Graydon Carter of Vanity Fair was paid for advising somebody to make a movie (Cf. New York and L.A. Timeses).

But had we not been warned about such conflicts, in fact? May 2004 Vanity Fair, p. 220: “W. DeGroff Hinterhofer, V.F.’s Public Editor, on your side” (link added):

The Hollywood conundrum. Indeed, what are we to make of the fact that so many at Vanity Fair are suckling at the teat of Mother Hollywood? How can a magazine cover the filmmaking industry without bias or favouritism even as it cozies up to this very industry and begs it for lucrative work? In my meeting with [Chris] Garrett [“the magazine’s managing editor”], I noted that many Vanity Fair writers have projects “in development” with studios, and that the magazine’s post–Academy Awards party blurs an already-iffy line between promotion of the V.F. brand and wanton fraternization with the glitterati. Garrett acknowledged that many Vanity Fair writers have been extracurricularly busy in Hollywood of late, and that one writer, the Los Angeles–based Ned Zeman, has proclaimed himself a “whore to Mammon” in this regard. Garrett agreed that Vanity Fair should probably publish a quarterly master list of its writers’ potential confliects of interest vis-à-vis development deals. She also agreed to take up with editor Carter my suggestion that the Oscars party be abolished. Stay tuned.

W. DeGroff Hinterhofer

If you have a grievance with Vanity Fair and its slippery hold on the concept of journalistic ethics, contact me at Publiceditor@vf.com.

Just writers, or also editors?

And what does this have to do with Spy?

Kurt Andersen, Graydon Carter, George Kalogerakis, and current Spy rightsholder John Colman have shared a US$1 million advance for the forthcoming retrospective Spy: The Funny Years. (I of all people should know that not all its years were funny.)

Given my otaku-like beavering on Ten Years Ago in Spy, I am told I am to be interviewed for that book. (I had offered to write a foreword or introduction.) In some elaborately abstracted way, that could be viewed as a conflict of interest.

The foregoing posting appeared on Joe Clark’s personal Weblog on 2004.05.14 18:20. This presentation was designed for printing and omits components that make sense only onscreen. (If you are seeing this on a screen, then the page stylesheet was not loaded or not loaded properly.) The permanent link is:

(Values you enter are stored and may be published)



None. I quit.

Copyright © 2004–2024