How lies stay alive

Posted by · 1:15 pm · February 27th, 2009

It really pisses me off that the LA Times would allow Tom O’Neil to perpetuate falsehoods on his Gold Derby blog without any editorial oversight.  Tom, God love him, just can’t help himself sometimes.  He has to create a controversy where there isn’t one and this two-year-old idea that Eddie Murphy was “furious” over his Oscar loss to Alan Arkin is rearing its ugly head yet again with the recent news that the actor will portray Richard Pryor in Bill Condon’s biopic.

We put this issue to bed in February of 2007, but there it is with the LA Times masthead proudly above: “When [Murphy] lost to Arkin, he reportedly stormed out of the ceremony.”

Using “reported” is a nice attempt at shifting the attribution, but the caption to O’Neil’s photo: “Eddie was furious when he lost his Oscar bid for Dreamgirls.”  It’s terribly frustrating.

→ 17 Comments Tags: , , , , , | Filed in: Daily

17 responses so far

  • 1 2-27-2009 at 1:31 pm

    Rob said...

    You are right, he certainly likes to ‘create controversy’ where it doesn’t exist. There’s been plenty of it this season.

    I can only assume he’s bored and feels its necessary to ‘generate’ news.

    What I did find laughable is the “a contender for best picture of the year” which was listed as an LA Times quote on the UK Quad of ‘The Reader’, which actually derived from one of his debates on ‘contenders’ rather than his views or indeed the print version.

    Its REALLY misleading. I didn’t have the problems most did with that film, but that doen’t mean I agree with false advertisng.

  • 2 2-27-2009 at 1:55 pm

    RJ said...

    I first started reading Oscar blogs the year of Dreamgirls. The first blog I’d found was Tom O’Neil’s. After his ranting and raving about Dreamgirls being snubbed, I watched the movie and was shocked it had even been considered a best picture candidate. With different leads other than Beyonce Knowles and Jamie Foxx, it might have had some credibility in my opinion. Once the following season started and Mr. O’Neil latched onto Sweeney Todd, I knew it was time to find another blog. Awards Daily was my destination and I read it daily including through this year. However, if I hear one more word about The Dark Knight there, I shall not return. Because of Award Daily’s obsession with TDK , I sought yet again a different blog and found As long as you don’t fall into the O’Neil / Stone pitfall of thinking only your opinion matters, I shall continue to read you as my primary source for movie awards related news. Your opinions are welcome, but please don’t obsess about one movie, particularly one that the Academy chooses not to honour.
    Thanks for letting me have my obsessive moment.

  • 3 2-27-2009 at 2:15 pm

    Loyal Mehnert said...

    Kris, can you find a black superhero musical to pine over?

  • 4 2-27-2009 at 2:24 pm

    Bill Melidoneas said...

    It might be editorializing & harping over old news but is he wrong? I got that same impression watching the Oscars that year that Eddie Murphy (the jerk he is rumored to be) got mad & left. I didn’t really read anything up on it after that or since but just my opinion.

  • 5 2-27-2009 at 2:34 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    RJ: Huh? I’m not obsessing over a movie (which I was the only one on the record calling an unlikely Best Picture winner in November of 2006, mind you). I’m obsessing over the LA Times allowing gossip to be printed as truth. This has nothing to do with the actual movie.

    Bill: Read the first-person report (from an Oscar winner that year with no ties to “Dreamgirls”) for the actual truth of the matter. Linked clearly in this entry, mind you.

  • 6 2-27-2009 at 2:51 pm

    Michael W. said...

    My god it’s ridiculous. Who the hell cares!!!?? He’s no better than a paparazzi.

    If that’s the level of “professional” oscar bloggers then no thanks!

  • 7 2-27-2009 at 2:57 pm

    Rob said...

    Tom is definetly the Marmite of Oscar Bloggers.

  • 8 2-27-2009 at 3:53 pm

    RJ said...

    I know you’re not obsessing over a movie. I guess I wasn’t clear. I left the other two sites because they obsess, O’Neil over anything and/or everything. I was just mentioning it as a hope that you won’t go that route in the future. As far as I saw reading you this year, you stayed clear of obsessions, offering news and opinions.

