The subtext of this unbelievably stupid article brought to us courtesy of The Incredible Shrinking Los Angeles Times, is that adultery sells on television because our society is changing to the point where we’re now warming up to the idea of marital infidelity. This is the actual subtitle of this very poorly researched piece of cultural propaganda: Cheating spouses are prevalent on prime-time TV. Blame society’s changing views on marriage and fidelity, and the shows’ need to push boundaries to succeed.

Twice as popular as “Nurse Jackie”

In other words, television is following society, not the other way around. Whatever. Here’s a snip:

Prime-time TV is starting to look like an ad for Ashley Madison, the online dating service for married folks, where the message is, “Life is short. Have an affair.”

To be sure, bed hopping as a plot point is nothing new. In fact, it’s as old as storytelling itself (see: the Bible). But the proliferation of adultery on TV — seemingly occurring far more frequently than in real life — could be the result of a perfect storm of cultural and sociological factors, industry veterans and sociologists say.

Among those factors: Cynicism about marriage is rampant, and about half of all marriages end in divorce, a number that’s remained steady for years. “Since the ’60s and ’70s, we’ve seen a general loosening of mores in this country and a cultural shift away from the core values of marriage, fidelity and monogamy,” said Julie Albright, a sociologist at USC. “People believe marriages don’t work anyway, so seeing affairs on TV kind of serves as a model for how things can and will go bad.”

(more…)

Over the past month, the Los Angeles Times has started delivering the Sunday circulars to my doorstep, along with every other doorstep in the neighborhood.

While I’m not sure of an official reason, one could posit that subscriptions to the Time are so far down that they must meet their obligations to advertisers and get the glossy fliers out to a certain amount of people. Whatever the reason, along with the fliers for the big box stores was an edition of USA Weekend.  On top, it read Los Angeles Times | Times Select.

In it was the typical Hollywood news (‘Justified’ is being renewed!), some consumer report-type articles, and a big feature on kids being healthy and happy. Also mixed in were two stories of less than 500 words each. One was meant as an homage to leftist dogma, the other a flat-out lie.

First, the dogma showed up in a 150+ word article about actor Ian Somerhalder. The actor plays Damon on CW’s ‘The Vampire Diaries’ (before this, he played Boone on ‘Lost’). In the piece, they talk about him being a heartthrob, about how down home he is, as he comes from Louisiana. They even mention he was teased as a child. His football teammates at his Catholic high school dubbed him a “pretty boy” because of his career as a model. All of this set up showing Somerhalder as a regular guy to get to the hit, when he proclaims that he is an “environmentalist,” stating:

We humans are like cancers: We multiply and take, take, take. Now I want to give, give, give.

An article that was quick to point out his TV cred, as well as the near 1 million Twitter followers he has, is highlighting his environmentalism  - where he calls human beings “cancer.”  Is USA Weekend aware of how dangerous this kind of talk is?

(more…)

Netflix Stock Hits 52-Week Low After It Cancels DVD-Streaming Split

That’s because Qwikster’s not the problem; it’s just a symptom of Netflix’s ongoing stupidity. Allowing people to opt out of the by-mail service and keep the streaming is the problem. They’ve hastened the death of half their business model and DVD in general. How many people would order Oprah’s lame network if it wasn’t a part of a package of channels people really want? Same theory here.

Speaking of stupidity…

More Theatres Threaten to Hold Up ’Tower Heist’

Instead of throwing tantrums against the dying of the light, why don’t these theatre owners start investing in the burgeoning technologies that will inevitably alter their business forever? One theatre owner obviously understands this when he says pay-per-view is “a dagger to our business.”

Well, no kidding. But instead of attempting to muscle the studios — which will only backfire — get proactive and ahead of the business curve so you’re prepared for when it happens.

I guess they expect Willie Nelson to put on benefit concerts and the government to bail them out.  Which, in this environment, isn’t as funny as it sounds.

(more…)

Now that George Clooney’s been involved in yet another high-profile, political box office disappointment, it’s predictably time for the Los Angeles — we read it so you don’t have to – Times to charge to the rescue with the absurd claim that the current 100% failure rate of left-wing films over the last few years has nothing to do with partisan politics. In fact, the L.A. Times practices the art of The Big Lie through the ridiculous claim that the lack of partisan politics might explain their failure.

