Comments on The Life and Times of David Chen: Movie Blogs and Journalism in the Internet Age

Arya Ponto, you make a number of great points, but...

2009-06-26T13:47:51.056-07:00

Arya Ponto, you make a number of great points, but I have to say, your perspective towards set visits and the like is pretty warped.

Simply put: set visits are marketing. The studio arranges a very specific day for you to come on set, show you very specific things about the film, allow you to talk about very specific things with the cast/crew, and then you go home and write about it. You don't *find* things to write about. The studio essentially *tells* you what to write about.

You say the difference is intent. Sure, I can see that. But your claim that the intent of a studio-sponsored article comes down to "pay us and we'll write something related to your movie & raise its profile" is only true if you allow it to be. The way I see it, studio-sponsored articles are a great way to write about something topical that interests you and readers alike while still earning a profit in the process. The intent COULD be what you said, or it could be a smart way to make money writing about what you wanted to write about anyway. It comes down to the intent of each individual person, not the concept as a whole.

"You're cutting out the middle man, which is the audience. Do you honestly not see the distinction?"

Just to be clear, I wasn't asking about the difference between the two on a technical level, I was asking about the difference from a moral/objective standpoint. I definitely do see the technical difference.

I will say though, you are definitely NOT cutting out the middle man (ie the audience). You're simply rearranging the order in which their readership affects your revenue. In order for a studio to be willing to sponsor an article you write, you need to have an established audience who cares about what you have to say. The moment you no longer have that, you lose any chance of a studio-sponsored article.

In the end, there's really no substantial difference. Yes, technically there is, but NOT morally/objectively.

"It's a shitty poster, so you post it while making fun of it, BOOM, Digg picks it up, visits go through the roof, you get the mad ad money."

This analogy doesn't work. No site would make fun of a studio-granted exclusive, because that would prevent them from being given an exclusive ever again.

"Option B is they tell you, "Hey, please run this poster on your site and we'll pay you $$$ for it.""

For the sake of settling one issue at a time, I think it's important that we focus on studio-sponsored editorials and not news posts. And again, this analogy doesn't really work, since a studio would never pay a site to run a poster. The only reason it might is if it was something that no website wanted to post (which would only be true if the readers had no interest in it), in which case the moral implications of getting paid by a studio to post something that readers don't remotely care about presents an entirely separate topic for debate.

"As soon as you receive money from them for a service, you become an employee. In that article, Dave wrote it while under the employ of Focus Features. There's no two ways about that."

This isn't technically true, but arguing that is beside the point. What matters is, this same logic can be applied to any other situation discussed: set visits, interviews, etc. The moment you accept what the studio has to offer, you are obligated to reciprocate with content. It's NOT "hey, let's help each other out and maybe we'll both make money". It's a business. The studio provides a service in exchange for a service. It's the same damn thing.

Adam, I make no judgment on Dave's honesty or ...

2009-06-26T12:40:24.233-07:00

Adam, I make no judgment on Dave's honesty or integrity in regard of his Sam Mendes post. I'm also fully aware of why set visits exist and why movie productions set aside budget to treat journalists that way.

But that's beside the point I was making. You asked how they are different from a paid-for post. The difference is, like I said, the intent. For a sponsored post, the intent is "Hey, pay us and we'll write something related to your movie, raise its profile." For a set visit, the intent is to be on the set, to observe, to ask questions, to find something to write about. They're things that a journalist is supposed to do: take an experience, filter it through the journalist's opinion, write it down, write it well, hope it sells. Completely different from an advertiser, which is: take a product, make the public aware of its existence, collect paycheck from manufacturer.

You're basically saying that since the end goal for both is money, it's all the same, money is money. But that's untrue. One is money you earn, by writing an article that hopefully earns you readers, and therefore revenue. The other is guaranteed money that comes straight from the source. You're cutting out the middle man, which is the audience. Do you honestly not see the distinction? I think that's more troublesome than all this talk of Dave's honesty in the article, which I don't even doubt. The problem is more in proper conduct than it is a simple "Well, if it's all still our opinion anyway, what's the difference?"

Let's make the examples a bit closer. Say a studio wants to release a new poster for their new movie. Option A is they tell you, "Here, we'll let you have the exclusive first look. Go wild." It's a shitty poster, so you post it while making fun of it, BOOM, Digg picks it up, visits go through the roof, you get the mad ad money. Option B is they tell you, "Hey, please run this poster on your site and we'll pay you $$$ for it." You take their money but you still make fun of it. Is that still the same thing? You can say that it is, but I think that would be justifying the fact that you're substituting "Hey, let's help each other out and maybe we'll both make money" with "Hey, pay me for this service I'm doing for you."

