New York Times media columnist David Carr was a thoughtful interview subject when I sat on his back porch this past Saturday. But in the documentary “Page One,” which was screened by the Montclair International Film Festival tonight, a week ahead of its official New York premiere, Carr is hilarious. The same easy humor was on display during an onstage Q&A with Bloomberg’s Jon Alter following the screening.
Carr was nervous about doing a hometown screening, and dodged the obligation for as long as he could. He compared Alter, who pressured him to answer the festival’s emails, to Tony Soprano. “These guys are going to put on a heck of a festival,” said Carr. “Other than the student loan people, I’ve never had anybody track me down like this.”
When Alter mentioned some resentment from investigative reporters at the Times, who were jealous of the attention that Carr and the rest of the media desk got from filmmaker Andrew Rossi, Carr deadpanned, “Those guys have been giving us that cold stare of death.” He added that “a 54-year-old ex-crackhead who sounds like Kermit the Frog” was an unlikely exemplar for the newspaper of record.
Whatever fears Carr may have had, the hometown audience of 200 loved the movie — and him. There were laughs throughout, but the two biggest were for the clip from Carr’s appearance on the Colbert Report and a debate at NYU where Carr held up a printout of the website Newser with all the references to mainstream media cut out.
Other good lines from the Q&A.
On complaints that the film showed too many white men: “No women. A big sausage fest.”
On the idea for “Page One”: “Doughy white people sitting in cubicles typing. What about that doesn’t cry movie?”
On the 220 hours Rossi spent shooting: “A lot of it was incredibly prosaic and boring. I was bored to tears myself and I thought, this poor schmuck.”
On the videos Carr made for the New York Times website in his basement: “They looked like hostage videos.”
And then there was Carr’s killer imitation of Arianna Huffington, after Alter shared the fact that he’d invited the publishing diva to have dinner at Fascino several years ago. “This is a very nice town, dahling.”
Kudos to the Montclair International Film Festival for organizing an important and truly enjoyable event. I expect some reviewers will find the documentary to be a bit too adoring of the Times (including portraying other media figures as cartoonish blowhards) and too ambitious in trying to cover the Times’ newsroom culture, its history, and the print vs. digital showdown, all in 90 minutes. But, having David serve as the Virgil of this divine comedy was truly inspired. And, seeing the film doubled my enjoyment of reading this morning’s Times. Best of success to it.
Any paper which publishes this headline AFTER the Weiner admission: “Congressman admits online communication with women” isn’t really a newspaper.
The narcissism of the paper and its reporters coupled with the adulation of its readers, nay, followers tells you all you really need to know.
So the absence of women and minorities is shoved aside for a joke?
IF this were said at a film about FOX, the Times would lament this is an organization that was culturally unaware.
But when it’s them, jokes are an easy way to deflect.
Was it addressed in any greater detail? Or are we just to believe the old trope that there are no good women and minorities around (save for Ms. Abramson of course…).
(And this comes from a daily reader and lover of the Times.)
Actually, he pointed out that the new executive editor is a woman, and the new managing editor is black.
P.W., yes, David then addressed the issue, citing Ms. Abramson and the new African-American managing editor, as well as the general diversity of the newsroom. This was in response to an after-screening question by an audience member about diversity at the paper…not a statement or criticism that the Times is non-diverse.
I was surprised that people in the audience were still in love with the print edition of the NYT.
Print newspapers are out-of-date once they go to the presses. The electronic media allows for continuous updates and corrections. Until the people running our nations newspapers embrace the future, they will continue to lose readership.
BTW: In the movie for the “Page 1″ meetings there were several women present at the meeting table.
You are sadly right, leffe. I worked on newspapers for many years and it breaks my heart, but the papers just can’t compete with the electronic media.
I only read the Times for its Arts and Science/Health sections these days. Much of the news and op-ed pages are terribly biased.
I only buy the NYT on Sundays to do the crossword puzzle. Their editorial slant is irritating and the paper is full of twaddle. Judging from their circulation figures, many people are coming to the same conclusion.
MM the bias of news media isn’t a recent occurrence. I haven’t found one that isn’t. I gave up print years ago and find that I read many more sources and points of view because of easy Internet access. it’s interesting to read the same news report from several sources and identify their choices of descriptors which often reveal their slant.
Agreed…I am more likely to get my news from multiple sources, about 95% from online. Also, I like not cluttering up my house with newspapers.
so ROC, was the NY Times coverage significantly different for the Larry Craig airport bathroom solicitation story ? I don’t remember, and perhaps you do.
