Um, Nikki Finke would like to respond…

If I were Arianna Huffington, I would now announce that Nikki Finke is blogging for FishbowlLA! But no. Nikki Finke wishes to respond to the previous post thusly:

Stick it to me if you wish. I can dish it out and I can take it.
But you should remember I was writing about the NYT and why that paper didn’t mention this, not the LAT. Actually my Nexis search missed the 7-word LAT reference, and when I was alerted to it by Welkos the next morning, I made the appropriate changes at Deadline Hollywood Daily, which was the right thing to do. (You’re quoting an earlier version, I might add.)
But the more salient point is this: Can the LAT really be that proud of throwing 7 words into a 3,000-word piece and not connecting the dots for the reader as to why any of the information is important? Or that, while they were reporting that piece, I kept getting phone calls from Hollywood types they’d phoned telling me, “Don’t these guys know anything about this town? They have no idea who did what to whom and why and when.”
Now that I’d be embarrassed about.

Anyway, there you have it. FishbowlLA would like to mention that although Finke claims we quoted an “earlier version” of her piece, the excerpt we quoted is from her LA Weekly column which is at www.laweekly.com at this very moment and was distributed in print yesterday. (It’s true that she did change the piece at www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com and, she tells us, requested that the Weekly change it as well.)

Is Finke making a valid point about the deficiencies of the NYT and LAT coverage of this particular fact?

Is FishbowlLA right to point out that Finke’s choice of language in the piece, the ‘I’ve leaned’ and ‘Sources tell me’– when the fact in
question was on page one of a major newspaper weeks beforehand– is funny and Fishbowl-worthy? [UPDATE: okay, technically, the fact itself wasn’t on page one, since it was after the jump.]

You, reader, are free to answer each of those questions for yourself. But they’re different questions. Maybe we’re both right, or maybe we’re both wrong.

Oh, and one other note. Nikki Finke never claimed explicitly that her information was ‘exclusive.’ The headline in the item below is intended as comic exaggeration, and has now been amended to indicate this.