Regrettable, to say the least. (Though on another note, I thought AwardsDaily’s bald headline — “Paul Newman Has Died” could have had a bit more grace.)
Obituaries should really be about quality rather than speed.
Agreed on AD, Guy. I was very surprised that Sasha would have gone with the news based on a source with no credibility and with a headline that proclaimed it said and done. That it turned out to be true is relatively beside the point, but “more grace” is a great way to put it.
Celtic Mist
he says he’s PN’s ‘biographer’… but couldn’t have been a respected one, as he was left in the dark on this. it’s pathetic to see him bragging about being amongst the ‘first’ to get the story.
You people are being way too cruel and judgemental over this, and I also detect envy and spite towards a quality rival site. And no,
I am not one of their webmasters. They were not bragging about breaking news of his death. It is gross that you are all misportraying and misinterpreting it that way. I read that article as soon as it came out on their site because I happened to be browsing on it at the time.
They were upset over news of his death and felt compelled to share it. There is no rule that states a site has to wait for the rest of the media outlets to release an official statement though it would have been horrible if it was inaccurate.
I think you are just bitter that they released the news before you and the commentary did not reflect any sort of bragging or a self-contragulatory attitude over this. I also think that it is repulsive that you are bitter about this and are projecting this false notion onto others.
They had an insider source they knew was telling the truth. Just go to Awardsdaily and read the posts about Paul Newman instead of turning against them over some sleazy spin another site prints against them because I didn’t
find the way they broke the news disgusting at all. I don’t tolerate spin of any kind. I also don’t tolerate this kind of uncivilized behavior between sites and blogs. Ryan Adams made a point in explaining their source and why they broke it early for the people that posted who were being antagonistic over the fact there was no official confirmation released through a
media source like Reuters yet. They were not being disrespectful at all and I don’t think they displayed any less class or grace than you did.
Other media outlets used the headline Paul Newman has died, do they have to discuss everything in a eloquent and pseudo intellectualized manner? Grow up. It is also feels treacherous considering they consider this website to be a friendly rival and I know Guy Lodge visits their site frequently and is part of their online community.They are supportive of their competitors. Shame on you for trying to fabricate a controversy and incite a firestorm of critcism over nothing.
What uncivilized behavior? What the hell are you talking about?
First off, I don’t think it’s wrong to express some concern over the hasty nature of the AD posting (which is NOT what this post is about, mind you, it’s just what you’re turning it into).
I’m also not trying to fabricate a controversy. I think it’s shameful that Levy is bragging about breaking the news (which, in essence, was ACTUALLY broken by AD, but you seem hell-bent on turning this into a fight between sites).
You seem to have the complete wrong idea here, Wendy. I’ve read this twice and I have no fucking clue what you’re talking about unless you just misjudged or didn’t realize that I’m blasting Levy in this post, not AD.
“But from a newsman’s standpoint, it was queerly elating: you don’t beat the AP too often in this racket.”
Bad enough that Shawn Levy boasts about being first to break the news (which, irrationally contradicts what he in the previous paragraphs when he claims to have seen the news on AD). Worse is his description of his callous feelings as “queerly elated.”
Shawn Levy demonstrates his complete lack of class. Kris and Guy, by huddling here twittering about having “more grace” maybe you should take a time out to measure your own level of grace when talking about Sasha.
Kristopher Tapley
You’re way off base here, Ryan. WAY off base. But I won’t argue in circles with you…yet again. The point of this post has been muddled.
Kristopher Tapley
Additionally, I have plenty of sources. Just because one person says something doesn’t mean it’s true, regardless of the track record. First rule of journalism: independent verification.
But — once again — this post wasn’t about that. I agreed with Guy that it was a bit hasty. Your comment about “huddling together” is ridiculous, since that is and has been the essence of AD from the word go. But this post was about Levy’s absurd piece and his yanking of the credit away from AD (which I gave to your site five comments up, Ryan).
