Shout Out: Dave Itzkoff and Arts, Briefly

No disrespect to the last editor, whose name I’ve disrespectfully forgotten, but kudos to the Times‘ Dave Itzkoff, now “compiling” the “Arts, Briefly” section. He’s not only a fine reporter, but a fine editor, too. I noticed Itzkoff’s name at the top of the column, a brief run-down of big-but-not-major arts news stories that appears each day in The Arts section, a few months ago or so, at the same time I’d noticed that it’d become such a joy to read.

Itzkoff is rarely laugh out loud funny, but the column is unfailingly clever day after day, evincing a deep knowledge and appreciation of the arts.

Take today’s piece about Casting Announcements for an upcoming production of Finian’s Rainbow:

That old devil moon will soon be rising over Jim Norton, Kate Baldwin and Cheyenne Jackson; they’ve been cast in New York City Center’s coming Encores! production of “Finian’s Rainbow”…A leprechaun has not been announced.

Er, like I said, not hilarious, but certainly pleasant, with an appropriately referential lede, elegantly phrased, and a chucklesome kicker. I hope he holds the position for a while.

Incidentally, “Arts, Briefly” is a great example of The Newspaper’s potential for serendipity, which the Internet can’t replicate. The items from the column appear on the Times’ site, but can’t be read all together as in the newspaper. The physical paper encourages us to glance over at things we might not think we’re interested in; the Internet keeps us all snug in our niches.

Masthead Reveals Uhlich at TONY

Last night I was watching that “Simpsons” episode in which Marge tells Lisa: “Stop reading Mastheads!” Coincidentally, I was reading a masthead of my own at that moment: Time Out New York‘s, which revealed that they’ve hired Keith Uhlich.

TONY‘s erstwhile film editor, the venerated veteran critic Melissa Anderson, became the latest in a sadly growing list of laid off film writers when the magazine let her go in January. She should be fine; she’s already picked up bylines at The Village Voice and some gigs at The Film Society of Lincoln Center. She’s well-known, well-liked and well-respected in the community. Back at the magazine, everyone on staff moved up a notch: head writer David Fear became editor, writer Joshua Rothkopf became head writer.

This left either the staff with more work to do, or an opening at the bottom of the ladder. Word on the blogosphere was that it was the latter. Neither Human Resources nor David Fear answered my emails, desperately begging for the gig.

But, apparently, they’ve quietly hired Keith Uhlich, a familiar byline for anyone who follows the world of film criticism blogging; he’s a managing editor at the essential House Next Door, as well as a frequent contributor to Slant and other sites. Uhlich had no bylines at TONY this week; he may just be doing their listings. But at least he’s living the dream: his day job at least has to do with writing about movies, even if he’s not doing so much writing. Congrats.

Bad Journalism: Weinstein, The Reader & EW

Entertainment Weekly ran a piece on February 5th called “‘The Reader’ Changes the Game,” referring to the Oscar…game? Anyway, writers-reporters Nicole Sperling & Christine Spines argue that while Slumdog Millionaire is looking like the favorite for the Academy Award for Best Picture, The Reader is slowly gaining momentum for what could become, ultimately, an upset.

Or not. In the final paragraph of a three-page piece, the authors suddenly admit (negating the article’s argument hitherto): “it’s going to take some serious sorcery to steal momentum from Slumdog Millionaire…In truth, The Reader remains a long shot in the Best Picture race.”

Weinstein must have a hell of a publicist, because the preceding nine magazine-length (i.e. long!) paragraphs try to claim the opposite. The thrust of this piece is: Harvey Weinstein, once the ’90s premiere producer terrible, ain’t what he used to be; his movies don’t get nominated for Oscars anymore, and if by chance they do, they lose. But this year he’s got a new movie in the race, so maybe with (a hell of a lot of) luck, he could turn things around for himself and his flagging company.

But EW frames the story with sexy sensationalism, as “Harvey Weinstein’s Comeback,” and fills the piece with sloppy journalism to back up its unfounded assertions, such as: Weinstein is running a dirty campaign.

Nearly a decade ago, Weinstein tried to damage A Beautiful Mind‘s chances of taking Best Picture by claiming its hero was, in real life, an anti-Semite. So, the authors write:

No one expects [Weinstein] to play by the rules. ”I bet you right now he’s back to his old habits, out there trashing Slumdog,” says an industry veteran who has gone toe-to-toe with Weinstein in the past.

There are two major problems here: first, as per Journalism 101, you should never use an anonymous source to sling mud (for potential legal reasons, as well as ethical ones); two, you shouldn’t use your profile-subject’s known-enemies to make unfounded suggestions that your subject is misbehaving.

To make matters worse, the writers go on to cite a recent controversy regarding Slumdog Millionaire–accusations that the filmmakers exploited their young stars. “No one has accused Weinstein of being involved,” the authors then write. So why bring it up at all? Because your editors have insisted you cram the story into a mold that doesn’t fit?

Bad Journalism: Slumdog, Millionaire & The Times

The protagonist in Slumdog Millionaire is a contestant on the Indian incarnation of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire”. Given the film’s underdog popularity, and the seeming daily announcements that it has won another award, someone at the New York Times thought, has that had any affect on the once-popular game show? The resulting story appeared on the front page of the Arts section on Saturday. But there really wasn’t a story.

The headline declared that “‘Slumdog’ Revives Interest in TV Show”. The question is: revived interest among whom? Not actual viewers! Get ten grafs down and discover:

If “Millionaire” is on viewers’ minds more this year, it hasn’t been reflected yet in the ratings in the United States. The audience for the syndicated weekday series has declined 9 percent this year, mirroring broader declines for daytime shows.

Apparently, only the show’s executive producer, Michael Davies, is more interested in the show than he was before the movie, probably because he sees an opportunity to cash in. He said he is in talks with ABC about a revival. (ABC wouldn’t comment.)

Though Brian Stelter, the writer-reporter, spoke to a few different sources (including current host of the game show, Meredith Vieira), the only one who backs up the contention that the movie has renewed interest in “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” is Davies. And even he admits, high up in the story, “I couldn’t tell you whether ‘Slumdog’ has done anything to accelerate those conversations [with ABC about a prime-time “Millionaire” comeback].” This is essentially a single source story. And that’s bad journalism.

Even worse, it’s a single-source non-story, the product of an angle for an article that didn’t pan out. It happens, and I don’t blame Stelter–but why’d the Times still run the piece? Because anything “Slumdog” drives web traffic?

What do you think?