Clooney to Arianna: I Did Not Blog

[sabra]

http://stylescenes.latimes.com/fashion/2006/03/_oscarwinner_ge.html

Clooney to Arianna: I Did Not Blog

Oscar-winner George Clooney may make politically provocative films like "Syriana." But he doesn't write politically provocative blogs.

So imagine his ire when Arianna Huffington used some of his recent answers to political questions in a way that makes it look as if he wrote one for her Huffington Post blog site.

"He doesn't object to the quotes," says Stan Rosenfield, Clooney's rep. "He said those things and those are his views. Arianna asked for permission to use the quotes and he gave it to her. What he didn't give permission for was the use of his quotes without source attributions to make it appear that he wrote a blog for her site. Which he did not. When he saw the posting Monday, we called and asked her to make the change, to simply attribute the quotes and make it clear that he did not write a blog. But she refused. And it's now Wednesday."

Rather than keep waiting, Clooney got pro-active and issued this statement:

"Miss Huffington's blog is purposefully misleading and I have asked her to clarify the facts. I stand by my statements but I did not write this blog. With my permission Miss Huffington compiled it from interviews with Larry King and The Guardian. What she most certainly did not get my permission to do is to combine only my answers in a blog that misleads the reader into thinking that I wrote this piece. These are not my writings - they are answers to questions and there is a huge difference."

edit: Huffington's response (hat tip to shoelace414)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/on-george-clooneys-blog_b_17350.html

On George Clooney's Blog (2 comments )

When I first invited George Clooney to blog after a screening of Good Night, and Good Luck in New York a few months ago, he said he wasn't sure how a blog worked. So we put together a sample blog from answers he had given on Larry King Live and an interview with the Guardian in London, and sent it to him to rework in any way he wanted.

A publicist who was working on the promotion of Good Night, and Good Luck, emailed back saying, "I will get it to him and get back to you as soon as I hear anything." Three days later, she emailed again, approving, without any changes, what we had sent: "Of course this is fine, Arianna!"

And once we had the approval, that's what we ran: George Clooney's words put into blog form.

This was an honest misunderstanding. But any misunderstanding that occurred, occurred between Clooney and the publicist. We based our decision to post on the unambiguous approval we received in writing. There was no room for misunderstanding in that.

[WilliamPitt]

1. There is a huge difference

I'd be pissed, too.

[sabra]

2. ditto

I am waiting for Huffington's response, but...

[harpo]

3. yep

[shoelace414]

11. don't hold you breath.. but you probably could have

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/on-george-clooneys-blog_b_17350.html

[AuntiBush]

23. Really!

Another countless moment in this un-believeable country I use to know. I'd be pissed-off as well.

[Lerkfish]

34. so would I. it was irresponsible of Arianna, regardless of the confusion.

I see no reason in the FIRST PLACE to recraft responses as if written as prose. Its misleading.

[K-W]

How is it misleading?

People transcribe things all the time and publish them. They are Clooney's words and if he had agreed to have them published it would have been entirely appropriate to publish them as a blog authored by him.

[Lerkfish]

53. We vehemently disagree.

I'm a graphic artist. I sell my work. If someone takes a piece of my published design and uses it in their logo, that's inappropriate. Just because I consented to sell my work once, to one client, does not mean anyone else can come along and use my work in something else not as I intended and argue that since I sold it once, it is free to use by anyone. There ARE copyright laws, and whoever published those interviews in the first place have rights.

[K-W]

55. If clooney gave permission, there was nothing improper.

I'm a graphic artist. I sell my work. If someone takes a piece of my published design and uses it in their logo, that's inappropriate. Just because I consented to sell my work once, to one client, does not mean anyone else can come along and use my work in something else not as I intended and argue that since I sold it once, it is free to use by anyone. There ARE copyright laws, and whoever published those interviews in the first place have rights.

I am talking about the scenario where Clooney did agree to have this published in this form, as his words. Which is apparently what Arianna was led to believe.