As soon as you receive money from them for a service, you become an employee. In that article, Dave wrote it while under the employ of Focus Features. There's no two ways about that.

And again, I don't necessarily condemn it. You provide a service, you do it well, and you think you deserve to get paid for it. That's fair. It should be left to your readers to judge your integrity. If they happen to not trust you anymore, that's the risk that you take for branding your article with a sponsorship from the very subject of your article. I can't speak for Devin and others, but personally, I don't think it's a matter of corrupt opinions. It's when you start equating a paid service to be the definition of what movie reporters do that you start devaluing your own profession, and of course that's going to disappoint people.

I think the main problem with this is that probabl...

2009-06-26T12:24:30.157-07:00

I think the main problem with this is that probably 85% of people who write blog comments are just morons; anyone who reads them on any site knows this much. It's easy for many of them to rail against someone taking money for a service when they don't have rent/a mortgage or when they're not being offered money for a service, themselves. "Hey man, staaand for something!" is a phrase you don't hear too often after the commenter moves out of his or her parents' house.

Sponsored posts, if written with an objective and original approach, are not a big deal (and Dave's clearly was not cranked out after a check showed up in a mailbox).

A problem only arises when the writer's quest for sponsorship checks outweighs his or her passion for the craft or the material.

Set visits/exclusive interviews are more suspect and even then, anyone who reads them (anyone with half a brain, that is) knows that what they're reading may not be 100% truthful as the writer clearly was done a favor in being allowed on the set. It's not a big deal though because, as I said, anyone with half a brain knows to tread lightly in those situations. They're like internet EPKs, for the most part, where things are usually merely presented (i.e., "look at this set picture!") and/or the writer only tends to focus on relaying comments from those on-set (i.e., "McG said Terminator fans have nothing to worry about"). It's not really lying or fabrication but it is purposely selective reporting -- and for a good reason (blacklists are not a good thing).

If someone wants a movie blog that is completely untethered, unrelated and uninvolved with the movie business, you're going to have to settle for one with writers who are probably nowhere near as good as those on /Film or any comparable site. Why? Because a site doesn't get advertisements and its writers don't get paid (or offers of set visits and passes to free screenings) if they're terrible at writing about film and nobody goes to their site.

So, suck it up, complainers. If you want sites like /Film or AICN or whatever else, you're occasionally going to get sponsored posts and one-sided set reports.

Yeah, I was going to mention Eric D. Snider, who w...

2009-06-26T11:37:03.537-07:00

Yeah, I was going to mention Eric D. Snider, who wrote a scathing junket article... and was then blacklisted from screenings for four years.

This ban continues, for the record.

You don't visits sets to cast a critical eye. It's pure quid pro quo, marketing in exchange for access.

However, I didn't agree with Eric's article back then, as I think junkets and set visits CAN have some value to the consumer. But there's a line somewhere, and I don't think you know you've crossed until it's far too late in the game.

As I mentioned at the outset, it's the certainty that troubled me. I don't know that set visits are ethically in the right either, I just know that it's up for debate. As is sponsored content, so long as you are keeping trust with your audience. I've yet to hear an argument as to how David broke that trust.

Arya Ponto, your post negates the fact that the on...

2009-06-26T11:21:48.512-07:00

Arya Ponto, your post negates the fact that the only reason you'd be posting that studio-facilitated content to begin with is to earn money. Regardless of whether or not a direct transaction of cash is being made, it's all being posted with the same goal in mind: to generate revenue.

They're BOTH money for money's sake. I think it's you who's muddling the line.

Furthermore, while you may be right that the only way that content for set visits and such could exist is with the studios facilitating it, the reason they do it is because it's free advertising for them. It's not as if there's some journalistic necessity to report on these things. They do it because it allows you to do their job for them, and we post the content because it means more revenue for us. That's why the exchange continues to be made: the studio gives us something, we give them something. And the readers get something too. It's a win-win-win. Dave's article was no different.

As I've stated before, if anything, all of those studio offerings (set visits, interviews, etc.) should generally be considered worse than a studio-sponsored article, since the studio has almost complete control over what kind of content you're capable of offering. At least with the sponsored editorial, the journalist is the one who has control over deciding what limitations are set on the content. And if they have any integrity at all, they would only agree to participate in sponsored editorials that allowed them to be as open and honest as possible. This is what Dave did, and as such, there should be no issue over the exchange that took place. It's the same damn thing that's being done week after week... except more honest.

"They all take the visit, and WB takes the ga...

2009-06-26T10:41:39.419-07:00

"They all take the visit, and WB takes the gamble. Out of that comes two fact-based write ups from Frosty and Peter, Laremy may write a glowing, very positive article, and Devin may write a scathing review.

