A Hollywood trade reporter who'd been banned by Universal Studios three weeks ago for what it considered to be unethical journalism -- putting off-the-record remarks by the boss on the record -- has apologized in a handwritten letter sent to the head of the studio, both sides confirmed to me this week. The missive has prompted the studio to lift its ban on the journalist, thus bringing to a quick end one of the most talked-about incidents in reporter-studio relationships in recent memory.

See previous: Universal Bans Trade Reporter

Anne Thompson of the Hollywood Reporter confirmed to me today that she recently wrote a handwritten letter of apology to Ron Meyer, president and COO of Universal Studios, and both she and Universal confirm that the ban on her has been lifted because of it. Meyer had previously instructed his head of corporate communications to inform the publicity staff that Thompson was persona non grata to every executive there. Not only was no one supposed to talk to her, but she was barred from attending screenings and premieres, eating at the commissary, parking on the lot, or doing any other function at the studio that Universal has control over. Security would be called if she were found there.

The reason, Meyer told his people, was that Thompson had knowingly and deliberately burned him by taking off-the-record remarks he'd given her about the progress of a Stacey Snider-is-leaving-for-Dreamworks story and putting them on the record in her article. Meyer informed insiders that Thompson had admitted to him she'd done that and anticipated he would get mad about it, but refused to be repentant about it. Meyer complained to Thompson's editors. Then he banned her from the Universal lot.

Previously, when I called to get her side of the story, Thompson, who writes HR's Risky Business column, at first declined comment, and then told me: "His remarks were on the record." Yet she confirmed today that she wrote a letter of apology to Meyer for her actions. Universal sources also characterized her handwritten letter as deeply apologetic.

Meanwhile, I'm told the matter was, and is, a matter of intense concern to HR's newly installed publisher Tony Uphoff -- he took over January 1st -- and that he is still actively seeking (through numerous phone calls to executives there) to normalize relations between the traditionally studio-friendly trade paper and Universal. The matter drew much attention in Hollywood where no studio has banned a journalist, much less a trade journalist, in recent memory, and where Meyer is seen as a mogul nice guy, and Thompson a seasoned professional, with clear-cut rules of engagement.

305,000+ page views since DHD's inception two weeks ago. I will be on assignment for a week so posting will be light, if at all. Think of it as coitus interruptus.

I'm told that Universal has banned a Hollywood trade reporter for what it considered to be unethical journalism: putting off-the-record remarks by the boss on the record. 

Here's what happened, according to my sources:

Ron Meyer, president and COO of Universal Studios, recently instructed his head of corporate communications to inform the publicity staff that the Hollywood Reporter's Anne Thompson is persona non grata to every executive there. Not only is no one supposed to talk to her, but she is barred from attending screenings and premieres, eating at the commissary, parking on the lot, or doing any other function at the studio that Universal has control over. Security will be called if she's found there. The reason, Meyer told his people, was that Thompson had knowingly and deliberately burned him by taking off-the-record remarks he'd given her about the progress of that Stacey Snider-is-leaving-for-Dreamworks story and putting them on the record in her article. Meyer informed insiders that Thompson had admitted to him she'd done that and anticipated he would get mad about it, but refused to be repentant about it. Meyer complained to Thompson's editors. Then he banned her from the Universal lot.

I reached Thompson, who writes HR's Risky Business column, to get her side of the story. After declining at first to talk about the situation, she finally told me just this: "His remarks were on the record." But I understand Thompson privately thought of the matter as a misunderstanding stemming from her not calling up Meyer and asking for his permission to use his quotes before the article appeared in the paper. Also, the extent of the ban surprised her: she apparently thought she simply wouldn't be allowed to attend Universal movie premieres.

Cynthia Littleton, the HR's newly appointed editor, declined all comment.

This is a reaction Meyer hasn't taken since moving to Universal in 1995 and one that no studio head has ordered in recent memory. Meyer is supposed to be an Industry nice guy; Thompson is supposed to be a seasoned entertainment journalist. The rules of engagement are ordinarily clear-cut. Stay tuned for updates.

 Marc Shmuger, new chairman, Universal Pictures

 David Linde, new co-chairman, Universal Pictures

Here's my latest LA Weekly column, Two Tonys Is One Too Many for Mogul.

You know how, in that New York Times article, Paramount studio boss Brad Grey issued a statement through a spokesperson that he was only “casually acquainted” with thug-for-hire Anthony Pellicano and had “no relationship” with him until the private detective was signed up by Grey’s attorney, super-lawyer Fields, to help in the Garry Shandling lawsuit against Grey. People for Ovitz, too, previously said that the ex-Hollywood powermeister’s only dealings with Pellicano were through the law firm, Gorry Meyer & Rudd, that represented Ovitz and his now defunct Artists Management, and it was they who elected to hire Pellicano, not Ovitz. (According to that account, Mike had declined to choose from among a list of investigators the firm recommended to him.)

Yeah, sure, nobody knew anybody. Really, amnesia in this town is becoming an epidemic now that the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles has heated up its investigation.

But, I've learned that, a few years ago, when Grey was still the head of talent management/production company Brillstein-Grey, he brought the William Morris Agency the idea of doing an original series with the working title Hollywood Dick based on Pellicano’s life and work. The Pelican was thrilled about the project and signed on as a consultant. With Billy Friedkin attached to direct, Brad and WMA pitched HBO, who passed. (Strange why this wasn't in the NYT's Grey article, though a Feb. 26th Los Angeles Times story made brief mention of it without detailing Pellicano's involvement.)