[Lerkfish]

64. but once she was apprised, she refused to pull it.

that's where it entered the realm of publishing without his permission. The first instance was misunderstanding, the second is intent to not honor the author's wishes even after he expressed his wishes.

[IndyOp]

62. I think Arianna's response is reasonable...

It seems to me as if it could be a misunderstanding.

When I first invited George Clooney to blog after a screening of Good Night, and Good Luck in New York a few months ago, he said he wasn't sure how a blog worked. So we put together a sample blog from answers he had given on Larry King Live and an interview with the Guardian in London, and sent it to him to rework in any way he wanted.

A publicist who was working on the promotion of Good Night, and Good Luck, emailed back saying, "I will get it to him and get back to you as soon as I hear anything." Three days later, she emailed again, approving, without any changes, what we had sent: "Of course this is fine, Arianna!"

And once we had the approval, that's what we ran: George Clooney's words put into blog form.

This was an honest misunderstanding. But any misunderstanding that occurred, occurred between Clooney and the publicist. We based our decision to post on the unambiguous approval we received in writing. There was no room for misunderstanding in that.

I don't think Arianna is desperate for good contributers -- though George is quite a catch (in more than one way -- :loveya:).

[xultar]

4. WOW! Huff did a shabby thing,

[mattclearing]

20. I don't think so.

It seems that the publicist gave them the go-ahead.

[hang a left]

30. Well that is fine....

But when Clooney asked her to correct it, that should have been done. Bad girl, Arriana.

[mattclearing]

33. True dat. n/t

[Lerkfish]

35. Its still misleading regardless, even with permission.

[mattclearing]

37. Got it.

There's no need for Arianna to provoke Clooney by not altering the message. Agreed.

[Lerkfish]

41. I mean its misleading and unfair to the audience, apart from Clooney

it crosses a line of trust. I mean, I could take answers from anyone to specific questions and recut them into something that made it appear they wrote a blog. But SHOULD I do it? Its misrepresenting TO THE AUDIENCE on several levels: one, that the person wanted to organize their thoughts that way, two, that the original sources (the original interviewers) would want their work lifted and their questions excised...there IS a copyright issue in all this.
But more importantly, it leads the AUDIENCE to think Clooney wrote something for her that he did not. Its not fair to the readers.

[K-W]

39. No it isnt. Or do you not trust any edited work? EOM

[Lerkfish]

42. I stand by my opinion. There is a vast difference between consentually

edited work and taking the work of others and re-editing it to make it appear someone wrote something they didn't.
There is a copyright issue involved here, if nothing else.

[K-W]

43. You said it was misleading even with permission, it is not.

Of course if they do not consent there is something very wrong and dishonest, but if the person consents there is nothing misleading about it.

[Lerkfish]

52. see post #41

[K-W]

54. Post #41does not address the scenario where permission is given.

Post #41 again addresses the dishonesty of publishing somebodies words as they didnt intend them.

But I am not talking about that, I am talking about publishing someones words with thier consent, meaning they DO intend them.

I mean its misleading and unfair to the audience, apart from Clooney
it crosses a line of trust. I mean, I could take answers from anyone to specific questions and recut them into something that made it appear they wrote a blog. But SHOULD I do it?

If they gave you permission to edit thier words into a blog, then yes, you should do it, because its totally normal and not at all improper to edit someones work with thier permission.

Its misrepresenting TO THE AUDIENCE on several levels: one, that the person wanted to organize their thoughts that way,

Only if they dont approve, if they do approve, it is an accurate representation of how they wanted thier thoughts organized.

two, that the original sources (the original interviewers) would want their work lifted and their questions excised...there IS a copyright issue in all this.

I dont know copywright law, so I would neeed to see a source on this. But since this is a disagreement between Clooney and Huffington, I dont see why you are bringing a third party into it. The original sources havent taken issue afaik.

But more importantly, it leads the AUDIENCE to think Clooney wrote something for her that he did not. Its not fair to the readers.

Only if Clooney did not approve. If he had approved, it would make teh audience think properly that they were reading his words in a form he intended them. There is nothing unfair to readers about having something transcribed and edited.