Let’s start with this nonsense:

And yet [Clooney's] “Ides” seems bound for the same ephemeral status as so many other political allegories that have come and gone in recent years: “Man of the Year,” “Swing Vote,” “Bulworth,” “Lions for Lambs,” “Wag the Dog,” “Atlas Shrugged,” The Manchurian  Candidate.”  They’re movies that run the ideological gamut, yet most of them garnered middling reactions from both critics and the American public. And almost none of them have endured (with the possible, though only possible, exception of “Wag the Dog”).

There are plenty of challenges to dramatizing Washington these days. Among the much-digested issues: Real-life drama can seem so outlandish that no scripted entertainment can match it, while winds shift too quickly for comments on the process to be relevant by the time a film comes out. There may or may not have been something novel in “Ides’” message about the toll the system takes on idealism years ago, before Barack Obama’s presidency; there’s not much fresh nearly three years into his term.

So the theory here is that by the time these films come out, the subject matter they cover is no longer hot and therefore audiences have lost interest. How exactly does that theory apply to “The Manchurian Candidate” remake, “Bulworth,” and “Man of the Year?” Whatever your politics, those films aren’t ripped from the headlines or out to capture some political zeitgeist. There’s no stale date when it comes to “evil” weapons manufacturers, a politician who discovers the joy of telling (his version of) the truth, or the age-old tale of an everyman with a shot at the presidency. But the single most wrong-headed example here is “Lions for Lambs,” which actually was released in the heat of the political moment it wanted so desperately to capture: the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Moreover, it starred three A-listers and still managed to flop.

(more…)

‘The Undefeated” is set for release into more cities next week.  

L.A. Times:

Directed and written by Stephen K. Bannon, the film opened this weekend in AMC Theatres in 10 selected digital markets — the closest to Los Angeles being the city of Orange in Orange County — going up against the opening of perhaps the biggest film of the summer, the final installment in the “Harry Potter” series.

According to a release Sunday from distributor ARC Entertainment, which partnered with digital distributor Cinedigm, the film grossed approximately $5,000 per screen through Saturday night, with “large markets trending towards weekend per screen averages above $10,000.”

That’s quite modest by Hollywood standards, but the rollout was booked quickly over three weeks, with marketing carried out through word-of-mouth and low-cost social media.

The release quotes Jill Newhouse Calcaterra, the chief marketing officer for Cinedigm, saying, ” ‘The Undefeated’ is the perfect example of how digital cinema can benefit both producers and audiences. Starting with theater location selection, we worked quickly — with precision accuracy — to generate a terrific box-office result with virtually no marketing dollars.

“This is a new model that is going to benefit the entire entertainment industry and audiences who want to see unique products.”

[LA Times]: How do the opening-weekend figures stack up against your expectations (or hopes)?

[Steve] Bannon: This was a high-risk strategy — one I don’t remember ever being attempted — to open a documentary nationwide in such disparate markets with only 4 weeks prep with no media spend. And it paid off. Why — we had distribution partners at ARC and Cinedigm that knew what they were doing and a theater chain that knows how to handle specialty film.

(more…)

Los Angeles Times:

While reading your new book, “The Secret Knowledge,” I thought, My God, in crucifying liberals, this guy is going to infuriate a huge chunk of the people who pay money to see plays. Are you concerned that you’re alienating your public?
I’ve been alienating my public since I was 20 years old. When “American Buffalo” came out on Broadway, people would storm out and say, “How dare he use that kind of language!” Of course I’m alienating the public! That’s what they pay me for. …

Don’t you have to denounce your early, anticapitalistic work then?
Of course not. At that time in my life I didn’t have a penny, and I was glad to be working at entry-level jobs. Having lived for quite a while longer, I see life from a different perspective. What am I going to do, go on denouncing capitalism all my life? …

(more…)

Earlier this week I ran a piece at Big Journalism that examines how the MSM, in their desperate efforts to undermine and destroy Sarah Palin, are willing to weaponize her own children as political bludgeons against her. The idea is, at all costs, to undermine her seriousness and to create a relentless storm of nonsensical controversies around her that serve the leftist MSM’s partisan desires in three ways. First, by creating a narrative out of the ridiculous, the Governor is never allowed to get her message out. Second, it furthers the goal of turning her into a punchline. Finally, this Palin-Fury the MSM constantly brews up is meant to condition us to wince every time she pops her head out of the ground. Simply put, Palin’s MSM enemies want to exhaust us to the point where we start to wish she’d just go away; and the day after that piece published there was yet another textbook example.