Oh, and then there’s the fact that Bernie Brillstein, Grey’s longtime partner, confirmed to me that the location of the old Brillstein Co., the forerunner to Grey’s firm (and where Grey was mentored from 1986 until 1991, when he became a 50-50 name partner) was just two doors down the hallway from Pellicano’s office in the same 9200 Sunset Boulevard building. Brillstein later took over Pellicano’s space in an expansion.

As for Ovitz, one mogul recalled to me that back in the 1990s Pellicano approached him and said, “Mike Ovitz has asked me to do some work for him.” The mogul said to Pellicano, “Be careful, Ovitz is a scumbag.” Later, the mogul ran into Pellicano, who remembered that conversation and said, “You were right. Ovitz is a scumbag.” Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black.

Maybe Grey’s and Ovitz’s reps should revise their disclaimers.

Given The New York Times Page One story linking Paramount studio boss Brad Grey to Anthony Pellicano, it's natural to wonder what Brad's longtime talent management and production partner and mentor Bernie Brillstein thinks of it. Here's what he told me this afternoon, all on the record: "I just want to say I read the article. There was no reason for the article. There was no conclusion. I can’t figure out why they even did it. There’s nothing new that hasn’t been said for the last two years. I have my own opinion of Garry Shandling. I’ve always said not good things about him. And now Linda Doucett is involved, it’s getting crazier and crazier. They were allegedly not the most rational people. And when I called her [one of the NYT reporters on the story, Allison Weiner] and said, 'Is there anything I can do to help you?’ She said, 'No.’ Because I could have given her some facts she didn’t have. I love Brad. I always will love Brad. And he needs no defending by me ever. He's a great guy."

Previously: Brad Grey on NYT’s Hot Seat UPDATED

Kudos to Rob Reiner for not retreating into seclusion but instead meeting with the press club in Sacramento today re the brouhaha behind his handling of that California preschool ballot initiative. Reiner rightly tells the Los Angeles Times he "worries, tremendously, that the controversy surrounding him will set back his goal to offer free preschool for all California schoolchildren." But there's something even more troubling about it: will the beating given Reiner right now scare off actor activists, in particular Democrats, from ever running for political office? Here's a past column, United They Sit, I wrote on that subject, exploring why liberal Hollywood talent don't become Democratic candidates (but Schwarzenegger, Reagan, Eastwood, Bono, Murphy etc. did for the Republican party). Still applicable.

Journalists for the Los Angeles legal newspaper Daily Journal write today about a tabloid reporter in the early 1990s surreptitiously taping Anthony Pellicano -- bugging the bugger, according to LAObserved -- while the PI fed, watered and overall negotiated with the night-crawlers of the news biz. (Actually, that was reported extensively two years ago by local TV news station KCBS and its then reporter Drew Griffin, who used the news break to leap to CNN.)

But the Daily Journal claims today that the recorded conversations with Pellicano suggest lawyer Bert Fields didn't know about the PI's methods. I, too, was shown some tape transcripts back in 2004 pertaining to this. When I couldn't hear the recordings themselves -- none of the 250 microcassettes were made available to me but they were to KCBS's Griffin -- I didn't feel comfortable going with the story. At the time, I believed and still do that drawing any such a conclusion one way or the other re Fields/Pellicano from the oblique references on the tape was, and is, too big a leap to make. The tapes' owner just phoned me now to confirm that the FBI had demanded that tape and 69 pages of transcripts.

From what I read from the tapes, I thought back to Clifford Odets, the screenwriter of that extraordinarily prescient film The Sweet Smell of Success, and the opening scene when his cur columnist J.J. Hunsecker says archly, “I love this dirty town.” Deceased James Mitteager, a former New York City cop turned freelance writer turned Los Angeles bureau chief of the Globe and also a vet of the National Enquirer, made many of his tapes in the early and mid 1990s, during the beginning of the tabloidization of mainstream media. Think Michael Jackson's first run-in with the law, and the OJ Simpson murder case. When Mitteager died of throat cancer, the tapes were left to his wife, who then gave them to her husband’s favorite tipster, Paul Barressi, the adult film producer and occasional leg man for Pellicano. Barressi made a deal with KCBS to air them in 2004. At that time, Bonnie Fuller, the editorial director of tabloid publisher American Media -- National Enquirer, Globe, Star , Bonnie -- was voted the No. 1 “media icon” in a major online poll, beating out 94 crème de la crème candidates for having the most impact on the industry. The TV networks were adopting tabloid tactics, even paying for Michael Jackson news interviews. Doing so wasn’t just acceptable; it was then even admirable.

For years, conventional wisdom had it that the tabloid tipsters were everyday nobodies with regular star access, call it close encounters of the celebrity kind -- hairdressers and manicurists, secretaries and personal trainers, nurses and orderlies, room service waiters and one-night stands. Wow, were we wrong! According to the hundreds of hours of tape-recorded conversations by Mitteager, some of which I reviewed, the sources on these stories reached all the way to the top teams assembled by the talent via Pellicano -- to Hollywood’s upper echelon law firms, publicity companies, lawyers, agents, managers, doctors, publicists. Most had at the very least a moral duty and sometimes even a fiduciary and legal responsibility to protect the very celebrities they were tattling on. The evidence was there that many of these Hollywood players were, in essence, double-agents, none more so than Pellicano: they signed the stars, promised to protect them, gave information to the tabloids, then promised to protect them from the information in the tabloids, in what can only be called a vicious cycle. Pellicano in many cases was acting as a triple agent – giving information to the tabloids, then pressing the reporters to reveal the identities of other sources so he could track down those sources and reveal them to the stars' reps for pursuit. Oh the hypocrisy: officially, in their offices, they would say “no comment” to the tabs, then, 15 minutes later, get back on the phone with the reporter from a public phone booth down the street. And the only word to use is disgusting to describe area hospitals which leaked like sieves. There were doctors spilling secrets, negotiating fees like $5,000, $10,000, even $20,000, to tell all. (This isn’t new to me. I remember talking casually to one of the top dermatologists in town and was shocked when he began telling me all about a famous actor’s basal skin cancers. Another time, I recoiled when a top publicist launched into a detailed discussion of a superstar’s tubal pregnancy.)

