I’m too superficial to read The New Yorker because it’s so unrelentingly boring. Even the cartoons suck these days. So back in 2008, soon after the writers strike ended, I said no when The New Yorker first approached me to cooperate for a profile. Fast forward to this summer, when the mag was desperate to liven up this week’s dullsville “Money Issue” with some Tinseltown mockery. The writer said the last time he profiled somebody without their cooperation was a serial killer. I would be joining Murderers Row. When I did start talking (but only with a lot of pre-conditions), months and weeks and hours of my time were wasted because little of what I said was used. (Not even when I responded to Peter Bart’s statement “I don’t think she has an impact among the real decision-makers” with this good quote, “Finally, Peter and I agree on something. He’s absolutely right: I’m not powerful, and I’m not influential. Which is why I don’t understand why The New Yorker is now crawling up my ass claiming I am.”) Instead, the article is a superficial clip job, no better than David Carr’s rushed Page One profile on me in The New York Times recently. As I expected, it’s an amusing caricature, only occasionally true but hardly insightful. Still, I’m relieved that The New Yorker didn’t lay a glove on me. I found Tad Friend, who covers Hollywood from Brooklyn, easy to manipulate, as was David Remnick, whom I enjoyed bitchslapping throughout but especially during the very slipshod factchecking process. (Those draconian Conde Nast budget cuts have deflated the infamous hubris of this New Jersey dentist’s son.) But I wasn’t the only one able to knock out a lot of negative stuff in the article without even one lawyer letter, email, or phone call. I witnessed how The New Yorker really bent over for Hollywood. NYC power publicist Steven Rubenstein succeeded in deleting every reference to Paramount’s Brad Grey. Warner Bros and Universal and DreamWorks and William Morris/Endeavor and Summit Entertainment execs and flacks and consultants also had their way with the mag. (They were even laughing about it. When I asked one PR person what it took to convince Tad to take out whole portions of the article, the response was, “I swallowed.”) At Harvey Weinstein’s personal behest, his description of me as a “cunt” became “jerk”. (Then the article would have contained two references to me as a “cunt” in addition to its four uses of ”fuck”. Si Newhouse must be so proud…) And so on. Now remember, readers: you, too, can make The New Yorker your buttboy. Just act like a cunt and treat Remnick like a putz and don’t give a fuck.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.







A good article Nikki, but it could have used more swearing. Decaf.
Re the potential purchase of NBC by COMCAST…Isn’t it interesting
that they have the money to buy a TV network, but have to lay off
over 30 people to do it?
really bad timing!
SIGNED: Really appalling!!
http://www.observer.com/2009/media/amelia-lester-26-year-old-former-fact-checker-new-managing-editor-new-yorker
who can take them seriously after this?
Right… as if Hollywood never hired a hip young director who wasn’t ready for the scope of the job that awaited him/her. Hypocritical douche.
Though I don’t share many of the comments on the demise of the New Yorker, I did note in the article the comment that 50% of Variety income derived from the “for your consideration” ads. Now we know for sure the truth behind the flack-driven inflation to 10 Academy nominated films. There should be an investigation into any kickbacks or promises made to those who pushed this through without any discussion among the members. Remember all: no effort was made to solicit opinions, or to vote, on a change in traditon 70 years old.Why? Read between the lines. Hell, read the lines.
Credit to Jaime Hernandez, one of the great underground cartoonists, for the illo of Nikki up there. Too bad the NYer article isn’t nearly as good as the drawing.
And man if you are hearing about Nikki for the first time in a NYer article — talk about being out of the loop!
Those ARE legitimate words now — they’ve entered the popular lexicon. You don’t get to decide which words are “proper”. That’s not your place.
The expansion of language is hardly a deathblow to writing. If anything, it revitalizes the stodgy nature of purpleprosed self-indulgent “art” written by those who wouldn’t know a fantastic story if it slapped them in the face.
