iW | bias? conflict of interest?

As a journalist for well over a decade now, I take charges of bias and conflict of interest very seriously. Tonight I read an article charging that Variety's coverage of the WGA strike is slanted in favor of the studios, while earlier in the day I spent a lot of time thinking about whether indieWIRE's film criticism is inherently biased...

Not long after indieWIRE published Wednesday's review of "Southland Tales," I was contacted by two people from the distribution company for the film, Samuel Goldwyn Films, upset that the negative review had been written by Jeff Reichert. He is the co-founder and editor of the four year old online film journal Reverse Shot (which contributes reviews to iW) and he is also a recently promoted SVP at film distribution company Magnolia Pictures. The executives from Goldwyn explained that they didn't realize that an SVP from a rival company wrote reviews for indieWIRE.

While I declined to remove the article from the iW site, I had a valuable hour-long coversation with the Goldwyn execs and they later submitted a Letter to the Editor which we published (and we also revised Jeff's personal bio to reflect his new title at Magnolia). During the call, I expressed my confidence in Jeff's credibility as a critic, earned over his years writing for Reverse Shot. In my mind, he and his RS colleagues have created an exceptional film journal, but I realize it has been a side gig to his work in PR & marketing at a film distribution company. While I don't always agree with RS reviews, I respect their work so much that a few years ago we reached out to them to contribute criticism to indieWIRE. And I remain completely supportive of Jeff, Michael and the entire Reverse Shot team, many of whom also work in the film business.

I also think its important to acknowledge that in the year since iW began running full-length RS reviews, Jeff has written a handful himself, including critique's of "Volver," "Zoo," "Time," "The Camden 28," and "Darfur Now".

During the Goldwyn call, I reiterated a personal committment to transparency regarding how and why we make editorial decisions and that's the reason I decided to write in depth about this situation on my personal blog. While talking with the Goldwyn folks, I was challenged to try and look at the situation from the perspective of a rival distribution company. We certainly didn't see eye to eye on all points, but I finished the call with an even deeper understanding of the issues involved and I've spent considerable time tonight thinking about conflicts of interest and bias, because we deeply value the credibility we've earned over these 11 years at iW.

So, wrapping up, I'd appreciate hearing from indieWIRE readers on the matter. And I'll end noting that some time ago I was told that the term "conflict of interest" is essentially about perception. And, as a respected, longtime film industry veteran advised me tonight, "It's also about character and conscience. But this business is ALL about perception."

I look forward to reading reader feedback.



Comments

Eugene, I think Meyer's argument is a strong one. Because I wear multiple hats, too, I must be aware of conflicts of interest (for instance, while promoting "Into the Wild" with Samsung, I think it'd be weird for me to review it somewhere else). Of course, I don't believe Jeff's review is overtly tainted by his working for a rival distribution company (i'm sure he legimitely disliked it), but the conflict is out there. It's the same reason why indieWIRE prefers not to hire a particular reviewer who cuts trailers and gets paid directly by said distributors of the films he regularly reviews.


I agree that perception is key. If it's reasonable to assume that there *could* be a conflict of interest in a given situation, that's materially the same as there being a conflict of interest.

That said, that Amy Taubin comment on the review was something. I guess I'm just dense, but I don't see how it makes any sense to use this issue to beat the mumblecore horse again.


Dear Eugene - so what is the result of all your thinking about? Are you going to continue publishing reviews written by employees of one company about films released by another company?


the "perception" issue is what rules here. the actual substance is pretty much beside the point. i guess that's the way it should be, right?


everyone, i'm really appreciating the feedback.

jonathan, i don't have a direct answer for you yet, which is why i am a part of this process.

i am wondering, not to ask you to speak for a publication you don't work for... but i believe the head of pr and marketing for your company also runs Film Comment, a film journal not unlike Reverse Shot. am i mistaken? if not, i'd love to know if you've dealt with some of these issues or had a dialogue about them?

best, eug


oh and sorry, i meant the exceptional film journal "Cineaste"... i know that the Film Society publishes Film Comment...

to elaborate, it struck me that Reverse Shot is an online sort of "Cineaste", which is why we went to them to contribute reviews to indieWIRE.


Jesus, Magnolia needs to calm down. We're having a discussion here. The only one who is mad, and whose couldn't make it more clear that he doesn't value the opinion of others, is Eamonn Bowles. His comments attacking his competitor and his snarky responses to everyone else who has weighed in with a differing opinion have not helped his claim that Magnolia has no stake in these reviews.


The ideal situation (for me) would be to not have people who work for distribution companies, or even other filmmakers or their friends, write reviews, but rather have writers who do not have any business or personal interest/conflicts with the film biz or a given film write reviews. Maybe that is too much to hope for since people wear many hats in the indie film world. However, w/ many print publications cutting back on film reviews, perhaps there are a lot of able film critics (who are not working in the film biz in another capacity) out there who would love to review stuff for indiewire.

Specifically re: the iW Southland Tales review issue, I think there can easily be a perception of bias since a SVP of another distribution company wrote the review.

Variety's WGA Strike blog (which i've been reading for the last few days) seems slanted in favor of the writers.

- Sujewa


I think it's all about perception, but just because something is perception and not substance does not make it any less important. In fact, arguably throughout the world of journalism, perception is, in fact, all that matters. The fact that it is a question which arises at all is problematic.

It really is no different than a judge recusing himself; or Maria Shriver leaving NBC News because suddenly she's the First Lady of California.

Goldwyn's crying about it because of a poor review seems a little lame, but the issue raised is totally valid.

For myself, when I am writing, I often think about what I can and can't say being both a critic/blogger and festival programmer, because even though on my blog I don't speak for my festival -- just as when writing for RS, Jeff is not speaking for Magnolia -- the connection and perception could be there and others could read something into it.



Trackback (ping URL)


Post a Comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Name
Email
URL
Comments


Remember personal info?