All of the above were juicy revelations, which is why, in 2004, KCBS aired a special assignment series “The Reel Source", by their veteran investigative reporter Drew Griffin during sweeps period, sandwiched between a low-carb diet feature and a rat-infested restaurant probe. (Dontcha just love local TV news?) After 10 years with KCBS, Griffin in May 2004 moved to CNN as a correspondent for its investigative unit.

UPDATING MY SCOOP POSTED ON SATURDAY, MARCH 11, AT 04:45 P.M.-->

No, that won't be an April Fool's Day prank by The New York Times. I'm told that, on April 1st, The Gray Lady confirmed today it's planning to drop its Monday-through-Friday Tuesday-through-Saturday stock listings on April 4th and to replace them with some kind of new package of interactive tools and market information web access. In the paper will be a very limited 1 1/2 pages 2 pages, trimming those thousands of stock tables to just hundreds the top 100 stocks in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, plus market analysis, mutual fund information, charts tracking individual company performance and lists of foreign currency exchange rates. Plans are being finalized what to do on the weekends. The complete financial tables will continue to appear in the Sunday issue of the paper. Newspaper industry sources tell me that this could represent a $10 million savings to the NYT in newsprint costs and editorial space: "The way for papers to save money short of getting rid of people is to get rid of stock pages." For years, the nation's 900+ newspapers have run the AP's stock tables, so the trend is going to hurt non-profit AP's revenues. Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times announced that it would condense its tables to a one-page listing of the 1,300 most heavily traded stocks and a list of companies based in Southern California. In the past month alone, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Chicago Tribune, Newsday, and the Denver Post are just some of the papers that have eliminated their stock listings. But the NYT is the biggest newspaper yet to follow the trend: after the Gray Lady, comes le deluge. Could it be possible that the Wall Street Journal is next? Speaking of the WSJ, I'm told to expect another round of staff cuts through layoffs and attrition.

The New York Times exploded with a Page One story for Monday about Brad Grey's alleged ties to Anthony Pellicano, target of that heated-up U.S. Attorney wiretapping investigation and catalyst for the breaking and increasingly broad scandal rocking Hollywood and L.A.'s high-profile legal community. It didn't go up on the NYT website until 7:30 p.m. PT. I reported its existence at 4:44 p.m. PT. (Truth: Unknown to the reporters, I'd followed their progress for 3 weeks; given that it was such a highly competitive beat, I didn't disclose their topic because I felt they deserved their scoop.) It almost doesn't matter what the article said; just the fact that the sitting chairman and chief executive of the Paramount Motion Picture Group has now been dramatically linked by name to Pellicano was a huge shock for Hollywood. Forget Blackberrys: phones were ringing on both coasts as major players gasped with their pals -- first at the news of the article's existence, then about the story's prominent placement. That's because, in Tinseltown, perception has always been more important than reality. After all, the NYT reporting duo of Allison Weiner and David Halbfinger had already published big news breaks about Michael Ovitz's and Bert Fields' connections to the case. As one Pelican flap insider told me: "The missing piece right now is not Ovitz or Fields. Ovitz is yesterday's news, and Bert is a 78-year-old lawyer. It's Brad, especially since he's a recently appointed studio boss." So the Industry chatter post-NYT story focused on: How is this going to play with Grey's bosses Tom Freston and Sumner Redstone? Can Brad do his job if he becomes the focus of the feds? Who at Dreamworks will step into his place? (This latter question is very much typical of the Industry types' lame attempt at humor.)

This is what I know about the behind-the-scenes of it all:

The NYT couldn't have written any story about Brad Grey without Linda Doucett. Fans of the old HBO series The Larry Sanders Show will remember her for several reasons: the former model played busty blonde secretary Darlene Chapinni, she was star Garry Shandling's real-life girlfriend; she was fired when they broke up; and she filed two lawsuits against him, Grey and the show. At the time, Shandling was an important client of Grey and his major talent management and production company (which also put together and ran the Sanders series). That is, until the two men fell out in a long and nasty legal wrangle over Shandling's charges of conflict-of-interest against Grey.

Fast forward: suddenly, Doucett a few weeks ago finds herself the object of desire by the N.Y. Times. The reason is that paper turned again to Frontline correspondent Lowell Bergman to pump up the Pellicano volume. (Bergman is a name recognizable from Michael Mann’s The Insider. Al Pacino portayed him as a producer, then on contract to 60 Minutes, caught in the buzz saw when CBS buckled to corporate pressure and yanked his Big Tobacco story from whistleblower Russell Crowe.) Bergman had been the bigfoot brought in by the NYT back in 2003 when the Pelican briefs first broke. But, the probe dragged on without indictments, and Bergman eventually returned to more newsy matters. Now he was back on the case, and he recalled a two-year-old tip from a prominent Hollywood player that Doucett would be a font of information if she would cooperate. Big if. Especially because the FBI was trying to keep everyone quiet who'd been told that they'd been targeted by Pellicano. Both she and Shandling and some of their friends and associates were said to have been victims of The Pelican's wiretapping, unauthorized police background checks, the works.

