Bart Is Back at Variety, but Some Rip In-House Probe

Peter Bart returned to his job as editor in chief of Variety on Monday amid continuing skepticism about the thoroughness of the investigation that led to both his reinstatement and his 21-day suspension without pay.

When Cahners Business Information, the owners of Variety, announced Bart’s reinstatement late last month, company officials said they had conducted a “very serious, in-depth investigation . . . interviewed dozens of people inside and outside the company and found no evidence that Peter abused his power or influence as editor.”

But many former Variety reporters and editors say they think the investigation was cursory at best, designed “merely to satisfy their own public relations needs,” in the words of Ray Richmond, a television reporter and critic at the influential entertainment paper in the late 1990s.

Richmond was one of 22 former Variety reporters and editors interviewed by The Times who said they had not been contacted by Cahners in the course of its investigation. All 22 said they had spoken with other former Variety staffers and--with one exception--none had been questioned by Cahners either.

A dozen former Variety staffers told The Times that they could have given Cahners examples of what they considered abuses of power and influence by Bart to reward his friends and punish his enemies. These included instances in which he changed facts, killed or watered down stories or inserted quotes in reporters’ stories after they’d written them, according to the staffers.

New-York based Cahners launched its investigation of Bart--and suspended him--on Aug. 17, the day after Los Angeles magazine published a 14-page profile that said he frequently used racist, sexist and anti-gay language and engaged in various forms of unethical journalistic behavior. This included allegedly allowing friends in the industry to vet and change stories before publication and selling the novelization of a script to a movie studio.

Bart, who previously denied any unethical journalistic behavior, has declined all comment except a formal, one-paragraph statement since his suspension. Part of the agreement for Bart’s reinstatement was that he not comment further, and on Monday, he declined to discuss how he felt returning to work. Under a gag order from Cahners, other Variety employees also have declined to talk publicly about any aspect of the case.

Fear of Retribution Keeps Veil on Critics

Most former Variety staffers interviewed for this article were unwilling to be quoted by name on Bart’s alleged transgressions, saying that his reinstatement only confirmed his power in Hollywood and left them fearful of possible reprisals.

But Andrew Hindes, who worked at Variety from 1995 to 1999, said, “There’s no question you could sit in the newsroom and see him making a lot of bad editorial judgments clouded by his own personal agenda.”

Still, Hindes added, “I’m not sure that’s a firing offense. A publisher . . . makes a judgment about whether an editor is making a paper better or worse, and there is an argument that Peter makes the paper better, despite all that.”

In an official statement last month, Tad Smith, president of the media division of Cahners, did not address allegations that Bart sometimes changed his reporters’ stories to benefit his friends. Smith later said these charges were investigated and “no evidence was found to support them.

“More than 25% of the people we interviewed were from outside Cahners, either former Cahners employees or people having nothing to do with Cahners,” Smith said, “and they definitely included individuals who were not fans of Peter’s.”

Cahners declined to say how many people were questioned and would not identify any of them, citing a pledge of confidentiality to all who were interviewed.

On Aug. 30, Cahners announced that Bart would resume his duties Monday, after completing his suspension, and would be required to participate in diversity training. In his formal statement, Bart said he was “deeply sorry” for any offensive language he used. He said that language “did not reflect my personal beliefs and values nor the way I run the newsroom.”

Smith said an internal investigation “did not substantiate allegations” that Bart sold a movie script while at Variety, which would have violated the paper’s conflict-of-interest policy. But Smith said, “The company did find that Mr. Bart’s actions created the appearance of a conflict of interest, and it directed Variety to strengthen and publish its editorial policies shortly after Mr. Bart returns to work.”

Bart told Los Angeles magazine that he sold a novel, not a script, to a producer at Paramount Pictures, and that was permissible under Variety’s policies. After the story was published, Paramount said that Robert Evans, a longtime Bart friend then based at Paramount as an independent producer, had purchased a book from Bart out of his discretionary fund and had then hired a writer to develop a script based on that book, but that nothing had gone beyond that.

In response to questioning, Paramount acknowledged that Cahners investigators contacted the studio but did not disclose what information was provided.

Bart is, however, an “active current member” of the Writers Guild of America, and to retain such status, he would have been required to write a script within the past four years. Los Angeles magazine writer Amy Wallace said Bart told her his membership derived from the extension of an option that he entered into long before he joined Variety. But Writers Guild rules specify that no credit toward membership is given for “an extension or renewal” of a previous option.

Cahners executives decline to say whether they contacted the WGA. Cheryl Rhoden, assistant executive director of the WGA, said any information on Bart’s activities would not have been disclosed without his permission, but “to the best of my knowledge,” Cahners made no inquiries of the WGA during its investigation.

The prevailing opinion among many former Variety employees is that most of those who were questioned by Cahners are Variety staffers who “work very closely with Peter, think the world of him and are beholden to him,” in the words of Sherry Linden, who worked at Variety from 1993 until last spring and is now at Variety’s major competitor, the Hollywood Reporter.

Job-Security Fears Allegedly Cited

Other former Variety staffers said current staffers were afraid to tell Cahners anything critical of Bart.

“They said, ‘What if he comes back? I don’t want to lose my job,’ ” said Tom Gilbert, who worked at Variety in several senior editing positions from 1984 to 1998, and who--like Linden--was not questioned by Cahners.

Many past Variety staffers--including several who were named in the Los Angeles magazine story-- said they were surprised not to have been contacted in the course of the investigation.

“I was Peter’s No. 2 for four years,” said Jonathan Taylor, who left Variety last spring after nine years, most of them as managing editor or editor of both weekly Variety and Daily Variety. Taylor said he and Bart “got along well,” and as a high-ranking editor, he said, Bart often called him in the evening to change stories that had been written and edited earlier in the day.

“He did it hundreds of times, thousands of times, and 98% of the time, it was just what I’d call activist editing,” Taylor said. “He’s a smart, hands-on editor with very good, high-level sources, and many Variety reporters are young and inexperienced,” especially in recent years, amid high turnover at the paper. “He often vetted these stories and put them in the right historical context.

“But,” Taylor said, “there’s no question that there were other times when Peter’s changes seemed less for the sake of factual purity and more for the sake of doing favors for his friends, which I suspect is not all that uncommon for high-powered editors.”