Some folks are just aching for a fight. Sad to see you take it there just like Wendy did, Ryan. Moving on…
I don’t want to argue either, Kris. As this is one of your famously cryptic “headline-and-a-link” posts, it’s not the content of the main page item that bothers me (I quite like the “solve this riddle” nature of some of your posts).
Nope, what bothers me is how your clear and justified intention to skewer Shawn Levy had to include a snide aside questioning Sasha’s judgment in publishing a story that didn’t have the Variety Stamp of Approval — or whatever. (A story that turned out to be correct, sad as it was, but unquestionably correct and 100% on the money, all the same.)
So what if the AD item was a solemn simple statement of tragic fact? Do we have to stick a lot of hoary adjectives all over heartbreaking news to fancy it up enough for sensitive public consumption?
That’s my problem, Kris, and as much as you enjoy playing journo umpire and deciding who’s out and who’s safe, I think my defense of the issue touches base exactly where I mean for it to.
Again, I have no problem with the main-page post. Your minimalist headline and one-word content entries sometime invite misinterpretation, but I never have trouble understanding what you’re on about.
It’s the post-mortem dissection of “style points” and subtle jabs at integrity in the comments that bother me.
We all respect and admire Paul Newman. I wish some of that same respect could be shared between us, as actual friends and associates.
In his gleeful revelations, Shawn Levy leaves out the part where he wrote to me in the middle of the morning for confirmation and thanked me for helping him get a scoop. That made me itchy enough already so I’m not inclined to find it very charming when friends begin questioning each others “grace.”
It’s no fun to argue, Kris, so why do you want to always start a fuss? ;-) Let’s all be aggravated and appalled at Shawn Levy and try not to take cheap jabs at each other. I’ll try to cool it if you will.
Ryan, come on. You really think I intended to go there from the start? Clearly, I responded to Guy’s comment with a note of agreement. Should I just hold my tongue next time?
I’m not taking a stab at AD’s (or SS’s, or RA’s) integrity on the whole. Just in this one instance. Sasha is generally reserved on stuff like this; it was out of character to go with it and, still, a mind boggler. I’m obviously not alone in this. Wells felt the source questionable before posting anything. Levy did some legwork. Plenty of your own readers posted confused reactions and the post was even removed from your site for a spell. Please don’t act as if I’m the only guy out here banging the drum for journalistic integrity.
You and Sasha have my full respect, Ryan. It’s not like IC is an AD-hater corner of the web. I personally think it’s way out of proportion.
Bottom line is this: despite my feelings on the original AD posting, that is where the news broke first. I think it is appalling for Levy to go around claiming possession of said break and, indeed, that’s part of the vague nature of this headline. Yes, he’s being vulgar in bragging over the scoop, but even more so since the scoop wasn’t his.
As I have said three times now.
In any case, it’s not cheap jabs. It’s one instance in a long while where I’ve questioned a move made on your site and I think I was within bounds. You’ll simply have to forgive Guy’s “Britishness” for the “grace” quip, but I’m sure he’ll step in to defend himself soon enough.
Thanks for clarifying, Kris. Does it ruin the whole concept of giving you the last word if I say I’m happy to let you have the last word?
[The InSneider, this is nuthin’. Kris and I spar with each other every few months, just to stay in fighting form. At first glance it might seem as fractious as a spat between Bill O’Reilly and Al Franken. But on closer examination you’ll notice that Kris and I both think we’re Al Franken. (In other words, spirited but not mean-spirited.)
Occasional disputes flare up but fizzle out just as quickly when one of us realizes we’re not far apart on the basic issues. It’s Crossfire, with really erratic aim. Because innocent bystanders sometimes get hit, we had to scuttle plans for our AMC morning show collaboration: Contentious Daily.]
Pierre de Plume
Stop! You’re both right! Certs is two mints in one!
Although Mr. Levy indulged his ego in his reporting of the back story to the Newman piece, he at least has acknowledged that he’s patting himself on the back for it. And why not? Let’s face it, journalists are constantly competing to get the scoop. Let’s not overlook the fact that his article credited Awards Daily as his initial source.