The NYT tries to corral her. She keeps her distance. Life's been hard for her. The talented comedienne's promising showbiz career was DOA after her lawsuits. Finally, after much soothing and schmoozing, the NYT's Weiner and Halbfinger two weeks ago sit down with Doucett for an interview. The reporters come very prepared: they have court transcripts and legal depositions from the previous lawsuits involving Doucett (both were settled) but also the battle between Shandling and Grey over The Larry Sanders Show et al. See, by the time of that legal war, Shandling and Doucett had made up and become friends again, so Doucett was privy to inside information about Shandling's side of the case since Garry was confiding in her.

Reading over the NYT article on Grey, I'm frankly surprised that it doesn't go farther. There are salient details I know that aren't in the piece. For instance, I was told last month by a source who used to work for Grey's management and production company that Brad had long and close ties to Pellicano, longer and closer than anyone thought. (But Grey issued a statement to the NYT that he was "casually acquainted" with Pellicano and had "no 'relationship'" until the PI was hired by Fields in the Shandling lawsuit.) Also, a prominent Hollywood type told me that before he was going to be a witness for Shandling against Grey, he, too, was approached by Brad. "Brad was very worried about my testimony. I hadn't heard from him in ages. Now, suddenly, he's being very buddy-buddy with me."  And my sources tell me that, when Doucett after meeting with the FBI received that phone call from a man threatening her son, authorities took it very seriously. She was able to identify one voice who turned out to be a biker with a criminal record. 

Yes, Grey has been interviewed by the FBI, yes he's testified before the grand jury investigating Pellicano. But so have other Hollywood figures. Is he or is he not a subject of the investigation? Is there or is there not Pellicano tape of him? Did he or did he not sign something before he could get the Paramount job saying he had no knowledge of Pellicano's wiretapping? If you're going to name Grey, then tell us more. It's not enough just to rehash what a sleazeball Brad is (and is he ever, in Doucett's account.) Either Brad is squeaky clean, and it's just unfortunate his name is being bandied about, or else he's up to his eyeballs in it, or else the truth lies somewhere inbetween. No matter which, he's compromised now, at least in journalists' eyes, possibly in The Industry's eyes from this point forward.

The NYT goes almost too inside the Doucett-Shandling-Grey relationship, clearly a dysfunctional one from both personal and professional perspectives, that it loses sight of the ultimate story: the Pellicano scandal. Reading about all the Hollywood deal-making, deal-breaking and dollars that took place among them makes any sane person want to throw up their hands and shout, "A pox on all their houses." Doucett told the NYT she sees the entire mess as being about "little people being pushed around." I chalk it up to greed and the way that emboldens Hollywood to push past boundaries of common decency, even legally.

Previously tonight, I reported:

I’m told The New York Times has finally finished an investigative piece about Brad Grey’s alleged ties to Anthony Pellicano and the progress of the U.S. attorney’s investigation of them. Sources tell me it will be a shocking article about the sitting chairman and chief executive of the Paramount Motion Picture Group and that it will be published Monday on Page One. I’m told integral information for the piece by the reporting duo of Allison Weiner and David Halbfinger came about two weeks ago when, after a long pursuit, they finally secured an interview with Linda Doucett, the former girlfriend of Garry Shandling. Shandling was an important client of Grey’s long-held talent management and production company until the two men fell out in a long legal wrangle. Both Doucett and Shandling are said to have been victims of Pellicano’s wiretapping. The NYT article puts the reporting duo well ahead of the Los Angeles Times on this breaking and increasingly broad scandal rocking Hollywood as well as L.A.’s high-profile legal community. While LAT reporters to date have taken a typically all-encompassing but general look at the case, the NYT’s Weiner and Halbfinger have published big news breaks about Michael Ovitz’s and Bert Field’s connections with it. There’s no doubt this article on Grey, however, will rock Hollywood to its core. The whispers surrounding him reached a crescendo over Oscar weekend. I myself was told last month by a source who used to work for Grey’s management and production company that Grey had close ties to Pellicano, closer than anyone thought. Sunday night should have been a triumph for Grey as the executive producer of the long-awaited series, The Sopranos. But will the bad news for Brad by Monday be that his own Tony Soprano, in the form of Anthony Pellicano, is haunting him?

Before: Lawyering Up Pellicano’s Victims, Bergman Flies Pelican/NYT, Again

The Sopranos spoiling really began when Lorraine Bracco gabbed that, due to a planned “major plot development” in the Season 6 opener, HBO this month would not be having its usual huge premiere advance screening bash at Radio City Music Hall. Way worse was when, yesterday, the HBO website mistakenly posted a long summary of Season 6's first episode, "Members Only." Needless to say, it was yanked. But the truth is it’s not hard to find Sopranos spoilers out there for Season 6 after its insanely long 21-month layoff. There will be a total of 12 episodes airing this year and another 8 episodes – said to be “the final eight” by HBO – airing in 2007. Guest stars include Jerry Adler (In Her Shoes), Tim Daly (Wings), Frankie Valli (Four Seasons lead singer), Hal Holbrook (Men of Honor) as a scientist, Ben Kingsley (House of Sand and Fog) as himself (?), Julianna Margulies (ER) as a real estate agent, Treach (HBO’s First Time Felon), Ron Leibman (Garden State), Elizabeth Bracco (Analyze This) and Lord Jamar (HBO’s Oz). Lots of TV industry spoiling-for-a-fight speculation about whether James Gandolfini can knock off Teri Hatcher Sunday night. I say, nah. Look, Desperate Housewives wasn't on the air when The Sopranos beat all the broadcast networks and scored the highest ratings in HBO's three-decade history when 13.4 mil viewers tuned in for the one-hour premiere of Season 5. The girls get almost twice that. Meanwhile, for upcoming Season 6, the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly (the official magazine of receptionists which, with sister company HBO, is owned by parent Time Warner) packages a titillating look, guru David Chase gives interviews, the NY Times and the LA Times had early but still cagey reviews, www.Sopranoland.com offers some info, and individual websites glean a few more clues. So stop reading now if you don’t want to know what happens. Otherwise, fuhgeddaboutit:

