Page None
Did the New York Times overreact to the Pellicano trial?
By Kim Masters
Posted Tuesday, May 23, 2006, at 5:13 PM ET
As of Tuesday, the New York Times has concluded that the investigation
of disgraced Hollywood detective Anthony Pellicano is really about
lawyers. This could represent a major turning point in one of the most
breathlessly chronicled cases in the history of the industry. Lawyers
may not be the most popular folks, but a scandal involving them hardly
adds up to the moguls-in-shackles scenario that once seemed imminent.
For those who haven't followed every beat, Pellicano sits in prison for
possessing plastic explosives and grenades. He is also in the federal
cross hairs for allegedly carrying out extensive illegal wiretapping.
Famed attorney Bert Fields—whose clients include Tom Cruise,
Warren Beatty, and many others—was especially active in deploying
Pellicano. Fields has been a subject of the investigation but has
denied knowledge of any illegal activity. More than a dozen others have
been indicted, including some minor players as well as director John
McTiernan and Kirk Kerkorian's attorney, Terry Christensen. But so far
the big "gets" have not been gotten.
The New York Times (a paper for which I have written some freelance
articles on other subjects) has spilled a lot of ink on this story.
More than once, the paper splashed coverage of Paramount Chief
Executive Brad Grey's links to Pellicano on Page One. But the paper
never quite got that gun to smoke. Grey had been involved in two suits
when he was running his management and television production firm, one
with his former client Garry Shandling and another with a producer who
alleged that Grey had cut him out of profits from a movie. Pellicano
worked on both cases. Grey's lawyer, Bert Fields, was the one to hire
him; the big question was whether Grey could be proved to have
knowledge of Pellicano's methods.
The Times stories certainly did not tell us that, but they endeavored
to show that Grey was far better acquainted with Pellicano than he
acknowledged. And they created an intense pressure—the media
repeatedly peppered Grey's bosses at Viacom, Tom Freston and Sumner
Redstone, with questions about their support for him. It became clear
that whether Grey is guilty or not, the Pellicano affair was creating a
serious problem for him.
In Hollywood, the Times coverage prompted a split response. Some
concluded that the paper must have had Grey dead to rights, even if the
stories didn't quite get there. The surmise was that the Times, having
been through some reporting problems in the not-distant past, would
hardly put this stuff on the front page unless it knew more than it
could reveal. Others had a different response. A top television
executive (with no ties to Paramount) wondered whether the Times had
been overreaching. Another executive, this one from the previous
Paramount regime, thought the stories seemed like character
assassination.
Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal kept its powder dry. Pellicano has
scarcely been mentioned in its pages. The simple reason: The case had
yet to rise to a level, in the Journal's opinion, that would justify
all the scrutiny. Taking that position was a gamble, but it's starting
to look like a good one. "Nothing like this assault on lawyers and the
famous people they represent has happened before in Movieland," the
Times tells us. But if the power brokers and stars are really, as the
Times now concludes, just "collateral damage" in a hunt focusing on
lawyers, is that nearly as sexy as studio chiefs and disgraced
uber-agents doing a perp walk?
http://www.slate.com/id/2142260/