|
Enneagram Movie Board Archive Anita Bush (journalist)Posted by Jan den Breejen (213.75.36.92) on September 07, 2002 at 04:24:00: Interesting case study: what is her type? case text citation: Never married, with no children, Busch, a hot-tempered aggressive reporter, has covered Hollywood for the two trades (Variety and Hollywood Reporter) as well as the NY and LA Times and Entertainment Weekly. Like the volatile and psychotic Nikki Finke, she seems unable to hold a job for long. In the fall of 2001, she lasted a week at Entertainment Weekly before getting fired. According to people who've worked with her, Busch is mentally unbalanced, believes in conspiracy theories and likes to trash people in print. Busch has an erratic uneven temperament, bordering on the psychotic. She screams threats and obscenities at people yet is terribly thin-skinned about any criticisms directed at herself. "She was nice and funny but strange," one of her former colleagues told Salon 10/3/97. "She'd think the latest Burger King promotional tie-in was a fascinating story. She was big on conspiracy theories. She probably believes in UFOs. I wish her well." Like NYT's Bernie Weinraub and the LAT's Claudia Eller, Busch is known for playing favorites (writing positively about people she likes and ripping people she doesn't). Michael Ovitz told the 8/02 Vanity Fair: "Anita Busch plays pool with Ron Meyer [president of Universal] three nights a week." David Shaw's four part ponderous series on entertainment journalism in the LA Times in February, 2001, "nearly deified then Hollywood Reporter editor and high end Bart-hater Anita Busch." (David Poland) Busch grew up in Granite City, Illinois. She worked for advertising trade publications in Chicago before moving to Hollywood because of the moderate climate and the opening at the Hollywood Reporter covering marketing. She was lured over to Variety but later quit because of unethical behavior on the part of editor Peter Bart. She then went to the Hollywood Reporter where she quit over unethical behavior of its publisher Bob Dowling. New Times columnist Rick Barrs writes 5/3/01: "A former top editor at one of the trades marveled at The Finger's naïveté about the Hollywood Reporter. "It's a fucking trade paper, and a trade paper's a whorehouse. What did David Robb expect? He knew he was working for whores. "I like Anita Busch, and I think she wants to do the right thing, but the Hollywood Reporter ain't the goddamned New York Times. Whether she likes it or not, an industry ass-kisser like George Christy's more what the Reporter's about than David Robb. Hos are damn sure going to protect their own."" (New Times LA, 5/3/01) When Lew Wasserman died, the New York Times mentioned prominently the definitive book on Wasserman by former LA Times journalist Dennis McDougal. The LA Times and Busch mentioned the book in passing, even though McDougal, who did not speak to the New York Times, spent close to an hour holding Anita Busch's hand, correcting her on everything from the 1952 SAG waiver to Lew’s support of Bill Clinton. 7/11/02 Reporter Anita Busch Hiding? I bet Busch was herself the source for this hysterical Rush & Molloy gossip item in the New York Daily News 7/11/02: "Los Angeles Times writer Anita Busch has been looking into the federal indictment of reputed Mafia captain Anthony (Sonny) Ciccone on charges of extortion and threatening to kill actor Steven Seagal. After digging into the story for a couple of weeks, Busch recently discovered that someone had come to her L.A. home and smashed her car's windshield, leaving a note that said, "Stop," sources tell us. She also found a metal box on the car. Bomb-squad cops found a dead fish in it. While police investigate the incident and other threats she has received, Busch has resigned from the story and is in hiding, say sources." David Poland writes: Apparently, she turned over the wrong rock in her efforts to report on Steven Seagal’s former mob connections. Apparently, Anita has stopped, which, given her tenacious nature, had to be difficult for her. But a good death threat over a bunch of crappy movies will do it nine out of ten times. The tenth time is Mark Ebner [who wrote the definite article on the gay mafia for Spy magazine], who would eat the fish, write “Prensa” on his windshield and tell friends that he just got back from a trip to Central America with Ollie Stone, deliver his story and then disappear for eight months, except for appearances in AOL chat rooms under the member name FuckYou239. Then again, there are some people who think the whole thing is a little fishy… after all, it was leaked to a gossip column and Busch’s journalistic integrity was just publicly questioned by the Vanity Fair article on Ovitz, her close relationship with Ron Meyer being one of the few things in the article that wasn’t pulled apart or denied. LA Times: Movie Producer Charged With Mob Ties From the 7/12/02 LA TIMES: During a partnership that lasted more than