That “major plot development”? Sorry, not going to say. Too good. But this sets up the usual tensions and retributions that keep The Sopranos so compelling. This time around, it's the last chapter of the life and times of a New Jersey crime boss. Season 6 opens, amid bohemian music choices like William S. Burrough's "Seven Souls" spoken-word piece, with a montage showing the two-year real-time gap between the end of the last season and the start of this one. (For those of you who've seen The Sopranos teaser, this make that whole thing clearer.) Tony, his gangstas and even Carmela worry about Johnny Sack in prison orange waiting for that RICO trial and the effect that's having on both the New York and New Jersey crime families. In his personal life, Tony’s very prosperous. Now that he and Carmela are back together, they must face the reality that their kids are no longer children, but not yet grown. And with Johnny Sack in prison, all hell could break loose any moment between the two crime families, fulfilling Tony’s and Carmela’s worst fears. Phil Leotardo will take over the New York crew temporarily while Johnny is being held by the feds. In (S6: Ep1), “Members Only”, Tony shares a recent windfall with Carmela, buying her a new Porsche Cayenne. There’s been a period of relative calm, almost ordinariness. He's still seeing Dr. Melfi not only about his life but also because of his concerns about AJ. Work-wise, Tony ponders an associate’s request to retire to Florida. "What are you, a hockey player?" Tony retorts. "You took an oath. There's no retiring from this." Junior takes Tony on a backyard treasure hunt. Hesh seeks restitution for a wrong perpetrated on his son-in-law. But the last three minutes offer “a Sopranos shocker for the ages,” EW says. Next, in (S6:Ep2) “Join the Club”, Tony suffers from a case of mistaken identity during a west coast business trip. In (S6:Ep3), “Mayham,” Silvio divides the spoils from Paulie’s latest score, and heads off a territorial impasse between Bobby and Vito. Carmela turns to an unexpected source for help with AJ; Christopher turns to an old writing acquaintance, JT Dolan, for help in a new venture.

What else to expect: A nervous Carmela, “concerned about where this will all end,” says Chase. “And once in a while, she asks herself about Adriana.'' (There's an early-on dream sequence where Carmela gives Adriana a tour of her spec house located not far from where Adriana was whacked.) AJ’s in a third-rate junior college. He wants to go into the club business, and to do that he’s going to clubs and drinking. Meadow has graduated, is taking a year off, and is interested in either law or medicine. She’s after a law-firm internship. As for her fiance Finn, he's back in California at dental school. The two are carrying on a long-distance relationship that probably won’t last. Junior Soprano’s retrial is still pending. The feds are trying to sort out the jury-tampering. But his mental state continues to deteriorate so he may not even be competent when his next trial convenes. Christopher, minus Adriana, is sober and dating but foul-tempered. He’s been promoted to captain but he's still pursuing a movie career, this time a mob-themed slasher film based on Saw. Janice and husband Bobby Baccalieri have a baby girl, Dominica, which changes everything. Janice pushes for Junior to go into a retirement community, but Tony disagrees. Bad for Janice. Johnny Sack is in prison on those RICO counts and preparing his defense. Somehow, he has to keep his own family and his crime family together financially and emotionally. Phil Leotardo has a big role this season as the acting boss to Johnny’s crime family. He’s ''not as amenable to working with Tony as Johnny was,'' says Chase. ''Those guys have a toxic relationship. But Phil is an old-school guy and tries to put business ahead of his personal feelings.'' There's a lot of chatter that Johnny is flipped by the feds. Phil, obviously still raging about the Blundetto situation, will snub Tony's peace offering (the one he discussed with Johnny at the end of Season 5) and put a massive financial squeeze on Tony. This will be to a similar, and most likely larger, extent than the Port Newark/Vespa Scooters situation. Tony will persist in trying to find a peaceful solution to these problems until Phil whacks one of his N.J. crew. That explains the on-location scene EW writes about: The Sopranos cast congregating outside the real-life Irvine Cozzarelli Memorial Home in Belleville, N.J.. (According to chatter, Christopher seems the most appropriate although it could be Paulie or Silvio. But on location at a funeral scene, Michael Imperioli told EW: "Somebody is dead. And it's not me!'')  Tony loses his resolve and probably his marbles, launching a full-scale war against NY. Characters like Benny Fazio, Eugene Pontecorvo, Vito Spatafore and Little Paulie will become more involved at this stage, carrying out Tony's orders... 

No, that won't be an April Fool's Day prank by The New York Times. I'm told that, on April 1st, the Grey Lady is planning to drop its Monday-through-Friday stock listings and to replace them with some kind of new web access. In the paper will be a very limited 1 1/2 pages, trimming those thousands of stock tables to just hundreds. Plans are being finalized what to do on the weekends. Newspaper industry sources tell me that this could represent a $10 million savings to the NYT in newsprint costs and editorial space: "The way for papers to save money short of getting rid of people is to get rid of stock pages." For years, the nation's 900+ newspapers have run the AP's stock tables, so the trend is going to hurt non-profit AP's revenues. In the past month alone, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Chicago Tribune, Newsday, and the Denver Post are just some of the papers that have eliminated their stock listings. But the NYT is the biggest newspaper yet to follow the trend: after the Grey Lady, comes le deluge. Could it be possible that the Wall Street Journal is next? Speaking of the WSJ, I'm told to expect another round of staff cuts through layoffs and attrition.

