Finding the dirt on 'Joe Millionaire'

Fox claimed to have a secret, a real twist for the ending of its hit reality show "Joe Millionaire." Of course, fans of the show had already guessed in the multitude of forums online that the actually poor Joe, Evan Marriott, would end up getting a cool million in the end from Fox (along with his chosen girlfriend). It seems like every show with any type of surprise ending has spoilers lurking online, ready to ruin the fun for viewers.

But the real spoiler for "Joe" was The Smoking Gun, a Web site now owned by Court TV that has been racking up publicity coup after publicity coup with its by-the-books searches that turn up court transcipts and police blotters on the infamous. The site, run by former Village Voice reporter William Bastone, found out that Evan had done some underwear modeling in the past, and wasn't just a construction worker. Then it found out that contestant Sarah Kozer had a past as a star in bondage videos (she ended up as runner-up on the show).

While these salacious details were probably welcomed by Fox, boosting the show's ratings, The Smoking Gun has actually affected outcomes of reality shows. The site found out that Fox's "Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire" star Rick Rockwell had a restraining order against him for alleged abuse of a girlfriend -- and canned the show. And an "American Idol" contestant, Frenchie Davis, was thrown off the show by Fox after The Smoking Gun found her in porn photos. The site's recent string led to a glowing profile in USA Today (where Bastone called reality TV "the gift that keeps on giving"), and in the New York Daily News ("this Smoking Gun fires no blanks").

Media dean Howard Kurtz praised the site to USA Today for its shoe-leather work, saying "They've become an important database for the American press." And how. For entertainment reporters everywhere, who are on tight deadlines and strapped for resources, The Smoking Gun is a boon, a way to learn about checkered pasts, the inglorious present -- and a site to keep bookmarked for the future.

Ask and ye shall receive

If you read a certain paper a lot, you start to feel like you know who the critics are just by what they like and dislike. Of course the Internet has already torn down this wall with personal sites, Weblogs and forums that take reader/writer interaction to the maximum. While some media sites have tried blogs for columnists or reporters, the Los Angeles Times decided to start online Q&A with its critics. Ostensibly it's to help readers understand some of the finer points in a particular movie or music CD, but it's really an open window to the personality of critics that's just screaming to get out.

That's especially the case with movie critic Manohla Dargis, formerly of the L.A. Weekly and Village Voice. The sharp-tongued reviewer often lets loose on her questioners, rebutting their points one by one in gory detail -- or just tossing them off ("I hope not" was her recent response to someone asking if she'd have her own TV show). Last December, Dargis actually even took back her "weak review" of "Two Towers," calling the script a "clotted, confusing mess."

Finally, there's a place for reviewers to create revisionist history --
while being egged on by readers. Can we expect this one day: "OK, I really didn't like that movie but my editor was kinda pushing me for something positive." Probably not from Dargis.

The Burning Question

This will be a semi-regular feature of the Entertainment Edition of Glaser Online, where we ask some entertainment reporters their thoughts on one big question of the day.

Q: Is it kosher for print or broadcast movie critics to change their minds about movie reviews in online forums, as Manohla Dargis did?

A: "Sure -- it just makes for another good story, probably a better one than the first, *but* a reviewer who does that more than once a year could get a reputation as a flake, so use sparingly." -- Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle movie critic

A: "I am far more concerned about critics being unwilling to go back and offer a new opinion that contradicts their first opinion. Far too often, opinions are set in the lobby of a theater or screening room and from that moment on, the critic seeks to defend and sharpen an opinion rather than to really examine the film." -- David Poland, TheHotButton.com

A: "Reviewers should be able to change their minds. Dazzling effects and immense set pieces can indeed blind one to a movie's obvious weaknesses, even when the watcher is a seasoned reviewer. Newspapers print retractions every day. Why should reviewers not have the freedom to stand up and say, 'I was wrong' as well?" -- Antony Teofilo, Moviepoopshoot.com