In his front-page profile of movie industry blogger Nikki Finke, New York Times media reporter David Carr (7/17/09) can’t resist a self-congratulatory dig: “Her liabilities in the world of print–a penchant for innuendo and unnamed sources–became assets online.”
Those familiar with the print media world may recall that unnamed sources are not exactly unknown there. To find an example, I didn’t have to go farther than the first half of Carr’s own article, where he has a paragraph full of anonymous attacks on Finke:
“I’d prefer not to ever deal with her,” said a senior communications executive at a studio who declined to be identified. Many others declined comment saying, variously, “she gave me a nervous breakdown,” “she terrifies me,” and “there’s no percentage in me saying anything to you about Nikki no matter what it is.”
Hmm, anonymous sources suggesting dire things about a subject without providing any specifics–in other words, innuendo. Are these liabilities in Carr’s print-media world…or assets?
PLEASE. This pot vs kettle is hilarious. Do you really think that ANYONE will EVER go on the record about NF? ARE YOU A NUMBSKULL? The question of credibility and/or ethics in reporting is no longer valid. Everyone’s a fishwife looking for a tale to tell. No one has the guts to do the real reporting on DH. It’s too much trouble.
Hey Jim, how many articles have you or your organization done in regards to Ms. Finke’s fairness and/or accuracy? Or, does she for some reason get a free ride from you guys?
Ms Finke is rarely fair, and quite frequently inaccurate–and more often than most so-called journalists who cover the media. So, where’s the outrage regarding The Fink?
I read Nikke reliously. Unlike many in the mainstream, she reports essentially without any bullshit.
And yes, she often uses anonymous sources. But, again unlike many in the mainstream press, the stories relying on unnamed sources prove right. The problem isn’t using unnamed sources but using same just to promote the sources’ self-serving lies as opposed to using same to report facts, reality, truth. IIRC, Watergate reporting relied on a whole bunch of unnamed sources: it was, by and by, accurate and essential.
IIRC, Judith Miller’s entire reporting at the New York Times relied entirely on anonymous sources. How did that work out for this country? Before David Carr decides to bushwack Nikki Finke, perhaps he wants to take a longer look at the use of anonymous sources and innuedo that lead to an on-going war that costs this country untold (because no investigates it) billions annually, has lead to the death of thousands of Americans, and caused misery, pain, and sorrow for the millions of local inhabitants?
I read DHD regularly because she produces a terrific product. However, her product really does not matter in terms of the American marketplace and foreign policy. The New York Times cannot find real targets for their ire? No wonder the publication is going bankrupt.
And to Alice Adams and Rob, how are the benefits at the studio? Do you guys worry about your jobs there?