EXCLUSIVE: L.A. WEEKLY EDITOR DONNELLY DEFENDS NIKKI FINKE'S HONOR
By Tom Tapp
Hire Nikki Finke. That's just one of the punch lines in Los Angeles magazine's modest, 3000-word proposal for the L.A. Times' future. But L.A. Weekly deputy editor Joe Donnelly has taken issue with L.A. mag senior editor R.J. Smith's characterization of Finke's reporting.
In the magazine's current issue, Smith says:
She isn't always accurate (but)...she is almost alone in conveying a palpable excitement about what the Industry is doing. She is all but alone in not treating it like it's the aircraft industry or the car business. She makes you think movies matter and brings an appropriate -- or at least wildly entertaining -- moral indignation.
Donnelly responded Thursday afternoon in an email to WireTap, Smith and Los Angeles magazine editor Kit Rachlis:
As at least RJ knows, since he quoted me last time he did a piece on Nikki, she does have an editor, and it's me. I'm pretty sure I play a small role in the success of her column. And you're right, too, that any publication would benefit from her lively writing and reporting. As for the inaccuracies in her column that you refer to (I can't speak to the blog, which I don't edit), do you have any examples? I can't think of any off hand.
We await the Los Angeles crew's response.
Meanwhile, I could recommend six or seven other sites that generate "palpable excitement about what the Industry is doing." But it's hard to argue the Times would do well to focus on powerful, individual voices like Finke's -- especially in its transition to the web, and especially when covering the industry.
Can you imagine a blog like Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily written by Claudia Eller? How about Partick Goldstein, for that matter? Both, I suspect, are more interested in crafting long-form investigative pieces, but the paper would surely benefit from a daily dose of each. (Full disclosure: I've consulted on the Times' Envelope print sections.)
As for Finke, I don't know her well, but she's likely best right where she is, as an independent voice. The paper's corporate environment would likely drive her crazy, and she it.
Finke seems to agree. In an email sent to us Thursday morning she had this to say:
While I have not seen RJ.'s article, based on what you're telling me, I suppose I'm flattered. But I worked as a staff writer in features and entertainment at the LA Times from 1987 through 1990, so my response is: been there, done that. Besides, I'm way too provocative for that place, which gets you drop-kicked on your head by editors there. And I'd have to stop referring to the moguls as morons and assholes, so that's no fun. But I do take strong issue with Smith's ridiculous assertion that "she isn't always accurate". (C'mon, RJ, give me even one example. What's that? You can't?) It's just not true, and he knows it.
On the other hand, she says:
I've been kinda nasty about Los Angeles magazine in recent months, so good for them for being able to look past that and pay me a compliment. But I won't let up on them, either.
A later Finke email amends that sentiment to:
I've been kinda nasty about Los Angeles magazine in recent months. It appears they tried to pay me a compliment but couldn't help themselves and had in store for me a little payback.