—–

Monday night, at a military fundraiser, Governor Palin laid out what you might call the Palin Doctrine, a five-part plan that defines her vision for American national security. As a potential GOP candidate, any mainstream news outlet that wasn’t corrupt would find this to be a very big deal, but what did we get instead? Alinsky 101:

ABC News:  Palin (Sort of) Praises Obama on Bin Laden

Mediaite: Palin Thanks President On Bin Laden’s Death, But Doesn’t Mention Obama By Name

Los Angeles Time: Sarah Palin credits Bush for Osama bin Laden’s death, omits Obama’s name

These headlines are actually dumber and more misleading than they look when you read (video clip above) what the Governor actually said:

Yesterday was a testament to the military’s dedication in relentlessly hunting down an enemy through many years of war, and we thank our president. We thank President Bush for having made the right calls to set up this victory.

(more…)

No more than three weeks ago, 17 days to be exact, Hollywood’s favorite overrated, race-obsessed, ex-scientologist Oscar-winner, Paul Haggis, raised the bloody shirt of the dreaded Hollywood blacklist of the 1940s and ’50s … again. For those of you might have missed one of the annual offerings from Hollywood’s self-referential masturbatory genre of films covering the blacklist, essentially what happened is that for a time entertainment professionals were denied employment based on real and perceived communist sympathies. A terrible thing to be sure, but not so terrible for today’s communist sympathizers who, for seven decades now, have lovingly fed, pruned and cared for this unfortunate era of Hollywood history in order to grow it into a Mighty Oak of Indignation. After all, how else would today’s Hollywood — the wealthiest, freest community of artists in the history of the world – feel the moral superiority that comes with being oppressed were it not for a scandal old enough to collect Social Security?

The irony of this, of course, is that the situation is now reversed. The only thing today’s Hollywood Left learned from the original blacklist was how to blacklist better. They leave no fingerprints today. There’s nothing official, there’s no list, so there’s no way for anyone to get caught. At the very least, The Hollywood Ten understood what had happened to them. There was a list, they were on it, and so they could work around it with the use of pseudonyms until the storm passed. Today’s Hollywood Blacklisters are shrewder and much more insidious. Their blacklist is an unspoken social one. There’s nothing official to tell you why the phone stops ringing.

The worst part is that those on this awful list aren’t even looked at as victims (not that they want to be). As we’ve documented ad nauseum, the entertainment media is a willing participant in the blacklisting of those who don’t conform to their political beliefs. Anyone who dares mention that it might not be the best career move to take the other side of a Global Warming debate in a production meeting or by the craft services table, is immediately pounced upon as a talentless, hasbeen, paranoid whiner by no less than Patrick Goldstein at the L.A. Times, among others. (more…)

America wants to watch their entertainment at home and when they want to watch it. Those in Hollywood holding out had better get on the streaming bandwagon and figure out a way to monetize it accordingly, or they will be left behind. We as consumers are increasingly more willing to wait out theatrical and high-priced PPV/DVD rental price windows in order to pay a buck at a Redbox or, better yet, sit back and let it all conveniently stream directly into our home theatre.

Ominous news for Hollywod in today’s Incredible Shrinking L.A. Times:

Broad swaths of the entertainment business declined in 2010. DVD sales were off 13%. Music CD purchases plummeted 19%. Video game sales as well as concert and theater attendance also fell. Even the turnout for America’s favorite pastimes — baseball and NASCAR — was down. And swift changes in technology will make it difficult for Hollywood to capture pre-recession levels of revenue. …

Cable and satellite subscriptions, DVD sales and video rentals long have been the profit pillars that supported Hollywood. Although media executives continue to boast “content is king,” recently released year-end data suggest entertainment companies are vulnerable to the same disruptive forces that imperiled the music and newspaper industries. …

But perhaps most ominously, last summer the pay-television industry suffered an unprecedented net loss — for the first time — of customers, a yellow warning light that consumers may no longer regard cable TV as a must-have utility on par with electricity and phone service.