[Lerkfish]

63. the publisher of the previous interview is not a third party.

arianna is using what they published previously to re-edit. When they publish an interview, evne though its Clooney's answers to their questions, they have copyrighted that interview once they publish it. They aren't a third party, they are the injured party along with Clooney.

Your other points are fine, if Clooney approved. However, we know there is a misunderstanding. Once Clooney says he did not approve, Arianna should have pulled it, regardless, because its clear he does not want it published in that form.

As far as copyrights, you're aware that here at DU, we cannot post more than 4 paragraphs, attributed to the original source, due to copyright issues, yes? that should be a close at hand real life example of how using material from published sources without the author's permission is not acceptable under copyright law.

[K-W]

66. They are a third party in this public disagreement.

George Clooney
Arrianna Huffington
Original Publisher

That makes 3 parties, not two. And since this is a disagreement between only Clooney and Huffington that afaik the publisher isnt involved in I fail to see how you can claim the publisher has a role in this particular disagreement.

And as far as copywrights go, if Clooney's representative gave them permission to publish she may not be obligated to change it.

[Lerkfish]

67. some reading material

http://www.whatiscopyright.org/
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
http://copyright.iupui.edu/permsec.htm

[K-W]

69. Which of those links covers a situation

where written permission is given by someones reprsentative to print the material followed by a request from that person to withdraw the material.

I scanned them but didnt see anything like that.

But really, we can just let this drop, if and when someone takes someone else into court ill have more motivation to figure out the copywright side of this.

[Lerkfish]

71. you keep going back to the original act, that's not the issue.

the issue is when Cooney requested she pull it, and she refused.

[K-W]

72. Like I said, I dont know copywright law.

Can Clooney just take back permission that was already given? I dont see where in your links it covers that issue.

[Lerkfish]

74. he and publisher R only ones who can give permission, not his publicist

Arianna still needed his permission. Understandably, she thought she was getting it, but when he made it clear she did not, she is still obligated to get his direct, written permission (or the original publisher's permission), which usually requires clear attribution.

[TahitiNut]

31. I agree. How often have we heard words "taken out of context"?

I don't particularly give a rodent's gluteus whether Arianna thought the 'cover' of a publicist's agreement (in principle?) that the words reflected Clooney's perspectives. It seems to me that Arianna's objective of promulgating her blog as a forum for a (small 'd') democratic perspective clouded her judgment. What Clooney may have said in another context does not justify assembling those words in the context of a blog - and it does not matter that she, or anyone else, argues they're some kind of 'Virtual Truth' when they're literally a misrepresentation.

[K-W]

47. If she in fact had reason to think Clooney had agreed to this arrangement,

she did nothing wrong in publishing it.

Keeping it up is a different issue, but if she thought Clooney approved of it as his words, there is nothing at all wrong with editing a piece together.

[Mythsaje]

5. I'd be angry myself...

I wonder if she's trying to prod him into writing a blog. Seems likely.

[crispini]

6. Ooooooooo. Not cool.

Not cool AT ALL, Arianna. :(

[wicket]

7. Wow- I'd be mad too

It certainly was very misleading, it looked like it was a direct post from Clooney.

[vi5]

8. He's right....

That was a pretty misleading and borderline shitty thing to do. I thought he had written it as an essay/blog and I know a lot of people have linked to it as such. It's good he's not backing down from his statements and also good that he's simply asking for it to be clarified as such.

[Nutmegger]

9. I'd be PO'ed too. This is extremely misleading. [nt]

[myrna minx]

10. That *is* misleading.

Holy buckets. I thought she was above these tactics. I totally thought that he wrote that for the blog.

[shoelace414]

12. she responded to it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/on-george-clooneys-blog_b_17350.html

It's only four paragraphs long, so I'll only post the last paragraph

This was an honest misunderstanding. But any misunderstanding that occurred, occurred between Clooney and the publicist. We based our decision to post on the unambiguous approval we received in writing. There was no room for misunderstanding in that.

[Radio_Guy]

17. But no apology

Wow. I expected more from her than that. We all have our flaws, though.

