According to Editor & Publisher, both the NYT and LAT are denying Nikki Finke’s claim that they’re about to lose a whole lot of movie advertising because their readership is not sufficiently young to appeal to movie studio marketing departments:

In a written statement to E&P, the Los Angeles Times called Finke’s piece “misleading in its description of the state of newspaper readership and of the Los Angeles Times’ value as an advertising vehicle for movie studios.”

The paper then went on to cite a Scarborough Research report that shows that 52% of 18-24 year olds who go to three or more movies a month read the paper weekly. Among 18-24 year olds who usually go to movies on opening weekend, the Los Angeles Times says 43% read the paper each week.

New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis told E&P Wednesday that the Times has not felt the cutbacks Finke’s column portends. Furthermore, Mathis said the movie industry views the paper as a trade publication as well as a “highly influential ticket-selling vehicle in New York.” And finally, she said, The Times is increasing selling combined ad packages for print and online — presumably to snag that younger audience.

Well, since Finke portends cutbacks, I’m not sure why the fact that the NYT hasn’t felt them yet disproves her reporting. Anyway, we will see in the coming months if the Finke Prophecy comes into being.

A few weeks ago, Dov Charney called my editor-in-chief, asking her to take down this post. He claimed that the Jewish Journal article the item linked to was deeply unfair to him.

I called Charney to follow up, and then discussed his grievances via email with Jewish Journal editor Howard Blume, who oversaw the article in question. I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s nothing mis-reported in the article per se, which pretty carefully distinguishes between allegation and fact. Although of course, one could argue about balance and bias in any piece like this. However, as Blume pointed out to me, if Charney really objects to the article, maybe he ought to write a letter to the editor, which the Journal would print, and which he hasn’t done.

Nonetheless, since Charney is concerned about his reputation, a few points bear emphasis:

-Charney’s now-infamous liaison with a writer for the magazine Jane was completely consensual. And they both had a great time.
-Two of the main sources in the Jewish Journal article have long-standing disputes with Charney stemming from the attempt to unionize American Apparel a few years ago, which was voted down by the company’s workers.
-Many clothing companies which American Apparel does business with regularly inspect AA’s facilities and financial records, and, claims Charney, would take note of any worker exploitation.
-The writer of the Jewish Journal article never visited the company’s facilities.

Charney also thinks that there is a movement in the blogo- and media-spheres to take him down, because he is successful and colorful. I don’t really agree with this, but I do think there may be a tendency to make fun of him a little, since he has a silly moustache and talks a lot about sex. (And by the way, there’s this.) In any case, if Charney really thinks blogs are bad for society (which is what he told me), I’m not sure why his company advertises so heavily on the Gawker Media empire.

Anyway, all this is neither here nor there. The point is that Charney may actually be a good guy. I would also like to endorse his T-shirts, which I find to hang quite flatteringly on the lanky, sinewy frames of certain semitically handsome media bloggers.

To the anonymous emailer who asked me, politely, why I wasn’t giving any coverage to Hurricane Katrina, I ask, politely, why are you looking for coverage of a hurricane in the Southeast US on a blog about Los Angeles media? Anyway, Variety does have a story about Katrina’s effect on productions underway in New Orleans and environs (coincidentally, the subject of a recent LAT feature).

Yesterday, the LAT announced it had hired Village Voice-er Charles McNulty to fill the long-vacant lead drama critic position, and today Nikki Finke reports on why the paper took so long to find someone. In summary, the paper wanted a big name, but big names in the theater criticism world don’t want to move to LA, because they want to be able to cover New York / London. The long wait for a new critic has left the Los Angeles theater community feeling alienated from the paper– and believe me, theater people are easy to alienate. Finke describes McNulty as a “safe but pretty uninspired choice.” Well, he should be a perfect match for covering all those safe-but-uninspired Taper productions.