In short, they weren't paying for a guaranteed outcome. They were paying for your stay, in the hopes to cultivate a relationship. They took the gamble BEFORE the product."

Jpsotis, this is completely inaccurate. You will NEVER read a set visit report that condemns the film or the people involved in making it. Want to know why? Studio relationships. If you wrote a scathing article, you would never be invited on another set visit again. Why would they want to spend all that money on somebody whose article might just be them bashing the film for paragraph after paragraph? If it was really that much of a gamble for them, THEY WOULDN'T DO IT.

If anything, you've just proven why set visits are WORSE than studio-sponsored articles. At least in the latter case, you can turn down an offer to write a dishonest editorial if you have nothing positive to say about the topic at hand. But after you've accepted the set visit trip, that exchange has already been made, and it's your responsibility to report it. And even if the trip was awful and the movie looks like shit, there's no way that set visit write-up is going to communicate that to the readers.

Furthermore, Dave's article was both honest and critical of Sam Mendes. He said nothing in that article that he wouldn't have said on the /Filmcast or, for that matter, that very same article had it not been sponsored. So what the issue really comes to is each individual journalist's ability to remain objective in the face of a studio exchange. It's not a black-and-white, good-and-evil scenario we're talking about. No one choice is explicitly moral or immoral, because it's all about how you choose to let it affect you. And this is how it's been for a long time now; nothing has changed. The only difference is that David has begun to tread relatively new ground, and is always the case in society when that happens, people freaked the fuck out.

But instead of just throwing out blanket statements about what's right and what's wrong, I completely support David in that we should be willing to explore other options; especially since, in this case, those options are really no different from what's already become openly accepted in the world of journalism (regardless of the hoops people jump though to convince themselves that isn't the case).

Mmm. Didn't really have anything to say about ...

2009-06-26T10:41:25.957-07:00

Mmm. Didn't really have anything to say about this before, but this struck me as odd:

Dave was both critical and honest in his Sam Mendes post, and the article was clearly written with the intent of providing something of value to the readers. So why is it that the involvement of a studio exchange suddenly negates its value, while set visits remain completely free of scorn?

And once again, it's not just set visits. It's anything that's provided by the studio: exclusives, interviews, giveaways, screenings, etc. All of these things are offered by the studio in exchange for content/advertising.

I would really like it if you could explain to me what it is that makes this situation any different.

Adam, I would think that the difference should be obvious.

The things you mention (set visits, interviews, etc) facilitate content. A writer participates in all this, on the studio's dime, and then he/she write it up. The opinion could be swayed, I don't know, that's up to the writer's integrity, but the purposeful intent of participating in the junket is to have material for write-ups. In this case, the so-called reward is also the provider of content. It's completely necessary for this "reward" to be given to writers in order for the writer to do the job, is it not?

In the case of a sponsored post, Dave himself admitted that he would have written it regardless of being sponsored or not, did he not? So the article, a retrospective of past films easily available to anyone, could have been achieved without studio help? Therefore, the fact that /Film accepted money (whatever form that may be, ad package or otherwise) for it means that it was a case of /Film wanting some money for helping out Focus call attention to their new film. Am I wrong?

No judgment from me on how you conduct your business. You guys are successful and I'm happy for it, but let's be honest here. To make the case that they're the same thing is disingenuous. One is a legitimate source, the other is money for money's sake. Don't muddle the line.

Laremy - I just wanted to tell you I've enjoye...

2009-06-26T09:06:58.993-07:00

Laremy - I just wanted to tell you I've enjoyed reading your posts. They've been rational and even-handed and I like that. This has been an interesting debate to follow in general, partly because it lets me better understand how the people whose movie websites I read think.

I don't really have anything else to say, but there's going to have to be a new model of funding writing. There just is. There aren't going to be any more Hunter Thompsons, or, probably, Roger Eberts, a decade from now. The market isn't there. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that treating each other civilly and not piling on these stupid firestorms is going to be essential to the process of finding that answer. That doesn't mean I'm saying strong disagreements are bad - they're good - but it's always disheartening to see someone flamed over something like this.

Also, jpsotis - Your example was funny, in part because there's no chance in hell any girl I know would sleep with a guy because he rented her favorite movie. Hence, your point might be doubly proven, in that such a scenario could backfire on everyone!

Adam, Devin, Everyone, etc, The difference betwe...

2009-06-26T08:26:04.861-07:00

Adam, Devin, Everyone, etc,

The difference between set visits and sponsored articles (in general) is the point at which the exchange takes place. Yes, both are accepting gifts/money/access from the studio in return for coverage, but they are both fundamentally different as to where that give and take exists.

As an observer, I can tell that studios pay the money up front for the set visits, and take a gamble on the coverage. Devin or Frosty or Peter or Laremy could all go to the set visit, all paid for by, say, Warner Brothers. They all take the visit, and WB takes the gamble. Out of that comes two fact-based write ups from Frosty and Peter, Laremy may write a glowing, very positive article, and Devin may write a scathing review. Not bad for WB, but that was a gamble they took. They got only one good review, two progress updates (which are really nothing at all) and one condemning review.

In short, they weren't paying for a guaranteed outcome. They were paying for your stay, in the hopes to cultivate a relationship. They took the gamble BEFORE the product.

(The same applies for free screenings. They pay for your ticket, but they don't pay for your good review. A gamble, again.)

Sponsored posts are completely different. The studio would in no way give money to have a writer write a column that criticizes their movie. That simply shooting themselves in the foot. The studios will only sponsor an article that casts them in some form of good light. Therefore, the exchange of favors/money/whathaveyou comes AFTER, with approval. Even if the money is paid upfront, there is an understanding that a good article will be written, so in basis they're purchasing that guarantee, whatever the words in the article actually turn out to be. It's not a gamble at all.

Now, that's not to condemn Dave's article. The way that it's been explained seems that this was a shady area, but they still somehow circumvented that guarantee. They remained critical, and there was a third party, etc, etc. The /Film article isn't a great example of the argument, but it seems that everyone has gotten over this one instance and is talking about the practice in a generalized, worst case sort of way. Except while bandying about examples, but ignoring the fundamental differences in their own arguments.

It's akin to taking a girl to a movie in the hopes she'll like it, versus facebook stalking her, finding her favorite movie, and renting it to guarantee you'll get laid. Outlandish? A bit-- but illustrative.

Do I have a problem with Dave's article now that the process has been explained? Not really. Do I have a problem with studios paying for guaranteed articles? Yeah. I agree the money sucks, but if you're going to make money doing what you love doing, don't change what you love doing to make money.

But then again, I'm just an outside observer.

One last thing: Your claim is that set visits = o...

2009-06-26T07:50:00.042-07:00

One last thing:

Your claim is that set visits = okay, exclusive posters = okay, a sponsored post = bad. But you're stripping away the motivations involved and instead focusing in on how you accept the payment.

The motivations of PR and Studio folk are 100% clear. Sell you a product. In your case they have a better chance if they put Zack Snyder in front of you and have him explain his process. I would argue that this is disingenuous because Bob in Topeka will never intake film in that manner, but that's beside the point. For certain websites it's a poster, a trailer, a phoner, whatever. But they (PR) are always clear, they want you to like/love their product and pontificate to the masses. You are saying "Hey man, it doesn't work that way, I'm not for sale." To which I agree. You're not. And either is David. Even if he's getting paid for his work, or a particular post is sponsored, he's still going to bring it each and every time. You act as though money is the evil, but in fact I'd say relationships are. "Hey man, can you hold off running that Hurt Locker review a day?" is a far more powerful evil than $100 for a post that's cited up front.

I get the naive tag put on me (though I'd rather "idealist") but I think your romantic views of what a writer is are a bit off. I think our goals are to promote the work we love, and possibly save a guy ten bucks and two hours of his life (if we can build that kind of trust). But if the only people who are allowed to compete in the industry have to do it while working 40 hrs a week at another job that's not a fair fight. The money isn't the end goal, the stability is. If you know /Film isn't going to go out of business you can be bold with your work. The slippery slope isn't the notion of paid content, it's the idea that the playing field might not have anyone left in five years.

Yes, CHUD will be around. You guys have been there, done that. But your influence can't grow without studio support (set visits, interviews, blah blah) and advert cash (to hire talent, try new features, blah blah). In five years you can be in the same place. Or you can accept the fact that this is an extremely fluid industry and the people and writers that thrive will be doing so with a huge level of compromise somewhere. The only question is the method, not the movement itself.

I'd like to see a world where the /FilmCast was something the guys could do for a living. I don't think that makes me less than ethical. I also think sponsored posts are a forgone conclusion. When the choice is give an inch or lose the war most people will give an inch. That's not naive, that's just the reality of the situation.

Lastly, very few people in the world get to do what we do for a check. With that comes a responsibility to our audience, to fight the good fight, to bring the honesty, to tell them when we think something is BS. But if there is no system for a writer to think about a career in this business then we're going to lose a ton of bright people. My guess is they'll go into PR.

Plenty of safe money in that, eh?

Devin: I would do the job for free. I have, for m...

2009-06-26T06:24:23.826-07:00

Devin:

I would do the job for free. I have, for many years of my life. But I'm not sure why I have would have to forever. Are we the only writers in the world, that because we've separated from the tactile, don't get to earn a living wage? My point is that the internet has devalued content to the point where it's no longer feasible.

I've been on set visits. They definitely are worthwhile as a learning tool to show how it works, and where things can go wrong. But you're not supposed to make friends with the people running this industry (studios) and that's what you seem to be missing. You absolutely should have an antagonistic attitude towards them, because if left to their own devices they will kill everything that's good and right about the movies. We'll be left exclusively with "popcorn" films and everyone will be dumber for it. Critics are natural balance against commerce. But according to your reasoning we also can't ever have a 401k, kids, or dental. While the studios spend $200m on a project, WE take the flack for taking it all too seriously.

It's one very warped system right now, and the corps are winning. Real & Courageous writing has almost completely lost a foothold. You're a person I read, and you're a person who doesn't pull your punches, and I respect you for that. But the fact that you never expect to be reasonably compensated for the millions of reads you've contributed to is astonishing. In traditional media you'd be a director of something by now, and you'd have a team to further your editorial goals. But in the outlaw wild wild west of internets you're evidently only as good as your next PR contact. And that's no bueno. That's what I'm decrying. More later... off to work... at 6am... on a Friday.

Again, I would/have/will do this job for free because I love it. But it seems we're the only group outside of mimes asked to do so.

"To say that set visits or junkets corrupt is...

2009-06-26T05:10:29.532-07:00

"To say that set visits or junkets corrupt is, to me, like saying early free screenings corrupt. It's obviously not true."

Devin, as Adam said above this is not AT ALL what we are saying.

We're not saying 'corruption' when it comes to set visits/junkets, we are saying 'what's the difference?'.

I think it's worth mentioning that I'm a podcaster myself. (Music not Film but the point stands). I am a member of the Association of Music Podcasting and part of the benefit to this is I get free hosting for my files. Recently the company who provides the hosting has said that if I want to keep it I have to accept both pre and post-roll advertising.

Other members have baulked at this and have threatened to pull out immediately, but I don't have that option. I CAN NOT afford to keep my two podcasts going if I have to pay for enough hosting. It's a simple equation. I accept advertising from a 3rd party that I don't neccesarily support or my shows go dark.

My point is that ANYTHING that keeps /film and the /filmcast going is fine by me.

Dave, great post, this is an extremely well reason...

2009-06-26T03:40:23.836-07:00

Dave, great post, this is an extremely well reasoned argument defending your decision. Personally, I don't care that the article was sponsored by Focus Features. Why? Because I like reading someone's opinion on the works of Sam Mendes. For me, writing an thoughtful, opinionated article about a director as a result of some 'package deal' is preferable to a film blog being plastered with advertisements for, say, The Love Guru or any other trashy film.

Devin, you seem to be under the impression that an...

2009-06-26T01:34:27.765-07:00

Devin, you seem to be under the impression that any of us here are actually condemning set visits. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but as for me, I fully support them, much like I support Dave's Sam Mendes article.

The point of that comparison was to examine the blatant hypocrisy of the attacks toward David and /Film. A studio-paid set visit is not at all different from a studio-sponsored article. You can argue semantics all you want, but the same issue applies: it's an exchange made by the studio in return for content/advertising.

This is the issue that's being addressed, yet you failed to delineate the difference between the two in your response.

"Honestly, the idea that being on a set would sway my review is exactly the kind of thing that people who have never been on set visits would think."

This is entirely missing the point. This was never a question of YOUR objectivity, and even if it was, your review of the film at hand has no relation to the exchange in question. The studio doesn't pay all that money for a set visit in exchange for a review, they do it for a set visit write-up. So if any article is being linked, it should be that one.

I don't even know why I'm arguing this though, since you're inadvertently proving our point. Just as you claim that the set visit, which is bought and paid for by the studio, does not compromise your objectivity, it should stand to reason that the same logic can be applied to any other studio-sponsored article (which is basically what a set visit write-up is to begin with).

Dave was both critical and honest in his Sam Mendes post, and the article was clearly written with the intent of providing something of value to the readers. So why is it that the involvement of a studio exchange suddenly negates its value, while set visits remain completely free of scorn?

And once again, it's not just set visits. It's anything that's provided by the studio: exclusives, interviews, giveaways, screenings, etc. All of these things are offered by the studio in exchange for content/advertising.

I would really like it if you could explain to me what it is that makes this situation any different.

Seriously last one: What seems to be different be...

2009-06-26T01:27:31.325-07:00

Seriously last one:

What seems to be different between the guys I came up with and the new guys is that we didn't do it for the money. In the beginning I doubt many (or any) of us saw this as a 'career.' When we came in we didn't have ANY access. I couldn't get into press screenings in 2000/2001. We did it because we loved it, and we took ads to pay for bandwidth.

So Laremy, the door's not closed behind us. The one I walked through - doing it for love, for free (for YEARS for free) - is wide open.

Why am I not going to bed! Laremy - I welcome a b...

2009-06-26T00:17:38.486-07:00

Why am I not going to bed!

Laremy - I welcome a blog purge. There are way too many far too shitty blogs out there regurgitating the same stories from Variety. Maybe there are nice guys behind them but the ability to secure a URL should not guarantee you some sort of living as a movie blogger.

And you know what? CHUD will never compete with IGN or UGO. It's a reality. And who cares? We've found our niche, we provide a specific thing that's our own, and that's what we do. We'll never have a huge staff - hell, we're about at a skeleton crew right now. Not everybody should just show up and become rich at this.

David, I'd like to address all your points but...

2009-06-26T00:03:45.242-07:00

David, I'd like to address all your points but I really do need to get to bed, so just 5 and 6 for now:

5) CHUD's never done that. Can't speak for other sites, but we have never done that. In prehistory we hosted message boards for particular movies, and I think that was probably weird and problematic, but that was a real estate buy, not a content buy.

6)I think selling an advertorial as a real estate buy is fine. The studio supplies the content, you give it a spot on your page with a prominent ADVERTORIAL marking (like ADVERTORIAL: THE FILMS OF SAM MENDES) and that's that. It's no different from the 'Special Advertising Sections' in magazines. But Time Magazine doesn't have their writers writing that section.

7) If the business model can't be sustained it's a bad model. Maybe there's no money to be made in film blogging. There's no money to be made in a lot of pastimes. Maybe there is money to be made in film blogging but the overhead must remain incredibly low. Or maybe there's money to be made but at the expense of being a trusted provider of independent content and opinion. It's tough out there for independent book stores, too.

You seem to be coming from the position of 'We deserve to be making a bunch of money and hiring a bunch of people.' Outside of corporate sites who get funding from bigger moneymaking entities, I have not yet seen that work on the web. Even AICN pays very few people.

Example: I was flown to Ireland for THE DARK IS RI...

2009-06-25T23:56:50.111-07:00

Example: I was flown to Ireland for THE DARK IS RISING. I'm half Irish and visiting Ireland was a dream. Best trip of any sort I have ever been on. Period. A memory I will take to my grave.

Here's my review of the movie:

http://chud.com/articles/articles/12064/1/REVIEW-SEEKER-THE---THE-DARK-IS-RISING/Page1.html

Laremy, some studios do treat you differently based on how nice you are to them. But most treat you based on how FAIR you are, and there's a huge difference. I have shit all over many a WB, Universal and Paramount film and those people still treat me well. Because they know I'm fair, and I'm honest. And I'm a nice person to work with.

Your other set of questions is, honestly, sort of naive. It's a game of give and take, obviously. You want something from the studios - access - and they want something from you - coverage. They want to be able to check a spreadsheet that movie A got an article on website X. You play that game of back and forth. And if you're doing this job right, you're making relationships with publicists. I genuinely like the publicists with whom I work, and I want to make their life easier, just as I hope they want to make mine easier. We're not enemies. They want to place some dumb trailer, and I want to interview a cool director. We both have needs that the other can fulfill, so we work together.

To say that set visits or junkets corrupt is, to me, like saying early free screenings corrupt. It's obviously not true.

These things all seem obvious to me, I guess. You do favors. It's how it works for the press in all areas. How do you think people cultivate sources, be it in financial reporting or political reporting or entertainment reporting? You work with other people. But you don't take money for your content.

Couple of quick things (I have an early flight for...

2009-06-25T23:25:50.256-07:00

Couple of quick things (I have an early flight for... a studio sponsored set visit!):

1) I never called for David's blood. As far as who I follow on Twitter, anyone who did was manifestly joking.

2) Studio paid set visits and junkets have been happening for decades. And they used to be much more opulent and luxurious. Don't think this is some new development. If anything, set visits are now grungier and cheaper than ever.

I think set visits are important. I think every film reviewer should spend time on a set. I think every film journalist should spend time on a set. I think visiting a set and seeing a movie in production gives a writer a chance to create interesting, valuable, contextualized content for their readers.

I've turned down set visits where editorial controls (beyond an embargo, which I think is a polite, respectful aspect of the business) were demanded by the studio.

Honestly, the idea that being on a set would sway my review is exactly the kind of thing that people who have never been on set visits would think. I don't mean that as a putdown, but simply that while they are gratifying professionally and as a film nerd, they're usually boring, slow and exhausting. Sitting on a soundstage for six hours while the crew sets up and you wait to get an interview isn't the glamorous life. I get excited every time I walk on a film set, whether it be across LA or across the world, but a set visit isn't like some kind of Hollywood wonderland. It's work.

btw... one thing most people don't realise. M...

2009-06-25T22:29:56.251-07:00

btw... one thing most people don't realise. Movie BLOGS ARE ALL GLORIFIED ADVERTISEMENTS!!! Blogs are all about opinions, but more important is what you are commenting on. And whatever you're commenting on is giving it traffic on the internet. Whether it be a rant on how Pattison sucked in Twilight or how amazing Downey Jr is as Tony Stark. Bloggers are glorified adverts for movies and the people who are part of film.

Without being antagonistic, I have an honest quest...

2009-06-25T22:16:48.468-07:00

Without being antagonistic, I have an honest question. Is this that different than all the product placements that are so prevalent in movies these days? To be able to make the movie they want the producers/directors agree to only use Motorola cell phones in the film and Motorola agrees to cover some production cost. Motorola gets some advertising and the film folk get to make the movie they want.

Okay, now I'm not saying that sometimes when a movie goes product placement crazy (looking at you Transformers) it doesn't frustrate me. But, in most cases, if it happens that all the characters in the movie love Pepsi products and this means that the movie can be made as planned, I'll get over it. Would people consider boycotting such films because they sold parts of the movie as add space? While watching Dark Knight I didn't question Nolan's integrity just because Nokia gave him some money to make sure that Wayne used one of their cell phones.

I guess I see this as kind of the same thing. Yes, an outside source is providing conditional financial support. But as long as that support doesn't change the content or intent of the material, and those articles are identified as being sponsored, then I see it as a lesser evil. I understand with all the ambient talk lately about the distinctions between "journalism" and "blogging" people who write online content may be a bit jumpy about being seen as less credible. And I understand how without clarification this may seem sketchy. But in the end, as long as content is not being changed to appease the sponsor, then it is just Motorolas and Nokias.

Okay, I'm back. Here is the problem as I see...

2009-06-25T22:15:55.378-07:00

Okay, I'm back.

Here is the problem as I see it, the elephant in the room, the thing that will most likely kill the thing we all love doing - writing about film. You ready for it?

We all get paid by advertisers, and we've devalued content completely. What is measured on a website? Pageviews. And how do you get those? Megan Fox, DIGG, and "I'll Murder you EDWARD PATTINSON!" articles. The entire system is based on flawed logic. We're given money by a third party to get clicks. That's the mandate. Then, somehow, we're supposed to balance our obligation to the audience.

Throw in a raft of PR people and Studio reps and you've got a recipe for disaster. I truly don't think ad supported web is going to make it. At least not in its current form.

Also, consider for a moment the motivations of everyone involved. If you're BIG STUDIO A would you rather have a website thrive that was 50/50 on your product? Or would you instead parse out success to people you knew were receptive? We've seen this with horror, and to some degree stuff like TWILIGHT, but studios can choose who gets the exclusives, posters, and trailers. And they sure as hell aren't choosing sites that might one day criticize them. In fact the studios have a far different goal than us, and yet they are one of our main sources of income. This can't work, it's not logical, it's built on unstable ground.

So then, the studios want schills (best case scenario) the advertisers want massive clicks, and the audience wants to be entertained. Guess what happens to the guy who takes a moral or ethical stand? A real one I'm saying, no set visits, no t-shirts, runs no exclusives, doesn't pander, doesn't make friends and influence people? That guy goes out of business. Everytime and twice on Sunday.

That's the sad fact of the matter, the people who make it compromise on something. It's just choosing what. Do you give a studio some placement in return for an interview later in the game? Do you lock your editorial in a way you know will load up on Transformers II coverage, even if you know you should be talking about the racist twins? Do you take that set visit you know will get you 200k clicks in a few months on the studio dime, all the while shaking hands and kissing babies?

And that's my main point. Pointing the finger a /film is/was pointless because everyone is guilty of something. It's like Paul Newman says, we're all sinners and none of us will ever see heaven.

The only sites that will survive the current adsales plummet are 1) corp supported sites who can lose money for a few years OR 2) sites who have such low overhead they aren't really affected.

But what a tragedy that is. Is no one else allowed in the biz? Are we locking the door behind us? New ways to monetize must be considered. Falling on your sword and saying "Fuck you Focus!" as one august blog did is the height of tilting at windmills. You can't have ethics if there is no business.

There was no harm and no victim for the remedy you're suggesting. But in five years, if only guys who look good on camera and studio pals remain it's the consumer who is completely screwed. And that's my larger point, and why Devin might be in the right ethically (I truly could argue either way) but in the wrong logically.

People responded negatively first and foremost bec...

2009-06-25T21:53:18.186-07:00

People responded negatively first and foremost because, that's what internet commenters do. They feign outrage, they whine, they pile on. Anyone who writes on the internet knows this.