Mr. Levy also qualified his story by saying that his obituary was the “first full scoop” — suggesting, apparently accurately, that his reportage may not have been the first, but that it was the first comprehensive piece to come out on the matter (in the USA, at least).
Good lord, the things that can happen while one is sleeping.
As Kris has already stated numerous times, it is Levy, not Awards Daily, who is the object of scorn in this post. My comment about “more grace” concerned not the speediness/credibility of the reporting, but Sasha’s choice of headline — I’m all for plain speaking in most contexts, but stating “Paul Newman Has Died” sounds unnecessarily severe to me. If that’s more of my Britishness coming through, then so be it.
I was merely surprised because Sasha is generally one of the most considered writers on the Oscarweb, but it’s a minor point. If I had wanted to make something of it, I would have addressed the issue at Awards Daily. As you know, I’m not a stranger to your threads.
I have long enjoyed AD and both Ryan and Sasha’s writing — if I despise a website (to reference Wendy’s overheated choice of words), I don’t read it.
Assuming this is you in comment #5, Wendy, again — way to get the hole fucking thing wrong.
All the “disgust” in this thread and these comments is directed at Levy, not AD. Jesus Christ, what a childish thing to write. Again, assuming it’s you (and I figure it has to be, given the similar — WRONG — correlations that “Fan” is making).
No way you can slime your way out of this one, Kris. You can’t say all of those idiotic and cruel things and then back off and say “oh but I love the site and I’m defending it.” Thanks Ryan for putting in a good word. The Newman source was credible. If you thought my headline lacked grace well, so does death. I was tired. It was late. I was shocked and couldn’t think of a better way to say it. But thanks for being such a public dick, something I’ve never done to you even when I totally thought you were being lame which has been often over the years.
And by the way, I took down the post not because I read any of the comments or because Jeff Wells or anyone else was poking around around but because I personally felt that it wasn’t something I had a right to “break” necessarily and that maybe the family or the publicist might have wanted to do that. So on my own, speaking to no one, I briefly took it down. Never in my wildest imaginings, though, would it be because people thought the headline was too blunt. And anyway, if my source knew the family already knew.
I’ve seen journos fight over a story break – I’ve often, and Ryan has broken stories we don’t get credit for – goes with the territory. I’ve been doing this a long time and never, I don’t believe, in the ten years I’ve been doing this have I gotten a story exclusive from a source that turned out to be false. We get these because our readers like our sites and want us to get the scoops — it is then a slap in the face to those readers when people treat them as sleazily as some of you are doing here. Blogging is not journalism. The same rules do not apply.
Sigh, I guess if someone wants a fight they’ll stick to it and think we’re “sliming” our way out of something.
I stand by what I said, and there was nothing cruel about it — it’s not like I was one of your readers posting “I’ll never come to this site again” as a result of your one-source proclamation. Again, I obviously wasn’t alone in thinking it was hasty, so are all of those who felt the same “cruel” as a result?
Good god…
“Blogging is not journalism. The same rules do not apply.”
You said it, sister.
I also just realized I wrote “hole fucking.” Who’s tired…
“But thanks for being such a public dick, something I’ve never done to you even when I totally thought you were being lame which has been often over the years.”
Don’t stop being a lady on my account, Sasha. And sue me for agreeing with another person’s sentiment. I remain surprised you would go with the story based on one anonymous source. If that makes me a dick, whatever, but your standards are your own.
Comments
29 responses to “Bragging about breaking the Newman news?”
Yuck. That’s pretty gross.
Anyone else feel like washing himself after reading that disgusting story? Absolutely pathetic.
That’s plain fucking sad.
disgusting.
Sad.
Regrettable, to say the least. (Though on another note, I thought AwardsDaily’s bald headline — “Paul Newman Has Died” could have had a bit more grace.)
Obituaries should really be about quality rather than speed.
