Less than five years ago, the Golden Globes were hanging by a thread.
In the wake of a Times investigation that exposed the group’s self-dealing and ethical lapses and a complete lack of Black representation among its membership, NBC pulled the ceremony off the air as Netflix and Amazon Studios and more than 100 publicity agencies cut ties with the embattled Hollywood Foreign Press Assn.
It got so bad that Tom Cruise sent back his three Golden Globes to the HFPA in protest, an act not quite on the level of Sean Penn’s 2022 threat to smelt his Oscars, though it grabbed headlines all the same.
But the Golden Globes have returned from the brink. The awards show, now run by Penske Media Eldridge, owned by Jay Penske and Todd Boehly, announced its latest slate of film and television nominations Monday. And the coverage, led by trade publications owned by Penske, has contained little to no mention of the show’s troubled past — or the controversies that continue to swirl around the ceremony, which will again air in January on CBS as part of a five-year broadcast deal signed in 2024.
So, yes, for all intents and purposes, the Golden Globes are back. But regarding ethical practices, today’s for-profit Globes may well be worse than ever, crossing the line in ways that are more egregious than the shady maneuverings that put the awards on life support not so long ago.
As part of the show’s rehabilitation, the Globes have expanded their voting pool to 300 people, including Black voters. Fifty of the original HFPA members were grandfathered into the group and offered an annual salary of $75,000. The Globes terminated that policy earlier this year, calling the move “an acknowledgment that continuing to pay members could add to a perception of bias in voting.”
It’s hard not to be skeptical of such principled reasoning in light of more recent events. In May, the Globes announced a new category for podcasts. A shortlist of 25 followed in October, selected by audio analytics company Luminate, which, surprise, is also owned by Penske Media.
The eligible titles ranged from Dax Shepard’s “Armchair Expert” and Amy Poehler’s “Good Hang” to political programs like “Pod Save America.” Conservative commentators Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, Megyn Kelly, Ben Shapiro, Theo Von and Candace Owens all made the shortlist. (Surprisingly, “New Heights,” the popular podcast hosted by Jason Kelce and his brother Travis, the all-pro Kansas City Chiefs tight end engaged to singer Taylor Swift, was omitted. If the goal in creating the new award was to find a way to coax Swift into attending the ceremony, somebody forgot to save her a seat.)
But the real motivation behind the podcast category became apparent soon afterward: money. Per the Ankler, Penske-owned trade publication Variety had its sales team pitch nominated podcasts an array of paid marketing partnerships, including a $25,000 buy to become a Podcasting FYC Fest supporting partner and a $75,000 deal for the podcaster to be given the Variety Creative Impact Award in Podcasting.
With those prices, no wonder Luminate seems to have made popularity — and thus financial resources — a core criterion for eligibility. Plus, there was the hope that some of the 25 shortlisted shows would buy FYC ads in Variety and Penske’s other trade publications, the Hollywood Reporter and Deadline, all of which rely on FYC dollars to keep the lights on.
How many bit? Shapiro is one prominent name, buying ads on Deadline and partnering with awards prediction website Gold Derby (yes, another Penske property) in a paid video interview with his podcast team. (The stumping failed to pay off in the end: The final six nominees in the category were “Armchair Expert,” “Call Her Daddy,” “Good Hang with Amy Poehler,” “The Mel Robbins Podcast,” “SmartLess” and “Up First.”)
“It’s just a money grab,” says a veteran awards consultant, who asked not be identified in order to protect industry relationships. “Everybody used to knock the Globes, but they were just goofy. … This is next level.”
You want next level? How about Penske offering three pairs of Golden Globes tickets for $70,000 each via a “concierge gift guide” in its luxury lifestyle magazine Robb Report? After the New York Post reported these shenanigans, the offer disappeared on the publication’s website.
Privately, there has been pushback. Publicly, not so much. We live in a culture at large where we’ve come to accept flagrant corruption as the norm, and Penske’s Globes are just another example, skating through our collective numbness.
The Golden Globes have long been excused for their scandals and idiosyncratic membership and, of course, mocked for their irrelevance. Ricky Gervais dismissed themas “worthless,” calling the award “a bit of metal that some nice old confused journalists wanted to give you in person so they could meet you and have a selfie with you.”
The membership has turned over, but the trophy’s value is still inconsequential.
Yet the ceremony keeps on chugging along, remaining, in the view of filmmakers behind the sort of grown-up movie fare that’s becoming an increasingly endangered species, an essential marketing platform. The January ceremony brought in 9.3 million viewers — not Sunday Night Football numbers, but not shabby in this fragmented media landscape.
For one night, the thinking goes, movies like “Marty Supreme,” “Hamnet” and “Sentimental Value” (among this year’s most-rewarded contenders) are celebrated and, perhaps, discovered. Studios still platform their films’ expansion into more theaters on the weekend after the Globes ceremony. If you award it, the thinking goes, people will come.
We all want these movies to continue to be made. No doubt a fair number of moviegoers bought a ticket to see the Brazilian political drama “I’m Still Here” after its lead Fernanda Torres won a Globe earlier this year.
But adding categories for podcast and, two years ago, “cinematic and box office achievement” only squeezes the amount of time that the show can spotlight the nominated films and their actors.
There’s a saying, first coined by Maya Angelou, that’s been repopularized in recent years: “If someone shows you who they are, believe them.” The same could be said of awards shows.
The Golden Globes may be here to stay. But let’s stop pretending they’re any better than they were before the last scandal.
The post The Golden Globes’ ethics are worse than ever, and no one seems to care appeared first on Los Angeles Times.
