Film & TV

Apr 29, 2011

The Fairfax data trail that shows Schembri only ‘punk’d’ himself

Troubling new evidence has emerged in the scandal surrounding Age film critic Jim Schembri's infamous Scream 4 spoiler, with secret Fairfax files contradicting the scribe's official explanation for the snafu.

Andrew Crook — Former <em>Crikey</em> Senior Journalist

Andrew Crook

Former Crikey Senior Journalist

Troubling new evidence has emerged in the scandal surrounding Fairfax film critic Jim Schembri's infamous Scream 4 spoiler, with secret internal documents contradicting the scribe's official explanation for the snafu. In a prominent piece written by Schembri for last Friday's Age Insight section titled "How I punk'd the Twitterverse", the buff claimed he'd penned two versions of his review to execute a deliberate ruse -- one without a spoiler for the print edition of The Age's EG filed on Wednesday, April 13 and another version -- revealing the killer -- that would appear on the web and cause a commotion before being replaced. "...I decided to create a [sic] online event. I wanted to become the scourge of the Twitterverse as I led the hordes down a merry trail of cryptic messages and misdirection," Schembri wrote, claiming he "ignited the firestorm by writing two Scream 4 reviews, one with genuine spoiler, one without. The latter ran in print, filed on the morning of last Wednesday week." But not only was the print review filed a day earlier than Schembri claims, it also contained the spoiler. The error was rectified 20 hours later -- not by Schembri but by a savvy Brisbane-based sub-editor who sounded the alarm. Internal copies of the story's version history from The Age's "Cyber" publishing system, seen by Crikey, reveal that in fact Schembri (or "jschembri" in IT parlance) initially filed only one review, containing the spoiler, at 17:48:40 on Tuesday, April 12 to "Eged" -- the desk for the copy that goes in the paper. That version was picked up briefly by EG editor Jo Roberts later that night. The first sentence revealed the identity of the killer, a strict no-no in film critic circles: "Only the sight of <xxx> getting all kill-happy [emphasis added] in the frenzied, formulaic final-reel bloodbath makes this totally unwanted, utterly predictable franchise stretcher marginally worthwhile." Cyber shows the crucial spoiler word -- "kill-happy" -- is left unaltered up until the review's 13th edit on the following afternoon -- Wednesday -- at 14:34:53 by "EBestAGE". "EBest" is Liz Best, a Pagemasters sub-editor based in Brisbane. While Pagemasters refused to comment on the record, citing its commercial relationship with Fairfax, Crikey understands that while subbing the piece Best noticed the spoiler and contacted a senior editor at The Age and Schembri to alert them. Soon after, "Kill-happy" is replaced -- by Best in the system -- with "caught up" and the spoiler disappears: "Only the sight of <xxx> getting caught up in the frenzied, formulaic final-reel makes this totally unwanted, utterly predictable franchise stretcher marginally worthwhile." The junked text was placed into Cyber's "notes" function. (Crikey sub-editor and former Age sub Mick Vaughan explains the Cyber "notes" area is where alterations to the story can be tracked). Barring two further minor edits, this is the version that would appear in the EG print edition. In his "punk'd" piece, Schembri wrote that as part of the prank, an online version of the review -- containing the spoiler -- would appear on the Wednesday "afternoon" on The Age's website. At about 5.20pm, The Age's online content management system indeed shows that Schembri created the item and published it to the web. (The Age maintains a separate publishing system for its online stories, for which Schembri has publishing rights). As Crikey's Luke Buckmaster quickly observed, it took Twitter about 12 hours to notice the spoiler and accuse Schembri of ruining the film. The following morning -- Friday -- Schembri posted a series of retaliatory tweets claiming "we do not give away the ending", but only after he had altered "kill-happy" to "caught up" online. It appears he had either reverse-engineered an excuse for the original error at the time it was discovered by Pagemasters, or had published the online spoiler version erroneously and came up with the ex post facto excuse then. But if, as Schembri maintained in Insight, his intention to "punk" the Twitterverse had been hatched in advance -- with a spoiler-free version written for the print edition and a spoiler online -- then it makes no sense to have filed the spoiled version for EG. And the "other version" only appeared after Pagemasters' intervention. Note that Schembri makes no reference to filing an erroneous version in his official explanation. Jo Roberts appeared to subscribe to the latter theory, telling Crikey this morning that Schembri had explained to her he had "filed the story errantly" and had also confessed to a "genuine error". Roberts said she wasn't aware that Schembri had taken it upon himself to publish the review online and that the normal practice was to publish to the web at the same time EG hits the streets. Other senior Age sources have confirmed that in their view the "punk'd" excuse was simply a ruse to cover over a serious breach of the first rule of film reviewing -- don't give away the ending. One described Schembri as a "difficult character" and a "loose cannon". Neither Schembri nor Age editor Paul Ramadge responded to Crikey's request for an explanation this morning.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

16 thoughts on “The Fairfax data trail that shows Schembri only ‘punk’d’ himself

  1. Tom

    Look –

    a) We all know Jim Schembri is a bit of a tosser; so

    b) most of us just take his antics with a pinch of salt; and anyway

    c) it was Scream 4, fer crissakes, not the equivalent of The Empire Strikes Back; so therefore

    d) why are you still covering this, Crikey?

    Could. Not. Give. Two. Shits.

  2. horse_71

    Totally agree with Tom’s appraisal. The only people interested in this “story” are the protagonists and I can’t understand why Crikey is giving this oxygen……

  3. Ben

    Thanks for the update.

    I guess crikey are still covering this because it helps prove Jim Schembri’s excuse was a lie. And that he should have just said “whoops. my bad” and people would have let it go.

    its in the media section of the crikey website. and no one is making you read it.

  4. SBH

    Sorry? Who cares again?

  5. Rafiq Copeland

    I was at a pub once when a man at the table next to me stood up and said “Christ, I’ve really got to take a Schembri.”

  6. Meski

    I would guess the reason it’s still getting coverage is not the movie’s quality, nor the giveaway of its ending (Yawn) but the dubious ethics of the Fairfax journalist. Yeah, you’re right. Why is it still getting coverage?

  7. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    I want to know why The Age even published Schembri’s excuse in the first place when they knew it was wrong.

  8. Matt Smith

    Honesty in the news is important, guys. Even reviews. For The Age to run a blatant lie like this matters, even if it is just for Scream 4.

    If they admitted that they’d made a mistake in the first place, this would have all gone away now. Instead they pretty much seem to be trying to build a time machine in the back shed.

  9. Stevo the Working Twistie

    Congratulations for managing to find a filler with even less relevance than The Wedding.

  10. Neil Walker

    It’s not about the movie. In a way, this has moved beyond Jim Schembri.

    If Fairfax think it’s now acceptable to allow lies to be published in The Age and not acknowledge it then it’s their loss. The loss of their reputation with readers.

    Editor Paul Ramadge needs to man up and offer an explanation for this fiasco.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details