Agreed on AD, Guy. I was very surprised that Sasha would have gone with the news based on a source with no credibility and with a headline that proclaimed it said and done. That it turned out to be true is relatively beside the point, but “more grace” is a great way to put it.
he says he’s PN’s ‘biographer’… but couldn’t have been a respected one, as he was left in the dark on this. it’s pathetic to see him bragging about being amongst the ‘first’ to get the story.
To the great PN – safe journey.
Wow, that was ghoulish. I’m sorry now I linked to his obit, which was actually well written.
What a wanker.
You people are being way too cruel and judgemental over this, and I also detect envy and spite towards a quality rival site. And no,
I am not one of their webmasters. They were not bragging about breaking news of his death. It is gross that you are all misportraying and misinterpreting it that way. I read that article as soon as it came out on their site because I happened to be browsing on it at the time.
They were upset over news of his death and felt compelled to share it. There is no rule that states a site has to wait for the rest of the media outlets to release an official statement though it would have been horrible if it was inaccurate.
I think you are just bitter that they released the news before you and the commentary did not reflect any sort of bragging or a self-contragulatory attitude over this. I also think that it is repulsive that you are bitter about this and are projecting this false notion onto others.
They had an insider source they knew was telling the truth. Just go to Awardsdaily and read the posts about Paul Newman instead of turning against them over some sleazy spin another site prints against them because I didn’t
find the way they broke the news disgusting at all. I don’t tolerate spin of any kind. I also don’t tolerate this kind of uncivilized behavior between sites and blogs. Ryan Adams made a point in explaining their source and why they broke it early for the people that posted who were being antagonistic over the fact there was no official confirmation released through a
media source like Reuters yet. They were not being disrespectful at all and I don’t think they displayed any less class or grace than you did.
Other media outlets used the headline Paul Newman has died, do they have to discuss everything in a eloquent and pseudo intellectualized manner? Grow up. It is also feels treacherous considering they consider this website to be a friendly rival and I know Guy Lodge visits their site frequently and is part of their online community.They are supportive of their competitors. Shame on you for trying to fabricate a controversy and incite a firestorm of critcism over nothing.
What uncivilized behavior? What the hell are you talking about?
First off, I don’t think it’s wrong to express some concern over the hasty nature of the AD posting (which is NOT what this post is about, mind you, it’s just what you’re turning it into).
I’m also not trying to fabricate a controversy. I think it’s shameful that Levy is bragging about breaking the news (which, in essence, was ACTUALLY broken by AD, but you seem hell-bent on turning this into a fight between sites).
You seem to have the complete wrong idea here, Wendy. I’ve read this twice and I have no fucking clue what you’re talking about unless you just misjudged or didn’t realize that I’m blasting Levy in this post, not AD.
Weird……
“That it turned out to be true is relatively beside the point”
et tu, Kris?
“I was very surprised that Sasha would have gone with the news based on a source with no credibility”
An you’re basing your accusation of “no credibility” on what exactly, Kris? No credibility in the sense that our source was… right? As in credible?
We have a history with the source and he has never failed to supply us with anything but impeccable information.
Kris Tapley being “surprised at hastiness” is not a very credible or relevant journalistic standard.
“But from a newsman’s standpoint, it was queerly elating: you don’t beat the AP too often in this racket.”
Bad enough that Shawn Levy boasts about being first to break the news (which, irrationally contradicts what he in the previous paragraphs when he claims to have seen the news on AD). Worse is his description of his callous feelings as “queerly elated.”
Shawn Levy demonstrates his complete lack of class. Kris and Guy, by huddling here twittering about having “more grace” maybe you should take a time out to measure your own level of grace when talking about Sasha.
You’re way off base here, Ryan. WAY off base. But I won’t argue in circles with you…yet again. The point of this post has been muddled.
Additionally, I have plenty of sources. Just because one person says something doesn’t mean it’s true, regardless of the track record. First rule of journalism: independent verification.
