Blog Ethics

Sophia Loren’s son is stalking me. Or wait—am I stalking him? All I know is that I had breakfast yesterday morning at a café miles from Nate n’Al’s and as I sat there reading my manuscript who should sit down at the table directly next to mine (again) but Loren’s younger son, director Edoardo Ponti. I've been feeling a little weird ever since i wrote that Nate n’Al’s post because of the way I included direct quotations from private conversations, especially the one between the studio execs who were kvetching about their wives and children. What are the ethics for something like that? I took care not to identify them in any kind of traceable way, but it still felt creepy. And, of course, I didn’t hesitate to mention Edoardo and the conversation I overheard between him and the high-powered agent he was with. Not that I said anything negative—I mostly just described his passionate speaking style (which was very much in evidence yesterday during his meeting with a screenwriter I won’t name) and his intensity as he talked about his upcoming film projects.

I just found something called the Blogger’s Code of Ethics and was struck by the one that said, “Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.” What do you think—is it acceptable to discuss people who are already in the public eye but less cool to repeat the conversations of non-celebrities? I can’t think of a lower form of life than paparazzi or sleazy tabloid journalists but is that what I’ve become?

What about correspondence? Is it okay to post private letters as long as I am the recipient? I can’t see anyone objecting to public displays of my letters from people like Roald Dahl, Julie Newmar, or the casts of “The Waltons” or “Maude.” But what if I were to post a private note from my late mother that revealed some sensitive material about her life or a letter from Kendall written during a tough time in our marriage? If it’s sent to me, does that give me carte blanche to do whatever I want?

When I write about family and friends, I find that my natural censors rise up and help me make judgments about what I think is okay to disclose and what would be better left off the blog. Occasionally I push the envelope but there are many things I would never write about family members without getting their permission first. Kendall has made it very clear that I’m free to write about any aspect of our personal relationship but the one thing she insists on is that I never quote her when she’s said something negative about any well known people, on the off chance that they’ll see it and get hurt. I used to tell Kendall that the likelihood of any of these people ever seeing my blog is near zero, but, with such powerful search engines these days, who knows?

Last week I wrote about not meeting Martha Plimpton at my brother-in-law’s show and then rattled on about how much I admire her as an actress. The Internet really did its thing that day. Within an hour of posting, Martha Plimpton had not only read what I wrote about her but she and Fred Armisen were on their way to say hi to us at Farmers Market. My stomach was in knots as we waited for them to arrive. What did she think about my fawning comments? How embarrassing. Would she arrive with a restraining order in hand? Not to worry, thank goodness, she was as down to earth as I thought she’d be and proved that my admiration was well placed.

One celebrity friend of ours specifically asked that I not write about her on my blog and I won’t. Some friends of mine now pause in the middle of conversations and say “please don’t mention this on your blog.” Such comments make me cringe—do they think I engage them in discussion looking for raw material? Well, maybe that’s not so far off. I don’t want to count the times I’ve been in the middle of some experience and suddenly said to myself or out loud: “Blog entry!”

At least the vast majority of my ruminations about celebrity are positive, I’m certainly no Addison DeWitt. The anonymity of sitting alone in a room as I post blog entries also helps me write about things that I’d be too embarrassed to mention in casual conversation. And let’s face it, if I decided to adopt some new ethical stance where I no longer make references to celebrities I might as well pack it up here and now. Despite all my claims, there must be a part of me that hopes that some of the people I write about DO see my blog. When I wrote about the original cast of the 1970s TV show “Zoom,” one goal was to see if I could find out whatever happened to the girl who was the object of my biggest pre-adolescent crush: beautiful Nina, The closest I got was a comment from someone whose friend used to work with the adult Nina.

In the post-Frey world, I’ve also been thinking about blogs as they relate to “truth.” My goal in writing creative nonfiction has always been to honor the spirit of the truth—that is much more important to me than being a slave to some alleged “reality.” If it works better for the piece to compress a date here or there or leave out a person or two, who cares? The only time I came anywhere near to pulling an all-out James Frey was in a post I wrote about going to my grandfather’s synagogue as a kid. While it accurately represents my feelings, I let my imagination wander in that piece and it’s the only time that I actually created composite characters (such as the fictional Gloria Shutterzeiss) who I mixed in with real-life people (such as the fabulous Yiddish theatre star Dina Halperin who was the niece of fabled actress Ida Kaminska).

Then there’s the frequent situation where people question my version of events. I recently got a bit of a dressing-down from someone I went to high school with regarding my perceptions of race relations at my old school. As I said to him, everything on here is filtered through my own private warehouse of memories, neuroses, hopes, and fears, I’m not surprised in the least that other people who were present would remember things very differently.

But back to Mr. Ponti. Even though it’s not meant in a malicious way, I do think I should refrain from repeating private conversations that I’m not a part of, don’t you? Oh, but before I set that in stone, can I just tell you one really good line? He was talking to the screenwriter about his script and said, “After reading this, I think you now know the color of your movie.” Nice, Edoardo. I would love to have someone talking to me that excitedly about my work. I have nothing but admiration for Ponti’s enthusiasm even though it may sound like I'm poking fun at it. He must have inherited this passion from his mama. As Edoardo said recently when he was directing Sophia Loren, “When we were on the set, it was the most natural thing in the world. It was as if we'd been doing it all our lives. She has great timing and a huge sense of emotional truth. She's never the same when she expresses emotion. She has the generosity and the enthusiasm to try different things.”

