Big Boobs

Know-it-all media the world over got punked by the latest New Times parody, and now (sigh . . .) it’s time to cop to the details.

Hmmm, this Phoenix firebird speaks with forked tongue — at least when it comes to the New Times story on white-trash diva Anna Nicole Smith's Native American love child, "Tohono O'odham with Love" (March 8, 2007). Lest you've been on a spelunking expedition for the past two weeks, you'll know that this parody of the media spectacle surrounding the tabloid queen's demise has been spewed far and wide, suckering in the very media entities that the Onion-esque tale was satirizing: Star, People, US Weekly, Globe, Court TV, Access Hollywood, Inside Edition. Even CBS News. They all found the loony lampoon too tempting to ignore, despite "tells" littered throughout the freaky farce.

As most now know, this starry-eyed starling's doppelganger made up the crux of the story, though certain details of Anna Nicole's bizarre bio included in the parody were true. There's no Indian Casanova named Johnny Soto, no half-O'odham heir named Marshall Soto. The brother-in-law of a New Times staff member played Johnny in the pix. Little Marshall is the son of pals of a staffer. A half-assed birth certificate was cranked out, revealing that the tyke was born in secret at Burbank, California's Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center. Pics of players in the actual Anna Nicole saga, such as Howard K. Stern, Larry Birkhead, and Zsa Zsa Gabor's hubby Prince Frederic von Anhalt, added to the narrative's believability, as did details like genuine O'odham words and customs.

Anna Nicole's train-wreck existence, her contentious post-mortem, the extent of her drug abuse, and her gargantuan sexual appetite kept the fabrication within the realm of the possible. But the "tells" were big enough to pilot space shuttles through. First off, there were no photos of Anna Nicole, Johnny and Marshall together, though don't think we didn't consider crafting some via Photoshop. The birth certificate was only partially reproduced, and it didn't have the requisite border and seals. Then there's the ridiculousness that a tabloid star of Anna Nicole's popularity could have hidden her pregnancy and given birth in total secrecy so close to La-La Land.

Lastly, there's the byline "Charles Tatum." This was Tatum's first story ever for the Phoenix paper, supposedly. Some break for the new journo on staff, eh? However, a few movie buffs recognized the name as the same as that of Kirk Douglas' character in the 1951 Billy Wilder flick, Ace in the Hole. In it, Tatum's a cynical, corrupt big-city reporter who falls from grace and ends up chasing stories for a rag in New Mexico, hoping for a big break that will propel him back to the top. As Tatum tells his Albuquerque editor, "I can handle big news and little news. And if there's no news, I'll go out and bite a dog." So he ends up manufacturing a media circus out of some poor schlub stuck in a mine shaft.

After the Anna Nicole cover story ran, all calls to Charles Tatum were routed to this devious dodo's alter ego, who affected a deep Southern twang, calling himself "Charlie," for short. Since folks were asking to get in touch with Johnny Soto, we set up a New Times extension to act as Soto's voice mail. People magazine was the first to phone Tatum and then call Soto. The Boca Raton-based supermarket tabloid Globe was hugely interested in the story and asked to get in touch with the photographers to buy pics. On Globe'sbehalf, correspondent/photographer Eric Munn rushed to Sells, where he spent a day and night desperately phoning both Soto and Tatum. "We're in Sells right now, Johnny," Munn said in his first recorded message to Soto. "Just down by the convenience store, actually."

This rascally roadrunner hopes Munn enjoyed his stay in the capital of the Tohono O'odham Nation. Sure, this tweeter feels a little guilty about sending the sap on a snipe hunt, but then, how was it to know that supermarket tabloids even had reporters!? This seed-swallower figured they made all that crazy shit up! Ah, despair not, Eric, according to this peacock's source on the rez, at least half a dozen of your colleagues in the fourth estate also made the trek to Sells. Indeed, on the Thursday the spoof first saw the light of day, our rez contact says they fielded more than 100 calls from eager members of the press!

Even more persistent than the Globe was the gossip site Splashnews.com, which offered our freelance photographer Giulio Sciorioa syndication deal worth up to $500,000 for pics of the boy. Ultimately, Splash, with offices in London and L.A., was told that New Times owned the rights, but that it could have the photos free of charge. They must've figured Tatum and his Zona colleagues as real shit-kickers to relinquish such digital gold for nada.

Splashnews.com, whose representatives all seemed to have British or Australian accents, offered Sciorio $400 to drive them to the general vicinity of where Soto's shack-like house purportedly sat, just outside of Sells. Also, Splash news editor Paul Tetley told Tatum, "We could put money right into your bank account, Charlie," if Tatum would help Splash locate Soto. Um, not that we weren't tempted, Sir Paul, but we weren't feeling like giving a tour of the Sonoran desert that day.

1
 
2
 
All
 
Next Page »
 
My Voice Nation Help
14 comments
Ex-New Yorker
Ex-New Yorker

I'd guess that anybody mewling about the great wonder of the world that was the Village Voice hasn't read the thing in 20 years. It's been on its deathbed for quite some time, with a bunch of old hacks who don't get out of their chairs filling the pages. The real shame is that it laid fallow for so long.

Bill
Bill

I have to admit, I just don't get it. Your story suggests you get great pleasure at 'punking' the media, but I've been a faithful reader and have often sang your praises for hard-core reporting when other Phx media won't pursue. I can't do that anymore if I don't trust you. Some of your investigative reporters work hard and do good jobs. I don't understand why they work for you if their reputations can be destroyed by your willingness to make up stories as publish right alongside good journalism.