But — once again — this post wasn’t about that. I agreed with Guy that it was a bit hasty. Your comment about “huddling together” is ridiculous, since that is and has been the essence of AD from the word go. But this post was about Levy’s absurd piece and his yanking of the credit away from AD (which I gave to your site five comments up, Ryan).
Some folks are just aching for a fight. Sad to see you take it there just like Wendy did, Ryan. Moving on…
I don’t want to argue either, Kris. As this is one of your famously cryptic “headline-and-a-link” posts, it’s not the content of the main page item that bothers me (I quite like the “solve this riddle” nature of some of your posts).
Nope, what bothers me is how your clear and justified intention to skewer Shawn Levy had to include a snide aside questioning Sasha’s judgment in publishing a story that didn’t have the Variety Stamp of Approval — or whatever. (A story that turned out to be correct, sad as it was, but unquestionably correct and 100% on the money, all the same.)
So what if the AD item was a solemn simple statement of tragic fact? Do we have to stick a lot of hoary adjectives all over heartbreaking news to fancy it up enough for sensitive public consumption?
That’s my problem, Kris, and as much as you enjoy playing journo umpire and deciding who’s out and who’s safe, I think my defense of the issue touches base exactly where I mean for it to.
Again, I have no problem with the main-page post. Your minimalist headline and one-word content entries sometime invite misinterpretation, but I never have trouble understanding what you’re on about.
It’s the post-mortem dissection of “style points” and subtle jabs at integrity in the comments that bother me.
We all respect and admire Paul Newman. I wish some of that same respect could be shared between us, as actual friends and associates.
In his gleeful revelations, Shawn Levy leaves out the part where he wrote to me in the middle of the morning for confirmation and thanked me for helping him get a scoop. That made me itchy enough already so I’m not inclined to find it very charming when friends begin questioning each others “grace.”
It’s no fun to argue, Kris, so why do you want to always start a fuss? ;-) Let’s all be aggravated and appalled at Shawn Levy and try not to take cheap jabs at each other. I’ll try to cool it if you will.
Meow! Best comment thread ever!
Ryan, come on. You really think I intended to go there from the start? Clearly, I responded to Guy’s comment with a note of agreement. Should I just hold my tongue next time?
I’m not taking a stab at AD’s (or SS’s, or RA’s) integrity on the whole. Just in this one instance. Sasha is generally reserved on stuff like this; it was out of character to go with it and, still, a mind boggler. I’m obviously not alone in this. Wells felt the source questionable before posting anything. Levy did some legwork. Plenty of your own readers posted confused reactions and the post was even removed from your site for a spell. Please don’t act as if I’m the only guy out here banging the drum for journalistic integrity.
You and Sasha have my full respect, Ryan. It’s not like IC is an AD-hater corner of the web. I personally think it’s way out of proportion.
Bottom line is this: despite my feelings on the original AD posting, that is where the news broke first. I think it is appalling for Levy to go around claiming possession of said break and, indeed, that’s part of the vague nature of this headline. Yes, he’s being vulgar in bragging over the scoop, but even more so since the scoop wasn’t his.
As I have said three times now.
In any case, it’s not cheap jabs. It’s one instance in a long while where I’ve questioned a move made on your site and I think I was within bounds. You’ll simply have to forgive Guy’s “Britishness” for the “grace” quip, but I’m sure he’ll step in to defend himself soon enough.
Thanks for clarifying, Kris. Does it ruin the whole concept of giving you the last word if I say I’m happy to let you have the last word?
[The InSneider, this is nuthin’. Kris and I spar with each other every few months, just to stay in fighting form. At first glance it might seem as fractious as a spat between Bill O’Reilly and Al Franken. But on closer examination you’ll notice that Kris and I both think we’re Al Franken. (In other words, spirited but not mean-spirited.)
