454 replies to this topic

[Alessandra]

AGI's piece:

'CINEMA: 7 CANDIDATI PER RUOLO DI 007, SCELTA IMMINENTE
(AGI) - Londra, 9 ott. - Agente 007 cercasi: dopo Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton e Pierce Brosnan, ora James Bond e' di nuovo alla ricerca di un attore che gli presti le sembianze. Non e' un' impresa facile. Paul Haggis, lo sceneggiatore che sta lavorando allo script di 'Casino Royale', il prossimo film di 007 (in uscita nell'autunno 2006), ha anticipato che si trattera' di un giovane. Un po' poco per individuare il candidato a un ruolo tra i piu' impegnativi della storia del cinema. Le ultime notizie danno in corsa Leonardo Di Caprio (che pero' non e' giudicato abbastanza 'british'), Cliwe Owen (vincente nei sondaggi che hanno coinvolto il pubblico), Hugh Grant, Jude Law, Daniel Craig ed Ewan McGregor. Outsider: Goran Visnjic. Una decisione sembra imminente.'

I'd ask whoever filed that for their source on Di Caprio, and then fire them when they had no answer. Sorry. Holding this up as an example that serious news sources think that EON doesn't know who to pick yet is absurd - this is a dreadful article with no reliabilty whatsoever.

ok.. provided that you do understand the tone of the article (which says that the news around are too little to infer who the guy will be), and that you aren't considering what's into brackets after Di Caprio (they say he isn't judged british enough to fit the role), it's exactly what I said that if even serious news sources like this file this sort of stuff it means that no journalist has a clue about what is going on!! that is exactly what I said.. I cited them as an example of "nobody has a clue", because they're a serious and very reliable agency, and if even people like them write this sort of stuff it means that there's NO news around!
This is exactly what I meant!

[marktmurphy]

I'm saying that because no italian, english, american or whatever worldwide serious newssource has published it, it's unlikely to be true!! because as well sourced as this lady may be, it's extremely unlikely that a reliable source on such a matter would talk, of all people, only to the Mail, without anyone else being aware of what is going on.

So you're saying that it's impossible for one person to have told only one person? That they would automatically tell every other entertainment journalist in the world? That makes no sense.

Journalism isn't just facts as you hear them- it's disseminating them and deciding whether they're likely to be the truth or not. Craig probably is the truth, Di Caprio isn't. One is way off the mark, one isn't. Because some Italian journalist doesn't hear what a London-based entertainment journo hears, that doesn't make it less likely. I have no idea where you're coming from on this.

[Hitch]

Over the last few months I have become increasingly hacked off with all the endless speculation re. Bond #6, but I must say the last two weeks have been a blast; some of the twists and turns in the casting process would make a soap opera fan blush.

Whether right for the role or not, Craig would be a fascinating choice. The Bond franchise seems virtually indestructible, so I for one wouldn't mind a direction change just to see what happened.

If Craig/Casino Royale is a flop the producers could always return to making "safer" Bond films.

If Brosnan returns (he's too old, I tells ya!) it would be a last hurrah for someone who, like Connery & Moore, "is" Bond.

If we get a young sprog who has barely started shaving? Silverfin hasn't done too badly.

Whatever happens - bring it on! I want to sit in a darkened cinema and listen to my local fleapit's tinny speakers cope with cinema's best theme tune.

For my money EON should bring back Connery and let him go out in a blaze of vıagra.

[marktmurphy]

if even serious news sources like this file this sort of stuff it means that no journalist has a clue about what is going on!! that is exactly what I said.. I cited them as an example of "nobody has a clue", because they're a serious and very reliable agency, and if even people like them write this sort of stuff it means that there's NO news around!
This is exactly what I meant!

No; some people have a clue. This Mail woman does- she has at least read the info from Campbell confirming Craig is in the running. This Italian agency hasn't. We know they're way off the mark and we know that the Mail isn't. These are facts. To say 'nobody has a clue' is to misread the evidence.

[spynovelfan]

I cited them as an example of "nobody has a clue", because they're a serious and very reliable agency, and if even people like them write this sort of stuff it means that there's NO news around!

