Thiefs & Dynamite & Journalism

Before I start: I consider Troy Brownfield to be a personal friend. He conducted the interview of Pat Lee that appeared on Newsarama and has drawn a bunch of criticism.

Let's go over the points of criticism.

Why was Pat Lee was only asked one softball question about his past problems of using other artists' work passed off as his own and leaving so many people unpaid (covered by simply asking him about past controversy)?

Any more direct question wouldn't have been answered and may have resulted in the interview not taking place at all. While some suggest that not running an interview with Pat Lee was the better option, I question that. Why not run it? To avoid publicizing it? You mean like a few other sites (Broken Frontier, CBR, ICV2, The Beat) did by running full press releases with little-to-no editorializing?

So, instead of just copying and pasting PR straight from the publisher, an interview was conducted. A question that tried to introduce the topic was offered, giving us the chance that Pat Lee might answer it, rather than shrug it off.

Oh and a second "softball" was kinda put to him: "Nrama: At this stage of your career, does Pat Lee have something to prove?"

Seems to me like this was an attempt to bring up the fact that so much of "his" work hasn't actually been done by him. A subtle "do you need to prove that you DON'T need Alex Milne" if you will.

So Pat Lee gets 1-2 "softball" questions about his past fuck ups. That's 1-2 more questions on the subject than he's received and answered from other sites, so far. That's getting him on the record as trying to avoid his past instead of answer for it and redeem himself, which says just about as much as any bullshit he would have popped out with if he HAD been pressed and, through some miracle, actually answered the questions rather than killing the interview.

Yet, somehow, about 1/3 of the bitching post-interview from fans and the blogosphere is about Troy & Newsarama even conducting the interview, rather than Pat Lee being a responsibility-dodging douche and someone Dynamite Entertainment shouldn't have given another chance to.

Quantcast Physics

I got the following from someone claiming to be Mr. Anonymous. It was a different address than normal, but what I fact-checked of the list seems to check out...so I'm running it anyway, in light of all the hub-bub that started recently around TCJ's tweaking of their web-strategy. Mr. A, if this isn't your stuff, my apologies...but it's worth displaying, regardless.

I compiled these on Quantcast. Post them if you want.

CBR 303,000 US

Newsarama 269,000 US

However, Newsarama led the month before; trending, they switch places about every other month.

At 183,000 US, Ain’t It Cool is still almost 100,000 US BELOW Newsarama in total readers; they don’t have a comics subdomain.

Now, the other "big name" sites and subdomains:

ComicsAlliance.com 86,000 US (benefiting from being part of AOL)

Blog@Newsarama 76,000 US (113,000 world)

Comics.ign.com 49,000 U.S.

Robot 6.comicbookresources.com 47,000 US (71,200 world. Yes, Blog@ has a higher U.S. than Robot 6's world.)

WizardUniverse.com 46,300 US

Comixology 37,600 US
The Beat 37,600 US

ComicsBulletin 33,600 US

Comicmix 29,100 US

SplashPage.mtv.com 26,400 US

Major Spoilers 19,000 US

ComicMonsters.com 18,700 US

ComicsContinuum 17,000 US

ComicsReporter 11,800 US

ComicRelated 11,600 US

Comicon.com (Pulse) 11,400 US

Broken Frontier 10,600 US

Comics Worth Reading 9,900 US

Bleeding Cool 8,800 US

4thLetter.net 6,000 US

SavageCritic.com 4,000 US

ComicNewsI.com 3,600 US

TCJ 3,400 US (Journalista doesn't chart as a subdomain)

Factual Opinion 2,700 US

Later,

Mr. A

Dan Slott: Lover Of Blogs, Hater of Deadlines

Dan's chasing me around the blogosphere again.

Over on the blog that dare not link to me:

Kevin,
You got four posts from me here today. Three comments on a thread yesterday. In each case you started by taking shots at people I know– and have posted just as much back.

On my side, there really hasn’t been that many comments from me since my last post on Feb. 2nd on the same thread where you reported Marc Guggenheim to the WGA. In the meantime YOU have been making frequent and regular posts about ME. Most of which have accused me of doing something that I simply did NOT DO.

When you look at the amount of time you’ve dedicated to going after ME, versus my posts yesterday and today? I think I’ve shown remarkable restraint.

When you appeared to post on my message board AFTER reporting Marc, creating a regular column dedicated to slamming Val (over 10 times in 2 months), and making frequent accusations against me– as if that were perfectly fine, I requested that you be blocked from MY board and NOT the rest of Jinxworld. But when the mods took at your behavior around the net, THEY decided that ALL the Jinxworld boards were better off without you.