Here's the new annual Purim cover spoof by the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. It sends up this town's Jew/Oscars/Hollywood ties, especially Jewish discomfort with the moral equivalence in Steven Spielberg's Munich. "Spielberg to Jews Post-Munich: "I wish I could quit you." And "Spielberg to Direct "Balanced" Jaws Sequel: Amity Beach", showing Bruce the Shark about to lay a big wet kiss on Steven. (You know why the shark is called Bruce, of course: after Spielberg's Great White lawyer, Bruce Ramer.) And "Jewish Kids Riot After Blasphemous Cartoon Depiction" showing South Park tot Kyle Broflovsky, the Jewish kid. Also, disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff with Mickey Mouse ears: "The Hat Means Nothing!" More hilarious, even though they were trying to be serious, is the Jewish Journal inside review by Tom Tugend (is that a Jewish name?) of the Oscars from the Jewish perspective. Homey Rachel Weisz wins! Serves it right that Munich loses! Jon Stewart more Jewish than Billy Crystal! JJ cover enlarged

Note to Jon Klein, honcho at CNN: You might want to get a succession plan together sooner than later. Around Beverly Hills, they're noticing that 72-year-old resident Larry King seems increasingly frail physically. (I could go into detail, but I consider it unseemly.) Also, back around Thanksgiving, guest Jerry Seinfeld appeared less than amused at having to repeat stuff to King again and again because it wasn't registering with the talk show host. Plugging the sitcom's latest DVD release, Seinfeld had the nerve to actually tsk-tsk King on-air: "I talked about that. You're not listening to me, Larry." Losing King for whatever reason would be a huge blow to Klein (but a boon to serious journalism), especially since that show is often the highest rated CNN nightly offering. Suffice it to say that Klein better get into serious talking mode with guest hosts Nancy Grace, Bob Costas (King's official fill-in), or, heaven forbid, Ryan Seacrest.

Photo: Larry arriving at the Herbie: Fully Loaded premiere in Hollywood, June 19, 2005. Photo credit: William Kallay at www.fromscripttodvd.com

Two Bob Wright takes.......

It's a textbook case of chutzpah, though in Bob Wright's world, it's known as cheekiness. Doesn't matter, because it was still really, really bad behavior. Harken back to that stunning announcement in late January: two flailing networks (WB and UPN) will now become one flailing network (the poorly named CW). So who picks up the phone right away, and calls WB chief Garth Ancier, and acts as if there's no water under the bridge between them? And demands, "Take me through this. You know this deal."? Why, none other than Bob Wright, Mr. NBC and vice-chairman of parent GE. For those who are slow on the uptake, I'll explain. Wright hired Ancier as NBC Entertainment president in March 1999 only to fire him just 18 months later. As if that weren't brutal enough, Wright since then has openly badmouthed that brief Garth tenure as a choatic mess that required a lot of ship-steadying afterwards, and other nonsense. Despite all of the above, Ancier demonstrated admirable restraint and didn't bang down the receiver. The reason, no doubt, is because he decided early on in the CW formation phase to flee network television and "explore and expand my own experiences in this new age of digital opportunity" (my bet is, for Google). So there'll be plenty of time for him to hang up on Wright in the future.

While we're on the subject of Wright, it's clear that he's embarrassingly thin-skinned when it comes to media coverage of himself. So what if there're all those articles about how lousy NBC is doing this season, and how rotten Zucker is managing the network. Doesn't matter: it's only what you say about Bob that gets him apoplectic. My favorite example of this took place at the start of the Fall TV season last October when New York magazine columnist Kurt Andersen penned a trenchant piece about Jeff Zucker being an empty suit. It was the sort of article that causes a mogul to lay awake at night fearing that everyone he knows is snickering at him (as if they aren't doing that already). Though Anderson's piece focused on Zucker, some modest zingers were aimed at Wright. How "as soon as he interferes in programs, it's a disaster," he's "insecure," he's not media savvy, and he mistakenly went to Morton's steakhouse in NYC instead of Morton's watering hole in West Hollywood after being invited to the Vanity Fair Oscar party. That was the extent of it. But, soon enough, Bob Wright left Kurt a whiney voicemail. Weak stuff like, What did I do to deserve this. I'm disappointed because of our long relationship, and frankly offended. Andersen listened, then couldn't help thinking: dude, you're the head of fucking NBC. Live with it and ignore me. Worse was that Wright went and proved Andersen's exact point: He is insecure and he doesn't know how to deal with the media. Where's Cher when we need her to slap him and say "Snap out of it!"

Also on the subject of animation, DreamWorks Animation (SKG's IPO company) told Wall Street analysts today it won't see significant earnings in the first half of 2006. That's because its newly crowned Oscar-winner Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit under-performed. You see, DreamWorks can't score any revenue from the film until its distribution costs are paid. As usual, those feeble-minded financial analysts state the obvious: "the films they make cost too much relative to what they generate at the box office." Nor does DreamWorks expect any Oscar bump.

More bad news: the next release, Over the Hedge, due in theaters on May 19, has to earn at least $310 million worldwide to provide a profit, according to the analysts. Good luck with that, Jeffrey! (But I do have a pet theory: animated films that star furry animals do more boffo biz than unfurry animated films.)