Occasional disputes flare up but fizzle out just as quickly when one of us realizes we’re not far apart on the basic issues. It’s Crossfire, with really erratic aim. Because innocent bystanders sometimes get hit, we had to scuttle plans for our AMC morning show collaboration: Contentious Daily.]
Stop! You’re both right! Certs is two mints in one!
Although Mr. Levy indulged his ego in his reporting of the back story to the Newman piece, he at least has acknowledged that he’s patting himself on the back for it. And why not? Let’s face it, journalists are constantly competing to get the scoop. Let’s not overlook the fact that his article credited Awards Daily as his initial source.
Mr. Levy also qualified his story by saying that his obituary was the “first full scoop” — suggesting, apparently accurately, that his reportage may not have been the first, but that it was the first comprehensive piece to come out on the matter (in the USA, at least).
Good lord, the things that can happen while one is sleeping.
As Kris has already stated numerous times, it is Levy, not Awards Daily, who is the object of scorn in this post. My comment about “more grace” concerned not the speediness/credibility of the reporting, but Sasha’s choice of headline — I’m all for plain speaking in most contexts, but stating “Paul Newman Has Died” sounds unnecessarily severe to me. If that’s more of my Britishness coming through, then so be it.
I was merely surprised because Sasha is generally one of the most considered writers on the Oscarweb, but it’s a minor point. If I had wanted to make something of it, I would have addressed the issue at Awards Daily. As you know, I’m not a stranger to your threads.
I have long enjoyed AD and both Ryan and Sasha’s writing — if I despise a website (to reference Wendy’s overheated choice of words), I don’t read it.
Assuming this is you in comment #5, Wendy, again — way to get the hole fucking thing wrong.
All the “disgust” in this thread and these comments is directed at Levy, not AD. Jesus Christ, what a childish thing to write. Again, assuming it’s you (and I figure it has to be, given the similar — WRONG — correlations that “Fan” is making).
Hoping it’s all behind us…
No way you can slime your way out of this one, Kris. You can’t say all of those idiotic and cruel things and then back off and say “oh but I love the site and I’m defending it.” Thanks Ryan for putting in a good word. The Newman source was credible. If you thought my headline lacked grace well, so does death. I was tired. It was late. I was shocked and couldn’t think of a better way to say it. But thanks for being such a public dick, something I’ve never done to you even when I totally thought you were being lame which has been often over the years.
And by the way, I took down the post not because I read any of the comments or because Jeff Wells or anyone else was poking around around but because I personally felt that it wasn’t something I had a right to “break” necessarily and that maybe the family or the publicist might have wanted to do that. So on my own, speaking to no one, I briefly took it down. Never in my wildest imaginings, though, would it be because people thought the headline was too blunt. And anyway, if my source knew the family already knew.
I’ve seen journos fight over a story break – I’ve often, and Ryan has broken stories we don’t get credit for – goes with the territory. I’ve been doing this a long time and never, I don’t believe, in the ten years I’ve been doing this have I gotten a story exclusive from a source that turned out to be false. We get these because our readers like our sites and want us to get the scoops — it is then a slap in the face to those readers when people treat them as sleazily as some of you are doing here. Blogging is not journalism. The same rules do not apply.
Sigh, I guess if someone wants a fight they’ll stick to it and think we’re “sliming” our way out of something.
I stand by what I said, and there was nothing cruel about it — it’s not like I was one of your readers posting “I’ll never come to this site again” as a result of your one-source proclamation. Again, I obviously wasn’t alone in thinking it was hasty, so are all of those who felt the same “cruel” as a result?
Good god…
“Blogging is not journalism. The same rules do not apply.”
You said it, sister.
I also just realized I wrote “hole fucking.” Who’s tired…
“But thanks for being such a public dick, something I’ve never done to you even when I totally thought you were being lame which has been often over the years.”
Don’t stop being a lady on my account, Sasha. And sue me for agreeing with another person’s sentiment. I remain surprised you would go with the story based on one anonymous source. If that makes me a dick, whatever, but your standards are your own.
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. :) Cheers! Sandra. R.