March 2010
30 posts
Kathryn Bigelow's Speech: Ready, GO
What’d we think? Gracious and very bashful? Overly attributive to men in uniform? Or not attributive enough? (It did remind me a smidge of Demi Moore circa A Few Good Men. “Because they stand upon a wall and say, ‘Nothing’s going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch.’”)
1 tag
1 tag
Re: SBC
Yeah, I know SBC was the original top pick—though I can see why the Academy passed. As a viewer and general SBC fan, even I would’ve been on the edge of my seat, nervously waiting for the gratuitous nudity. (Also, since Bruno bombed, I feel like there’s not the popular love for him that there once was). Still, you’re so right: the format of the Oscars ceremony is so...
1 tag
SBC
Sarah - you know the producers originally wanted Sasha Baron Cohen? Who would've made the best host, Borat, Bruno, or Ali G.? Yes, Ben was the funniest part of the show, (and blue is a good look for him) but I wonder if the format would manage to make even him seem stiff and flat after three hours.
1 tag
1 tag
Hurt Locker
Ramin- I agree, Avatar was the popular choice, and the movie most people actually saw. And certainly more of a feel-good movie in line with last year's winner, Slumdog Millionaire. But Hurt Locker fits with past winners of the decade like The Departed, Crash, Million Dollar Baby, No Country for Old Men... I don't know how any of these did at the box office (I think The Departed made money; not sure about the rest) but it seems commercial success has traditionally worked against a film's chances. Anyway, I liked that Bigelow seemed genuinely surprised, possibly even in shock, in a ceremony where so much else felt rehearsed...
1 tag
1 tag
My stream-of-consciousness Oscar timeline...
(Peyser is NEWSWEEK’s culture editor).
Weird the way they make them all come out and stand on stage. They look miserable. I feel like I’m watching the Miss America Pageant and they’re going to break into a cheesy production number.
Gabby rules!
NPH—Ah, the production number. This song is horrendous, and NPH, who I know can sing, is singing in the key of horrendous.
...
Oscars
This was supposed to be the year the Oscars turned mainstream. 10 nominees—so movies like The Blind Side, District 9 and Up made the final cut. Two hosts, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. Lots of eye candy from younger presenters: Ryan Reynolds, Bradley Cooper, Zac Efron, Miley Cyrus, those Twilight kids (presenting a montage on horror films, huh?). But in the end, Academy voters pushed back...
1 tag
1 tag
Roundtable: "Relative advantages" →
This is non-sense: “The NE is doing what all competitive organizations do: it’s exploiting its relative advantages.” The Enquirer and the Times are not “competitive organizations” when it comes to public affairs reporting. Their aims are different (titillation versus service), and they don’t…
As the media gurus like to say, every media organization is competing with every other...
1 tag
"Relative advantages"
This is non-sense: “The NE is doing what all competitive organizations do: it’s exploiting its relative advantages.” The Enquirer and the Times are not “competitive organizations” when it comes to public affairs reporting. Their aims are different (titillation versus service), and they don’t shared the same fundamental practices (paying sources versus not).
Also: can...
1 tag
Roundtable: The Pay Issue →
Bennett et al: I’m not judging the Enquirer as somehow shady for paying its sources. The Economist Intelligencer Unit, Ergo and other companies that publish expensive business news also pay their sources. It’s a great way to get information, of course, and a totally legit practice in most…
Hold on there. About your last line: But since (presumably) none of the other outlets had the same...
"2009 Journalism jurors in action"
That’s an actual headline from www.pulitzer.org, which you’ll understand as ironic if you click on the link below.
If The Enquirer does make it to the final cut, this is how the final decision will be made. I’m guessing that a few Enquirer stories thrown in the mix would liven things up a bit. But in the meantime, forget sleeping pills and just fire up this slideshow on your...
1 tag
The Pay Issue
Bennett et al: I’m not judging the Enquirer as somehow shady for paying its sources. The Economist Intelligencer Unit, Ergo and other companies that publish expensive business news also pay their sources. It’s a great way to get information, of course, and a totally legit practice in most industries — but not in journalism. If all media outlets did it, I’d have no beef with...
