Fox News Columnist Pays Big Price for Reviewing a Pirated Movie

This story doesn't say much for the editorial independence of FoxNews.

And I don't know the process, but unless Friedman is allowed to post his stories directly to the website, shouldn't someone be standing up for him or be taking the fall with him?

Would also be curious to hear your thoughts on the ethics of posting such a review in general. I know that on Broadway, reviewers hold off on comment during previews and run their reviews after the official opening night. Should a similar code apply here?

What I think is interesting is that, apparently, bloggers had held off and were pissed when Friedman posted a review.

 

Now if somehow we can get Bill O'Reilly to review a pirated movie and get canned ...

 

If you're going to be off topic, it would be nice if you were at least funny.

 

The fault lies with the studio. If you don't want people watching your movie, don't leave workprints lying around.

I have to believe there's probably a reason why the workprint was released though. Apparently it's a steaming pile of dog feces and maybe somebody leaked this so it would get fixed.

 

I would certainly hope the columnist isn't the only one getting downed over this. Someone had to approve the thing (or someone majorly fucked up by not overseeing this thing properly). Though I guess if News Corporation isn't giving anymore details about it, there's no way to know at this juncture.

 

I'm with Blue. The decision to write the review is bad, but other people were involved and clearly had no problem with posting something. The story is the writer's, but the decision to publish should belong to other people as well, and the problem lies in the decision to publish.

 

Never let it be said that Fox doesn't have standards. Of all the things said, reported on FOX, this guy gets canned.

 

Well, exactly. He didn't offend any viewers, but he did offend the bottom line and for that he must pay.

 

Looks like Lou Lumenick got the internal memo that Roger Friedman missed.

He gives what's supposed to be a real turkey a glowing, 3-star review.

 

Why is the decision bad - other than the fact Fox wrongly fired him? There's nothing unethical about writing it as long as he's up front with the fact it's not the finished version. I know it's just a movie review and not the Pentagon Papers, but legally and ethically the writer did nothing wrong.

 

Funniest. Line. Ever.