Different opinions

The direct confrontation between Hugo and Anthony ignited the enthusiasm of all media outlets, making the entire entertainment circle lively.

This time, James Rudd, a reporter from Us Weekly, stole the limelight from everyone. James didn't expect that his friendly gesture towards Hugo during the premiere of "Final Analysis" a year ago would have such an impact and become the biggest breakthrough in his career.

After Anthony's press conference, James conducted a one-hour exclusive interview with Hugo. He then used the title "Sincere Apologies along with Dignity" to report on the highly publicized assault incident in real time. In the article, James objectively described the entire event in a plain tone, as unbiased and as close to the truth as possible. He then expressed his own viewpoint.

"Hugo deeply acknowledges the mistake of his actions. He has repeatedly expressed sincere apologies for assaulting Anthony and has taken the initiative to propose compensatory actions. As a public figure, Hugo knows the incorrectness of his behavior and is making every effort to rectify the negative impact of this incident. We should condemn Hugo but not excessively criticize him. At least we should acknowledge his sincerity and recognize his attitude to reform.

However, on the other hand, behind Hugo's erroneous behavior, are there more underlying secrets worth exploring? This is obvious. Anthony repeatedly used malicious language to defame Hugo, not only tarnishing Hugo's creative talent but also baselessly accusing him of plagiarism. These are groundless and meaningless accusations. Anthony also launched personal attacks on Hugo, deliberately distorting Hugo's response to the Golden Globe Awards, intentionally spreading rumors about Hugo's arrogance, and maliciously misinterpreting Hugo's personal life. These behaviors should definitely be condemned.

When journalists, under the banner of "the right to know" and "press freedom", engage in malicious interpretations of public figures, it may fall within the legal scope. However, this is meant to safeguard the media's lofty position, not to become a tool for manufacturing news.

Clearly, Anthony took advantage of the principle that "media criticism of public figures" is not bound by factual constraints and launched unreasonable attacks on Hugo. His intention was not to verify the facts but to provoke Hugo, ultimately creating a sensational news story. Anthony succeeded. His battered body is the best evidence. He won attention, sympathy, and also the news.

While we condemn Hugo for losing control of his anger and resorting to violence against Anthony, we should also recognize Anthony's leading role in this incident. It is undoubtedly a prank orchestrated by Anthony the director.

After the incident, Hugo faced condemnation, accepted punishment, admitted his mistakes, and accepted the facts. So, should Anthony also bear the corresponding responsibility? When Anthony uses press freedom as a weapon to attack public figures in pursuit of sensational news, the act itself is violence and should be absolutely prohibited!"

James' entire article appeared impartial and righteous, analyzing the entire incident based on facts. However, after reading the entire piece, it was not difficult to see that he was clearly taking Hugo's side and advocating for his innocence. However, what made James clever was that he didn't blindly praise Hugo. After presenting both sides' arguments, he emphasized Hugo's proper attitude and condemned Anthony's malicious intentions. In this situation, the balance in the minds of the public quietly shifted.

In fact, this was also the purpose of Hugo's decision to directly confront Anthony face to face, and now it seemed that Hugo had already succeeded halfway.

In just one day, this issue of Us Weekly sold 300,000 copies across the United States. This achievement was comparable to the weekly or even half-monthly sales at other times. From this data, it could be seen that the brawl incident at the Golden Globe Awards celebration attracted a lot of attention.

Although Nicholas Allum missed Hugo's interview, it didn't stop him from speaking up for Hugo in the latest issue of the Los Angeles Times.

"Hugo Lancaster sincerely apologizes, Anthony Stewart has no face to accept it." This long headline is enough to attract a lot of attention.

In the article, Nicholas stated, "Although Hugo knows that he fell into a trap, he did not shirk responsibility but bravely admitted his mistake. He actively showed a friendly attitude towards making amends. From this point alone, Hugo deserves forgiveness. Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone has the courage to admit them, especially when the mistake is orchestrated by others. Shifting blame is much easier than taking responsibility. Hugo's attitude is commendable."

On the contrary, Nicholas believed that Anthony's behavior was a negative example in the field of journalism because he maliciously used his power, truly treating journalists as "uncrowned kings" and arbitrarily manipulating news focal points through defamation, slander, and provocation. This was the degradation of journalism. When shouting the slogan of "truth restoration", it was actually seeking self-interest in terms of "sales, money, attention, and reputation", which was an insult to press freedom.