I Feel Pretty
Whatever happens, we all owe The Enquirer a debt of gratitude for stopping this guy in time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kCAFkfFLQQ
1 tag
Poll: Should the Enquirer Have Been Accepted by... →
The Medias Speak: From an unscientific poll currently running on the blog Fishbowl DC.
Respondents currently favor the Enquirer’s inclusion (“Hell Yeah! Fair and Square”) 92 percent to 8 percent (those responding “No Way! What a Joke”)
1 tag
Print v. Print
The Pulitzer Committee has already ruled on the newspaper/magazine issue.
The NE is in the running in the categories “Investigative Reporting” and “National News Reporting.”
The NE’s reporting on Edwards began in 2007 and continued well into 2009, with the stories getting increasingly substantial and newsworthy.
What’s left is the issue of how significant...
To Tuttle’s point about the Enquirer often leading the pack on the O.J. Simpson story: here’s a fairly remarkable story by David Margolick (who now writes for Newsweek) in the New York Times acknowledging just that.
1 tag
Uhmmm...hello?
Clearly, The Enquirer is eligible for the prize. I read it myself in The National Enquirer.
And I’m pretty sure that photo of Edwards is not doctored.
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/national_enquirer_accepted_pulitzer_prize_competition/celebrity/68188
4 tags
They Paid, Yes. But They Got the Story!
Paying for sources is shady. It’s tabloidy. It’s not good journalistic practice. But the fact of the matter is: Newsweek didn’t get the Edwards story, the Times didn’t get the Edwards story, the tabloid trash got the story—and whether or not they paid for it, it all turned out to be effing true. So, make it clear that you’ve paid for your sources, for sure, and...
1 tag
One point I’m not clear on is whether the Enquirer is entirely eligible for the prize — there are questions about whether the tabloid is technically a magazine or a newspaper, and whether reporting that was done in 2007 and 2008 is eligible for a 2009 contest.
Leaving that aside, though, there’s a part of me that really hopes the Enquirer gets the Pulitzer — or at least a...
1 tag
Call me a sticker....
But what about the fact that the Enquirer is a magazine? And the fact that much of their coverage was in 2008? I think that there’s merits to the fact that they spent serious money — not on sources, but on sending a reporter to do lots of on-the-ground-reporting — in a time when most people are reporting from their laptops. And I think a lot of people are happy to stick it to the...
In What Category Steve?
We keep talking about “the Pulitzer,” but journalism awards come in categories: public service work, breaking news, investigative, national reporting. None of these fits the Edwards story, which broke in July 2008 — six months after he had quit the presidential race, and ceased to be a public citizen. A juicy read, yes, but where’s the journalistic value — at least as...
1 tag
1 tag
Shine On, You Crazy Tabloid
The only criterion for winning a Pulitzer is whether the nominee represents a “distinguished” example of journalism in its field (international, investigative, etc.) in a “newspaper” (the initial disqualifier for the NE). But “distinguished” is pretty subjective, and has in the past allowed for both coverage of sex scandals and “checkbook journalism”...
1 tag
Hell Yes
The Enquirer should definitely be allowed to win the Pulitzer Prize. If Hitler is, indeed, still alive, and living in Argentina, and their reporting proves it, why shouldn’t they be honored?
Or was it for the one about Elvis meeting with Martians? Or Bat Boy getting married? Maybe I’m thinking about Weekly World News…which gets me to my point: the truth is, all media is sort of blurring...
No chance
There are lots of frail, high-minded reasons why the Enquirer shouldn’t get the nod, but there’s one I can’t get over: they pay their sources!
Does the National Enquirer Deserve the Pulitzer?
News has been circulating all week that John Edwards is about to be indicted for using campaign funds to help support and hide his affair with Rielle Edwards. That the National Enquirer first broke the news earlier this week hasn’t stopped other sources from picking up the trail — after all, it was the Enquirer, a supermarket tabloid, that first broke the story of Edward’s...