Heath Ledger Tape: Tabloid News Does the Right Thing

The late Heath Ledger attends the New York premiere of I'm Not There in November. Ledger died Jan. 22.

Stephen Lovekin/Getty Images

An e-mail got whipped around Hollywood on Wednesday alerting anyone with a public voice to denounce some sleaziness that was about to be perpetrated here in Hollywood.

Sleaziness in Hollywood? Next thing you know, somebody's going to start playing some dirty tricks in politics.

Yeah, but this time it was some genuine old-school, Hollywood Confidential-style muck. The kind that makes long-lens shots of celebrities making out while on vacation or Internet-posted camera-phone video of passed-out pop star #14 seem positively genteel. Long-running infotainment show Entertainment Tonight and her tawdry little sister, The Insider, had reportedly bought and paid for some video that shows the late actor Heath Ledger at a party. There appear to be drugs present. In the video, Ledger talks about previous drug use, but apparently is not seen ingesting any drugs.

Doesn't matter. While we do not yet know what caused Ledger's death, the inference is clear: young star dies under mysterious circumstances, go to the videotape of drugs. Guilt by association.

This, while Ledger's family is still in mourning.

This on the heels of Fox News' John Gibson's insensitive and homophobic remarks regarding Ledger's passing.

Despite the fact that I've had a decent career in Hollywood, there aren't a lot of things I think Hollywood gets right. Here's one: People who know and care about Heath Ledger made it real clear to the two programs -- enough. Enough with salaciousness and scandal passed off as news. Enough with bashing a guy just after his passing. Enough with making bank off of public tragedy.

Enough.

I'm happy to say that ET and The Insider got the message and did the right thing. They are declining to show the video.

Ledger's passing is a tragedy and a loss, as is the passing of anyone young and talented. More so when an attempt is made to turn that loss into ratings points and grist for the public's insatiable desire for sensationalism.

Those who started the campaign to kill the video should be commended for — at least this once — keeping the scandal vultures at bay.

2:12 PM ET | 01-31-2008 | permalink | comments (3) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

In Defense of Race Cards

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama face off at a Democratic presidential debate this week in South Carolina.

Stan Honda/AFP/Getty Images

If you were playing, say, pai gow poker in Vegas and you found a table where the dealer showed his cards BEFORE you set your hand, that's the table where you'd wanna put your taw into action. It's always better to know what's on the table than to have to guess what's in the hole. Which is why, for the life of me, I can't understand why people are so darn consternated over Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and their spouses and supporters) and the various race cards they've been publicly playing of late. Sure, it's petulant and puerile, and we'd be better off if the candidates debated more pertinent issues. But we'd also be better off if the election strife in Kenya got play over Britney's latest shave-my-head-threaten-my-kids meltdown.

It is, however, the real world and so we might as well live in it.

And in the real world, even the most intelligent, high-minded people have racial hang-ups.

The high-minded tend to parse their words, so oftentimes we are left wondering about their intent.

I don't really care to wonder.

I want to know if Clinton really believes that it "took a president" to get blacks their civil rights. I want to know if Obama really thinks that taking money from Indian-American supporters makes Clinton (D-Punjab). What did Andrew Cuomo really mean when he said Obama can't "shuck and jive" his way through a press conference? Does Michelle Obama really think that blacks who don't vote for her husband constitute the slumbering masses?

And even though it was clearly meant in jest, does Obama truly believe the appropriate response to the question of whether Bill Clinton was the first black president resides in "Bill's dancing abilities"?

Not his SAT scores. Not the hours of community service he completes each month. His "dancing abilities."

Harmless comments taken out of context and whipped to a froth in a media cycle? Maybe. But if we're gonna sweat Don Imus or Kelly Tilghman, don't presidential candidates deserve as much of our hot attention?

So as off-topic as it may seem, I'd like to know about the cards they're playing sooner rather than later.

Later being after I cast a vote.

1:24 PM ET | 01-25-2008 | permalink | comments (20) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Politics and the Internet - We're Not There Yet

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, shown during a debate in South Carolina, is this election cycle's Internet star, but he hasn't gotten more than 10 percent of the votes in the contests so far.

Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images

It's almost become a political cliche: Every election cycle, we're promised that this will be the election cycle when a new movement hoists some man of the people up over the rampart of machine politics and returns the power to the populace.