  • 9 2-27-2009 at 4:32 pm

    Rob said...

    You know RJ, I’ve been with AD since around 2000/1 and never found that they were ‘obsessed’ at all. I’ve found the coverage fair and even handed.

    Different strokes for different folks I guess.

  • 10 2-27-2009 at 4:47 pm

    Loyal Mehnert said...

    RJ, not a TDK fan by chance?

  • 11 2-27-2009 at 5:14 pm

    lac said...

    Tom O’Neil works or use to work for In Touch magazine. No one who works for that piece of trash has journalistic ethics.

  • 12 2-27-2009 at 6:40 pm

    Nigel said...

    I stopped taking Tom O’Neil seriously as a journalist when he started doing his fact-checking with the people who post on his forum.

    I cringe every time I see him start a thread asking people about Oscar history for an article he’s writing.

  • 13 2-27-2009 at 7:48 pm

    Rolando said...

    I cross over Tom for 2004 Oscars. I was credentialed and I was walking to my hotel and I look at him and simple nod at courtesy. And he’s just wave his hand in front of me and yelled NOT NOW NOT NOW! I’d just did think what the heck with this prima donna???

  • 14 2-27-2009 at 8:11 pm

    Zan said...

    Who gives a shit if he left in a huff or just walked out? He left regardless, so the action was still present. Even if he wasn’t ‘furious’ it’s hardly a violation of journalistic ethics, a laughable claim. Honestly, no one cares how journalists say he left except for other journalists or Eddie’s publicists.

  • 15 2-27-2009 at 10:59 pm

    richard said...

    kris, i agree completely. a few things i’ve observed about tom over the years. pardon the length, but i realize i’ve been wanting to get these thoughts off my chest for a while now:

    1) tom has grown more sensational with each passing year. you can ALWAYS tell when it’s a slow news day at those are the days when the bullshit controversies get perpetuated.

    2) he is constantly editorializing in the midst of attempting to report facts. he can’t seem to separate his opinions of certain films and people from the information he reports. he seems to relish bad-mouthing certain subjects at every opportunity. and it’s usually the exact same complaint mentioned every time. (if i have to hear him arbitrarily degrade ellen degeneres’ oscar-hosting performance one more time…) It’s just so BORING.

    3) he’s become more self-glorifying over time. i’ve been reading his blog for years, and his books about the emmys and the grammys were some of the first awards-dork-lore i ever got my hands on. he used to be much more objective and humble. now he likes to refer to himself as an “expert” on a regular basis. and he’s right, he pretty much is. but so are you, and nate rogers, and sasha stone – and you guys never feel the need to remind us what you are. which i appreciate.

    4) tom never lists pure artistic merit as a reason why someone won an award. whenever sheer quality simply and surprisingly transcends popularity (say Marcia Gay Harden for example), he never acknowledges it. he will always find some other reason they won. (‘she had the most screen time…’ People aren’t sitting in the theaters with their stop watches tom.)

    5) tom will now, of course, post an article about how you’re attacking him. and he’ll make it out to sound like you’re taking great pleasure in it, because you want to take down SUCH A FAMOUS OSCAR EXPERT.

    and these just off the top of my head.

    having said all that, he still has a place in my heart, because he was one of the pioneers and i’ve been reading him for so many years. (oh shit, that’s more fuel for his ego.) i still read him because he has good inside connections, sometimes gets good scoops, and loves the minutiae that i do. i’ve guess i’ve just learned to stomach the constant sensationalism and editorializing.

    thanks for posting this article. clearly, i feel better.

  • 16 2-28-2009 at 9:53 am

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Look, I think Tom is a very valuable asset to the Oscarweb. He practically invented it and I like the guy personally. I’m simply raising an eyebrow at the Times’ editorial flimsiness in that section of their entertainment coverage (and it’s not the first time this year).

  • 17 2-28-2009 at 3:14 pm

    Tom O'Neil said...

    Wow. What a nasty personal attack by one Oscar blogger upon another. I am raping journalists’ ethics by noting what was widely reported by Us Weekly, Fox News and others — ? There were many witnesses.,2933,254767,00.html