Comments (12)

• That’s incompetence, more than anything else. They regularly get the story completely wrong.

  Comment by Dan — January 13, 2009 @ 9:33 am  Reply to this post

• I saw that too! That’s not the first time I’ve noticed a Variety headline and story say the opposite things.

  Comment by Adam — January 13, 2009 @ 9:42 am  Reply to this post

• Variety can be biased, but let’s be fair. The article title is true.

  The Golden Globes was a solid overall #1 most of the evening. CBS programming was #2. 24 was #3 until Desperate Housewives aired and pushed 24 to #4.

  On the other hand, both 24 and the Golden Globes had drops of 28% and 33% respectively in viewers from the most recent previous comparables.

  Comment by Harold — January 13, 2009 @ 10:12 am  Reply to this post

• Not disagreeing with your premise that both of the major trades come from a pro-business perspective (much as you, Nikki, often actively try to fill the “little guy” niche to get your own market share).

  But I think it’s worth mentioning that most periodicals have different people generate the headlines than the ones who actually write the articles. That’s why, whether you’re reading Variety or the NY Times, you’ll often see inconsistencies between the headlines and the articles themselves.

  Comment by gotmyjd2003 — January 13, 2009 @ 10:14 am  Reply to this post

• I caught this too and I couldn’t believe how back-ass this story is. This year’s Globes telecast scored the 2nd lowest ratings since the show began airing on NBC
  and Variety’s headline totally “Lied” about this fact.

  Comment by noname — January 13, 2009 @ 10:14 am  Reply to this post

• Isn’t this also one of the few times that the other networks have aired regular programming opposite the awards? I wonder if the fact that cable and NBC were favored to win all the tv awards played a factor in that decision.

  Comment by Mike — January 13, 2009 @ 10:26 am  Reply to this post

• It’s a headline grab for the Solid+Gold connection, nothing more. The article could have been about Darfur.

  Comment by Adam — January 13, 2009 @ 10:30 am  Reply to this post

• Is that repped or reaped?

  Comment by Jim — January 13, 2009 @ 12:41 pm  Reply to this post

• As awards season gets into full swing I always ask myself the same question. Why would you watch if you didn’t work in the industry? I think the ratings are beginning to reflect this.

  Comment by Tom — January 13, 2009 @ 1:09 pm  Reply to this post

• Come on, “Varaggedy” always whores itself when paid ads are involved.

  Comment by CinefileX — January 13, 2009 @ 1:18 pm  Reply to this post

• Hey anonymous (above) – I’ve worked at a copy desk and the headline space were the LEAST of worries. In this digital age, you can make any headline work. Even if you were pressed for that certain amount of space, you could still re-word the headline to reflect the true content of the story. It’s pure laziness that the headline was written the way it was. I’ve been pressed for time many times but I can proudly say that the headline ALWAYS reflected the content of the story.

  Comment by JD — January 13, 2009 @ 1:28 pm  Reply to this post

• @Comment by anonymous — January 13, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
  Have you ever worked on a copy desk, Nikki? If you have, you surely know copy editors aren’t thinking “How can I write something nice about the industry?” It’s more like, “Crap, how can I get something to fit in this headline space and get this page done by deadline?” Which is why a lot of headlines aren’t so great.

  I’ve worked as a copy editor in the UK, and I’ve freelance copy editors working under me. If any of them wrote a headline that was so inaccurate as Variety’s, I’d tell them to leave the office immediately and I wouldn’t re-hire them.

  A copy editor’s job revolves around making sure the writing in an article is accurate – and that includes headlines. Failing to do that means they’re failing to do their job.

  It’s true, not every headline can be great. But no headline should be inaccurate.

  Comment by Richard — January 14, 2009 @ 7:17 am  Reply to this post