doorstep          introduction          infiltrate & support Troma          infiltrating reviews           essays          tromatonic apparel          

dutch Troma          tromatonic at MySpace          important links

tromaton@tromatonic.com

THE SAD STATE OF JOURNALISM

In order to get their way, the Devil Worshipping Conglomerates (to quote Troma's president and filmmaking genius Lloyd Kaufman) go to great lengths. They have their obedient servant everywhere, often even without these knowing they are serving as a lackey to THE HORNED ONE. You think the reviews you read in the movie magazines and newspapers are honest opinions of those who write them? Do you believe that these people can write what they actually think, about any film they actually like? None of the above. As many zines and most newspapers are directly or indirectly owned by the same conglomerates that also own the movie theatres and the networks, there is probably the strongest censorship anywhere in the so-called free world on anything written about films. If you are a journalist and you want to keep feeding your family, it is very wise to write exactly what you are supposed to, and about what you are supposed to.

Maybe you have experienced it yourself: There's a great guy you know, who used to have a great taste in movies. Among a lot of other things, they were very interested in Troma. They loved the Toxic Avenger, Troma in general, Lloyd Kaufman and a great deal of other independent non-mainstream titles and made sure everybody knew about it. They wrote in some non-commercial magazines and websites in a very personal manner. Very recognisable, very honest and very enthousiastic. Brilliant pieces. A wonderful change in the snakepit of prefab reviews and articles. Because of their enthousiasm for great movies they chose a professional education to become a professional film journalist.

Over the years, the more they became closer to being a True Journalist, they changed. First they started writing positively about films they wouldn't have liked from their own nature. Occasionally they were heard on a radio station, and after they got their official diploma they started rubbing elbows seriously with the incrowd more and more, and then suddenly you see them on national television, hear them on national radio, and anyone who is someone in the film journalism knows them. Great, and of course you are very happy they seem to have made it. But you don't recognise them anymore in their work. Now they are one of those journo's who write about the same films and talk about them in the same soundbites. No more enthousiastic, original and personal viewpoints. Troma and such are, if even mentioned, only referred to in the same downputting remarks as we know from all the other journo's. In the beginning they may secretly whisper about still loving some of those forbidden films, but this seems to have disappeared completely. Now you let there be no misunderstanding about the fact that you are very happy for your friend to have succeeded in the carreer they had always wanted and you wouldn't think of blaming him or any one person for the situation we have to live with. But it still makes you sad.

I mention this little story here because many people I know have indeed experienced this. And I am worried. If true fans of great films are so easlily lured into the web of the giant hellish spiders, there can't be any hope for independent cinema anymore.

What's more is that when in a conversation I mention this to other people, even those familiar with  journalistic incrowd and sometimes familiar with situations as I just described, almost without exception they actually admit what I say is true. This even surprises me more than the fact that I (with my usual paranoid mind, in the opinion of many) discover such a conspiracy. And, what is probably even more shocking, most believe the whole thing a very normal procedure!! It is widely believed that the assignment of a journalist is to write about those films people want to read about, and not to make it too difficult - after all, so I hear often, no one wants to read a very personal piece about the entertainment they seek.

My opinion is that it is the DUTY of a journalist to inform the public about anything that is going on in the world. If people, after reading about and having seen the latest Lloyd Kaufman film, decide they don't like it, that is OK, not everyone can be intelligent enough to "get" such a work of art. But the people have a right to make up their own minds. They have a right to LEARN about the existence of other films than those that are carefully chewed before them, even before they go into the theatre and, like a herd of cattle, watch the next flick every magazine, every tv show and every internetsite writes or talks about in the same soundbytes. A journalist is there to INFORM people, not to write what they believe already. Journalists who act upon the wish of the masses never to read anything unexpected about anything they don't know about are a dangerous species, responsible for a great part for the terrible catatonic state the entire world seems to be drawn in more and more.

Even very  respected newspapers like the Washington Post don't hesitate to let their Professional Journalists write rediculously bad about a movie, aparently without even demanding this person to actually WATCH the movie before writing his negative article. Proof of that is to be found here.