Nora Ephron & NY Times, Part 2

COMMENTS (24)

• I;m gonna go contrarian here, Nikki and say the Times review will be middling at best. The film review section don’t kiss no ones ass. At this point anything else looks bad…like this movie.

  Comment by Um, really? — Monday August 3, 2009 @ 3:26pm PDT  Reply to this post

• This is very interesting. When a New York Times writer or frequent contributor publishes a book which the Times reviews, they bring in an independent reviewer to do the work rather than the usual staff reviewer. Do you think that will be the case here?

  Comment by Hep — Monday August 3, 2009 @ 3:31pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Stanley is in deep shit, as she was the one who wrote the error-laden appreciation of Walter Cronkite.

  Comment by Dixon Steele — Monday August 3, 2009 @ 3:35pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Don’t forget she’s also married to Nick Pileggi, who was a NY reporter for 12 years. Chances are his fingers into the Times are deep.

  Comment by Matthew Miller — Monday August 3, 2009 @ 3:41pm PDT  Reply to this post

• we’ll be seeing more not less of this news “synergy” as NYT and other periodicals continue their downward spiral into oblivion…payrolls must be met and if that means a new standard of media cronyism, so be it

  Comment by Waiting for the collapse — Monday August 3, 2009 @ 3:44pm PDT  Reply to this post

• the high school newspaper of record

  Comment by smiths — Monday August 3, 2009 @ 3:47pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Grading the whole sordid deal:
  “F” for fawning
  (or fail)

  Comment by veg — Monday August 3, 2009 @ 3:55pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Isn’t there a law against this sort of thing?

  Comment by A New Low — Monday August 3, 2009 @ 4:31pm PDT  Reply to this post

• It would be nice if the New York Times, the paper of record, mentioned Ephron’s connection. There is no more honest reporting other than DHD. How dare anyone say the New York Post is any sleazier than the Times. In fact, I think the Times is sleazier. The Post is aggressive and is out front about that. The Times is full of so much BS. They should be ashamed of themselves. Regarding HURT LOCKER…terrific film. When not do a front page profile on the screenwriter of that movie? Ephron is so bloated.

  Thank you.

  Comment by anhonestAnswer — Monday August 3, 2009 @ 4:36pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Alessandra Stanley of the NYT threw the party? She of the now-infamous six-plus corrections in the recent single NYT obit of Walter Cronkite? She being the recipient of a Katie Couric slapdown the other day on the CBS evening news?

  Well, given Stanley’s fumbling of facts, I just hope she got the address for the Ephron party right. (Or did she, um, have to send a belated correction to guests?)

  Can anybody answer me this: What the hell is happening to the New York Times?

  Comment by bobby lee — Monday August 3, 2009 @ 5:19pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Why is this an issue?

  Comment by Marty — Monday August 3, 2009 @ 5:51pm PDT  Reply to this post

• The modern media industry, more incestuous than darkest Appalachia.

  Comment by Furious D — Monday August 3, 2009 @ 6:52pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Why is this an issue?

  Comment by Marty — August 3, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

  @Marty, It is an issue because newspapers have abandoned their responsibility in free society. What is the point of having freedom of speech, when the Times abandons ethics.

  Comment by Murderburgers — Monday August 3, 2009 @ 8:15pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Remember the line in Broadcast News: they “will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important.”

  For this to have happened, there ARE no standards.

  The great journalistic institution is a thing of the past.

  Comment by Anita Busch — Monday August 3, 2009 @ 10:58pm PDT  Reply to this post

• the high school newspaper of record

  Comment by smiths — August 3, 2009 @ 3:47 pm

  Nailed it!

  Comment by Captain Obvious — Tuesday August 4, 2009 @ 4:09am PDT  Reply to this post

• Anyone who wrote about her while taking favors from her should be harshly reprimanded.

  Regardless, I wouldn’t expect the review of the movie to be overly fawning. A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis are, at the very least, trustworthy critics.

  Comment by Cribbster — Tuesday August 4, 2009 @ 2:18pm PDT  Reply to this post

• If Manohla Dargis reviews it, Nora ain’t getting any breaks.

  Comment by dr.giraud — Tuesday August 4, 2009 @ 3:15pm PDT  Reply to this post

• nora (yawn) ephron… does anyone really care?… her movies are adult after-school specials… judd apatow in a skirt…

  Comment by roy f — Tuesday August 4, 2009 @ 3:21pm PDT  Reply to this post

• What about the Maureen Dowd suck-up? The Times will kiss this movie’s arsecrack… love letter to Meryl Streep then how Ephron is better than ever. It will open big because Meryl and pull in 40+-ers and after Bewitched and other barfathons she will be back in the saddle. Bleh.

  Comment by Steve Din — Wednesday August 5, 2009 @ 5:59pm PDT  Reply to this post

• “Judd Apatow in a skirt”? Ephron should be so lucky to be compared to Apatow!

  Comment by RSS — Wednesday August 5, 2009 @ 7:13pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Another day, another Julia and Julia/Ephron shout out in the NY Times – http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/movies/05studios.html?_r=2&ref=movies – this is really getting out of hands

  Comment by Zach — Thursday August 6, 2009 @ 5:48am PDT  Reply to this post

• uh oh Nik… The NYT review is up and it gushes just like you predicted. I was skeptical that the A.O. would kiss ass just to do it, but it looks like he is also under the spell.

  Comment by Mike — Thursday August 6, 2009 @ 11:57am PDT  Reply to this post

• Ummm, to Mike, maybe A.O. really liked the movie, no?

  Comment by Joe — Friday August 7, 2009 @ 9:27am PDT  Reply to this post

• i think i just got food poisoning from this pap

  Comment by patty cake — Monday August 10, 2009 @ 8:25pm PDT  Reply to this post