Alessandra, use *your* journalistic instincts. That is not the conclusion to draw from the above article. The conclusion to draw is that they are a very reliable Italian news agency that has a London stringer with precisely no clue about who the next James Bond is going to be, and a short wire piece from them that has snuck in off the back of not that many people reading Italian news agencies for breaking entertainment news. As I say, if I were at the desk I'd be asking where the source was for Di Caprio, as it's about as likely that Danny De Vito will be the next Bond. As it is, the people at the desk will have no greater clue, and they've gotten away with a very poor piece of journalism. No credible source could have given them Leo as a possibility for Bond. This means that, reliable as they may be in other areas, in entertainment news and, specifically, on this story, they're totally unreliable. You can't extrapolate from that that there's 'no other news around', let alone that the entertainment hound at The Mail's source is wrong! If you think you can, your journalistic principles and my faith in Bloomberg is plummeting, language barrier or not. You would be just as foolish to say that if Lampert is right then the Mail's tips about buying Ferrari stock ten pages after her article must also all be worth pursuing.

[Emma]

I would prefer to see Bond played by an interesting, charismatic, commanding man like Craig than a mincing fop like Jude Law (or Pierce Brosnan). Looks are important, but not all-important, and it isn't as though Craig is irredeemably ugly. He's rough, but so what? We haven't had a tough Bond since Lazenby.

Pierce Brosnan 'mincing fop'? Daniel Craig charasmatic and commanding? You're kiding right? I understand if you don't like Pierce. But there's nothing commanding about Daniel Craig. He looks like a thug. He would be a wonderful Bond villain. But not James Bond. I hope to God this is not true. Because if if it is I can guarantee you the next film will tank.

[Alessandra]

ok I give up!!!
I just don't manage to make my point, my English is not good enough today!!! lol

I am not saying that because the italian agencies haven't written a story it's not true! I'm saying that because no italian, english, american or whatever worldwide serious newssource has published it, it's unlikely to be true!! because as well sourced as this lady may be, it's extremely unlikely that a reliable source on such a matter would talk, of all people, only to the Mail, without anyone else being aware of what is going on. STILL, I also said (see above) that this girl may as well have doorstepped Craig 24/7 and have the big scoop but somehow I doubt it. Why? Because there's no such thing as a big scoop made out of speculation, that's why!
a journalist with a scoop cites places, people, times, dates that nobody else has! and she isn't doing this in her story.

Your English is fine - your argument sucks, though.

You're clearly not an entertainment journalist. This woman broke the story that Brosnan was out in February 2004. When did AGI report that? She didn't doorstep Brosnan - she has a source inside EON or Pinewood. Same here. She hasn't been round to Craig's house. She has a black book of sources who speak to her off the record - she's not going to cite places, people or times. Someone inside EON or Sony or Pinewood has phoned her and told her Craig is signed. They have done that because they are her source there, and they've done it before. They may be wrong, in which case her story is wrong. But they may be right. A leak of who will be the next Bond is far more likely to come to the entertainment writer on a British mass-circulation daily who has already broken a very big story on the same issue than it is to come to an Italian news agency whose London stringer thinks that Leo Di Caprio is on the shortlist!

Come on.

LOL I repeat: I'm not talking about the italians only!!!!! i'm talking about everyone!! italians were just an example because I'm here, I read these news and I thought "how can they write such things???" just like you did, and I know the agency very well and it's a very serious one!! it's an exampleeeeeee!!!! lol
it's an example for how reliable people haven't been reporting it!
and the doorstepping is a way of saying tooo!!! maaannn!! do yo take everything so literally???????????
do you seriously think I don't know how things work with sourcing?!?! and believe it, it works the same for everyone: entertainment, sports, finance.. we can't doorstep everyone, lol!! I'd be exhausted if I had to do that with everyone! lol that was clearly a way of saying from me!!!
OF COURSE people have insiders in places (and no, they do not call you up.. YOU call them up all the time, unless they are looking for publicity, in which case they call you up first), what I'm saying is that this lady, as good as she may be, isn't breaking ANYTHING new in her story. I said: a journalist with a scoop cites places, dates, quotes, times that nobody else has. And she isn't doing this in her story.
this said, as I said above never say never she may have doorstepped Craig (LOL YESS EXAMPLEEEE to mean she has a good reason to state what she says!!) and know before everyone else!! but somehow I doubt it, because keeping SUCH a piece of news to only ONE journalist is basically impossible!! lol
no my English is not fine, otherwise I'd have spared you the trouble to go through all this!! lol
apologies btw.. I HATE to make people waste time because of me!