a decade, [Steven] Seagal starred in films that grossed hundreds of millions of dollars, and [Julius R.] Nasso helped produce them. Nasso is free on $1.5-million bail, preparing his defense against a federal indictment that depicts him as an associate of the Gambino crime family, ruled in recent years by John Gotti and his kin. Last month, prosecutors revealed that a microphone planted to get evidence of mob influence over New York-area docks had picked up a meeting in a restaurant between the 49-year-old Nasso and a local Mafia captain. Their alleged topic of conversation? A scheme to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars from "an individual [Steven Seagal] in the film industry" who was not named but whose identity was no secret: the don't-mess-with-me actor who broke noses and bones on screen. Nasso also was a producer of "Narc," which was shown at the Sundance Film Festival in January. That film [also produced by Randall Emmett], starring Ray Liotta, goes into nationwide release this fall. Tom Cruise signed on as an executive producer. Imdb.com gives this plot outline of Narc: "When the trail goes cold on a murder investigation of a policeman an undercover narcotics officer is lured back to the force to help solve the case." 8/7/02 Journalist Anita Busch has returned to work at the Los Angeles Times via the telephone. But she remains in hiding after alleged mafia death threats for her reporting on shady producer Julius R. Nasso. Busch is known for her histrionic personality and exaggerated claims. Most of her peers are highly skeptical of her claims of mafia death threats. Like the volatile and psychotic Nikki Finke, she seems to never be able to hold a job for long. In the fall of 2001, she lasted less than a month at Entertainment Weekly before getting fired. 8/14/02 Cynthia Cotts writes 8/14/02 for the Village Voice: According to two people who have worked with her, [Anita] Busch is willing to trash people she doesn't like—and she hates Ovitz. (Once, when Ovitz was still at CAA, she wrote something that pissed him off. Knowing that Busch is allergic to monosodium glutamate, Ovitz sent her a bottle of the stuff in response, with the one-word note: "Enjoy.") Ovitz's latest beef with Busch is that she is friends with Universal head Ron Meyer and supposedly plays pool with him three nights a week. As the head of a studio that was in partnership with AMG, Meyer was in a position to at least know about the AMG audit, Ovitz claimed in VF, insinuating that Meyer leaked the story to Busch. 8/29/02 Rick Barrs writes in the New Times LA 8/29/02: The stuff [Busch] and [Paul] Lieberman were reporting was public record, part of a federal indictment and was also covered on June 5 by both the New York Daily News and the New York Times. The Busch-Lieberman team didn't break the story, nor any new ground. ...[T]his from a well-placed Times source: "Curiously, Paul Lieberman hasn't gotten any such threats, and he's in New York!" Curiously, too, The Finger could find nobody in the New York press covering the Seagal story who'd been threatened. LAPD spokesman John Pasquariello...said there were no suspects in the case and that the LAPD had not advised Busch to go into hiding. "Whatever she's doing, it's strictly on her own," he stressed. Commented one former Times staffer familiar with the alleged threat: "Most people at the Times think it's bullshit. Both [Busch's boss and top features editor] John Montorio and [the Times' editor and chief] John Carroll really like this cloak-and-dagger stuff, so they encouraged her to go into hiding and let her choose her own hotels. L'Ermitage was one." One current Times reporter whispered, "Talking about the Busch situation has kind of turned into a sport around here. She's a person who has a certain reputation in town, and the fact that this is going on has only added to her lore." [Mob expert Jerry] Capeci: "It would seem that if she's gotten threats and they're real, that they've come from outside La Cosa Nostra. Mobsters do kill people, but there's a rule, and generally they adhere to it, against killing law enforcement or reporters. That is, as long as [cops or reporters] aren't in bed with them somehow. But, generally, the mob has a hands-off policy when it comes to the press as long as you're just doing your job. Not for any benevolent reasons, mind you, but just to avoid the heat." [A]among Busch's colleagues from the trades, terms like "high-strung" and "quick to anger" came up. More than one scribe who worked with Busch at the Reporter or Variety said she had a "take no prisoners" attitude when it came to enemies. One of The Finger's Times sources said, "Look, I'm just suggesting that it could be some kind of elaborate prank. From what I know of her time at the trades, she made plenty of enemies." In reply to his phone calls and emails to Anita, Rick Barrs got a fax from her attorney Paul Suzuki warning: "assertion of allegations against my client is defamatory and places my client in a false light. [These] allegations are not only false, but obviously done maliciously, recklessly, and in wanton disregard of the truth." While Barrs has received many threatening letters from lawyers, this was the first one from a lawyer representing a journalist. 