Christian Bale...eats crow! Journalist Rachel Abramowitz at LA Times unprofessional re: TMZ!

Director of Photography lucky Bale didn't scratch his eyes out!

Christian Bale has fessed up!

"I was out of order beyond belief. I was a punk," he admitted to a disc jockey on air at KROQ yesterday.

The mea culpa was in response to an incriminating audio recording posted on the TMZ web site which painted a picture of a pampered star with a flair for the dramatic and prone to engage in abusive unprofessional conduct.

As I reported at this blog site on the Tuesday last, Bale blew his stack when a Director of Photography on "Terminator Salvation" fussed-about a little too close to the touchy actor as he was emoting for a crucial scene in the big-budget feature.

In a nutshell, Shane Hurlbut innocently stepped into Bale's eye line, annoyed the spoiled actor - and thereafter - was summarily dressed up-and-down in a tirade spiced with salty language that shocked fans around the country!

Post: 02/03/09

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2009/02/christian-baleshocking-tirade-on-set.html

Disc Jockeys jumped into the fray - and in a scant few hours - the tongue-wagging about Bale's scandalous conduct reached a fever pitch.

When the sexy star tuned in and got an earful of the criticisms - and heard playbacks of the ugly tirade that swept his emotions away that fateful day - he acknowledged he wasn't pleased with his conduct, either.

"There is nobody who heard the tape who is hit harder than me. I make no excuses for it. It is inexcusable."

That said, one has to wonder, does Bale intend to enroll in an anger management class with the specific aim of curbing that kind of unprofessional conduct in the future?

By the way, on the topic of a - "lack of professionalism" - the spotlight should also be thrown on LA Times writer, Rachel Abramowtiz.

In today's daily, Ms. Abramowitz reported on the incident, but displayed a shocking lack of ethics and professionalism in the process.

Why?

The writer never referenced the original source material.

Although TMZ secured the incriminating evidence - and was first to release the shocking tape and point the finger at Bale's disturbing abusive conduct in the mainstream press - Abramowitz never bothered to give any credit to the source.

I seriously have to wonder if the she ever took any courses in Journalism.

If I am not mistaken - "Ethics in Journalism" and "Citing Sources" - are discussed in Journalism 1, aren't they?

Shame!

Abramowitz under mistaken impression she's the star!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Los Angeles Times...lack of ethics in journalism!

As much as possible, I attempt to give the old local movie houses a plug or two - so the owners can continue to pay their bills - and provide reasonably-priced movies in the community.

The Regency in the Fairfax district, for example, charges a mere $3.50 for a matinee before the stroke of 6 p.m. daily.

And, six bucks for any offering after the dinner hour.

Likewise, the New Beverly Cinema charges a mere $7.00 for a double-bill.

A paltry sum when you consider that the films screened at the Revival house tend to be classics!

In recent months, I started to notice - for some inexplicable reason - that the daily paper (Los Angeles Times) has been touting both the Aero Theatre and the American Cinematheque.

At first, I surmised that their motives were purely altruistic.

"Heh, 'ya gotta catch this feature. It's a gem!"

Weren't they just drawing attention to a film event their readership may be fired up about attending?

Just last week, the answer to that question became evident.

"No."

The Los Angeles Times is a sponsor of the Aero Theatre & the American Cinematheque!

Imagine that!

They've been promoting those theatres on the sly because of a selfish vested interest.

Once again, the management at the daily has demonstrated their lack of ethics.

Nevertheless, the writers at the Times are quick to point out that flaw in others, when the opportunity arises.

David Hull put it succinctly when he said:

"Hypocrisy is the lubricant of society."

Obama...Los Angeles Times "videotape" controversy! Unbiased reporting?

When I spied a few twitters on the Internet last night over the Los Angeles Times scandal that has been brewing over the past twenty-four hours - I got the distinct impression from the musings of a handful of blog writers - that the editors at morning daily were wrongfully "withholding" incriminating evidence which established Obama's questionable past associations with individuals of dubious character.

On the heels of the brouhaha - management at the TIMES responded to McCain's finger-pointing - by publishing an account of their own version of events in what appeared to be a sincere effort to shed light on the issues.

For those of you in the dark, McCain is alleging that the daily "intentionally suppressed" a videotape it obtained through "unknown" sources which allegedly reveals Barack Obama at a 2003 banquet acknowledging a friendship with a leading Palestinian scholar and activist, Rashid Khalidi.

In response, the editors were adamant in their rebuttal piece - that contrary to what McCain believes - the newspaper sought to bring the matter to the public fore.


