Hugo's face-off with Anthony instantly ignited the media, sending shockwaves throughout the entertainment industry.
This time, James Latt, a reporter for US Weekly, stole the spotlight. He hadn't anticipated that a small act of friendliness toward Hugo at the premiere of Final Analysis a year ago would now become the leverage for the biggest breakthrough of his career.
After Anthony's press conference concluded that day, James conducted a one-hour exclusive interview with Hugo. He then published the report under the headline "Sincere Apologies, Neither Humble Nor Arrogant," providing the first-hand coverage of the widely discussed assault incident. Throughout the article, James maintained a neutral and factual tone, striving to restore the event as it happened, before expressing his personal analysis.
"Hugo has deeply acknowledged the wrongness of his actions. He has repeatedly expressed sincere apologies for striking Anthony and has proactively offered reparations. As a public figure, Hugo is fully aware of his misstep and is making every effort to mitigate the negative impact. We should condemn Hugo, but not harshly; at the very least, we must recognize his sincerity and his willingness to make amends.
"On the other hand, is there more beneath the surface of Hugo's misconduct? That seems evident. Anthony repeatedly defamed Hugo using harsh language, not only discrediting Hugo's creative talent and falsely accusing him of plagiarism—a baseless and meaningless allegation but also personally attacking him, twisting his response to the Golden Globe Awards, deliberately spreading rumors about his fame, and unscrupulously interpreting Hugo's private life. Such behavior deserves condemnation.
"When journalists claim 'the public's right to know' or invoke 'press freedom' to misrepresent public figures, the law may technically allow it. But the principle is meant to safeguard the media's independence, not to make the media a tool for manufactured news.
"Clearly, Anthony exploited the media's freedom to criticize public figures without restraint, targeting Hugo in a manner that defied reason. His goal was not to uncover facts but to provoke Hugo and generate sensational news. And he succeeded. Anthony's injuries are the clearest proof: Anthony gained attention, sympathy, and news coverage.
"As we condemn Hugo for letting anger drive his fists against Anthony, we must also acknowledge Anthony's leading role in the incident—this was entirely Anthony's orchestrated stunt.
"After the incident, Hugo was condemned, punished, admitted his mistakes, and accepted responsibility. Shouldn't Anthony also bear corresponding accountability? Using press freedom as a weapon against public figures for personal gain is itself an act of violence and should be absolutely prohibited!"
James's article appeared fair and principled, grounded in facts, yet it subtly sided with Hugo, defending him while maintaining the appearance of neutrality. He did not simply praise Hugo; after presenting both sides, he emphasized Hugo's proper attitude while condemning Anthony's ill intentions. This approach subtly shifted public perception.
In fact, this was precisely Hugo's goal in confronting Anthony directly. Judging by the outcome, Hugo had already achieved half his objective.
That issue of US Weekly sold 300,000 copies nationwide in a single day—a number that normally would take a week or even half a month to reach. The data alone showed how much attention the Golden Globe post-award altercation had drawn.
Although Nicholas McClane missed Hugo's exclusive, he did not hesitate to defend him in the latest issue of the Los Angeles Times.
"Hugo Lancaster sincerely apologizes; Anthony Stewart has no face to accept it." The headline alone drew considerable attention.
In the article, Nicholas wrote, "Although Hugo recognized he had been trapped, he did not shirk responsibility. Instead, he courageously admitted his mistake and actively demonstrated a conciliatory attitude. That alone makes Hugo worthy of forgiveness. Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone has the courage to admit them—especially when the mistake was deliberately provoked by someone else. Avoiding responsibility is far easier than taking it. Hugo's attitude deserves commendation."
Conversely, Nicholas argued that Anthony's conduct set a poor example for the journalism industry. By maliciously exploiting his authority, he treated journalists as 'uncrowned kings,' manipulating news for sensationalism through slander, defamation, and provocation. Chanting "truth must be restored" while pursuing "sales, money, attention, and reputation" is a gross insult to journalistic freedom.