New content is no longer king because there’s so much of it already out there and available at a much cheaper price and in a more convenient way. Should we pay $10 a piece to drive to a theatre, get raped at the concession stand, and live with the frustration of all the rude talkers during a movie that kinda sucks? Or… Should we hunker down in the comfort of our own home and for the absurdly low Netflix price of $8 a month, stream a favorite movie we haven’t watched in a while or get lost in Season One of some television show we’ve been meaning to try?  (more…)

Recently, the LA Times carried a column in which Steven Zeitchik tied the absence of new Christmas films to a lack of interest on the part of filmgoers. To bolster his point, he referenced “a sack full” of Christmas movies that came out in 2006 and drew lackluster audiences at best. The examples he provided included Danny DeVito’s comedy, “Deck the Halls,” and a horror movie, “Black Christmas.” (If these are the kind of examples on which he’s going to rest his case, he might as well cite 2005’s disastrous “Dukes of Hazard” as proof that movies marketed toward good ol’ boys are dead and gone too.)

It simply makes no sense to uncover low audience figures for films that ought never have been made and then use those figures to argue that making Christmas films is not business-smart.

Earth to Zeitchik: The audience for Christmas movies is alive and well, the problem is that Hollywood has essentially said bah humbug to the idea of making one. When they do make them, we go.

Do you need proof? Consider Christmas movies that have debuted since the awful 2006 season Zeitchik cited: 2007’s “Fred Claus” made $72 million domestically, 2008’s “Four Christmases” made $120 million domestically (another $44 million overseas), and 2009’s “Christmas Carol” made $137 million domestically (another $187 million worldwide).

And perhaps an even stronger indicator that there’s an ongoing audience for Christmas movies is the fact that “Miracle on 34th Street” and “It’s a Wonderful Life” air multiple times every Christmas season. (Would television stations be carrying these same two movies time and again every Christmas were they not popular enough to attract advertisers, and thereby make money?)

It seems Zeitchik’s piece was really nothing more than a strained attempt to provide cover for Hollywood producers who are not in the mood to do a new film about Scrooge, because they’re too busy being a Grinch themselves. (more…)

Are we buying this? People don’t want to see Christmas movies?

Steven Zeitchik of the L.A. Times:

Studios don’t usually take sides in culture-wars debates. They do, however, pay attention to the shifting winds. And as Joe Roth, the former Disney executive who once shepherded holiday hits like “Home Alone” and “Santa Clause,” says, holiday pictures just aren’t where the creative or monetary Zeitgeist is circa 2010.

“The way to do a big-budget film these days is to take stories that everyone in the world knows and take them in a new direction,”  Roth told us. “But no one’s come up with a fresh way to do a holiday movie, so we’re all doing it with other kinds of stories.” (Roth is doing just that with “Snow White” and “The Wizard of Oz.”)

In past years there have been scads of movies playing off the holidays. In fact, as recently as 2006 we had a sack full of them, from a Danny DeVito comedy (“Deck the Halls”) to a Queen Latifah heartwarmer (“The Holiday”), to a horror movie (“Black Christmas”).  That glut has turned, just four years later, into a scarcity. (Whether any of the ‘06 movies were any good is another matter.)

But don’t be quick to blame Hollywood. Most of the movies from that fertile year of 2006 flopped. So right now, Hollywood executives’ assumption is that Americans would rather come to theaters to see stories about pretty much anything other than Christmas. Are they right? (more…)

And herein lies my real problem with NBC/MSNBC. What Keith Olbermann does as a private citizen and with his own money should be the least of  NBC/MSNBC’s concerns. But they are so delusional over there that they’ve convinced themselves that a two day suspension over a few thousand dollars in private campaign contributions will in some way bestow “journalistic integrity” on the very same network that would seek to legitimize a racist leftist like cartoonist Ted Rall, who is now openly calling for a violent revolution to overthrow the American government and put a stop to the Tea Party. 

“Are things in our country so bad that it might actually be time for a revolution? The answer is obviously ‘yes.’”

That’s not a Ted Rall statement, that’s MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan. As you watch the video below, imagine the (justifiable) uproar had those words come from a Hannity or Beck in the same context as this — an interview with a right-wing extremist calling for violence against his political opponents:

—–

For those of you not familiar with Rall, he’s a witless, radical left-wing editorial cartoonist who’s probably most famous for his inability to draw, but thanks to the venomous left-wing viewpoints he holds, he’s enjoyed an incredible amount of mainstream success. According to his own site, the same cartoonist who called Condi Rice a “house nigga” and is now calling for organized violence in order to “bully” his insidious left-wing worldview on the rest of us, “now appear[s] in more than 100 publications around the United States, including the Los Angeles Times, Tucson Weekly, Willamette Week, Newark Star-Ledger, Village Voice and New York Times.”

