Does Appearing in a Movie Impair A Sportswriter's Objectivity?

They gave Olin a speaking part ... then, in a subequent column, he ripped the credibility of the movie's realism.

So I'd say 'no' to that objectivity compromised thing

 

I know I probably speak for a lot of people in this business when I say -- who gives a shit about objectivity when you can make big bucks for doing nothing. In this age of salary cuts, cutbacks, budget cuts -- it is bullshit that any employer would even think about limiting your ability to make extra money based on some archaic idea of what neutral and objective is.

 

Only if it's a snuff film

 

I don't think it matters.

 

Note to self: Cancel Thursday plans.

 

How do you know they were paid?

 

Don't they have to be, legally (or, at least, according to union rules)?

 

I know plenty of people who've appeared in movies without being paid. Heck, I happened to be walking the dog a few weeks ago and we accidentally went straight through a Sex and the City (the movie) scene as they were filming. (Big and Carrie were fighting).
They never cut, and I was told later it'll probably be in the movie (assuming the entire scene doesn't get snipped). Apparently they thought my dog looked very New York. (Not kidding: crazy lady in my building told me today my dog is "sexy.")
They could have at least offered to pay me in cosmos

 

Well, I guess I mean if they're actually there to serve a purpose, not just as an extra.

 

Yeah, we certainly wouldn't want Jay Glazer's objectivity to come into question. If Jay's ethics are under the microscope, then who can we trust any more?

 

Actually -- and I have absolutely no interest in getting into a Simers debate -- he actually blasted them while he was still employed by them, and that's why they kicked him off ATH.

As for the larger topic, no, there is no objectivity issue here. No big deal.