Perfectly salient points, and I’m going to +1 you for your closing line alone. : p
Wow, Sharon Waxman got her ass handed to her in that article… among the LOLs:
“Waxman covered Hollywood for the Times from 2003 to 2007; though her reporting occasioned a number of corrections, she is aggressively self-confident.”
After one dispute about whether Relativity Media had intended to pursue M-G-M, or perhaps force it into bankruptcy (Waxman said yes; Finke no), Finke told me triumphantly, “Did Relativity buy M-G-M? No, they did not—hello!”
“In mid-March, six weeks before the agencies finalized the deal, Sharon Waxman wrote, “William Morris is merging with Endeavor? I don’t think so.””
Keep up the good work Nikki!
Nikki. FYI. When Ari yells at you like that, it’s his way of putting up a smoke screen and making you feel like you’re winning. It’s complete manipulation.
I would hazard a guess that the people disparaging The New Yorker either don’t ever read it or skim through the cartoons. And to the moron who compared it to Entertainment Weekly: let’s just say if you’re a huge fan of EW, you’re probably not The New Yorker’s target audience. God forbid a magazine actually allow writers to write.
Some where Cary Grant is laughing his ass off and saying I hope they remake His girl Friday with Nikki Finke.
I’m still smiling after this quote:
“whom I enjoyed bitchslapping throughout”
Do you skate Nikki, caz the way you whip out the words makes everybody fall down in hysteria.
Kick it, bass beat track, enter THE Nikki Finke.
Come on, Nikke… “I’m not powerful, and I’m not influential.” Including that quote in The New Yorker piece would have ultimately amounted to a full-tilt portrait of delusional egomania. You make known how highly you value the sway and respect you’ve earned as much by actual reporting as the facade of a carefully constructed reputation as a “cunt.”
No doubt about it, Nikke; you’re a living legend who has earned her place in Hollywood history books as a fearsome icon of media moxie. You know this better than anyone. You planned it, achieved it, and still you play pretend with humble pie. Drop the baby shit, already. You have your cake (you eat it, too) but insist that the thought of taking even a single bite has never crossed your mind.
The reason Tad kept jewel quotes like your fave listed above (which you…apparently took down yourself during the interview process? Way to keep fact-checking alive and kicking) from outlining his Finke piece is simply one of respect for you, his subject, for whom he’s done a monstrous favor by including nary a whiff of hero-worship in what was surely a daunting challenge to undertake, extrapolating some semblance of a real person from a the sea of discordant paper trail heresay RE: Who is Nikke Finke?
For all the infinite layers of media savvy deflection tactics and painstaking attempts to balance self-preservation and professional bloodsport, give the guy his due, Nikke. He’s done the same for you.
Gabe, living legend ? Nobody in the real world has ever heard of Nikki Finke. Perhaps you should look up the word legend in the dictionary since you clearly don’t know what it means.
How’s that New Yorker subscription, Gabe? Keeping you enlightened I hope.
Ten million dollars? did i read that right? whoah.
Good on you Nikki,
Thank you. You have more balls than anyone, Nikki. Thank you thank you.
The deal today is if there’s a profile of someone the public is interested in, it’s going to be a hack job. That’s what happened to me last spring when I got profiled in New York Magazine promoting my latest book…(The writer: “I am in awe to even be in your presence.” I fell for it. Gave him DAYS of my time.) He had an agenda and he stuck to it. Paint me as an aging sourpuss. Interesting. Too bad it has nothing to do with me. Sadly, all my friends who took the time to be interviewed were misquoted. Even more annoying was a group of photo of me and my pals back in the 80′s. My wife is in the picture and she isn’t even named!
Two days ago I was asked to be interviewed for a profile on a couple of friends here in the city. I love them dearly. But I’m afraid to talk to the press (NYTimes), because they distort and take quotes out of context and I’m the one stuck with the stink.
The press is blood sport. That’s all. Not a source of information.
I don’t have your guts, so I’ll leave this with a “nom de plume”.
peace
I found Dean Baquet’s comment about Nikki Finke being a “power broker disguised as a journalist” horribly hypocritical.
