|
|
|
Confession: I don't always read or look at every section of the paper in the morning. Or in the afternoon. I just now noticed Tim Rutten's column in yesterday's LAT Calendar on naming Michael Jackson's accuser. Basically, Rutten sees the Internet overriding mainstream news ethics, and points to the Daily Telegraph of London revealing details about the Jackson case, including the accuser's name.
So, given the internationalization of such stories and the speed by which they can be cybernetically laundered into the media mix, do the mainstream news organizations' laboriously worked-out ethical norms really avail any longer? Do they still serve some purpose, or has technological change simply overrun them, degrading practices, like withholding the boy's name, from ethics to eccentricities?"It's certainly true that the old system of media discretion, based on the judgments of elite gatekeepers, like newspaper editors, is breaking down," said Orville Schell, dean of the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. "The Internet has amplified the mass in mass media and made it much more populist. We no longer have as many obvious gateways of decorum through which public enters the world of news. To my mind, our newfound pluralism has opened too many doors. It is a kind of a pity that so much of our coverage has become this shameless."
Schell goes on to cast stones at the Drudge Report.
"Unfortunately, people like Drudge have a place these days. He's like a synapse firing into a vast nervous system with no major or minor pathways, just a welter of energy pumping in every direction. If Drudge hadn't linked to the Daily Telegraph's story, it would have gotten out in the U.S. some other way. He's just an iconic roundhouse for the dissemination of the scurrilous."
The reason I dug out yesterday's Calendar is that a correspondent emailed about the contrast between Kevin Thomas' review of The Cooler on page 12 and the blurb attributed to him in the film's ad covering page 10. In the ad, Thomas is quoted exclaiming:
"Sophisticated, intimate, sleek and engaging! A classic romantic fable...'The Cooler' is make-believe of the most enticing kind."
His review does use the phrases "romantic fable" and "make-believe" but in different ways. None of the other key words appear. Just what is the ad quoting?
I saw the uncut version of The Cooler at that festival months ago and was underwhelmed. I would have been annoyed if I had paid to see it. I agree with LYT about not caring enough to compare and contrast the two cuts.
Posted by: Tiffany at November 27, 2003 01:03 PMKevin Thomas is a mediocre critic. He loves, loves, loves way too many of the movies he's given the task of reviewing. I wish the LA times would stop allowing him to critique films.
Posted by: Estanne at November 27, 2003 03:25 PMEstanne, I don't disagree. Unfortunately, a vast majority of critics are mediocre these days. In many cases I think it's simply that they've been at it far too long.
Most of my favorite criticism comes from online sources these days.
Posted by: LYT at November 29, 2003 01:56 AMThat's so cool, because most of my favorite movies come from online sources these days!
Posted by: skippy at November 29, 2003 06:20 PMIf news organizations rely on the "it's already out there on the Internet" defense, then journalistic ethics and standards are doomed. Look: now that news reporting has been democratized, it's impossible to expect that users at the grassroots can be expected to abide by standards established by elite organizations such as newspapers or journalistic societies. So this two-tier system will always be with us.
The answer is to live with it (and, if you wish, to bemoan the Drudges of the world for lowering standards). Yes, it's time to dust off and re-examine long-held standards (such as naming rape victims or molestation victims). At the same time, one need not abandon those standards willy-nilly in the name of some universal commingling of standards and ethics. That will never happen.
Posted by: JD Lasica at November 29, 2003 09:17 PM
of LA Observed
The Kevin Thomas blurb on The Cooler is from his write-up of the LA/IFP West festival earlier this year, at which The Cooler premiered -- it's been on posters since that fest, which if I recall correctly was in June. Technically though, that was the unrated cut. Not different by much, I'd assume, but since I saw that cut myself, I'd say it's unlikely that William H. Macy's genitalia made the R-rated version.
I didn't like the movie enough to want to see again and play compare/contrast with the newer cut. Still, it's good to see that Kevin's early assessment really does match, more or less, his final review.
Posted by: LYT at November 27, 2003 02:02 AM