Here’s an excerpt from his new book, “The Anti-American Manifesto”: (more…)

The internet is abuzz with praise for the new documentary that points out the many faults of public education, Waiting for Superman. With positive reviews from both the Huffington Post on the Left as well as the New York Post on the Right, it makes one wonder, how could this be? It appears that this film has single-handedly done what President Obama could not do to save his own life: bring the Left and Right together on a single issue.

Davis Guggenheim

It is refreshing that the film’s director, Davis Guggenheim (who directed An Inconvenient Truth), is able to put politics aside to see the destructive nature of teachers unions. Guggenheim put his own kids through private school but realizes that not everyone can afford such a luxury. Here, he sets out to tackle the real problems that have long plagued public school systems: teachers unions. Though, he is careful to say that he isn’t bashing unions in general.

Guggenheim sees that not everything has to be a political football, which is why we should applaud him for taking a bipartisan approach. However, some feel that the response to the film shows the true, negative colors of conservatives. Liberal Patrick Goldstein comments in the Los Angeles Times:

If you’re a documentary filmmaker, you’re happy to get rave reviews from any source, since you need all the good PR you can get. But I find it revealing, when it comes to the liberal vs. conservative partisan divide, that whenever Michael Moore releases a new documentary promoting a liberal cause, conservatives are quick to bash him for being a left-wing propagandist. But when Guggenheim makes a film offering wholehearted support for a conservative cause, liberal critics have written just as many glowing reviews as conservative ones. (The film has a sky-high 93 fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes.) What does that tell you about who’s got the most open mind here?

(more…)

Today’s L.A. Times:

The command center of Andrew Breitbart’s growing media empire is a suite of offices on Sawtelle Boulevard in West Los Angeles with the temporary feel of a campaign office. Only the computers seem firmly anchored.

On a recent summer day, just weeks after he posted video clips that touched off a national furor over race, Breitbart was swigging a bottled Frappuccino at his desk. In a Lacoste shirt, cargo shorts and laceless Converse All-Stars, he looked every bit the 41-year-old industry player he might have been, but for a political awakening that transformed this liberal, West Side child of privilege into a Hollywood-hating, mainstream-media-loathing conservative.

Breitbart, who has emerged as a star of the “tea party” movement, loves telling his apostate’s tale in the italicized, frequently profane manner that is his trademark. Three epiphanies stand out:

1. The Black Dorm Moment. In 1986, Breitbart was a freshman at Tulane University when his friend Larry Solov, a sophomore at Stanford, happened to mention his school’s African-American-themed residence hall.

“He just matter-of-factly said there was a black dorm and I was like, ‘What the friggin’ hell? Are you kidding me?’” said Breitbart, who is now business partners with Solov, a former corporate litigator. “And then, when I found out that it was not segregation in the sense of white people doing it, I was like, ‘What are you talking about? Why aren’t we working toward the colorblind ideal?’” (more…)

—–

Mark Levin features the Big Hollywood article discussing recent calls to keep Ernest Borgnine from winning a SAG Award because of comments he made about the film “Brokeback Mountain”.

If nothing else, you have to give the entertainment media credit for its inability to hit bottom. There is no low low enough for these people and just when you think they can’t possibly sink any lower, somehow they always manage to summon up that little something necessary to go the extra mile in the department of outright cruelty.

Last week the Screen Actors Guild announced that Ernest Borgnine will receive a Lifetime Achievement Award at next years awards ceremony. Obviously this decision is a no-brainer. The 93 year-old Oscar-winner’s been making films since 1951 and is still active today, including a role in the upcoming Bruce Willis blockbuster “Red.” But now, no less than the L.A. Times is suggesting that SAG reconsider their decision to honor the man because of — their words, not mine — “his personal politics.” 

In an online article titled “Should SAG Be Honoring Ernest Borgnine?”, here’s the rationale: [emphasis mine] (more…)

Only in present-day Hollywood would a filmmaker have to try and cut off the media-created narrative that his creation was too patriotic. And it was this article written by left-winger Steven Zeitchik of the L.A. Times that created the kerfuffle Stallone responds to below. Obviously, this was Zeitchik’s goal. Yet again, our cultural enforcers attempt to toxify a hit film that doesn’t adhere to their left-wing worldview in order to make those thinking of reproducing the same think twice about the media misery that always comes with it. 