Hey, Edoardo, where should we meet for breakfast tomorrow?

Comments

[Pearl]

Danny, what a Technicolor (tm) life you have led...and continue to lead.

You really must write your memoirs one of these days...or a great piece of fiction -- short stories -- with some of these "real" stories threading their way through the fictitious ones.

[The Retropolitan]

Danny, even when I become a huge celebrity, you can still write about me, on the condition that you make me sound as dashing and Errol Flynn-like as possible.

Sample: If I were to say something like, "Oh, good afternoon, Danny. This is good coffee," you should write something akin to:

"The Retropolitan flew over the diner's countertop with the grace of an Olympian, landing squarely on the checkered floor in front of the beautiful waitress. He took her in his strong, muscular arms, dipped her slowly backwards until their lips met, and then he reached behind her for the coffee pot -- drinking the scalding liquid as if it were water! The tall, chiseled gentleman turned to me, and said with a wink: 'Oh, good afternoon, Danny. This is good coffee.'"

On a more serious note, there are a lot of stories that I won't be publishing at Tales to Astonish anytime soon -- the story I emailed you was the most entertaining, but there are a lot of more personal things that I try to keep out. In fact, a lot of my friends won't even read my blog, since they're afraid of 'learning too much'; some other friends have gotten into some trouble by being TOO candid with their blogs. (My insistance that TtA is not a "personal" blog like that doesn't sway them.)

I've even gone as far as deleting posts that were either too personal or too snarkily celeb-related -- I'm just terribly afraid of someone finding my posts. The personal posts were removed to protect my anonymity and the feelings of those who might find them, but the celebrity posts are more or less about the idea that they're not real people. Celebrities are so far removed from our lives and objectified by cameras and media to the point where (unless you know them) they seem like caricatures. Commenting on Paris Hilton is as easy as commenting on Sherlock Holmes -- both of them are fictional to the public.

It really takes a lot of conviction to stop thinking of them that way.

[david]

Remember Stan Mack's Real-Life Funnies? All Dialogue Guaranteed 100% Overheard? It was all the more brilliant for being intrusive -- but the intrusions were on the anonymous, not the famous.

I have no reason or justification for saying this, but instinctively it feels as though, if you can reflect positively on the famous, without being creepy, then you're not crossing the ethical line.

Positive but creepy would be, say, "Heather Locklear was seated across from me, talking to her divorce lawyer. She and this lawyer clearly have plotted out a brilliant legal strategy. Her soon-to-be ex is in big trouble, and I'm very happy about that, because she is still *hot hot hot*. "

[Lisa]

Danny, you've worked with our rights department how long and don't know the proper answer to your question about correspondence???

[Danny]

Lisa, if I followed Heinemann's strict policies about permissions and copyright I'd be forced to turn myself over to the authorities immediately.

[Randi(cruisin-mom)]

Hey Danny, when you two figure out where you're having breakfast, let me know, I'd like to eavesdrop (and then blog about it, of course)

[Rosie]

Sometimes I wonder if I cross the line with dialogue and stuff in my livejournal...although generally those entries are locked (making them more like e-mails to a couple dozen friends). I actually removed some things in past entries because they crossed lines (as well as one or two things in my music blog.) It seems to me, Danny, that as a writer, you have a very strong focus on dialogue, and that's why you tend to pick it up so well. Plus, there's something fascinating about a bit of good dialogue that always needs repeating. (I decided to be a screenwriter rather than a novelist because I have the same focus on dialogue.)

Btw...my new goal in life is to become famous enough that you'd include a conversation with me on your blog. Seriously.

(ps: letter from Roald Dahl? Soooo cool! I read and commented on that entry...wow...)

[Rurality]

"...if I decided to adopt some new ethical stance where I no longer make references to celebrities I might as well pack it up here and now."

No, Danny, you could write about the various thicknesses of telephone books and make it interesting. :)

The ethics question is tricky. Obviously you aren't just repeating conversations for no reason. (I find them fascinating, even though I have no idea who the people are half the time.) But would the person have spoken so freely if they'd known a blogger was eavesdropping? Maybe they're used to it and don't care - or do they just assume that they are always under scrutiny? Don't know.

If you have convinced Martha to make some more movies, it will all have been worth it!

[Dr. Judy]

Let us know when you hear from that Nina gal.

[Neil]

Interesting, as usual. And I think this subject matter is only going to become more and more important as blogging becomes more mainstream. How is the LA Times going to compete with bloggers who can pretty much write any crap they want without having to check facts? There is going to be a lot of pressure for reporters to be as "entertaining" and gossipy as bloggers -- if that hasn't happened already. Fiction has been getting mixed up with non-fiction since Tom Wolfe in the 1960's. The internet has quickened the pace.

You're not a journalist, so I'm not sure why you shouldn't feel free to write about what you want. But then again, what's stopping you from meeting me and writing online that I'm a total jerk. Nothing really. I'm not even sure I could sue you.

I guess the only limits are how far each person is willing to go. I've gotten into some trouble with Sophia by writing about her, but -- it's been worth it. But there are some personal things I probably wouldn't blog about --