Nicholas went further, stating, "If Anthony refuses to face his wrongdoing, this could mark the beginning of decay within the journalism field."
Compared to James of US Weekly, Nicholas's defense of Hugo was explicit; he fully aligned with Hugo's perspective. Yet Nicholas was shrewder, elevating the issue to the level of journalistic ethics.
By implying Anthony's ulterior motives, Hugo's retaliation appeared as legitimate self-defense. His actions against Anthony became a form of self-protection, not only excusable but commendable. Nicholas repeatedly emphasized that even if Hugo's conduct qualified as "self-defense," his sincere apology demonstrated rare humility.
In short, Nicholas cleverly reframed the narrative, praising Hugo while ordinary readers were more than willing to accept it.
Just one day earlier, the Los Angeles Times had reported on the Golden Globe Awards ceremony, including the brawl at the celebratory after-party. In that report, Nicholas heavily criticized Hugo, and the paper sold 1.7 million copies. The very next day, Nicholas revealed the truth and cleared Hugo's name, and that edition sold an astonishing 2.5 million copies in a single day—the highest circulation for the Los Angeles Times since the Rodney King incident.
Entering the 1990s, the Los Angeles Times's average daily circulation had remained around 1.5 million, with growth stagnating. During the Rodney King incident, circulation exceeded 2.8 million for a full week, yet it never broke the three-million mark. Who could have predicted that a seemingly minor entertainment news story would push the paper to 2.5 million copies sold? It was truly unexpected.
From this, one can see the extraordinary level of public attention this incident attracted.
While US Weekly and the Los Angeles Times defended Hugo, naturally, other media outlets sought alternative angles to profit from the news frenzy.
Although media openly defending Anthony Stewart were rare—aside from the National Inquiry, a few local papers framed Anthony as a diligent reporter and Hugo as the embodiment of violence, defending Anthony's stance—most other outlets adopted a neutral approach. They neither cleared Anthony of wrongdoing nor let Hugo off the hook entirely.
The majority of media maintained a balanced position: Anthony was at fault, but Hugo should not have resorted to violence. This impartial stance became the mainstream view, a result of Hugo and Joseph's careful public image management. At the very least, Hugo's sincere apology was accepted by the public, minimizing the negative impact of the incident.
However, beyond neutrality, the media shifted attention away from the assault itself. In a sense, who Anthony had been hit by no longer mattered; the media seemed to adopt an attitude of, "Hugo was wrong to hit someone, but he apologized, so that's that—we should focus on other matters." The bizarre nature of this shift was both amusing and frustrating.
Though ignoring the assault was not Anthony's intention, journalists played into his wishes by focusing on Hugo's celebrity persona, which became the biggest spectacle stemming from the brawl.
Hugo's career trajectory was indeed peculiar. Dead Poets Society had catapulted him to fame, but not quite to A-list status. He eventually reached leading-man status, and from that perspective, Hugo had always carried a sense of stardom—refusing non-lead roles. Over the past few years, reports of Hugo being difficult or "picky" occasionally appeared in the press and were discussed in industry circles, sometimes humorously.
This time, after experiencing a career low, Hugo delivered two impressive performances in quick succession, pushing him firmly into the A-list and even earning a Golden Globe nomination for his acting. His current standing was significantly higher than it had been after Dead Poets Society. Yet once again, rumors of Hugo being difficult on set resurfaced. Observers assumed his old "diva" tendencies had returned, and talk of his on-set behavior proliferated like weeds after the rain.
This was exactly what Anthony had hoped for not necessarily in the way he imagined, but certainly in a manner Hugo could not have anticipated.
.....
Hi For access to additional chapters of
Director in Hollywood (40 chpaters)
Made In Hollywood (60 Chapters)
Pokemon:Bounty Hunter(30 Chapters)
Hollywood:From Razzie to Legend(40 Chapters)
The Great Ruler (30 Chapters)
Join pateron.com/Translaterappu