story about sneaking into 30 Rockefeller Center late one night two years
after Conan O'Brien first got a show. (That's what TV critics do!) Barnhart
skulks around, because of journalism, and then he sees Conan playing
guitar by himself in a room with an open door. Barnhart stands there
nervously gaping until Conan spies him.
Yes, this is a little
Penthouse-y. What happened next?
"I realized I'd walked in on
some sort of detox session, understandable for someone who thrusts
himself every night in front of a studio audience and 2 million others
in viewerland. I knew not to overstay my welcome, but O'Brien showed no
sign of displeasure and, indeed, immediately struck up a conversation."
Already
this story seems dream-like and fantastic, and then, as if to emphasize
the queasy weirdness, Barnhart has to drop in that "thrusts." Ick.
Anyway, intrepid reporter Barnhart got exactly what he was looking for
-- hot insider dish!
"Something he said in our short chat made an
indelible mark on my future reporting. It was an offhanded remark, and
it was made at the expense of a late-night rival."
Yes? Do tell!
"Since
our talk was probably never meant for publication, I won't reveal that
person's name, and it really doesn't matter who it was."
Oh,
Aaron Barnhart, you silly tease! Instead of sharing the comment that
made such a mark and presumably turned him into a man, Barnhart instead
just tells us why that remark struck him.
"At the time O'Brien
was widely considered to be nothing but a gangly ingenue with dozens of
on-air nervous tics who had only recently stopped treading water at NBC
... I came away that night equally impressed by O'Brien's
self-awareness, his understanding of his situation and his sizable
ambition."
So, here's the lame scoop readers are meant to take
away from all this: TV hosts are aware of the realities of the TV
business.
And here's the livelier scoop readers most likely do
take away from this: sneaky boy reporter Aaron Barnhart boasts about his
insider info but then pretends he's too principled to share it.
Showing 1-24 of 24
I've been to 30 Rock, and the security there is like Ft. Knox. It's a bit hard to believe that Mr. Barnhart could have "sneaked in" and been wandering the halls of NBC. I was there to work for NBC and was accosted for my ID no fewer than three times while "wandering the halls."
It's easy to tell a story about a celebrity when there's no way to check facts, especially as nebulous a story as this.
Remind me to tell you sometime about my conversation with Milton Berle and Dean Martin.
Aaron sure gets pissy when challenged. Remind me never to send him a critique, as he might save it and use it against me 10yrs from now when no one remembers him. I'm with Alan,too!
It's kind of cool that Alan and the Pitch didn't make a bigger stink about this. Every other site in town would have worked it for a half dozen blog posts. With red capital letters to boot. After CJ Janovy leaves will you still have good taste like this?
I always thought Barnhart was just boring, I never realized he was such a prick. I'm not Team Anybody though because the Pitch should find something more useful to write about.
Who saves an email for 5 years? I agree with the Russian, sharing a private email out of spite is a major dick move.
Aaron-- namedrop much? Key signs of an over-sized ego and tiny... intellect.
Using others' positions or titles to establish credibility to an opinion shows how little inherent credibility was already present.
Hey Aaron, the fact that Alan hasn't poked at your lame work in the last 5 years says a lot more about his generosity and restraint than it does about the quality of your reporting/criticism.
Wow. I don't think I still even HAVE emails I got 5 years ago that hurt my feelings. Even if I did, I'm grown up enough to know that posting them in full with names attached is a preteen-girl-on-myspace move.
Wow, I had a Google alert set up alerting me to articles featuring the phrases "penthouse" and "aaron barnhart.". Imagine my disappointment, although I wish mr barnhart would share more of his private correspondence. That said, team alan, etc, etc...
Team Scherstuhl!(even if I can't pronounce it).
So my understanding is that Alan followed up on a lead or a thought or a coincidence but didn't end up publishing anything (high road) while Barnhart posted a(private)email - a huge dick move by any Internet standards - in 2005 and the other half in 2010. Conclusion:
a) a prick in 2005 is still a prick in 2010
b) your private email is not private if you are communicating with A.B.
No biggie. Aaron also skulks around looking for me as well. I guess that is why he spikes any bad news about my boss and only serves as his PR agent.
damn, lesson learned ..... fuck with Aaron Barnheart and years later he will throw your reasonable and not embarassing words right back in your face.
What's with this daily/weekly nonsense? Last I checked, we were all on the Web.
Anyway, at least you've learned to shorten your ridiculous defenses. Here's what you wrote me back in 2005 after you were put through the ringer:
Hi, Aaron *
The key words in my e-mail last week were �resembles,� �indebted� and �sharing ideas,� all of which I stand by. I see similarities in �structure, conceit, and facts� in the timelines, but I acknowledge that the piece is * as you would say * totally in your own voice. What interested me was not a �gotcha!� accusation of theft but a broader exploration of why, in the age of Google, so many media articles in so many towns sound so very similar.
This is certainly worth discussing. Perhaps I�ll get to some day. Unfortunately, there is no room for a discussion in our current issue * just for a blurby recounting of the similarities that neither the editors nor I feel is worth alerting our readers to. So, we aren�t.
Ms Ward told me �There are only so many ways a newspaper can cover a pop-culture event like this, and journalists have probably been putting together timelines since the beginning of time.�
Fair enough. Your readers� links to their own similar (but not *quite* so similar) articles on the subject make the same point. That's the conversation I hoped to start: why do you all so frequently make exactly the same point?
Alan
PS Your crop of posters is a rare one * truly bright and funny. I particularly enjoyed the thoughtful parody of my original e-mail.
Oh, Aaron! You're so much more free with the details when you're not writing about your TV friends!
Of course, I remember asking you about similarities between timelines run by you and another writer. Good times -- and if The Pitch blog had been up and running back then, we would have had a ball arguing the point.
Here's what happened today. A writer at a daily published a lame column. A writer at a weekly made fun of it. This is the natural order of things. Say hi to Raymond.
Alan
Hey, Alan, didn't you accuse me of plagiarism five years ago? And didn't I then post your email and all the evidence and ask my readers to weigh in? And then didn't several of my readers -- including, as long as I'm name-dropping, the executive producer of "Everybody Loves Raymond" and the editor of Macworld -- observe that you were full of crap?
http://blogs.kansascity.com/tv...
Five years is a long time to be sore at me, don't you think?
great post. funny and seems to be true about Mr. B., both.
The Star does a lot right and a lot wrong but critics always seem to be their weakness. They don't seem to get those right, I don't think, and haven't for all the time--about 20 years--I've been in town. They either don't want to pay for a good one or--much more likely--they want them to be more common, so they don't write over their reader's heads.
Well, that and not piss off the companies and people paying for the advertising.
Mo Rage
The blog
like
dislike