I feel a little dirty right now because I’m listening to an online radio show called ‘Hoist the Black Flag’ available here. But I’m doing it for you, reader, because Greg Gutfield is on, talking about the Huffington Post. Sample quote from Gutfield: “Most of the [writers] just suck.” He goes on to compare the Huffington Post to a cocktail party at which everyone is talking to themselves.

Now they’re making fun of poor old David Crosby. I’d keep listening, but the mailman just showed up with my New Republic.

As discussed yesterday, Defamer has now received two letters from Bert Fields regarding supposedly legally-questionable coverage of his client Tom Cruise. I’ve heard since then that Fields is, in the words of a well-placed source, ‘carpet-bombing’ publications, both on- and offline, with similar cease-and-desist missives. And frankly, I don’t get much mail. I want a letter from Bert. So I’m posting this image of a young dragged-out Cruise (originally published in the Sun) in the hopes of getting one. With my traffic, it might take a couple of days. Meanwhile, Anonymous Tips box is on the right if anyone has Fields letters to report.

Tribune Media Services will begin offering syndicated content from Variety, according to the LA Business Journal. Speaking of Tribune Media Services syndication, it’s two weeks and counting until the Huffington Post syndication second-try launch begins. Oh, and speaking of Variety, reporter Claude Brodesser is leaving the paper for parts as-of-yet-unknown, though he will still be heard on KCRW’s ‘The Business.’

Wasn’t it clever how I just jammed three more-or-less unrelated factoids into one post? I’ll try for four next time.

Michael Hiltzik takes a sharp look at the recent legislation proposed by state assemblywoman Cindy Montanez to allow anyone (celebrity or civilian) to file suit against a paparazzo who “creates… a reasonable apprehension of offensive or harmful contact” in trying to get a candid celeb shot. Since (obviously) assault is already a crime, this law would allow celebrities to sue photographers even if their actions don’t meet the standards for criminal charges. Of course, this law would lead to an increased burden on our already over-taxed court system. So why not ask celebrities to fund it? Ultimately it is they who reap the benefits of the cultural production system which makes their photographs a commodity. Hiltzik thus proposes license fees for celebrityhood:

The California Celebrity Protection Act would state that any individual who has been the subject of three or more items in People, Us Weekly, the New York Post’s Page Six, or OK! Magazine over any six-week span must apply for and receive a state celebrity license before appearing in public. The fee would be $5,000, unless any of the articles was a cover story, in which case it would be $15,000. Two cover stories – $25,000, and so on.

We can be flexible: Those whose renown derives solely from TV reality shows would be eligible for junior six-month licenses, in recognition of their shorter fame arcs; for ex-TV sitcom stars attempting comebacks by hosting syndicated talk shows there might be provisional permits covering, say, the three-week period between their shows’ premieres and their return to the obscurity of infomercials.

Any venue hoping to establish itself as a celebrity hangout would also need a permit. Clubs might pay $50,000 for permission to have up to 10 licensed celebrities simultaneously on the premises between 10 p.m. and closing, although higher fees might be levied on venues where authorities deem the bathroom stalls sufficiently private to allow surreptitious drug use, especially by the underage siblings of actors and actresses appearing on teen dramas on Fox or the WB.

Sounds good to me!

Defamer reports receiving a second letter from lawyer Bertram Fields on behalf of Tom Cruise. Which makes a slightly distracted semi-professional media watcher wonder: Have other Cruise-covering media outlets gotten back-off letters from Fields, or is Defamer his one-and-only epistolary muse? Anonymous Tips box to the right.

The NYT takes a look at MySpace, visiting with the two scruffy Angeleno co-founders and noting the company’s gleaming new Santa Monica office building, moved into after News Corp.’s $520 million purchase of the site’s parent company. Weirdly, no mention is made in the article of the effect this influx of cash has had on the lifestyle of the founders in question, which you’d think would be a natural line of inquiry, no? Guess they’re trying to keep it real.