[K-W]

28. ignore, mispost

[Chimichurri]

13. damn! Just when you have faith in someone

they do something egregious like this. I go to the Huffington Post several times a day and was beginning to really regard it as a great place to visit because of it's "integrity" towards commentary. I have to admit this put a real bad taste in my mouth. If she'd have just done as he asked it would've been no big deal but the fact she refused is what bugs me the most.

Where's your explanation, Arianna?? Had this been someone else, you'd have been all over them demanding one.

[sabra]

15. just added Huffington's response...

[Chimichurri]

22. pretty sorry explanation if you ask me.

[mondo joe]

24. I dunno. If the Clooney publicist approved it, I don't know

what more HuffPo was supposed to do.

[Chimichurri]

27. true. But the fact that she reworked his stuff and put it up as if

he blogged it himself is grimey, regardless of who approved what.

Imagine if Hannity did this. We would all be having a field day.

[mondo joe]

32. I don't think it's unusual to draft something for someone - since

she used his own words it's really not that big a deal, so long as he approves it.

I often draft letters and articles for others. Some like to make small changes, some like to reqork, and some just like to write all on their own.

I don't think it's ideal, but I'm not put out by it.

[K-W]

38. No, had he OK'd it, there is nothing wrong with this.

All Arianna did was edit some of his words together, if he agreed to have it published under his byline there is nothing at all abnormal or improper, the only issue here was that he did not intend to have it published as such, but apparently his publicist OK'd it anyway.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

14. Clooney deserves an apology from Huffington.

I read that post and I, as the reader, DID assume it was written by Clooney. That article totally misled the reader.

If she wants to maintain credibility for her site, she better apologize FAST.

[RagingInMiami]

16. Somebody's blog just lost a lot of credibility

I was under the obvious impression that Clooney wrote that himself. It's incidents like this that cause blogs to lose credibility. Shame on Huffington.

[Dora]

18. I'm actually relieved to hear this.

When I read the piece on Huffington Post I was disappointed by it.

I had hoped that Clooney would be more articulate, and I didn't find the writing particularly strong or compelling.

Now I understand why - they were interview answers. Not an opinion piece.

Naughty Arianna, even with a good excuse like "his publicist okayed it," you should still apologize.

[supernova]

19. Shame on HuffPo!

George Clooney has every right to clarify his "post" on the blog from yesterday. I wondered briefly before I read it yesterday if he really had sat down and written that post, or any post for that matter. It seemed to me he would be too busy to do something like that. But I had no cause to question it.

It does make me wonder about posts from other famous "bloggers" over there though sadly.

[rocktivity]

21. The Huffington Post IS a blog--what did he expect?

He did NOT have blog with that woman!

:crazy:
rocknation

[Little Star]

25. I hate it when we Dems have a mud fight.

They should work this out in private. IMHO, they are probably both right and both wrong. They should take the discussion into the house and out of the front yard. Don't we have enough fights to fight without fighting each other in public? Gawd Dammit!

[JuniperLea]

26. I've taken issue with some things she has said and posted in the past

Her attitude does nothing to further the cause of retaining our Constitutional rights, our freedoms, or anything we are all currently fighting for. I'm beginning to think this is "all about her" and she is just being an attention whore. Clooney's speaking out is a good thing. Her refusal to be honest in that sucks out loud. I'm taking her blog off my favorites right now. We don't need this shit, there's too much going on to be diverted right now.

[ooglymoogly]

29. sounds to me like the publicist needs

a trip to the woodshed. and yes it is misleading, something a journalist should never do. i was excited that clooney was blogging on huffpo and sad to find he was not.

[K-W]

36. It isnt at all misleading if in fact Clooney had OK'd it. EOM

[Tellurian]

46. yeah, Airy demonstrates the killer instinct-

and will take the advantage when the opportunity presents itself-
She knew precisely 'what' she was doing and 'why'-

Unfortunately, huffbag, will not be remembered by Clooney as a
trustworthy journalist. She's failed miserably at a simple test
of journalistic etiquette. A public apology/clarification was in order.