“Obi Gee Why Enn”
Val talking about her own history is one thing. Using it as a cheap shot to score points at the end of an argument is another. Kevin doesn’t think about these things or their resonance. All he cares about is their shock value.

In his own words he “regrets” making the comments he did about Devin Grayson. While that is admirable, what is more telling is when he says “But I regret MORE that Valerie decided to spin what I said into something worse…” That’s messed up.

To the person posting as my own Ego (Thanks that’s cute).
How would you feel if you saw someone going around the net saying lies about you? Things he’s not willing to back up. (BTW, Matt Brady has seen everything Kevin’s accused me of doing at Newsarama– and has equivocally said he KNOWS I didn’t do it). How would you feel if Kevin made accusations about your friends and coworkers? How would you feel if because– in his own words he “felt dismissed” and “agitated” over internet posts– he reported someone you know to their union? Seriously, how would you feel?

I think I’m allowed my 3 posts yesterday and these 4 today.

OK, Dan...let's go over this point by point, again, shall we?

• You have your own place to vent your feelings about me, Dan. Your own forum. Or you could answer my accusations here. But I don't see why you have to take every appearance by me on blogs across the 'net as the proper forum for you to vent about me. Really. You could get the same kind of effect by complaining about it on your own forum, couldn't you? So, no, I would not say that you've exhibited an incredible amount of restraint. I'd dare say you don't know the definition of the word.
  
• I had already told you that I'd have no problem staying out of your forum several times during our off-board discussion. I even invited you to delete all evidence of my ever posting on your forum, not that you'd need my permission. Given your propensity for lies and fantastical stories, I don't know that I'm going to buy your story here.
• I didn't take a cheap shot at Val with it. She accused me of trying to get famous by having an argument with you and Guggenheim. That it was the purpose of my dust-up with the two of you. I denied that and then held the mirror back to her so she could see the way she chose to get famous.
  
• I regret making the joke the way I did. I stand by the fact that dating someone established in the industry does help your pitches get looked at.
  
• Please don't try to drag Matt Brady into this. He isn't part of the discussion and any talks you two had were private. It does nothing to help your argument.
  

Update: Heidi took down several of the posts there. Including the quoted Slott one above and the one from Obi Gee Why Enn. Just a lesson, kids...it is always good to open a separate window when you want to see if there are any updates rather than refreshing a window and potentially losing some of the good stuff.

Obi Gee Why Enn said:

Dan, Valerie brought up her vagina first. If she didn't want people talking about her vagina, then why should she post on the INTERNET about her vagina. If Kevin Huxford mocked her for talking about her vagina, it's probably because she has a whole topic category about her vagina. If Val doesn't want anyone to talk about her vagina, she should keep it off the internet.

That makes it sound like I actually had substantive discussions about her vagina, when I only pointed out that she used stories about her ripped vagina to get internet fame. She didn't just tell the story of the injury, she teased it in the blogs proceeding it, stretched it out into at least three blogs, and then kept referring back to it for awhile. One of the biggest word of mouth bits from her site was about some unnamed DC Comics penciller with a large member managed to break Val's vagina.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. But when you attempted to get your notoriety through your "broken hoohah" (her "label" for those blogs) and (at the time) anonymously slinging dirt about DC Comics editorial without naming names (thus likely leading to the innocent being judged just as badly as the guilty), you really have no leg to stand on in criticizing others...especially when you're attributing motivations that just aren't true.

Heidi Says I Know Why She Stopped Talking Shit 'Bout The 'Rama

Heidi MacDonald popped off with a rumor back on 3/11/08:

§ Marvel EIC Joe Quesada’s popular feature Cup O’ Joe in which he takes on fan questions will be returning as a regular feature at MySpace:

Every week, Quesada will tackle questions posed directly by True Believers on the world’s most popular social network in this brand new weekly feature on MySpace Comic Books. Like a might Marvel team-up, the online community known for connecting legions of fans with the most exciting creators, projects, and events in the industry comes together with the leading comics publisher to present your chance to get inside the mind of one of comics’ most popular personalities.

Cup o’ Joe was long a regular feature at Newsarama, but word on the street has it that Marvel and the comics news giant had a falling out over a broken embargo.

I would have completely missed it, if not for Caleb blogging about it, pointing out how she got little bits wrong and didn't really back up the rumor much. She said, in posting on his blog, that she was confident in it and would follow up.