Katzenberg told Reuters that the company views as "neutral" the impending wedded bliss of Pixar by Disney. (Prepare to laugh loudly when you read this next bit.) "We don't actually directly compete. We never release films on the same date and in the next couple of years it doesn't seem like that will be the case. There really is no change in the marketplace." This summer, Hedge has a 3-week headstart on Cars. 

Oh yeah: that SEC inquiry continues.

A few minutes ago, I saw the "world premiere" of the trailer for Disney/Pixar's Cars (June 9). Owen Wilson sounded over the top. Paul Newman was appropriately world weary, but then he elevates any material. Talking cars taking Route 66 may be the end-all-and-be-all for little and big boys, and NASCAR junkies. But the trailer seems too retro. I don't think this is gonna be Pixar-Disney's most praised or most profitable.

Here is Roger Ebert's reply to my response to his dissing my Oscar night scribble What Did I Tell You. At issue is my citing anecdotal evidence pouring in to me in January about hetero Academy members unwilling to screen Brokeback Mountain and why I predicted Crash would win Best Picture because of it. (See my full February 1st LA Weekly column How Gay Will Oscar Go.) Sorry to spoil your fun, but Roger and I are not having a cat fight. Instead, we're two journalists able to have a civil discourse during a disagreement. What if this spreads to Washington DC, the world... Result? Roger and I receive the Nobel Peace Prize. A girl can dream, can't she?

Dear Nikki Finke,

Thanks for your further discussion of this year's Oscars.

I think your key sentence is: "There was no Finke-Turan agenda. There was no Finke-Turan conspiracy." I am sure this is true. I was not in cahoots (I love that word) against BBM and you were not in cahoots against Crash. But your observation that some Academy members did not see the film has been translated (not your fault) into the received wisdom that significant numbers refused to, which does not explain how the film was nominated in the first place, and won three Oscars.

You should read my e-mail! I have never said one word against Brokeback Mountain, a film I admire intensely and put on my ten-best list. On the morning after, I received an astonishing deluge of angry e-mail blaming me for the outcome, as if I had such an influence. One message: "Fuck you and all you did to get Crash the best picture!" What did I do? Write a couple of articles that I doubt were studied carefully by a grateful Academy membership.

A lot of my mail was quite persuasive, reasoned and moving, however, and we are running many of those letters on the web site. They came from moviegoers who having suffered from homophobia all their lives found the loss of BBM to be one more cruelty. With them I can empathize.

We agree that Academy voters, in theory at least, should vote for the picture they think is best and not for whatever anybody thinks is the politically correct choice. We also agree that Academy voters cast their ballots for a large number of reasons, of which that may not always be the leading one.

Yes, you heard, at first or second-hand, of some voters who did not want to see the movie because of its homosexual subject matter. There may also have been those uninterested in Israeli reprisals, the writing of a true crime book, or seeing a movie in black and white. It is true you were one of the first to predict a Crash surprise. But as an industry expert, did it not also seem possible that Crash would pick up votes because it used a very large cast of actors, all of them with associates and friends, and was shot in the Valley with a Los Angeles crew instead of in Canada? And is it not possible that the votes gained that way were more numerous than what we might call the Tony Curtis effect? It's my impression that the movie industry is one of the least homophobic in this country, but one of the most xenophobic when it comes to runaway production.

None of these factors, of course, involve which film was actually the best film, and in your column you correctly did not get into that, other than to wonder if BBM's pacing might have worked against it. What bothered me was the theory, expressed by Ken Turan and perhaps indirectly by you, that a vote for Crash was somehow a vote against homosexuals.

Is it possible that enough voters, whether they were right or wrong, simply thought Crash was the better film?

Best,
Roger Ebert

I've learned that two high profile Westside Los Angeles litigators, Neville Johnson (of the firm Johnson and Rishwain) and Brian Panish (of Panish Shea & Boyle) are meeting with many victims of the Pellicano wiretapping scandal to jointly represent them. Remember last month's LA Times story speculating how costly these cases could be if deep pocketed cities like Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, or fancy-shmancy law firms, or super-rich Pellicano clients were found liable in some way for The Pelican's deeds? Well, Johnson was quoted by the paper warning that the damages could be vast. (Cuba Gooding Jr. should be shouting, "Show me the money!")

Quick bios are in order. Expectedly, both attorneys are well-awarded.

Johnson is a foremost go-to guy for invasion-of-privacy torts, especially against the media. He repped Carolyn Condit (wife of Cong. Gary Condit) in a libel lawsuit against the National Enquirer that was settled for a secret amount. He's sued ABC for its newsmagazine shows' tactic of using hidden cameras. Most recently, Johnson is leading indie label TSR Records' antitrust lawsuit against Sony BMG Music Entertainment; it's an outgrowth of the music giant's settlement of those pesky payola allegations. His firm takes on many such David vs Goliath cases even though it's much more common here to embrace Goliath and kiss off David.

Panish is best known as the lead plaintiffs' lawyer who brought General Motors to its knees in 1999 over secret documents and memos stemming from fuel-tank fires that erupted in collisions. He scored a $4.9 billion jury award, forcing the auto maker to eventually settle a string of accident related-personal injury lawsuits. More recently, Panish was the plaintiffs' lawyer when an Orange County jury ordered the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to pay $2.8 million to the parents of a commuter who died in a 2002 Metrolink accident. But that's peanuts compared to the largest ever San Francisco jury award of $27 million he secured for the family of a 4-year-old girl hit by a Muni truck. Panish also is repping victims and families against the City of Santa Monica for that accident when a car driven by an 88-year-old man plowed through a crowded farmers market, killing 10 and injuring 63.

