Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

UTUSN

(70,497 posts)
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:12 PM Apr 2013

Waiting period for slandering the deceased. And which one?!1 (Re: Roger EBERT)

By the bye, I myself subscribe to the "None" waiting period. Apropos, does anybody believe Nancy RAYGUN has been writing all those statements reacting to current events herself, for years if ever?!1


*************QUOTE*************

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-story-that-makes-roger-ebert-look-bad-too-soon/2013/04/11/0b622ae8-a21c-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html?hpid=z2

[font size=5]A story that could make Roger Ebert look bad. Too soon?[/font]

By Gene Weingarten

.... ...my recent quandary after the death of Roger Ebert, the deservedly renowned film critic, shrewd social philosopher, and indomitable victim of a cancer that had maimed him and stole his voice. I had an Ebert story to tell, and it was a juicy one. But I daren’t write it. He was a giant, and my story would make him look small. ....

On May 28, 1989, Tropic ran an article on its cover by Bill Cosford, the Herald’s talented film critic. In “Confessions of a Movie Critic — a Life in the Dark,” Cosford mercilessly pilloried his craft (he awarded his story just 31/2 stars, right on the cover). Among the others he took to task were Ebert and Gene Siskel, who had patented the too-cute-by-half “thumbs-up, thumbs-down” reviewing conceit. ....

Not long afterward, as I have giddily recalled many times to friends and colleagues over the past quarter-century, Tropic received a long letter from Ebert, trashing Cosford and defending his and Siskel’s oeuvre. It was unbearably pompous. Ebert even bragged about his Pulitzer Prize, which is something no writer should ever do, and I say that as a two-time Pulitzer winner. ....

And so, as I recalled, we ran the letter to the editor at considerable length, so readers could grasp how conceited Ebert was.

And then we appended a response from Cosford. (It was actually a response Achenbach had come up with. But Cosford graciously — gleefully — let us print it.) So after Ebert’s long, self-congratulatory letter, this single line appeared:


Mr. Cosford responds: Are you the bald one or the fat one? ....

...for the first time in 24 years, I went back into the archives to find that letter. And there it was. Which is when I discovered that I have been casually slandering Ebert for decades.

The letter was every bit as bloated and self-righteous as I remembered it (“Over the years we have been at the forefront of criticism”; Cosford “probably resents our success and influence” and so forth). But Ebert hadn’t written it — Siskel had. It was Siskel who referred to Ebert’s Pulitzer, stating that he, Siskel, was envious of it, and theorizing that Cosford was, too. ....

*************UNQUOTE*************

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Waiting period for slande...