[Pussfeller]

I would prefer to see Bond played by an interesting, charismatic, commanding man like Craig than a mincing fop like Jude Law (or Pierce Brosnan). Looks are important, but not all-important, and it isn't as though Craig is irredeemably ugly. He's rough, but so what? We haven't had a tough Bond since Lazenby.

Pierce Brosnan 'mincing fop'? Daniel Craig charasmatic and commanding? You're kiding right? I understand if you don't like Pierce. But there's nothing commanding about Daniel Craig. He looks like a thug. He would be a wonderful Bond villain. But not James Bond. I hope to God this is not true. Because if if it is I can guarantee you the next film will tank.

If I were producing it, I might care. I'll only be investing about six bucks in it.

[marktmurphy]

OF COURSE people have insiders in places (and no, they do not call you up.. YOU call them up all the time, unless they are looking for publicity, in which case they call you up first), what I'm saying is that this lady, as good as she may be, isn't breaking ANYTHING new in her story. I said: a journalist with a scoop cites places, dates, quotes, times that nobody else has. And she isn't doing this in her story.

That's not 'nobody has a clue'; it's 'some journalists are more intelligent than others'. This Mail woman knows enough to draw a believable conclusion, other agencies obviously don't. That's far from 'nobody has a clue'.

Out of interest, do you still think it's more likely that Bond will be driving the new Fiat over the new Aston Martin?

[Stephenson]

DC as Bond? I like it! He looks like a British Steve McQueen, he has personality and screen presence, and is a risky, edgy choice, which means (no matter what the plot) something a little different, which I personally am ready for.

http://www.swr.de/im...ufmacher/86.jpg

http://www.tombraide...film/daniel.jpg

http://www.poster.ne...een-6200685.jpg

http://us.movies1.yi...raig/cannes.jpg

http://www.tedstrong...ery-mcqueen.jpg

http://us.movies1.yi...a05_layerw2.jpg


If it is true (a big "if"): Hurrah!

[marktmurphy]

But there's nothing commanding about Daniel Craig. He looks like a thug.

Thugs are pretty commanding, aren't they? I think he'll be able to do smooth- he's a better actor than most of the men who've played Bond.

[Loomis]

I would prefer to see Bond played by an interesting, charismatic, commanding man like Craig than a mincing fop like Jude Law (or Pierce Brosnan). Looks are important, but not all-important, and it isn't as though Craig is irredeemably ugly. He's rough, but so what? We haven't had a tough Bond since Lazenby.

Pierce Brosnan 'mincing fop'? Daniel Craig charasmatic and commanding? You're kiding right? I understand if you don't like Pierce. But there's nothing commanding about Daniel Craig. He looks like a thug. He would be a wonderful Bond villain. But not James Bond. I hope to God this is not true. Because if if it is I can guarantee you the next film will tank.

If I were producing it, I might care. I'll only be investing about six bucks in it.

I'd like Craig to be Bond, but I think the "Craig'll sink the series" posters have a pretty good point. If he's hired - and, again, I hope he is - he'd surely be by far the riskiest 007 of all time, and probably the biggest risk Eon had ever taken with the franchise.

[Domlense]

I feel like the Frog Prince has just been named Bond.

McMahon, Jackman, Travolta, and Visnjic at least had the look going for them. True Jackman and Travolta turned it down, but is that a need to rush to find someone willing to accept it just to name someone? His looks are so wrong. He's a quality actor, but I for one just can't get over his looks.

[tdalton]

I think that we might all be getting a bit too excited over this. Craig is not Bond yet. A tabloid is reporting this, not EON, not some respected entertainment source (Variety, etc.). Tabloids have been reporting for the last 6 months or so that everyone from Clive Owen to Rikki Travolta have landed the role, and we've never believed them then, so why now? I don't believe this to be true, although I hope that it eventually turns out to be.

[WC]

I think he would make a better Max Zorin though.

Either that, or Red Grant II.

[spynovelfan]

OF COURSE people have insiders in places (and no, they do not call you up.. YOU call them up all the time, unless they are looking for publicity, in which case they call you up first), what I'm saying is that this lady, as good as she may be, isn't breaking ANYTHING new in her story. I said: a journalist with a scoop cites places, dates, quotes, times that nobody else has. And she isn't doing this in her story.

Eh? If Lampert has a source in Pinewood or Sony, they're hardly likely to want their name or any details whatsoever to be in the story, or they'll never tell her anything again. They may well not know when the announcement will be beyond 'very soon'. What quotes, places, dates, times do you mean, then? An insider told her Craig has signed. She's reported it. It remains to be seen how much the insider knew. But whether she is right or wrong, I wouldn't have expected to see a greater level of detail in the story.

this said, as I said above never say never she may have doorstepped Craig (LOL YESS EXAMPLEEEE to mean she has a good reason to state what she says!!) and know before everyone else!! but somehow I doubt it, because keeping SUCH a piece of news to only ONE journalist is basically impossible!!

Why? She managed it with Brosnan being axed in February 2004. She was the first to report that, and it looks like she was right. No other paper or agency had it - the next day every agency had it. Where were AGI and Reuters and Dow Jones then? She had a source, and he told only her.

I suggest you watch ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN next time it comes on Rai Uno for a crash course on individual sources, Alessandra!

[spynovelfan]

I feel like the Frog Prince has just been named Bond.

McMahon, Jackman, Travolta, and Visnjic at least had the look going for them.  True Jackman and Travolta turned it down, but is that a need to rush to find someone willing to accept it just to name someone?  His looks are so wrong.  He's a quality actor, but I for one just can't get over his looks.

Domlense, I find it peculiar that you have mentioned Rikki Lee Travolta in every one of your posts here, and always in comparison to big hiiters like Jackman. It beggars belief, frankly. Are you Rikki Lee, or his agent?

[Forever007]

doublenoughtspy

Pierce Brosnan did not get along with Martin Campbell either. They had many disagreements on set that was widely reported at the time.

[Alessandra]

OF COURSE people have insiders in places (and no, they do not call you up.. YOU call them up all the time, unless they are looking for publicity, in which case they call you up first), what I'm saying is that this lady, as good as she may be, isn't breaking ANYTHING new in her story. I said: a journalist with a scoop cites places, dates, quotes, times that nobody else has. And she isn't doing this in her story.

That's not 'nobody has a clue'; it's 'some journalists are more intelligent than others'. This Mail woman knows enough to draw a believable conclusion, other agencies obviously don't. That's far from 'nobody has a clue'.

Out of interest, do you still think it's more likely that Bond will be driving the new Fiat over the new Aston Martin?

well no, that is some journalist are less accurate than others and don't care about taking risks and running stories which may be accurate or may be completely false. She's not more intelligent than anyone else, she just puts together stuff reported so far and draws a conclusion, without giving any new proof of what she says. That's just not caring about verifying because you don't face consequences if the story is false, it's not being more intelligent than others.
I know that the Panda will be a Bond car. I do not know if meantime they have landed a different/new/updated/whatever accord with Aston Martin. I have received no annoucement of the sort, or insider rumour, or confirmation of the sort, but it doesn't mean they aren't working on it. all I know is that the Panda will be a Bond car. this SO FAR. Given what happened yesterday with Elkann they may as well say "just get lost" and cancel the agreement. The deal as of this minute is still on, but you know how things work when image is involved....

[Loomis]

I think that we might all be getting a bit too excited over this.  Craig is not Bond yet.  A tabloid is reporting this, not EON, not some respected entertainment source (Variety, etc.).  Tabloids have been reporting for the last 6 months or so that everyone from Clive Owen to Rikki Travolta have landed the role, and we've never believed them then, so why now? 

Well, speaking personally, the difference is that I never had reliable people like zencat telling me that Owen or Travolta was a genuine contender.

And it's curious how Craig's name seems to come up again and again. It's been many months since most of us last thought of Owen as a realistic candidate, and most of us never entertained the idea of Travolta in the first place.

As you say, though, Craig isn't Bond yet. And, sure, this may turn out to be a lot of fuss about nothing.

[tdalton]

I think he would make a better Max Zorin though.

Either that, or Red Grant II.

I don't think that it's fair to post unflattering pictures of a Bond candidate to prove that he's not right for the role. That could easily be done for all of those who have been put up for the role. Here are some better ones in which I think that he looks very "Bondian":



This pic was a bit too big, but here's the link: http://www.bluematia.com/Vogue4.jpg

[spynovelfan]

well no, that is some journalist are less accurate than others and don't care about taking risks and running stories which may be accurate or may be completely false. She's not more intelligent than anyone else, she just puts together stuff reported so far and draws a conclusion, without giving any new proof of what she says. That's just not caring about verifying because you don't face consequences if the story is false, it's not being more intelligent than others.

