Oscars Mistake Casts Unwanted Spotlight on PwC; New York Times, February 27, 2017

David Gelles and Sapna Maheshwari, New York Times; 

Oscars Mistake Casts Unwanted Spotlight on PwC

"One video posted there, introducing Mr. Cullinan and Ms. Ruiz, began with the line, “The reason we were even first asked to take on this role was because of the reputation PwC has in the marketplace for being a firm of integrity, of accuracy and confidentiality.” It went on to note that the relationship was “symbolic of how we’re thought of beyond this role and how our clients think of us.”

But how clients think of PwC may change.

Mr. Gilman, the crisis communications specialist, said he was curious to see if PwC kept the Oscars contract. “They have branded themselves around this event saying, ‘We’re trusted’ — that’s the implication. Now I think that will take a hit.”"

The Thorny Ethics of the Oscars; New Yorker, 12/21/16

Michael Schulman, New Yorker; The Thorny Ethics of the Oscars:

"It seems impossible, and misguided, to demand an ethical CAT scan for everyone who’s nominated for an Oscar. Not long ago, I had lunch with an Academy member who had been busily attending screenings. When I asked whether the Affleck story would color his vote, he said anxiously, “I just don’t know.” Each Artist vs. Art case is complicated—less a one-to-one ratio than a quadratic equation—but, at some point, Academy members will be faced with a list of five names and a choice to make. What if it’s between Affleck and Denzel Washington for Best Actor, and you think Washington’s a great guy but Affleck gave the better performance? Forget the rabbi: each Oscar voter is now his or her own Solomon the Wise."