This was the editor at the L.A. Times who allowed Chuck Philips – who admitted that Anthony Pellicano was his longtime news source – to cover the Pellicano case after he was arrested.
Philips’ stories attacked the FBI, the U.S. Attorney, Ron Meyer, victims, and others Pellicano saw as opposition. Nice payback to Pellicano for helping the paper all those years, dontcha think?
Under Baquet’s watch, the newspaper also HID the fact that it had reporter Philips call Pellicano about the threats on my life right after I was threatened. The paper hid it from readers, their own reporters, and the very law enforcement officers investigating their news source, Pellicano.
Nikki Finke called about Philips’ reporting on Meyer at a time that all of this reprehensible journalistic behavior was going on.
So for Baquet to say that Nikki was “a power broker disguised as a journalist” is a joke when the newspaper, under his watch, was a power broker for Pellicano disguised as journalism.
Information is ‘power’.
You have the most lucid power.
Quantum Mechanics probability theory may factor into the reporting and observation of Industry events as they are occurring. The actuality of such observation causes disturbances as to the relative positions of any party being reported and as such such astute observation has a determinate effect in the entertainment environment evolution.
Naturally all this is probable.
Cool.
Now the REALLY hard work begins.
Keeping it real …
and avoiding the flotsam and jetsam of the of an industry that thrives on flooding the pipeline. Because you are now the new pipeline. (So remain reclusive, and remain organic.)
And you’ll be O.K. … but just stay level …
And stay healthy – we need you here.
Really despise hypocrites, so good for you! And I really hate the “c” word. Have to say.
THERE’S the Nikki we know and love! You go girl, let ‘em have it!
Hilarious! But also not so amusing when you consider that this tepid, harmless, hypernegotiated eunuch reporting is now the norm in institutional journalism. These big companies simply are not realizing that if they don’t start earning their bread with real, hard content they will not have a future.
Oh come on, Nikki. This is the Internet. We must know! — did the illustration at least get your *cat* right?!!?
Nikki
A few weeks ago, my 84 year old mom called me and asked if I had heard of “Nikki Finke.” I said, Glo (mom’s name), I read Nikki all the time. How did you hear about her?” My mom said that she read about you in the NY Times and that you were “shaking up the town a bit.” She thought you sounded great and said I should definitely tell you so.
So, this is it. My mom is a fan. And she has excellent taste. And I agree with her. You have wide support in all sorts of places!
“I would hazard a guess that the people disparaging The New Yorker either don’t ever read it or skim through the cartoons. And to the moron who compared it to Entertainment Weekly: let’s just say if you’re a huge fan of EW, you’re probably not The New Yorker’s target audience. God forbid a magazine actually allow writers to write.”
Amen.
Disparage the profile of you if you want, I don’t really have an issue with that. But disparaging a magazine that you admittedly don’t even read is pretty empty.
New Yorker is still the best-written magazine out there – I know that the quality and depth of the writing is sometimes an afterthought to many in the way they get their info these days, but it still matters.
I actually think Tad wrote a very solid, dryly witty profile, which is no mean feat considering all the Tinseltown nightmares he had to deal with — including the subject. Oh my goodness, Tricky Nikki, I’ve seen overcooked dim sum with thicker skin than you!
You’re still awesome – neurotic and fearless all at once. But there’s no dispersing the deep, clinching pathos of cat pee scent and protestations of happiness.
Best zinger of the day. Amen.
Nikki,
So funny to see this just after Tad Friend profiled Elon Musk. Much of Musk’s staff had the same reaction: Friend turned him into a caricature yet completely the missed the real story and real dirt. I know Elon was laughing about the article with a (cough) good friend at dinner just after it came out. The writer parachutes in to California, does some superficial reporting, gets played — he’s desperate to be seen as smart — and then moves on to his next bj. The New Yorker could definitely use someone on the ground out here. I know in SV the magazine is regularly laughed at. I guess the same is true (now, at least) in Hollywood.
Vi