And what's the engine of the revolution? The Internet. The magical digital tether that will unify the masses into a singular, undisputed voice.

That is, when it's not delivering porn or funny homemade videos at broadband speed.

Was it only just 2004 that Howard Dean was going to ride the whole Internet phenomenon all the way to the White House? Four years ago, and it seems like the golden age of netroots. And if the 2004 election had ended before Iowa, the dreams of a mass smattering of the over-hyped might have been realized.

In 2006, there was Ned Lamont running for senator from Connecticut. That he'd never previously held more than local office ... Didn't matter. With fiery anti-war rhetoric and backed by the righteousness of the 'Net, the self-made cable TV millionaire was going to high-speed modem his way right past formerly Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman.

The rest is digital history.

It's 2008. This cycle's phenom is Ron Paul. True, the Internet has connected his followers. The Internet has helped him raise millions. But that's about all it's done. He's not gotten more than 10 percent of the votes in the contests so far.

There's no disputing that for pols, the Internet is a great way to connect with people and raise some cash and post Sopranos parodies or play your opponent's macaca moments. But in a "netroot" sense, it's pretty useless for getting someone elected.

Problem is: yeah, the Internet can reach millions of people. But it tends to reach millions of like-minded people. Presently, it's just a great way to preach to the choir. You can get a breadth of support — witness Paul's millions raised — but that doesn't guarantee a depth of support.

Old School still trumps New School. A Clinton machine negates 'Net-based advocacy. And ask Barack Obama if he'd rather have even the most respected blog site singing his praises, or do another tour with Oprah.

Sure, the Internet matters. It just can't seal the deal. Not on a big-boy playing field. And when people get on me for saying something like that, I just look at 'em for a sec, utter "Snakes on a Plane," then go about my way.

4:19 PM ET | 01-18-2008 | permalink | comments (17) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

The 2008 Golden Globes: Press Conference-tastic!

This year's Golden Globes had a very different audience than the usual stars.

Kevin Winter/Getty Images

 

Celebrities filled the Beverly Hilton's ballroom during last year's Golden Globes.

Bob Long/HFPA via Getty Images

Even if you can't help but have disdain for awards shows — and I can't help but have disdain for awards shows — last night's Golden Globes were a downer. With the threat of being picketed during the ongoing writers' strike, the evening was de-glamorized from a gala night of a thousand stars to a press conference of four infotainment news readers. In the first five minutes of the show, co-hosts Billy Bush and Nancy O'Dell tossed to Shaun Robinson and Entertainment Weekly's Dave Karger, who made a point of telling you how exciting it was going to be. Well, that didn't much encourage my finger to stray too far from the fast-forward button on my DVR remote.

The amazing thing is that the producers were actually able to stretch what amounted to reading names from a list into an hour-long show. To avoid dead air, the program was filled with video clips and fattened with Bush and O'Dell deconstructing the wins. But when you're talking about how, say, Marion Cotillard pulls out a victory over Nikki Blonsky, the conversation quickly devolves into super-insider clack that even the hosts seemed to have a hard time following.

At one point, O'Dell theorized how artist-turned-director Julian Schnabel managed to eke out a win over the likes of the Coen Brothers. It was a rambling explanation that explained nothing. Bush just stared at O'Dell blankly for a moment, offered a curt "good point" and moved on, as if finally acknowledging the ship was sinking and it was time to start swimming fast.

Hey, you've got to give them credit for doing the best with what little they had: a night of mostly indie, arthouse movies and cable fare, and not a single star whose appearance wasn't courtesy of a film clip.

And though the affair was funny in a midnight Rocky Horror Picture Show kind of way, there's nothing funny about the loss of the Golden Globes gala. It was estimated the absence of the gala — and all the parties and related spending — will put an $80 million hit on the city's economy. Eighty million lost in just one weekend. And with the governor announcing the state is facing a double-digit billion dollar revenue shortfall, the tax revenue on that money is something the city and state can ill-afford to part with.

With this year's Globes laying face down in the dirt, Hollywood now turns its attention to the Feb. 24 Oscar kudo-cast. With the countdown begun, the question is not if there will be a show, but if Hollywood can afford not to have one.

1:13 PM ET | 01-14-2008 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)