel that "achievement" is the end and not the means to a greater end."

I had a conversation the other night with a friend about how there are people who are inherently 'self-aware', and people who have no idea how their actions affect other people in the world. I like to think that I am a member of the 'former' club all the time, but I know sometimes I get into arguments where I'm in the latter. My friend and I both agreed that this argument has nothing to do with religion, or morals-just ethics. I am in the corner of people who believe that you can be a great person in this world, without believing in God/Allah/etc. But no matter what you believe, you have to have an 'ethos' that you can stand by (To paraphrase Walter in The Big Lebowski: "Say what you will about the tenements of National Socialism, but at least it's an ethos!)

There is nothing in the writing of Finke, or her quotes in the New Yorker, that suggest that she has any idea that she is flaunting all of the rules of journalism ethics, and coming off as a total "B", all the time.

I also disagree with this:

"She could not be a worse role model, but really, I believe her when she says she has no intention to be role model. She's just trying to get through the day as best she can... just like every villain in every story ever written."

Obviously, she is a terrible role model, but I think she actually believes that she is doing God's work by ratting out studio heads, agents, and and other entertainment journalists. I also think that she might have some kind of mental disease, or else she is trying to convince all journalists that cover her that she has a mental disease.

Every article that I have read about her includes the "I just got out of the hospital", or "I was sick" type crap. Something is wrong there. I hope that she can get some help-I don't wish ill-will on anyone. But I also don't think that the "Ari-Gold" brand of journalism should get endorsement-by-association from the best magazine in America. Then again, David Remnick is obviously a pushover since she things so, so I blame him! :)

"If you don't want to have a fight, don't push 'post' next time..."

Is this the new rule? If it is the new rule. Let me know.

David, with all due respect: You probably could save yourself all sorts of grief and scurrilous accusations if you simply directed us to a site where we could see an objective measure of your audience -- and Nikki's. Until you do this -- which, I submit, is not an unreasonable request on our part -- anything you say about her will simply have to be taken with several grains of salt.

There is no such thing, Joe. Every measure of sites, other than internal numbers, are based on some sort of survey and therefore are subject to the vagaries of surveying with absolutely none of the structures of, for instance, most political polling until the later manipulation of numbers.

But thanks for keeping one note alive.

P.S. I am taking the numbers Nikki has offered as fact as her real numbers. I am not doubting them. But if you look at them, they are not that big.

It is not a comparative study. It is simple math. I know some of you are obsessed with this. But I am not.

Obviously, Nikki gets a lot more of this kind of attention than I do... or for that matter, more than any non-TV journo I know of in the last couple of years. I have never suggested otherwise. But if you think more than 5% of the Entourage audience knew who Nikki Finke was, you are delusional.

Less than 1% would know who David Poland was. I get it. Not the point. And really, the whole "how many readers" issue... not the point either... except to you and Sasha, who beat it to death as though I have ever written a single entry that is all about the numbers.

Fucking zzzzz, already. Go watch Fox News where they love taking everything out of context and not discussing the core issues.

With 16 comments on this thread, I don't think telling your readers to go somewhere else is a good idea. But you know everything. Good luck with that.

Again, Sasha, counting counting counting.

Firstly, this business was predicated from the start of pushing eyeballs to other outlets. Not everyone uses MCN the same way. But you might recall that for the first year or two, there was no masthead at all. It's not about me. Readers came because the wanted the content. Readers still come because they want the content.

I have always said and I will always say, the internet is a place where you earn it daily, weekly, and if you get too far past monthly, it's already over.

I don't know everything, Sasha. But I know me. I know what matters to me. And I know what my boundaries are. An authority you think I am giving myself - ironically, just like Nikki - is being given to me by you.

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: