Cinematical

Good for you! It's sad to see that unprofessionalism taint a whole field especially when mainstream journalists are so peeved at being upstaged. You guys will need to be like Caesar's wife until the response to new media stabilizes.

Reply

This isn't just a problem in film. I help a good friend of mine run one of the most popular sports fan websites on the net. He and I had to wade through a lot just to get even minor access to things like team media days because of the glut of online websites and their less-than-professional behavior. It took a lot long to earn trust than it would for a standard media outlet.

Reply

The hell with threats! You should publish their names now. I'm disgusted at the behavior of many fellow online "journalists" at screenings/junkets.

Reply

This is an issue that's been very important to me since I first started writing reviews. It took me quite some time to get on my local press lists, not because anyone had a problem with me personally, but because back then "onliners can't be trusted" is what I kept hearing.

That was about five years ago, and since then I've done everything I can to behave like a professional and 'further the cause' of online writers. I've met dozens of filmmakers and celebrities, and on that rare occasion when I feel geeky or excited, I just command myself to act like a goddam professional. (It happens very rarely, but having a sit-down with James Woods is the closest I ever came to geeking out.) Still, I've never once asked for an autograph or behaved like a screaming fanboy. I cringe just thinking about such behavior.

My hope is that Universal (and other studios/distribs) take these occurrences on a case-by-case basis instead of painting all onliners with the same unhappy brush.

Reply

There's a lot of respect and ethical behaviour missing in most online areas, not just film journalism/writing. So it's great to see when writers do things like credit their sources and who they found stories through, as well as how they behave professionally.

However I still find that because I'm deemed to be small none of this matters. I'm forever being dropped from story credits, and receiving some seriously mixed respect from local cinemas and PR departments.

When I started Filmstalker I was dropped by a bunch of contacts because I wasn't so big anymore. Another interesting thing I've experienced is with a local cinema chain. One of their cinema's are unbelievably accomodating with my site, and the other continually drops me off the press list and doesn't inform me about screenings, etc.

So it's really down to the people. Their understanding of the online writers and their own level of respect and ethics towards other people, usually not an entire site or organisation, but individuals.

I don't think it's bad to ask for an autograph when meeting a star, or to show that you're really excited to be speaking to them, but treat them with respect and interview them well and they should show you respect back, as should the studios.

I do think there's something wrong about throwing their might against all the online writers and agree that it really should be a case by case basis, because there are those of us using professionalism, ethics and respect of others.

Reply

Like Scott, I'm an online reviewer, and I agree with what he said. However, I also have a degree in journalism and several years experience in radio. So I’ve been on both sides of the fence.

The problem as some have already said is much bigger than just film and entertainment writers. It seems that there isn't the same emphasis on professionalism and ethics with some online sites and loggers and we all suffer for it.

With some (and definitely not all, I wouldn't even say most) online news outlets, there is no verification of facts or adherence to any kind of ethics. So, those of us who behave professionally often suffer.

It is definitely frustrating to be thrown into the same pot as the unprofessional and unethical writers. A few bad apples are truly spoiling the whole bunch.

Reply

Karyn,

You're absolutely right on all counts. I remember waaaay back in 1996 or so, a developer friend bemoaning the coming of WYSIWYG programs that allowed anyone and everyone to build webpages without having to learn HTML, because the internet would fill up with crap. And he was right, it has, but at the same time, there's a lot of good amidst the rubbish.

The same is true, I think, with online film sites. Anyone can start a blog and start writing their own reviews of films -- hell, even my 9YO does. Thus, a proliferation of sites writing about movies, and a bunch of people who want in on the game without learning what it means to write professionally.

When you write about film for an online outlet, you are automatically suspect until you prove yourself, that's just the way it is. In this business more than most, it's all about building relationships and credibility, and you don't earn a rep for being professional by acting like a giddy schoolgirl every time some big star walks into a room.

There are rules to follow in dealing with PR agencies, studios and talent, and I think a lot of online writers (I'd hesitate to even lump them all in as "press" because it's unfair to the people who write online who are professional in both their writing and their behavior) either don't want to follow the rules, or think they don't apply to them, or whatever. And they hurt all of us.

That said, though, I know it's more work for the studios and agencies, but I'd far rather see them deal with transgressors individually rather than punish the whole for the behavior of a few choads. Weed out the bad apples, and give those online film journalists who have earned it the access they deserve.

Reply

Well, that's all well and good...except that most of this piece is BULLSHIT.

I was in the online room for Casino Royale, and I don't remember anyone clamoring over each other for photos or autographs. There was some woman in our room FROM A TV OUTLET who took ONE picture with a celphone and a few people got their books signed, but it was very civilized and not at all pushy. No one followed the talent out and I didn't hear any complaints from anyone, and believe me, if there were problems, Sony would know.

I don't remember it being that bad for Good Shepherd either and I've seen some complete lunacy at junkets/press days in the last year from people wanting pictures and wanting things autographed. I can probably name a few names of the worst of them, but I won't. They know who they are and they're the ones who need to be dropped from the studio lists.

Personally, I think a bigger problem is the people who have enough HTML skill to start a movie website and are given access to these junkets and immediately start shooting their mouth off online about how the system works (or doesn't).

As it were, I don't remember anyone named Ryan from Cinematical at any of the junkets/press days I've attended (maybe I know him by face but not by name) so he's obviously taking this missive from Universal, which is a more than reasonable private request to journalists, and completely blowing it out of propotion.

Reply

Oh, wait, I know who Ryan is now... he's the pompous idiot who thought his questions at the Good Shepherd press conference were so much better than everybody else's that when he posted the transcript, he noted which questions were his. Very professional.

Reply

I was in the online room for Casino Royale, and I don't remember anyone clamoring over each other for photos or autographs. There was some woman in our room FROM A TV OUTLET who took ONE picture with a celphone and a few people got their books signed, but it was very civilized and not at all pushy. No one followed the talent out and I didn't hear any complaints from anyone, and believe me, if there were problems, Sony would know.

- I never said Casino Royale was where talent was followed out. Thank you for admitting that people took pictures and asked for autographs, which is what I said. You think Daniel Craig doesn't consider it pushy to go to a press event and have half a dozen books shoved in his face?

I don't remember it being that bad for Good Shepherd either and I've seen some complete lunacy at junkets/press days in the last year from people wanting pictures and wanting things autographed. I can probably name a few names of the worst of them, but I won't. They know who they are and they're the ones who need to be dropped from the studio lists.

- Ok, so you aren't naming anyone. Neither have we, but we certainly can if we want. People asking for autographs at press events is outrageous, and we can do whatever we want. Who are you?

Personally, I think a bigger problem is the people who have enough HTML skill to start a movie website and are given access to these junkets and immediately start shooting their mouth off online about how the system works (or doesn't).

- What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

As it were, I don't remember anyone named Ryan from Cinematical at any of the junkets/press days I've attended (maybe I know him by face but not by name) so he's obviously taking this missive from Universal, which is a more than reasonable private request to journalists, and completely blowing it out of propotion.

- You don't know me. I guess that means I don't exist, right? And this *private request to journalists* is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with openly. I'm sure the publicist in question wouldn't mind that we're talking about it. We're on very friendly terms with her, and you'll notice that my post says nothing negative about Universal at all, only about rotten-apple-online journalists. The only people who might have a problem with it are *book signers* like the ones you seem so eager to defend.

And p.s., your lame letter to my editor trying to get me in trouble is pretty laughable.

Reply

Actually, your editor contacted me. I never asked that this piece be changed or removed, but I stand by my statement that at best it's lame and at worst, it's as unprofessional as the autograph-seeking press, because let's face it... you've essentially outed yourself as an informant i.e. a rat.

Reply

That's what they said about Elia Kazan. Does this mean I won't get invited to your cool parties after the junkets?

Reply

They said that about Elia Kazan because he was a scumbag rat, though.

Reply

I've been to my fair share of roundtables and so forth, and personally, I never quite understood the autograph deal. I have no interest in autographs, period, myself. I'd rather just chat with an actor or director, I think having his/her signature is pretty silly. But when I attended my first roundtable and several people in attendence started asking for autographs, I was shocked. The celebrity didn't appear bothered by it, mind you, so I just took it that this was usual. But I still thought it was a little silly.

Reply

Of course it's silly. There are lots of silly, unprofessional antics that go on amongst bad junketeers, and not just during the actual junkets. After they take their autograph books and go home, they routinely transcribe and post roundtable discussions in a way that will appear to the casual eye to be one-on-one interviews, even though the most casual reader knows that a typical online movie site isn't regularly sitting down for face-to-face chats with Julia Roberts and Harrison Ford. They just embarrass themselves.

Fortunately, sites like Cinematical are leading a charge for higher standards. We are going to unite the junketeers under a new banner of professionalism, like William Wallace uniting the clans of Scotland. I can't tell you how much positive feedback I've gotten from people over the past few days regarding my original post. A lot of them are afraid to voice their solidarity openly out of fear that the 'veteran' junketeers will frown on them, but I am not intimidated. You can feel the change coming. Join us! Unite the clans! Let's improve the standards and create an atmosphere that will get us all the kind of access we deserve.

Reply

"Fortunately, sites like Cinematical are leading a charge for higher standards. We are going to unite the junketeers under a new banner of professionalism, like William Wallace uniting the clans of Scotland...You can feel the change coming. Join us! Unite the clans! Let's improve the standards and create an atmosphere that will get us all the kind of access we deserve."

Holy shit...They don't give psychological evaluations to contributors at Cinematical, do they? (No need to answer, that was rhetorical)

Reply

Ed, I thought you might have a sense of humor, but I guess that was hoping for too much. Ok, let me be literal: The bottom line is that we'd like junketeers to act a little more professional, because we don't want our access to be curbed by association. Hopefully, you agree with that.

Reply

Yes, I absolutely agree, Ryan, but I think it's the studio and the publicists' jobs to enforce that and keep our fellow "journalists" in line, not ours. That's mostly been my big issue with this thread. (Sorry, I don't know you well enough to realize that you were joking. I thought you seriously were hoping to lead some sort of charge.)

BTW, enjoyed the Top 10 list... we have a couple in common. (Though 3 Times isn't one of them... I just don't get the appeal of that movie at all.)

Reply