Photos: Panish is left of the pelican. Johnson is right of the pelican.

 This week, Roger Ebert slammed my Oscar night scribble What Did I Tell You about why, eons ago, I predicted Crash would win Best Picture despite the hype for Brokeback Mountain. I cited the anecdotal evidence pouring in to me about hetero Academy members unwilling to screen Brokeback. (See my February 1st LA Weekly column How Gay Will Oscar Go.) Ebert not only panned LA Times film critic Kenny Turan's morning-after Oscar analysis similar to mine, but tried to make the case that Turan and I were somehow in cahoots against Crash for Brokeback.

Here is my response to Ebert: HUH?

I'm a business columnist who reports first and opines later, not a film critic. (I obsess about the process, not the product.) So I merely wrote up my reporting and gave my analysis of it. Ebert disdained my use of anecdotal evidence. "How many anecdotes add up to evidence?" he asks. "Did anyone actually tell her they didn't want to see the movie because it was about two gay men?" Why, yes, Roger, that's exactly what Academy members were telling me. And what their friends were telling their friends in concentric circles of Oscar chatter. L.A. journalists who cover The Industry mix it up regularly with Oscar voters, and even more so during movie awards time. That's how we get our stories about the feuding and the lobbying, the spite and envy. Surely, that's no surprise to you.

But, Roger, there's something else you've got wrong. There was no Finke-Turan agenda. There was no Finke-Turan conspiracy. Too ludicrous. Just the realization by us locals that Oscars are rarely denied based on the merits of a movie, but instead for more sinister reasons. And nothing brings out that dark side of The Industry more than two films competing fiercely for Best Picture (and all that post-Oscar moolah at the box office). It wasn't "as if Crash isn’t Oscar-worthy and Brokeback is," I wrote. "Both are good, if flawed, movies." That's hardly taking sides. Actually, I don't give a damn what and who wins.

You ask why I never mentioned the other three nominees. Easy answer: because I didn't have to. No long shots ever win an Academy Award. That's why they call it "handicapping the Oscars". Someone would have to be newly arrived from Topeka not to know that Capote wasn't significant enough, Good Night, and Good Luck wasn't accurate enough, and Munich wasn't politically incorrect enough. C'mon, Chicago isn't that provincial.

Finally, Roger, if you're still flummoxed, then you, like so many film critics, suffer from the delusion that the Best Picture Oscar actually goes to the best picture. If so, your belief is naive, and sweet, and hopelessly wrong.

Oscar's got a hangover, says my latest LA Weekly column, and only a self-help step program’s gonna fix that. My advice to improve ratings includes: No more uncomfortable opening monologue, show us your tits instead! Create a mosh pit. Get rid of all the non-talent awards and sell that show to the Discovery Channel. Something rude about Angelina Jolie.   

Did you score? The newly released paperback version of New York Times Hollywood correspondent Sharon Waxman's book Rebels on the Backlot was included in every Independent Spirit Awards goodie bag from Oscar weekend. That's 1,900 copies looking at six maverick (my better word: overrated) directors and how they conquered (my better word: fooled) the Hollywood studio system: Quentin Tarantino, Steven Soderbergh, David Fincher, Paul Thomas Anderson, David O. Russell, Spike Jonze.

Quick! Only four more days to see the first of a two-part exhibition of recent painting, drawing, scultpture and multi-media art from the Ovitz Family Collection. Unfortunately, you have to shlep to Portland, Oregon by March 11, specifically to the Douglas F. Cooley Memorial Art Gallery at Reed College. That museum's curator worked a deal with Ovitz curator Andrea Feldman Falcione. But first read my LA Weekly column: Blame Ovitz: When Art Started Imitating Hollywood. Ovitz Part 2 is photographs. No, not "me with Dustin, me with Sydney, me with Minnie".

When each agency urge-to-merge rumor surfaces, it's the baby agents/ambitious assistants who worry. And why not? After all, they realize that, if it becomes a reality, it'll take longer for them to rise in the new agency's food chain. And these windup-toy-types aren't a patient bunch. So the young'uns are fretting over the latest United Talent-Endeavor rumblings. I'm told Endeavor partner Richard Weitz is actually admitting to them, when they ask about it, that, "yes, conversations have taken place." On the other hand, conversations also took place in the past with Endeavor-William Morris, and United Talent-William Morris, and CAA-Broder Kurland, and ICM-Endeavor and ICM-Broder Kurland and UTA-CAA, and all these shops are still operating independently. But for how long? True, UTA's sell-by-date is expiring more quickly than previously anticipated because it's been so poached by CAA. But don't for a minute think UTA doesn't have a helluva business despite the losses, especially re movie comedies. 

Remember when I told you that the Los Angeles Times Business section is planning to report the rumors, look at possible combinations, and explain why they'd create in-house chaos because of all the warring ex-colleagues? Not exactly original stuff, but that article may be out this weekend. (FYI: Very soon, I'll have a deeply reported agents column/s I worked on for nine months.)

By the way, I'm hearing that UTA partner (and TV packaging cash cow) Gary Cosay may be retiring come summer. That could make any UTA merger easier. Or not.

Given the return to HBO this Sunday of Tony, Carmela, the kids, and everyone not already murdered, here's my own Sopranos moment: the time in 1994 when I was on assignment for Vanity Fair to write a profile of the son also rises: John A. "Junior" Gotti,  who’s now on trial for racketeering in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. I found myself with a cup of coffee, a kiss and a few clues from the new reputed head of the Gambino family. (This is an unpublished excerpt.)