When she didn't follow-up, I posted to ask her about it, which led to the following exchange:

Kevin Huxford Says:
03/14/08 at 5:13 pm

Why no apparent effort made to contact the concerned parties on that Newsarama/Quesada bit?

Kevin Huxford Says:
03/20/08 at 1:48 pm

You posted over at Everyday is Like Wednesday:

You guys I stand by my rumor — and the emails I got afterwards provided even more substantiation. However since everyone seems SO interested in this it should be a fertile ground for follow-up.

No follow-up? Or did your sources all of a sudden seem less trustworthy?

The Beat Says:
03/20/08 at 2:04 pm

Kevin — give me a fucking break. You know full well what happened.

Kevin Huxford Says:
03/20/08 at 5:03 pm

No, Heidi…I don’t. You reported a rumor that you said had plenty of backup. Said you’d be delving into it more. Haven’t seen you cover it any further and was curious. How would I know why you didn’t cover a rumor that I didn’t believe had any truth to it?

I stand by that I don't know "full well" what happened. I did ask someone who would know "full well" that the rumor was BS to speak up on Brady's behalf. I did ask the most likely suspect of spreading that BS whether they passed it along as themselves or under one of their aliases.

So...does that imply that one of those two things are responsible for her not following up on it? Weird, you'd think if a more knowledgeable source came out and said the rumor was wrong, you'd print a retraction. If your source came panicking back to you asking you to cease talking about it, you'd think it might lead you to doubt them and...maybe...print a retraction. Especially since the figment of someone's imagination that you reported and stood behind mistakenly was picked up and spread across the internet.

Where's Dan Slott to question the journalistic integrity of bloggers when you need him?

Marvel, MySpace, & Newsarama

Saw that Joe Quesada is moving his weekly Q&A to MySpace.com. Fought the urge to comment when ignorant posters blamed his leaving Newsarama on my dust up with Guggenheim and Slott. But then people started claiming it was because Newsarama bashed One More Day and Brand New Day.

That's when I decided I had to say something.

People really need to get their facts together before just hurling conspiracy theories out there.

Joe stopped doing New Joe Fridays about 5-6 months before the announcement. That's pretty far before my MOSTLY civil debate with Guggenheim that's ending ruffled some feathers. That's pretty far before all the OMD negativity on Newsarama that was in no way the official opinion of Newsarama.

Yes, the roundtable that I participated in had a distinctly low opinion of One More Day. But the opinions of the Best Shots crew are not the opinions of Newsarama. That's always been made crystal clear. When Brandon Thomas came out as pro-OMD, he was accused of just trying to brown nose for a gig and then had it suggested that it was Newsarama trying to do damage control by spinning a positive view on the book.

So...was the official Newsarama opinion the one that came from reviewers like myself (giving my opinion for free) or an official regular column where there is some sort of contractual deal undoubtedly in place? Neither was. But people don't bother looking closely enough to see that.

What else might have Newsarama been blamed for? A poll about OMD where the fans overwhelmingly voted as having thought the event's resolution was shite? Please...

It is clear, however, that Slott cracked and seemed to start snapping at Newsarama, blaming it for much of the reaction to OMD that was present on the site.

NRAMA: You've said before, Spider-Man is one of the what, three books that you would kill to write monthly...did your devotion to the character waver at all when it was made clear the changes in the status quo of Spider-Man and his world that you would be writing?

DS: Wow. That's a pretty loaded way of putting it. I can see where you fall on some of these issues, Matt.

Slott went on a bit of a witch hunt after anyone who was posting an opinion that might negatively effect his Brand New Day arc before it hit the stands. He was all over Blog@Newsarama, criticizing what was clearly one of Newsarama's many OP/ED areas for not researching claims that were made by other sites in link blogs.

I highly doubt that Slott's attitude is evidence of how Marvel feels, though.

Joe Quesada and Marvel are always looking for the bigger better deal that puts their product out into the mainstream. Not everyone would agree that it is the best move at this point, not that we're all privy to exactly the deal. I mean...we haven't seen the first column yet. I'm not going to damn him for the decision when we haven't even seen a few columns worth of the new status quo (which, I guess, is ironic since I decided to drop BND before I saw an issue).

By the way: if you think that my kerfluffle with Guggenheim cost Newsarama NJF, why was it still intact after I called Brevoort a liar?

That's right. When the Civil War delays were announced a year and a half ago, Brevoort said that they were doing everything they could to give retailers ample warning. Retailers found out about the delay by Civil War not being on their invoice the Saturday before the books were supposed to arrive in store. I called him on it several times and pointed out how having the interests of the retailers as a top priority was obviously a lie when they let notification be put off so long in order to come off with a plan that made them hopefully look a little less inept.

I was just as much a contributing writer at Newsarama during the Brevoort discussion as I was in the Guggenheim debate. I actually behaved more like an ass in the Brevoort talk, with not even the slightest attempt at tact.

Let's recap:

1. Joe Quesada stopped doing NJF long before the completion of One More Day.
2. Many other editors were sporadically filling in for him, with several Fridays passing without a column long before One More Day.
3. Many Marvel books have been savaged by the Best Shots crew in the past (when they deserved it) with NJF humming along nicely.
   
4. My Guggenheim issue pales in comparison to my Brevoort argument, making it highly unlikely that the former killed NJF when the latter didn't phase it.

Marvel Entertainment has struck a strategic deal with Fox Newscorp. It has nothing to do with personality clashes or differences of opinion. It is clearly a business decision...as anyone with a brain would see.

Dan Slott: Is He On His Meds Now?

Just thought it worth pointing out: Slott's sock puppet, BBraddock, hasn't posted a single thing in Talk@Newsarama since the Guggenheim/Slott/Huxford brouhaha wrapped up.

Funny, that. He only existed to try to silence critics of OMD who were looking to boycott BND and to try to make Newsarama look bad for MY COMMENTS made at Guggenheim and Slott.

Can't Be Mad At Guggenheim

Something that gets lost in my vociferously defending my action of reporting Guggenheim is that I don't think he is a terrible guy. I strongly disagree with his stance on strike-time behavior, but I think he is a good guy who, until just before the end, was engaging me in a great discussion/debate. I didn't like being dismissed with the "you're not in my union" deal and stand by the contention that it is the sign of failure in a debate. But that don't make Guggenheim a bad person. I think everyone's tried to finagle a way out of a debate without admitting that they have no answer or no way out of a corner they've painted themselves into.

Before having my Newsarama account closed, I had sent Mr. Guggenheim a PM saying that, if I had it to do all over again, I don't know if I still would have reported him. I felt pretty confident, actually, that I wouldn't have if a certain writer didn't show up to carry over frustrations he has with me on other issues. I don't know if Mr. Guggenheim received the message before my account closed or if the message would still be in his box if my account closed.

What I do know is, despite it all, he came back to the thread with a pretty funny post:

Originally Posted by ERoy

Learning about this thread certainly makes me want to check out Eli Stone, since I really didn't know anything about it before. So, at least for me, the thread did what it was supposed to do.

Mission accomplished! Thanks, Kevin! The check is in the mail, buddy.

Now, that can be with full "I can't be bothered to hold a grudge" humor or that can be more of a "how do you like dem apples" crack. Either way, I don't care who you are...that's funny.

Maybe I have to give that Eli Stone show a shot, after all...

Mark Waid Is All Class

Further evidence that people need to bring their problems with me TO ME, instead of messing up other sites with their ignorance and frustration.

I simply said the following in a Blog@Newsarama listing many creators remembering Steve Gerber on his passing:

I know more of the manner in which Steve Gerber carried himself during his failing health than I do about him as a creator. In that time, I saw greatness.

Comment by Kevin Huxford — February 12, 2008 @ 4:45 pm

Mark Waid followed up shortly after with the following:

Jim Shooter’s work taught me how to write, but Steve Gerber is the one and only person who made me WANT to be a writer. The inventiveness and courage of his work was jaw-dropping to me when I was a teenager and still holds up for me to this day. Without Steve, literally, I wouldn’t be in comics.

And it moves me deeply to read so many similar tributes to the man and his work from so many who cared equally. Even Kevin Huxford, who’s no doubt pissed that Steve passed before Kevin could rat him out to the WGA for some perceived sin.

Comment by Mark Waid — February 12, 2008 @ 9:48 pm

Mark Waid: It speaks to your (lack of) class that you'd sully a place of remembering the dead with taking a lowly cheap shot at me. You want to take shots at me? You can certainly find a better place than the comments section regarding the death of someone you hold in high regard. I imagine that you'd have started an argument or taken a swing at me had we actually been at a wake at the same time?

Kevin Huxford Is A Big Fat Snitch

I've been reading responses to my reporting Marc Guggenheim to the WGA and publicizing Dan Slott's private e-mails asking me to call him so he could tell me how I got my review of his Brand New Day work so wrong. I've had a fair share of supporters, but I've clearly had more detractors.

They're bringing their frustration (some eloquent, some idiotic, some ignorant) to Newsarama, Shotgun Reviews, YouTube, and even here.

Being that I'd at least like for my actions to not be a headache for Matt Brady or Troy Brownfield, I'd like to create a place for you to bash me to your heart's content where it really should be: DIRECTLY SAID TO ME, WHERE I'M AVAILABLE TO BE BASHED AND RESPOND, WITHOUT IT IMPACTING INNOCENTS.

You can come with the ridiculous commentary, like Kirk Warren who compared my reporting Marc Guggenheim to a student accusing a college professor of rape (and other extreme and inappropriate examples), as it could ruin their career, regardless of the veracity of the accusation.

Problem is: I reported Marg Guggenheim's public support for Joe Quesada's appearance on The Colbert Show and declaration that it is OK to watch a strike show as long as you don't DVR it or have a Nielsen box. There is no question as to whether he did it or not. There was only question whether it was wrong of him, as a WGA member, to publicly state such an opinion. He claimed that it wasn't and that my stance on the whole issue was merely because I wasn't aware of all the nuances of the issue. I merely directed the issue to people who WOULD be aware of the nuances: WGA leadership.

Call me a snitch. That's fine. Accuse me of trying to hurt someone's career maliciously? Suggest I'm libeling or slandering someone? You're way off on the facts. I never made anything up. At one point, I misinterpreted Marc's statement as being that he went so far as to give Joe the thumbs up BEFORE his Colbert appearance. I acknowledged that mistake and it was NOT part of anything stated to the WGA.

I'll be your snitch. In societies with a rule of law, there is a fine line between public service and snitching. Same goes for organizations, especially those centered around the ability of all to come together in unity so that they may collectively bargain as one. I'm pretty sure most of you calling me a snitch here have never had to worry about some weak link in your group's chain fucking things up for you.

It happens in union and non-union work. I've had co-workers nearly lose a contract I was working on, because they didn't care what they said in the presence of the client. Whether publicly proclaiming that he'd be able to do his job better if he actually knew what he was doing and got some training to unprofessionally insulting another contractor present on a conference call, my ability to be gainfully employed was out of my hands to some extent. The same can be said for a WGA member (and, let's not forget, PRODUCER with a possible conflict of interests) who tells the public that it is OK for you to keep watching struck shows or become a part of struck shows.

Let's not forget that Guggenheim and I were having a fairly productive discussion until another party showed up. I had actually missed Guggenheim dismissing my opinion out of hand at the end due to my not being in a Hollywood union until Slott had to chime in during his chasing me around (more on that in a separate blog).

After my post pointing out Slott's questionable actions of late (like e-mailing me repeatedly to have a phone conversation about my "wrong" review of his work), I was bowing out. There was nothing to be gained. I had received e-mails from friends that confirmed the wisdom of my decision to bow out, but they were after the fact.

Then, it would appear, someone decided to bring the attention of others into the mix. They did this quietly, while scurrying through the shadows. How could they publicly admit to doing so when they'd lose any mistaken shred of moral superiority on the issue? Forget that the act was pretty much transparent, despite their lack of owning up to it. Forget that an astute observer can pretty much tell who went crying to daddy when they felt I crossed the line. They didn't go to an organization I was a part of, either.

I'm not saying it was Guggenheim. I know it wasn't me. Hmmmmm.

I found it hilarious (and tacky) that the next interview that ran with Guggenheim at the 'Rama was done via a phone call while he was on the picket line. Screamed of damage control to me, but then the interview might have already been conducted before his error in judgment where he supported Quesada's appearance on The Colbert Show. With a week between his gaffe and his picket line interview, pardon me for being suspicious.

Happy Birthday...and Hello To My New Blog

Below is my Shotgun Reviews goodbye, copied in full. I'll be hosting my vlogs here and will probably let myself be even more opinionated now that no one can possibly be caught in the crossfire.

By the time any of you read this, it will be February 5th. My 33rd birthday and a bittersweet one. Why?

Because I am taking a sabbatical from Shotgun Reviews and have asked that my account at Newsarama.com be closed (which was honored by the site administrator).

Why did I resign? I'd like to think it is because I have principles, while others would probably suggest I just have a big mouth and don't know when to shut it.