Ah, well that I can see (and have already said earlier in the thread). But I don't discount that she may have a genuine source with genuine information. Yep, could just be she's run it with nothing and couldn't care less if she's wrong. But it could be that someone in the know told her this - the fact that AGI have a lazy stringer in London who filed that Di Caprio is in the running or that other news agencies haven't heard the same doesn't change that in any way, sorry.

I know that the Panda will be a Bond car. I do not know if meantime they have landed a different/new/updated/whatever accord with Aston Martin. I have received no annoucement of the sort, or insider rumour, or confirmation of the sort, but it doesn't mean they aren't working on it. all I know is that the Panda will be a Bond car. this SO FAR. Given what happened yesterday with Elkann they may as well say "just get lost" and cancel the agreement. The deal as of this minute is still on, but you know how things work when image is involved....

It was revealed that Bond will drive the new Aston Martin Vantage in CASINO ROYALE in February 2004:

http://www.pistonhea...asp?c=52&i=7957

[marktmurphy]

well no, that is some journalist are less accurate than others and don't care about taking risks and running stories which may be accurate or may be completely false. She's not more intelligent than anyone else, she just puts together stuff reported so far and draws a conclusion, without giving any new proof of what she says. That's just not caring about verifying because you don't face consequences if the story is false, it's not being more intelligent than others.

But her conclusions are much more intelligent and informed than the Di Caprio nonsense, aren't they? Use your head; which is more likely? And why should she produce her source? That's madness.
And her story is verified as being very likely already, before she even wrote it. I agree with you in that I don't think there's any new info here, but her intelligence means that she's not likely to proven wrong as Craig is the apparent forerunner at the moment.

[Alessandra]

I'm saying that because no italian, english, american or whatever worldwide serious newssource has published it, it's unlikely to be true!! because as well sourced as this lady may be, it's extremely unlikely that a reliable source on such a matter would talk, of all people, only to the Mail, without anyone else being aware of what is going on.

So you're saying that it's impossible for one person to have told only one person? That they would automatically tell every other entertainment journalist in the world? That makes no sense.

Journalism isn't just facts as you hear them- it's disseminating them and deciding whether they're likely to be the truth or not. Craig probably is the truth, Di Caprio isn't. One is way off the mark, one isn't. Because some Italian journalist doesn't hear what a London-based entertainment journo hears, that doesn't make it less likely. I have no idea where you're coming from on this.

now. serious journalism is facts. The rest is opinion and/or
judgement in the best of cases (columnists are paid for this but they do say they are expressing opinions and not facts, thus not breaking news or having scoops), and speculation in all the others.
and i repeat as per above, I said American, English, Italian, everyone, not only the Italians! do I have to repeat it again?? it was just an example!! because that is what i had seen here, and it struck me because it was evidently not right! I mean everyone worldwide and not only the Italians!! it's not because the italians haven't heard but because nobody else in the world hasn't heard!!
yes it is impossible in media world to keep a juicy piece of news like that to ONE person only, unless the person involved pays a LOT of money to have an exclusive! this is what I hadn't considered. Which may be the case. But again, if you do have an exclusive, and on such a subject, you cite and have quotes and stuff that nobody else has. and this lady hasn't got any of this.
this said... she may as well have guessed and have gotten it right!! as I said above, never say never! I just very much doubt it because from the point of view of journalism, her story doesn't have anything of a scoop. it has no news, and nothing different and new from what was said before.

[Stephenson]

Well, at the risk of repeating a stale argument: I couldn't care less what the guy looks like in photos. I'm NOT going to see "CR: The picture book". I'm going to see CR: the movie, and so far from what I've seen Craig in (Tombraider, The Road to Perdition, Layer Cake), the guy is very cool on film.

As anyone given thought to the idea that maybe this journalist just got lucky with a guess that Brosnan was out in 2004? There has already been one example of her shoddy journalism on this site with the Law/Kidman story. It seems that she is from the "write it today, forget tomorrow" school of journalism.

Edited by Stephenson, 11 October 2005 - 03:01 PM.

[marktmurphy]

now. serious journalism is facts. The rest is opinion and/or
judgement in the best of cases (columnists are paid for this but they do say they are expressing opinions and not facts, thus not breaking news or having scoops), and speculation in all the others.

So are you saying that you simply listen to what everybody says to you and write it down, without stopping to think about whether they are biased or giving you a skewed opinion of the truth? You heard the Fiat guy say that Bond will drive the Panda. Now are you just taking him as read, or have you stopped to think that he may be embellishing the truth somewhat as he may have a little to gain/not be in full posession of the facts himself? Plus we know Aston have said a similar statement. Which do you think is more likely? I'm not asking for an opinion or speculation, but an accurate version of the truth to the best of your knowledge, using your intelligence to divine which is more likely than the other. That's what journalists do.

And again; why should anybody have heard what this Mail woman has? She was the first to hear of Brosnan's leaving as spynovelfan says; was she wrong because no-one else reported it? You make no sense.

[Shrublands]

The London Evening Standard has a poll

"Will Daniel Craig make a good James Bond?"

Evening Standard Bond Poll

[Alessandra]

OF COURSE people have insiders in places (and no, they do not call you up.. YOU call them up all the time, unless they are looking for publicity, in which case they call you up first), what I'm saying is that this lady, as good as she may be, isn't breaking ANYTHING new in her story. I said: a journalist with a scoop cites places, dates, quotes, times that nobody else has. And she isn't doing this in her story.

Eh? If Lampert has a source in Pinewood or Sony, they're hardly likely to want their name or any details whatsoever to be in the story, or they'll never tell her anything again. They may well not know when the announcement will be beyond 'very soon'. What quotes, places, dates, times do you mean, then? An insider told her Craig has signed. She's reported it. It remains to be seen how much the insider knew. But whether she is right or wrong, I wouldn't have expected to see a greater level of detail in the story.

this said, as I said above never say never she may have doorstepped Craig (LOL YESS EXAMPLEEEE to mean she has a good reason to state what she says!!) and know before everyone else!! but somehow I doubt it, because keeping SUCH a piece of news to only ONE journalist is basically impossible!!

Why? She managed it with Brosnan being axed in February 2004. She was the first to report that, and it looks like she was right. No other paper or agency had it - the next day every agency had it. Where were AGI and Reuters and Dow Jones then? She had a source, and he told only her.

I suggest you watch ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN next time it comes on Rai Uno for a crash course on individual sources, Alessandra!

the fact she was the first one to report something on Brosnan A)doesn't at all make her right on everything she does subsequently and hasn't been yet proved because until the next Bond is announced nobody can say for sure Brosnan is out!
What if they put an actor to play young Bond and another one to play older Bond at the end of the movie, for example (man... no, TWO actors to guess is just too much!! lol , forget about this!)
The fact she was the first to report about Brosnan doesn't at all mean that she was the only one to have it. Newspapers have priorities and different means to run stories. Even when we're at a press conference some people report facts a minute later and others report them HOURS later, and others do it the day after, and others don't do it at all, because of different technical means and different priorities of each news organization.
I didn't say at all that she had to quote the source that gave her the piece of news but that if she has a scoop she'd have quotes (FROM UNIDENTIFIED SOURCES) that other people don't have. and details, and times, and facts that others don't have.

[Loomis]

The London Evening Standard has a poll

"Will Daniel Craig make a good James Bond?"

Evening Standard Bond Poll

The current result of the Daily Mail's poll:

Will Daniel Craig be a success as the new James Bond?

1 Yes, he'll bring some much needed edge to the character

45%

2 No, his face just doesn't fit

55%

Hmmm....

[spynovelfan]

What could the piece have had that's substantially new, Alessandra? If it is Craig, what could she say other than that he has tested for the part and won and will soon be announced - and even there, she says that he beat out Cavill in the 'final', which is 'new'. I agree that it's fairly unlikely she would have such a high-placed source, and the most likely explanation is she's taking a gamble on being right (perhaps from a few hints - ie she knows Craig's a very real contender so she's betting on him).

I don't agree that Reuters et al not having the same story means a thing. This isn't the kind of story that, if leaked, will leak through all the major news agencies. It would go to one journalist, who would write this kind of story, and the rest would copy it (or wait for the announcement). Just as it has happened. Just as it happened in February 2004, when the same journalist ran a story from 'a source at EON productions' saying Brosnan had been axed - before anyone else had a sniff of it.