I can’t understand why people fixate on the “paper” aspect of the New York Times. It’s a giant news-gathering organization, very entrenched in the web, with the internet’s speed, videos, interactive graphics, comments and the ability to link. Paper is just one delivery method.
I have no idea Spiro. But you and I think differently. When I see a weenie being a weenie my first question is not “but is he a worse weenie than the weenie on the other side?”.
Weenies are weenies.
But in this case, ROC, I was not asking about your view on such scandals, but rather, asking about your belief regarding the NYTimes slant on such stories. If they were more lenient on Weiner than Craig, then, I agree, that’s a reporting problem.
“Judging from their circulation figures, many people are coming to the same conclusion.”
—either that, or people are abandoning print to go online. see, that would be in line with the declining circulation numbers for ALL printed media. sorry that fact doesn’t match YOUR slant, ROC.
What the people at the Times haven’t fully realized, since they are so busy admiring each other’s big brains, is the sheer number and growth trajectory of news feeds available online. They are often less editorially hidebound, offer many differing points of view, are largely free of charge, and don’t need to be carried out to the curb. Once the Times fully integrates their plan to charge for web access, they will get a stark picture of how marginal their importance has become.
It’s not about being more less “lenient” Spiro. (See how our view of journalism has been distorted?) It’s about presenting the facts in the simplest most straight forward way.
The scandal has nothing to do with whether or not he “communicated” online with women.
It was how he did so and his subsequent lying and smearing…
jcunningham
I have no idea what you are talking about.
But ROC, the coverup always happens, that’s human nature.
Either that, or humans let themselves of the hook by blaming some substance they claim to have ingested at the time, or stress at home or work, or in the case of Newt Gingrich, selfless patriotism.
“But ROC, the coverup always happens, that’s human nature.”
Not always, Spiro. The “Shirtless Wonder of Craigslist” resigned before it went public because he knew what he did was wrong and didn’t want a media circus dragging him and his family through the mud. Weiner is just sorry he got caught.
I’m not excusing either side, mind you, and I don’t think this is a partisan issue. But something seems to happen to [SOME] people when they acquire power. They think they are above the law and invincible.
You are still missing my point Spiro. I’m not talking about bias. (though maybe that’s the cause). A newspaper whose headline so blatantly gets the story wrong brings into questions its competence at recognizing what news is.
It could be due to bias, stupidity, or an intern writing the headline. It doesn’t really matter.
(Thanks for clearing up the confusing quote.)
I used to get the Times delivered, then on my Kindle.
Once I got an iPad, I got the app.
HOWEVER, since the Times went to a paywall, it was cheaper to get Sat & Sun delivered because it included free access to the iPad app, and the website.
So they have figured that they must STILL sell papers. So while I am certainly a green prof, I enjoy getting the physical paper again on the weekend.
As for bias, well I assume everyone has a point of view.
Two thumbs of up for the film. Carr is definitely the star. I would have liked a little more commentary on the shifiting role of media to drive news versus reporting it but still very solid.
And I may have been a little harsh on Alter. He’s not a jack ass, but he’s definitely not a journalist either. I would characterize as more of a cheerleader when he’s not doing hatchet pieces for Bloomberg. A well spoken cheerleader but still a cheerleader.
“The electronic media allows for continuous updates and corrections.”
Which, unfortunately, many of them need and few of them bother with.
Any hardcopy will always be out of date when it is published, as will a still photograph. Should we do away with the picture of the young man standing in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square? That shot is so powerful Nikon used it as a commercial without ever showing the picture — just a one-sentence description of it. But I do understand a newpaper’s shortcoming on an evolving story. I would rather get breaking news via the radio or television; I rely on more traditional hardcopy and electronic media to give me a summary of the news.
Funny, Deadeye, the Crossword is the one thing I like to do online — at least during the early part of the week. But Friday’s, Saturday’s, and Sunday’s puzzles get done on hardcopy, over a spicy bloody mary with any luck at all.
Have you ever read the corrections in the next day and over the weeks after a story is put in print. The ability to correct a story on the fly help with the trust of the reporting.
Still pictures are used all over the web. The camera normally does not lie unless it is photoshoped or misrepresented. (which happens all the time)
(Anyone who knows anything about photoshop, after effects or any high end digital manipulating software knows you cannot believe ANYTHING you see in a photo or moving image. ANYTHING. Likewise, you cannot believe ANYONE’s singing voice unless they are standing in front of you, without a mic.)
“…you cannot believe ANYTHING you see in a photo or moving image.”
Does Wiener know this? This could be a good thing for him.