Fool me once, Shame on you! Fool me Twice, Shame on me.
I don't think, George, will allow this to happen again.

[K-W]

50. An apology was not in order.

Unless you are claiming that she is lying about having written confirmation from Clooney's representative.

You can certainly argue that she should have edited the peiece again at Clooney's request. I would agree.

[Tellurian]

56. However, you want to dissect and reformat the issues...

Huffy's behavior is shameful and churlishly low-brow.
George deserves an apology.

[K-W]

57. So the fact that I used an argument to support my point means im wrong,

and you are right because you didn't?

[Tellurian]

58. Here are Clooney's words: (again!)

Rather than keep waiting, Clooney got pro-active and issued this statement:

"Miss Huffington's blog is purposefully misleading and I have asked her to clarify the facts. I stand by my statements but I did not write this blog. With my permission Miss Huffington compiled it from interviews with Larry King and The Guardian. What she most certainly did not get my permission to do is to combine only my answers in a blog that misleads the reader into thinking that I wrote this piece. These are not my writings - they are answers to questions and there is a huge difference."

Keep reading, until you can process facts.

[K-W]

59. Why dont you read Arrianna's response.

Keep reading until you can process the facts.

She says she had good reason to believe he had in fact agreed. If this is the case the publicist, not her owes Clooney an apology.

Now, as I said, I would agree that she should have changed it after Clooney requested it changed, but she didnt owe him an apology.

[Tellurian]

60. Regardless;

She should have taken the high road and given attribution to the quotes,
as he requested, rather than allowing the misrepresentation to stand.

If she had taken the high road rather than the path of least resistance
(saving face, playing the blame game) who knows; she might have gotten
a private interview with a very private (but outspoken) man!

[K-W]

61. The path of least resistance?

See, I totally agree with you that she should have changed the article, but the path of least resistance would have been to simply change the blog as we agree she should have done. She wouldnt have had to save face or point blame in that scenario.

I can only imagine that she is upset with Clooney for the embarassment caused by his publicists mistake and probably frustrated as it seems Clooney was not as interested in blogging as she was led to believe. I hardly think Huffington deserves to be dragged through the mud because she isnt being cooperative with Clooney atm.

Edit: I am also not clear on exactly how the process of him requesting a change and her refusing went.

[Tellurian]

75. ha, ha, hee!

you're too funny, K-W!

On a more worthy note- If Clooney is looking for a true to life,
contemporaneous, hard hitting project for his next movie, on second thought,
maybe more Tarentinoesqe than Cloonian.

He could look into the John Walker Lindt case. Lindt's father is/was an attorney
in California, I believe, for Proctor & Gamble.

However, All the King's Horses and ALL the King's Men couldn't get JWL out of
the pickle he unknowingly got himself into. There's definitely more than meets
the eye to this story. This 21yr old kid will rot in jail for the next 20 yrs,
if his story is never told.

On second rolling thought, forget it- too controversial and problematic.

[Lerkfish]

65. when she refused to pull it, she stepped into an inappropriate status

[obnoxiousdrunk]

73. Who would ever

want to pull out from Clooney ?

[ooglymoogly]

83. both clooney and arianna are knights

on the democratic side of the chessboard and i admire them both and god knows we need them in these perilous times. one can understand clooneys stance the publicist not withstanding. i think arianna should preface the article that is still there with clooneys wishes and perhaps do a whole new article with not only the responses but the questions and call it exactly what it is questions and answers by and of george clooney. anyway whatever they do they need to kiss and make up. we all know both are honest truth seekers and this thing should be put to rest. the kool aid swilling trolls are having a field day with this one since they have nothing else.

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. So what is all the fuss about?

Three very busy people were involved in what ended up as a miscommunication. Clooney says he stands by what he said, but that he didn't say it that way. The publicist sent the reply back saying, 'ok, I get it, this is the format you want', and Huffington received the reply thinking that this was an approval to publish as is. Clooney didn't attack her for publishing it - simply clarified that it was not a blog that he had written. Huffington didn't deliberately deceive anyone - she thought she had approval. For the publicist, it was an ongoing conversation, and presumably thought that the reply was in the middle of something, not the end of it, and it was just one item of many dealt with that day.