9/1/02 From DAVID GARCIA, Director/Media Relations, Los Angeles Times to Jim Romenesko: "I'd like to make one point regarding your posting of the Anita Busch story. Our reporter was threatened. After discussions with law enforcement, we took the measures recommended to ensure the safety of our reporter." David Poland's Hot Button reports 9/3/02: "The idea that a reporter had been pulled off a story and sent into hiding by a paper on American soil because of a mob threat is a major story. And by refusing to cover it themselves, the L.A. Times has perpetuated the idea that whatever accusations of paranoia made against Ms. Busch must have some validity because otherwise, the paper would be busy chasing a Pulitzer by exposing the whole ugly business. "Even more to the point, if the threat against Anita is real, exposure of that threat on the cover of the L.A. Times would do a lot more to assure her safety than hiding out in a variety of hotels. People tend not to attack people after they have been publicly accused of threatening those people." From the NY Times 9/4/02: The author of a article in Vanity Fair about the actor Steven Seagal's allegation that he was extorted by the Mafia has told the police that he was threatened at gunpoint last week in Los Angeles, the police said yesterday. The writer, Ned Zeman, is the second journalist to report being threatened while working on an article about Mr. Seagal's allegation, which grows out of a federal investigation into charges of corruption on the Brooklyn waterfront. From PageSix.com 9/5/02: TWO reporters covering the dispute between Steven Seagal and his former partner, Jules Nasso, have been threatened with death - and Nasso himself is said to be afraid to leave his house on Staten Island. Both Busch and Zeman are said to be terrified, and neither returned calls to PAGE SIX. Neither did Nasso, who filed a breach of contract suit against Seagal last March charging the star had reneged on a four-picture deal. From New Times LA 9/5/02: Bush felt she'd been threatened by the Mafia, and her employer saw fit to put her up in hotels around town so that the goodfellas couldn't find her. She returned to her desk at the Times just last week (a source spotted Times top editor John Carroll giving Anita an avuncular shoulder-clasp on her first day back, as if to say, We're behind you, gal!) LAPD spokesman John Pasquariello said last week that while the department's definitely been investigating the Busch incident, nobody there had advised her to go into hiding for a couple of months. But he told The Finger just before press time that Busch telephoned him to say he had misinformed this digit -- that somebody from the LAPD had indeed advised her to stay out of sight. He said, "I'm checking into this, and I'll get back to you." 1/5/95 David Poland writes on his site www.thehotbutton.com: Just a few years ago, Anita Busch left The Hollywood Reporter for Daily Variety, leaving her Reporter pals pissed in the wake. At that point, she became the second highest paid entertainment reporter at the trades. (Variety's Michael Fleming was and still is the top dog.) But things didn't work out at Variety, and Busch's exit was followed up by a series of unkind words from those who worked with her. Anita next took a desk at Entertainment Weekly, where conflicts about "who's beat is it anyway" led to a quick departure. Still loaded to the gills with industry contacts, Busch freelanced at the New York Times, Vanity Fair, Time, Premiere and Advertising Age. And now, while former THR editor Alex Ben Block swings in the wind after his shockingly quick dismissal from Morgan Creek, the company he left the Reporter for (rumor has it that he was late for work and was summarily dismissed for that by the erratic Jim Robinson), Busch has taken the reins as editor of the smaller format industry trade. But will Ms. Busch be happy at last? Who knows? All we can know for sure is that sex-free incest is really Hollywood's favorite indoor activity. 10/9/99 David Poland writes on www.thehotbutton.com: On Friday, The Hollywood Reporter [story by Anita Busch] joined the gossip pack with reports about how premiere audiences reacted to the violence in Fight Club. They actually printed this bon mot: "One woman leaving the theater cried, 'It's the most horrible movie I've ever seen! Why aren't the pickets here? Where is Cardinal (John) O'Connor when we need him?'" That's exactly who the film is for ... people who would like to see the church protesting movies for violence. Another thoughtful comment: "'It's loathsome to use the medium this way,' lamented one producer." I think all these people, who can't see the art for the violence should head to New York and protest the art exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum of Art immediately. It's okay not to love Fight Club. No doubt it is a hard sell and a tough topic. But not to understand it at all is pathetic. And keep in mind that all these offended folks probably didn't bat an eye at 17-year-old Thora Birch's breasts in American Beauty. After all, that film made a hero of a man who lost his way in life and (this may be a spoiler to you, but it is given away in the first frames of the film) dies for his effort. That's a happy ending, apparently. Fight Club dares to suggest that you have to fight to stay self-aware and even after you wake-up, you can screw it all up. A more truthful ending, but one that actually requires thought. Darn. 10/13/99 After his column criticing Busch and the Hollywood Reporter, and his KABC radio show, Poland "heard from Anita, who objected to the characterizations I had made of her actions and motivations in regard to the Friday piece, which she had co-written with an east coast correspondent. Specifically, she was concerned about factual issues regarding when she showed up for the Fight Club premiere screening and whether she had seen the entire movie herself before that piece ran, as indicated in my Monday column and on KABC. She tells me that she had seen the film before the premiere and that she even saw the whole thing that evening, catching it from the top at the overflow theater (the Bruin). I will happily bow to her word on that. As I said on Monday, it is a petty issue. She also felt that I misrepresented the type of story that it was and the amount of work that was put into developing it, another case of me assuming a negative motive. In our conversation, she also suggested that perhaps I had been spun by Fox. "Well, the issue of what news is versus what gossip is and how they now intersect in the entertainment news business is a regular feature of this column. And here we are again. I wrote the weekend column around midnight on Thursday based exclusively on the portion of the Reporter story shown on the Reporter's Website. I had not spoken to anyone at Fox about it because everyone from Fox was at home, presumably asleep. I will concede this to her. I did not know that the article was under the column headline of THR E-mail because there is no such distinction on the Website. However, as with all things in this column, the proof is in the work itself. So even in reflection, the distinction that Editor Anita ran this attack on Fight Club in a column rather than as a simple news story carries little weight with me. Not because The Reporter doesn't have the right to editorialize, but because the article itself, in whatever context, reads like a news story." 10/14/99 David Poland writes: Well, minutes before my deadline for today's column, I got another call from Anita Busch. She was less cordial this time. Her anger continued to bubble over my reporting about her seeing Fight Club. 2/15/01 David Poland writes: The new [Hollywood lie] is that Anita Busch took a brave stand when she attacked Fight Club in print... Anita came inches away from being fired on that story and was absolutely enraged by being called to task by me, in print and on the radio, for reaching beyond her appropriate place as a news editor. The reason it was such an issue was not the editorial that Anita wrote about the movie. By the time that ran, Fox's threatening stance had already passed. It was the supposed "news" story that suggested a level of unanimity of rage and anger about the picture on the evening of the premiere. There was certainly a large group of angry people, but there were a lot of supporters as well and they somehow never got quoted. Fox also stated at the time that Anita hadn't even seen the movie in its entirety, arriving late to the screening. To her credit, Anita told me that she went back and saw the picture again before writing her editorial... an editorial that was completely appropriate, however wrong-headed it might have been. I am a big John Horn fan, but what Anita got caught doing was not being fearless, but taking a cheap, personal shot inside what seemed to be a news story. LATER THAT EVENING, POLAND GOT THIS: Mr. David Poland - TNT Roughcut Dear Mr. Poland: We are the attorneys for The Hollywood Reporter and Anita M. Busch, the editor of The Hollywood Reporter. We have received a copy of an article written by you on Thursday, 15 February 2001 and which is included on a TNT Roughcut web site – which in part states (respecting Anita Busch) "However, Anita came inches away from being fired on that story…". Your comments respecting Ms. Busch are false, defamatory and outrageous. They are totally reckless, unsubstantiated, irresponsible and uncorroborated. Your article egregiously violates the rights of our clients, and you and TNT Roughcut and its affiliated enterprises ("TNT") will be held strictly accountable and liable for any and all damages sustained by our