People speak too philosophical about this subject. The debate shouldn't be about whether it's ever ok to take money for a certain post or whatever. We can use our brains and our intellect and decide what is and what is not "biased" for ourselves.

If someone thinks that Sam Mendez post was a puff piece that doesn't reflect the true feelings of the author and was done simply for money... then say that. Otherwise, just shut up. If you think the post was informative and worthwhile, then tell Dave thanks and applaud slashfilm for making some money for writing on the internet, which is REALLY hard to do.

Even better, congratulate them for making money though compelling content that used their own talent to create. For me, that is a far more effective and welcome "ad" than some stupid pop up or banner ad. A company sponsoring a good writer to write something compelling and creative is not only ethical, it's smart. Frankly, I would mind seeing more of it. This is the kind of sponsorship I welcome. As long as we know what is sponsored, I'm fine with using my brain and deciding what is BS and what isn't.

I think there's a point wherein this discussio...

2009-06-25T21:47:37.878-07:00

I think there's a point wherein this discussion needs to move beyond the individual incident (which was not actually compromised, and anyone who argues differently isn't paying attention) to the broader precedent, which is a concern but not one to be debated as one giant slippery slope, as serious an issue as it is moving forward.

I don't have a lot to add, per se (Laremy's kind of covering my issues with the Black and White of Devin's comments), but I will make this observation: do any of you think that these questions become more problematic when speaking of bloggers vs. critics?

To be clear, I don't think drawing that binary is valid or justified, but it's one that I've seen people remarking on. Tim Goodman, TV critic for the San Francisco Chronicle, has a big piece where he lumps all bloggers together as brainless tools who shill whatever comes their way, as opposed to critics who have organizations to bind them together, etc.

Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=24&entry_id=41689.

Again, I don't agree with his thesis (not all bloggers are like that, and not all critics adhere to those organizations as well as they should), but it raises the question that we're discussing here: at what point is the changing face of internet journalism going to further blur these lines?

As Devin is saying, the practice of sponsored posts is problematic because it paints a picture of bloggers as WILLING to do things like this, sending us down a slippery slope into a situation where bloggers aren't viewed as unbiased and objective when it comes to film material.

On the other hand, as Laremy points out, bloggers are undoubtedly being treated differently (the common set visits, in particular) than other journalists. And considering this, is there more wiggle room for pieces of this nature, so long as there isn't an outright corruption of journalistic standards?

Personally, I think there are far greater problems in internet journalism that an occasional sponsored post, but at the same time that perceived divide between bloggers and critics isn't going to become less prevalent if questions like this aren't treated with legitimate discussions like this one.

So yay to debate.

Dave, I'm a huge fan of the site and the podc...

2009-06-25T21:42:04.129-07:00

Dave,

I'm a huge fan of the site and the podcast as you know. I remember yesterday seeing the post about Sam Mendes, which is a good article btw, and seeing the "sponsored by" at the top and wondering WTF!!! I mean I understand it is no different than any radio/TV station selling ad space during their shows or a newspaper. Where they will have an ad for Armor All beside an article for how to take care of your leather seating in your car. However, the only problem that it raises is the honesty issue. Are you being genuine in what you say in your article? And that is one of the most attractive parts of the blogosphere, people being genuine no matter who it pisses off or contradicts.

Now from what I can gather based on your previous writings and your podcast, I know you are being genuine, or you've been keeping up quite some con for a long while. But for anyone knew to the site and your writings it will seem that you're writing it for the cash more than to discuss your thoughts on Mr. Mendes.

Now, I'm new to the world of the blogospehere and I find myself wondering where the line is and how and when will I ever cross it of being a guy who loves talking about movies to someone who does this for a living, and how would I make that living. I understand that the internet is having a bad time with cashflow and profits due to the freshness of the media, the doubts that advertisers have of the media and the current economic position that the world is in. But does that warrant that kind of advertising that was displayed in that post? Maybe. Was it the right move? I don't think so. Would I do the same thing had I been in the position of /Film? Maybe.

I believe you 100% when you say that the article came first and the sponsor came second and the sponsorship had no effect what so ever on the article. But what do you think that any new reader to /Film would think reading the article?

One thing I must say I am surprised is your surprise at the internet's response to this. I would assume by now, 18 months after starting your podcasting career, that you still think that most of the internet's most cared for writers are any better than the average commenter on the /Film boards. Everyone is out there to make a quick 140 character stab at anything that is said, whether seriously or in jest, and it's going to come no matter what you do. And I actually think it is a good thing because it means they are listening/paying attention. So it worries me when they stop replying, because then the fight is lost and it means it's time to go back to a real 9-5 job where you have to where suit and tie to work and shave every morning.

That's my piece and all I have to say.