The editor noted for the record that - if anything - the daily simply sought to protect a confidential source who provided the tape on the provisio that it not be released.

The Times keeps its promises to sources, Editor Russ Stanton asserted to the media, in the wake of the controversy.

Management did not respond to the McCain's allegation that they were inclined to favor Obama, though.

Stanton either sidestepped that issue or overlooked it perhaps?

For the most part, the paper's arguments appear to be reasonable, under the circumstances.

But, can the LA TIMES be trusted to report fairly on the issues without bias?

After all, they are at the heart of the controversy.

It wouldn't be the first time a news organization - or media outlet - pulled the old soft-shoe to get themselves out of a tight fix.

Is there an independent "body" - a media watch organization - that can be called upon to act as a mediator in the dispute?

If not, perhaps the current crisis cries out for one to be established, to ultimately preserve the integrity and ethical standards of the media at large in the future.

Digg.com...Duh, Dude! Overzealous scoopers vie for big time! Jostling newsies (?) scratch for elbow room without much to offer!

In a post last week I reported on "The Saint" - a blogger who twisted and distorted facts in a post about a Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin - which was summarily submitted to "Digg" for instant glory, I guess.

A Los Angeles Times writer sniffed around a bit - and didn't think that the wild expose passed the smell test - so he engaged in a little sleuthing of his own to dredge up the truth.

Ah, the Saint fessed up.

Bald-faced lies!

In view of the fact he was using an online moniker (and his true identity was not known) what did the phantom post-it bandit have to lose?

Meanwhile, his unfounded allegations shook up a few reputations, and along the way caused many media types who prowl a myriad of scintillating sites for easy prey, to quote the insightful writer at the Times.

"Be careful what you swallow on the Internet."

The Times writer also made a passing remark that a post submitted to digg.com - if made popular by digg members - could end up rustling a few hundred-thousand new readers to blog enthusiasts' sites.

So, I decided to investigate "digg", to figure out what the fuss was all about.

I signed up, submitted a story or two, and waited for the sharks to bite.

Right off-the-bat, a post about Sarah Palin started to gain momentum - but as news flashes spun the story off into a new direction - the hits dropped off.

Within a day the item was old news, so it was understandable.

That's an integral part of the problem with digg.com.

Unless a news feature is posted right away for publication - it may become untimely - at the blink of an eye.

So, for starters, that is a big flaw in the digg scheme of things.

After a post is submitted (and before it sees the light of day) digg staff wait for members to vote on whether they "dugg" an article - to likewise determine - if the piece will nab a hot spot on the main digg site.

By that time - the story may have become so moldy, old and gray, or just plain long in the tooth - that not even the most nostalgic gossip monger would be likely to save the little ditty for his scrapbook.

Gosh, what a waste of energy for a writer!

Notwithstanding - I noticed that digg writers seemed to be tethering at the bit to snatch up every little news tid-bit that wormed its way off the wire - for packaging in a post to be zipped off to digg.

So many writers were jumping on the same story on the occasion that I cruised the site - it made me wonder - isn't there enough original material out there to satisfy the feeding frenzy?

Everyone appeared to be writing about the Palin subpoenas, the guy who got shot wearing an Obama T-shirt, McCain's attack on opponents, and blah blah blah.

The reports that were posted were run-of-the-mill, too.

I rarely came across any originality, outstanding news reporting, or stellar award-winning literary style.

I sh** you not.

Part of the problem with digg is that the writers are all so busy vying for hits and popularity, that they've overlooked the obvious.

It's important to focus on the craft of writing, the turn of a phrase, a structure that makes sense in the new-age realm of "anything goes" journalism in the fast-paced electronic media age.

Also, because the so-called "writers" are competing with each other, I noticed a bit of professional jealousy.

A story or two that deserved mention or credit was ignored by digg members.

Did the talented young upstart show them up for what they were?

Talentless hacks?

While I do believe that competition is healthy - at digg.com the whole process of writing and submitting and fielding responses - may be a waste of time for serious writers seeking to strike out on their own and attain credibility in the legitimate world of news reporting.

Especially when you consider that a man is often judged by the company he keeps.

At digg, stories were not always factually correct, often amounted to more opinion than news, and - for the most part - were awkward and amateurish in style.

As to graphics and supporting images to bolster the quality of the posts - in most cases - there usually weren't any to speak of to stir up the sensibilities.

The blah leading the bland!

Digg may be dugg by many, but didn't make it into the dug out, with moi.

Didn't digg dugging at all, dude!