L.A. Times Recycles Scorsese Interview
The New York Post‘s Page Six reports:
IF yesterday’s “interview” with Martin Scorsese in the Los Angeles Times seemed familiar, it’s because the quotes were nearly 2 years old. Reporter Paul Lieberman couldn’t get “The Departed” director to talk to him. “Marty is giving no interviews. He is hard at work on the documentary about the Rolling Stones, and doesn’t have time,” said a pal. So, for yesterday’s piece in “The Envelope” section of the paper, Lieberman recycled quotes from his interview with Scorsese that ran on Feb. 27, 2005, when “The Aviator” was nominated for Best Picture. “It is outrageous that the L.A. Times, which likes to think it competes with the New York Times and the Washington Post, would recycle a 2-year-old interview with Marty just so it looks like they have an ‘exclusive,’ “ said Scorsese’s friend. The director, who’s been nominated five times for Best Director and never won, is said to be purposefully not campaigning this year. “He was embarrassed by all of the hoopla over ‘The Aviator’ and ‘Gangs of New York,’ ” said Leslee Dart, Scorsese’s rep. “I think this is at best dubious ethics.”
Dubious ethics? At the L.A. Times?
Get outta here!
(Thanks to reader Harold H.)
Can I get credit in court for arguments I made in moot court in 1979?
Beldar (87242f) — 12/15/2006 @ 6:10 pmWell, at least they have dubious ethics.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 12/15/2006 @ 8:26 pmYet another reason why the deal for Geffen to by the Times should be concluded posthaste.
He would have hired me to interview Marty and that would have been that.
David Ehrenstein (af13fc) — 12/15/2006 @ 9:27 pmThere is nothing ethically “dubious” about the Scorsese quotes, because they are conspicuously labeled as being from the past. The very beginning of the piece, “Back when . . .” makes this retrospective angle clear, and it is restated in the article. The reporter says Scorsese is “staying mum” this year, contrasting this to his past loquacity and explaining the context. The baseless criticism from Scorsese’s flack only underscores the article’s premise: The bigmouth is now playing humble.
Patterico shouldn’t let himself be distracted from more consequential criticisms of the LAT just because some careless reader didn’t get it.
Bradley J. Fikes (19f52f) — 12/16/2006 @ 9:08 am