Mistakes happen.

Why are people getting bent out of shape?

[Tellurian]

48. were you there personally?

and observed, first hand, how the series of events went down?

Clooney's response negated Huffington's lame excuse. here:

"Rather than keep waiting, Clooney got pro-active and issued this statement:"

"Miss Huffington's blog is purposefully misleading and I have asked her to clarify the facts. I stand by my statements but I did not write this blog. With my permission Miss Huffington compiled it from interviews with Larry King and The Guardian. What she most certainly did not get my permission to do is to combine only my answers in a blog that misleads the reader into thinking that I wrote this piece. These are not my writings - they are answers to questions and there is a huge difference."

[K-W]

51. Because alot of people like to catch naughty liberals.

And take the bait.

[RagingInMiami]

68. She should have cleared it up on Monday when contacted by his rep

Mistakes do happen. But mistakes should also be corrected when addressed.

[jsamuel]

44. It is obviously a misunderstanding and both sides need to calm down and

work it out.

Don't be children.

[tulsakatz]

45. so when he objected to it,

Why didn't she simply remove it as he asked?

By not removing it, it makes her and her publication look bad.

[IndyJones]

78. Good point.. I don't see why she wouldn't do that.

[tulsakatz]

81. it's just the rational thing to do.....

...whether or not the miscommunication was between Clooney and his publicist or Clooney and Huffington, she should have removed it as soon as she realized Clooney had a problem with it.

By leaving it the way it is, explanation or not, she's just making herself and the integrity of her blog look bad!

[Catherine Vincent]

49. I think she did it on purpose!

Just so Clooney could get irritated by it thus agreeing to meet with her and talk about it, then maybe leading to you know what! :P

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

70. he called her "miss huffington"

zing!

[file83]

76. WTF did Clooney & his "publicist" think they were approving? A recipe?

Either Clooney is lying, or Arianna is lying.

Clooney approved something - but he seems to be clouding the issue. That's why I don't believe him. Let me explain.

He says he didn't "write" the blog. Arianna never said he actually sat down at the keyboard and banged out the words. But Clooney did SPEAK those words as he admits. Furthermore, Clooney & his "publicist" approved the final version of HIS WORDS - Arianna simply uploaded his WORDS under HIS name, ONLY because Clooney doesn't technically know how to do it.

WTF did Clooney think that final copy was for, Arianna's personal diary? SHE'S A BLOGGER THAT INVITED YOU TO BLOG, YOU APPROVED A COLLECTION OF YOUR OWN WORDS THAT SHE PRESENTED TO YOU FOR YOUR APPROVAL AND NOW YOU ARE "SHOCKED" THAT IT GOT POSTED UNDER YOUR NAME?

Arianna blogs, she posts blogs, this whole thing started with her inviting Clooney to blog a post at her site, so what did he think he was approving? Arianna posted EXACTLY his words EXACTLY the way they were approved by Clooney - he didn't change a thing and neither did she.

Wow, Clooney isn't as smart as I thought he was.

[IndyJones]

77. I have to agree with you here.

I'm no big fan of either one of them, but Clooney is no amateur in this area. He knows how it works. He makes statements, people copy them down and publish them. At least Puffington gave him the courtesy of a review prior to publishing it.

As ditzy as I think Puffington is, if she says she got written approval, I do believe that. If she's called on it, she knows she'll have to produce proof. My guess is that she's got it to show.

[Kurovski]

79. Yes, but do they otherwise agree 90% of the time?

:evilgrin:

[Tellurian]

80. As Lerkfish said in post #65

When she refused to pull it is when she stepped out of bounds.

[Kurovski]

82. And that's the most reasonable assessment of the whole situation.

I hope all parties can eventually forgive.

I was (too) vaguely referring to a recent Will Pitt post on fighting among Dems and progressives.

Thank you for drawing my attention to the post, Tellurian. :-)

[Tellurian]

84. Welcome, Kurovski..

:toast: