Posted by Annoyed on November 30, 2009 at 19:20:54:
Ebert & Roeper flap reaches critical mass
By Robert Feder
I never imagined that something I wrote would cause a painful public rift between two of Chicago�s most prominent media luminaries (who also happen to be two of the colleagues I respect and admire most in the world). Honest, I didn�t.
It all started last Tuesday when I reported here that Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper had signed a new deal to review movies on his website and on Starz, the subscription movie channel. It marked the long-awaited return to the business that Richard had mastered for eight years on �Ebert & Roeper.�
The next day Roger Ebert posted a blog in which he shared his thoughts �about television and movie critics, myself, and the past, present and future of my corner of the critics-on-TV adventure.� The piece is an absolute must-read for anyone interested in Roger or the groundbreaking programming genre he created with the late Gene Siskel. Most fascinating were some never-disclosed-before details about Roger�s split with Walt Disney Co. and his efforts to launch a new show.
At the end of the piece, Roger focused on a particular comment Richard had made to me about the Starz deal. Roger wrote:
�I confess I felt a twinge that Rob Feder�s column quoted you: �As much as I loved doing �Ebert & Roeper,� this will have much more of an unfiltered, uncut, viral feel. As someone at Starz put it, they wanted �Roeper uncut.� If a film is a piece of shit, I�ll say it�s apiece of shit.� Richard, were you not uncut at �E&R�? Did you never say a movie was �a piece of shit?� �
Just to make sure I was not misinterpreting Roger�s message, I asked him if he felt betrayed by Richard�s comments. �He implied he was not �uncut� on �Ebert & Roeper,� � Roger responded to me. �What did he mean by that?�
I knew that Richard intended no offense to Roger. It was clear to me that all he meant was that he could cut loose on the Internet in a way he never could on a Disney show. But I also understood what Roger had read into Richard�s choice of words.
On Friday, Richard posted a lengthy clarification on his blog about what he said to me � and what he really meant. Richard wrote:
�It was not my intention to disparage the amazing experience I had as Roger�s co-host, or to imply I was creatively stifled. . . . From the first time I sat in the balcony, Roger always encouraged me to speak freely and be myself � and he was exceedingly generous about giving me equal time every time we discussed a movie.
�However, during my first couple of years on the show and then again at the very end of my run, I did have some behind-the-scenes �creative differences� (as they say) with producers. I probably should have clarified to Rob that that�s what I was thinking about when I said �uncut, unfiltered,� blah blah blah. But on the air, with Roger�I was absolutely encouraged to be myself and to express myself in my own way. I didn�t mean to suggest otherwise with a clumsy and cryptic quote.
�The other factor that played into my comments is the delivery system I�ll be using. With these reviews airing on premium cable and on the Internet as opposed to broadcast television, I will have more freedom in terms of language. . . . When I said �uncut, unfiltered,� etc., I just meant I�ll be delivering the reviews in a casual setting, in a conversational tone.�
Richard�s explanation must have seemed entirely reasonable to Roger, who immediately linked to it on Twitter with the message: �Richard Roeper blogs on his Starz & Web plan, says what he meant by now being �uncut.� Well said, Rich.�
To which Richard tweeted: �Thank you sir!�
Unfortunately, the matter didn�t end there. By Saturday, the misunderstanding had taken on a life of its own. Hundreds of readers were writing in to Roger�s and Richard�s blogs, many of them taking sides in a nonexistent battle. ChicagoNow blogger Bruce Wolf cracked wise about it on Tribune Co.-owned news/talk WGN-AM (720). It even resulted in a news story on WMAQ-Channel 5�s 5 p.m. newscast and a piece on the NBC-owned station�s website headlined: �Ebert Gives Roeper Comment Thumbs Down.� That piece, which also ran on other NBC websites, unfairly and inaccurately labeled Richard as an �infamous Chicago Sun-Times movie reviewer.� (Infamous? I hardly think so.)
OK, enough already. The balcony is closed.