Other people seem amused by the mixed genre and your mean-spirited comments about other news organizations. I must be getting old before my time, but I just don't understand why you would do this to your readers, your writers, or your reputation.

Redmanoman
Redmanoman

Stephen T. Jones, if that's even his real name, and the poster under him are obviously idiots. Jones can't be much a journalist if he thinks the Village Voice was anything but a piece of shit since the late '70s. It's been a joke in New York that New Times is already improving. As for the other moron, New Times has been doing spoofs for 35 years and is still in business. People with half a brain get it, dude!

W T Katz
W T Katz

Pretty sad example of journalism. who in the hell will ever again trust what they read in this rag. Hey if you want to be mad mag or national lampoon say so up front. stop pretending to be a legitimate news source...

Steven T. Jones
Steven T. Jones

New Times Inc. doing what it does best: fake journalism. The only truly sad part is that you've destroyed so many real newspapers, like the Village Voice, on your strange, self-serving quest to destroy the Fourth Estate. I've never understood how you could so smugly subvert an important institution, and will never forgive you for what you've done to my profession. Shame on all of you.

Ken Calman
Ken Calman

Your spoof was very well done. I confess to having been taken in until I noticed none of the (greedy, hysterical) mainstream media was picking it up. I'm happy to see a sense of humor still alive in this brave, new world.

Omar Tentmaker
Omar Tentmaker

Next you'll be writing about the big gold strike on Black Mountain. Who will be able to tell if you are serious or not?

Cheryl
Cheryl

Sure, everyone likes a good prank, and I agree that new Times outdid themselves on this one, but on the other hand, it was a bit tasteless. No matter what you think of someone, once they are dead just shut up! Makes me wonder about other new Times stories I have followed and believed in.

WagtheDog
WagtheDog

What a bunch of pious old farts! I thought the April Fools Day story was fantastic. It showed how retarded the media and average idiots get over "stars" like ANS. Anna Nicole had NO TALENT people. Yeah, she was hot when she was yunger, but even Marilyn Monroe could fucking act. Not Anna Nicole. She was a gold-digging redneck who's main assets were a pair of FAKE TITS. The people writing above are the reason I hope the New Times keeps punking people like this over and over. Someone needs to kick 'em in the ass. And the New Times ain't afraid to do it!

stephanie
stephanie

Those racial slurs were to say the least were not needed. America is already known as a horrible and racist country as it is, and I don't think that this phony story should be shown to the public even if it is a joke. Yes people these days are offended by just about everything that is said or done, and maybe we are overacting about this whole thing! But nonetheless should someone who has just recently died be made fun of in such a way? What could anyone have possibly gained from this prank? I personally think that only bad things will come from this. Anna Nicole lived her life without any honor or pride in herself, her family, or husband but still, no one deserves to be treated this way.

MAP
MAP

Let me begin by saying that I have been a regular reader of New Times for some 25-30 years now. When I was in high school, it was the only mag to find out where the best mosh pit bands were playing over the weekend. In 1986 it led me to one of the most memorble times in my life, the Janes' Addiction show, at the 35th Ave. and Camelback strip mall, where the child care place is now, in the corner at the end of the hall, formerly, (20 some yrs. ago), The Underground. I have always regarded the New Times as being on the up-and-up, so when I read the Johnny Soto/Anna Nicole story, sure I was skeptical, a non-believer, but my doubt was not of New Times, rather, the word of Mr. Johnny Soto. And although you attemt to dismiss this as a 'you should have noticed the discrepencies, no pics of all of them together...blah..blah..blah...',the bottom line is you knowingly decieved your loyal readers. I feel like you have tried, and for the most part succeeded, in making this reader feel like a complete fool....for trusting that New Times was not on the same level as a typical tabloid.

Sincerly Dissapointed, Former New Times Reader MAP

Joe
Joe

Back in the day,New Times hit hard with azcam and other stories.Now, your punk'n the likes of Globe and Star.

What a community service.

You suck worse then the repulsive.

Johnny Long-wind
Johnny Long-wind

Man, great scam, you really sucker-punched those bonehead media outlets, but you're being so self-congratulatory in your explanation on the way you crafted your farce that it's a bit ridiculous. Maybe take a pointer from stand-up comedians and exit the stage during the deserved applause; don't come back on to describe how, where and when you came up with the joke. TV newsmagazines may be so hungry for gossip that they're gullible, but the way you're marveling at your own handiwork casts an amatuerish pallor over what is a very vigorous weekly like the Phx New Times. Yuck it up, but not at level 11.

zonumb
zonumb

Please do not forget the other group that was "punked" by this story, your readers.

This was a very disgraceful move on the part of New Times and that of its employee; mind you I do not call him a writer or journalist, Mr. Lemmons. In these days of lax media coverage on important issues, it used to be very refreshing to read the New Times and have a considerable amount of confidence in its reporting. This shall be no more unfortunately.

I can appreciate and understand the power that a parody can have to push a topic back into the lime light for further discussion, but this was not the case for your article. I am the furthest thing from a prude but it was very disgusting and disheartening to read this article that contained, ad nauseum, derogatory racial slurs. Mind you, if this story was true, I would have no issue as it was a recollection of something that was truly said. But in this case the article was used as an excuse to use such hateful terms without any repercussions.

I understand that my opinion may fall upon deaf ears at your paper but I can guarantee that the ears of my family, friends and anyone I come in contact may not be so deaf.All involved in this article should be ashamed and I�m sure I�m not the only reader who feels the same.

 
Loading...