clients. As you are no doubt aware, your publication of false statements, which have not been substantiated or corroborated, and which consequently lack any credibility or truth, are clear evidence of actual malice on your part and on the part of TNT. Your malice is evidence of your failure to undertake a proper investigation, fabrication of information, and reliance upon persons who lack appropriate knowledge, among other factors. We hereby demand that you and TNT forthwith cease and desist from any further use or publication of any reference whatsoever to Anita Busch or The Hollywood Reporter, and that any such references be forthwith redacted and removed from your article. Demand is furthermore made that you forthwith print on your web site in a conspicuous and prominent manner and position designed to reach the same readership as the offending article a retraction and apology acceptable to my clients with reference to this matter. Do not misunderstand the importance of this communication as it will not be one of a series of demand letters regarding this matter. Your reckless publication of the subject article has struck at the essence of our clients’ reputation, character and professional activities and business. We will not permit or tolerate the good names and reputation of The Hollywood Reporter and Anita Busch to be sullied by your reckless and wanton disregard for the truth. This letter does not constitute a complete or exhaustive statement of all of our clients’ rights, claims, contentions or of the remedies of our clients, and does not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of any of our clients’ rights or remedies, legal or equitable, all of which are hereby expressly reserved. It is the intention of our clients to hold you and TNT responsible for your irresponsible behavior. Yours truly, FREDERIC N. GAINES FNG/cm 3/15/00 David Poland writes: When I heard that Anita Busch of The Hollywood Reporter was telling people that the MPAA people were pissed off at me over the ratings system ruckus at the Jack Valenti breakfast last week, I wasn't surprised. Nor was I surprised when she wrote a story about the argument and failed to mention me or any of the other three writers who were involved. Anita all but hissed at me every time we met at ShoWest. She is still clearly angry about a conflict we had over Fight Club that happened six-plus months ago. If she wants to stay angry over one story of hers that I disagreed with, albeit vehemently and very publicly, so be it. I don't need a shell to deal with her because her anger, however irrational, is honest. 2/15/01 David Poland knock down myths in David Shaw's series on entertainment journalism in the LA Times: "The new one is that Anita Busch took a brave stand when she attacked Fight Club in print. I do think that Anita has improved THR and I hold no animosity towards her. However, Anita came inches away from being fired on that story and was absolutely enraged by being called to task by me, in print and on the radio, for reaching beyond her appropriate place as a news editor. The reason it was such an issue was not the editorial that Anita wrote about the movie. By the time that ran, Fox's threatening stance had already passed. It was the supposed "news" story that suggested a level of unanimity of rage and anger about the picture on the evening of the premiere. There was certainly a large group of angry people, but there were a lot of supporters as well and they somehow never got quoted. Fox also stated at the time that Anita hadn't even seen the movie in its entirety, arriving late to the screening. To her credit, Anita told me that she went back and saw the picture again before writing her editorial... an editorial that was completely appropriate, however wrong-headed it might have been. I am a big John Horn fan, but what Anita got caught doing was not being fearless, but taking a cheap, personal shot inside what seemed to be a news story. "Shaw completely misses a couple of issues regarding both Peter Bart and Anita. 1) Bart is well known to hate Inside.com, and the web in general, because so many of his reporters have been cherry picked by stock-option-waving dot-coms in the last two years. Two of his best, Andrew Hindes and Chris Petrikin, are now at Inside. This has a lot to do with his attitude about new media by the account of everyone who works for him. 2) Anita was, essentially, stolen by Variety at great expense and exited after various intense run-ins with Peter Bart. Then she was at Entertainment Weekly, which was not a good fit because of her hard-hitting style. And then, Bob Dowling took her back at THR after Alex Ben Block left for another job (before he started working for a now-deceased dot-com.) It seems that Anita has finally found the right job for her and her style." 2/21/01 David writes: "Anita Busch made a much greater effort trying to get Jim Romanesko from linking to my comments on her than to stop me from writing them."
|
|