How far Hollywood has fallen. Today, accusations of making a patriotic film must be defended against. But there’s no political blacklisting or anything…  

—–

I can’t find the link and I’m already late for a screening, but earlier this week, someone at a fairly high-profile film-site claimed I had declared “The Expendables” the most patriotic film ever, or something similar to that. After reviewing the only two pieces (here and here) I’ve written since seeing Stallone’s box office hit, what I can declare is that she’s just making that up (I do remember she was a she). Nowhere did I state “The Expendables” was flag-waving or even patriotic — unless clear storytelling lines between good and evil and masculine heroes who selflessly risk their own lives are now considered, by default, elements of America jingoism. Which is kind of a terrible thing to say about the rest of the world. (more…)

***clarification update below.

Last week, film writer extraordinaire Christian Toto fell under the delusion that yours truly was interesting enough to interview, and if you’re under the same delusion you can read the two-parter here and here. Among other things, Toto asked me about the clout critics wield and the most common mistakes they make. Here’s a combination of my answers:

Critics aren’t dumb, they know the public doesn’t much care which way their thumbs point. But critics do know that based on their opinions and reviews they can enjoy an influence over what kind of films get made. And that’s not a small amount of power. Culture is upstream from politics, after all.

If you have 95 percent of critics savaging a faithful retelling of the Gospels as anti-Semitic, no matter how successful “The Passion” is, no one’s going to go near that subject matter again. And that’s the goal. Same with anything that comes close to patriotism or conservatism. Such cinematic rarities are frequently labeled “jingoistic, fascist or simple minded.” This is all done consciously and for a desired effect.

You have to understand that when I look at the critical community I only see it for what it really is: a journolista cabal of left wingers deeply engaged in a cultural and ideological war, deeply committed to shaping the powerful messaging of sound and fury that emanate from our pop culture masters.

(more…)

So an Adam Sandler family comedy is released … during summer … with co-stars Kevin James, Rob Schneider, David Spade, and Chris Rock  … and the L.A. Times is sincerely confused over why it’s such a huge hit. Here’s their headline: Just how did Adam Sandler’s ‘Grown Ups’ become a hit?

Below that headline are nearly 700 confused and curious words digging into the strange, exotic phenomenon of American moviegoers flocking to an unpretentious, family comedy starring one of America’s few remaining bankable actors who co-stars with 4 guys who have spent 15 years building audience goodwill.

The author of the piece is Steven Zeitchik, and while my confusion with his confusion remains, let’s at least give him points for not pulling a Patrick Goldstein. Rather than speculate until he reached his own conclusion, Zeitchik actually practiced a little journalism: (more…)

Comprehending the work of a propagandist is nearly impossible. Since their goal is the opposite of trying to enlighten, there’s never any logic behind the words. Instead, the goal is to obscure and deflect in the hopes that The Lie being told is highlighted and can come across as some sort of scholarly conclusion now that it’s been buried in a whole lot of meaningless words. Patrick Goldstein, Hollywood’s chief leftist enforcer at the L.A. Times, has just created yet another perfect example of this (and why the financially troubled newspaper has been reduced to the size of a dinner menu).

Goldstein’s editorial mission — his specialty at the high-profile perch — is poaching from another news outlet any story that disrupts the Leftist Hollywood narrative. If the story makes Hollywood look bad or risks damaging the industry in any way, Goldstein’s job is to twist it around in the hopes of changing the narrative into what Hollywood wants to hear.

If you recall, just this last month, Goldstein did exactly this with a Wall Street Journal profile of musician Jonathan Kahn. Nowhere in the article did Kahn claim his right-of-center politics had ever hurt his career, and yet in an attempt to paint him as a whiner, Goldstein told all of Hollywood he had. Worse, in a conscious effort to portray Kahn as a no-talent has-been, rather than mention Kahn’s long, successful relationship with a Grammy-winning producer (which made up a large part of the WSJ profile), Goldstein ignored it and instead Googled up some old credits of Kahn’s in order to present them as though they were Kahn’s entire resume. (the hard-left film site Movieline soon followed suit.) (more…)