Nicholas even said emphatically, "If Anthony does not face his own mistakes, this will be the starting point for the decay of the news industry."

Compared to James from Us Weekly, Nicholas's attitude in speaking for Hugo was very apparent. He completely took Hugo's standpoint to elaborate. However, Nicholas was more cunning. He elevated the whole issue to the height of the journalism field, which was the cleverest point.

Because under Nicholas's insinuation, Anthony's impure motives turned Hugo's counterattack into "self-defense", making Hugo's strike against Anthony a means of self-protection. It not only didn't require condemnation but should be affirmed. Nicholas even repeatedly emphasized that even if Hugo acted in "self-defense", he still expressed sincere apologies, and this humility was precious.

It could be said that Nicholas is singing praises for Hugo by using a concept swap, and the general public was well... really buying into it.

A day before, the Los Angeles Times reported on the Golden Globe Awards ceremony, including the brawl incident at the celebration. Nicholas strongly criticized Hugo in this newspaper. As a result, this newspaper sold 1.7 million copies. However, a day later, Nicholas revealed the truth and clarified the facts for Hugo. This newspaper sold a whopping 2.5 million copies within a day. These figures represented the highest sales for the Los Angeles Times since the Rodney King incident last year!

Since the 1990s, the average daily sales of the Los Angeles Times had remained around 1.5 million copies, and its development has stagnated. During the Rodney King incident last year, the newspaper's sales remained above 2.8 million copies for some time, but it had never been able to reach the threshold of 3 million. Who could have anticipated that this seemingly just an entertainment industry news explosion would make Los Angeles Times reach a sales volume of 2.5 million copies? It was truly unexpected.

From this aspect, it could be seen that the level of attention to this incident was extremely high.

While Us Weekly and Los Angeles Times spoke well of Hugo, naturally, there were other media outlets that take a different approach, hoping to benefit from this news event.

Although the number of media outlets openly speaking in favor of Anthony Stewart was limited, besides the National Enquirer, there were a few local newspapers that believed Anthony was just a diligent reporter while Hugo was the embodiment of violence. They all sympathize with Anthony. However, apart from this, the attitude of most media outlets was neither to clarify the facts for Anthony nor to let Hugo off the hook.

Most media outlets maintained a neutral position, acknowledging that Anthony was indeed at fault but that Hugo should not have resorted to physical violence. This unbiased viewpoint had become mainstream, and it was also a result of Hugo and Joseph's painstaking efforts. At least this perspective did not excessively blame Hugo, and the sincere apology from Hugo had been accepted by the public, minimizing the negative impact of this incident.

However, apart from the neutral stance, the media's focus shifted from the assault incident itself to other aspects. To some extent, people no longer cared about Anthony being assaulted, and the media's attitude was more like "Hugo was wrong to hit someone, but he has already apologized, so let's move on and focus on other things." This strange situation was rather ironic.

Although Anthony did not intend for the assault incident to be ignored, the reporters in the media complied with his wishes and shifted their attention to Hugo's high-profile incident, which became the biggest highlight of this assault incident.

Hugo's journey had been quite peculiar. He gained fame through "Dead Poets Society", although it didn't truly elevate him to the A-list, he did manage to secure leading roles afterward. From this perspective, it could be said that Hugo refused to accept supporting roles in films that didn't treat him as the male lead. Consequently, there were a few instances in the past few years where news about Hugo's diva behavior surfaced in the media, and within the industry, people somewhat mockingly discussed it.

However, this time, after experiencing a slump, Hugo delivered two outstanding works and made it to the A-list in one fell swoop. He even received recognition for his acting skills with a Golden Globe nomination. Now, Hugo's situation had improved significantly compared to the period after "Dead Poets Society". In such circumstances, rumors of diva behavior resurfaced, and people couldn't help but think that Hugo's old "illness" had relapsed. This further fueled the speculations about Hugo's diva behavior without getting clarified, and they sprouted up like mushrooms after rain.

This was what Anthony hoped for, although not in the way he desired, and it was something that Hugo couldn't have anticipated.