It seems that the old Chartier email debacle will have one last gasp as it was addressed in Robert Welkos’ piece for HollywoodNews about the cut-throat world of Oscar bloggers. ¬†Let’s just say this once: there is a lot of tension between actual journalists, people who went to school for it, studied it and worked for newspapers and magazines until the online media began to smoke them out — and the self-made blogger. ¬†Many of these journalists are not doing straight journalism anymore but are, by necessity, dipping their feet into the world of the blogger – which is mostly opinion-based. ¬†Most bloggers take a position because they must. ¬†Some of them still do objective reporting but it becomes harder and harder, I think, to figure out who is invested with whom.
Welkos’ story did not go into the equally big story about last year’s race — the LA Times’ continual Hurt Locker bashing prior to the ballot deadline. ¬†No one ever got to the bottom of that and it still hangs out there like a bad stench. ¬†This was, of course, part of the whole Chartier thing – the LA Times appeared to be taking a side. ¬†But that has never been proved nor investigated. ¬†It was just an accusation made by a few bloggers, Stu Van Airsdale among them.
So Pete gets one more dig in when he says that I run a site for Oscar fans. ¬†I guess that is one way to look at it. ¬†But I can tell you this much – that’s never how I’ve looked at it. ¬†There probably hasn’t been a more critical site of the Oscars and the Oscar race than this one. It may not be journalism but if it’s fandom for anything, it’s fandom for the movies.
“It’s weird,” Hammond recalled. “I knew it was a story but it was something I had for a few days. I was trying to figure out what to do with it. I had to check it out and a few different things. I did that. Then I went with it but in the context of a bigger story: how people are handling Oscar campaigns. Are they getting off message or staying on message.”
“The Hurt Locker” went on to win best picture, but Hammond was forced to defend himself from charges of bias. Hammond said he was shocked “at the some of the vitriol that came my way, especially from other bloggers, who took the position that he was in the camp of one movie and against another.”
Hammond said, “It really was not about the movie, it’s about this guy injecting himself into the Oscar process, knowing there are rules about the right way and the wrong way to campaign for an Academy Award and the producer crossed the line.
One of those criticizing him was Sasha Stone of Awards Daily. “She doesn’t look at herself as a journalist,” Hammond said. “She basically runs a fan site for Oscars and got caught up in it. She was making accusations that were completely untrue.”
Stone told HollywoodNews that what prompted her criticism of Hammond was that “he was completely played. Somebody gave him that e-mail and he posted it. Didn’t he ever stop and wonder why they did it. To me, the motive behind that e-mail was suspect.”
Hammond was accused of bias, perhaps. ¬†There is always talk behind the scenes, as it were, about who likes what movie – and those conversations make their way onto the page. Someone gave him the email to embarrass Chartier and the Hurt Locker team. ¬†Maybe they thought he deserved it. ¬†Maybe they wanted to hurt the film. ¬†But when a piece of information is leaked during the Oscars, right before ballots are due, it is always suspect.
My first instinct with Pete’s story was that he wanted to break a big one. ¬†That isn’t unusual online or in print. In the early days of Oscarwatch I often got floated bits of information intended to hurt another’s campaign. ¬†But I stopped playing that game long ago. ¬†That was why I was so surprised when Pete fell for it. ¬†If the email had been so offensive, any number of people whom Chartier sent it to could have taken straight to the Academy and he might have had the same punishment.
As it was, it was given to someone who made it into a story.  And it was intended to do damage. That in itself is a story.  Only no one ever bothered to cover it.
Ten years is a long time to be writing about the Oscars (and no, not as an “Oscars fan site,” thank you Pete). ¬†Nothing has changed with regards to negative campaigning. ¬†YES, Chartier did it to himself by sending out the email to begin with. And maybe in the world of journalists it doesn’t matter who your source it or what their motivations are – maybe a scoop is a scoop is a scoop. ¬†I can’t think that way. ¬†Not when I’ve seen the man behind the curtain.