A quick case-study in how - in this age of the "end of the print critic" - mainstream-media film reporting is generally done by high-functioning morons:
FIRST, here's Robert Downey Jr. giving a colorfully-flippant description of his upcoming "Sherlock Holmes" re-imagining's fresh take (some have called it an Apatow-style "bromance" variation) on the franchise central relationship:
DOWNEY: "We're two men who happen to be roommates, wrestle a lot and share a bed. It's bad-ass,"
Okay, show of hands: We all "get" that he's being 'cute,' matter-of-factly describing the relationship in a shorthand that sounds like something that it isn't, yes? Well, here's how the New York Post put it: http://www.nypost.com/seven/08042009/gossip/pagesix/gay_sherlock_holmes_could_backfire_for_g_182825.htm
Headline: "GAY TWIST ON SHERLOCK HOLMES COULD BACKFIRE FOR GUY RITCHIE." Yeah.
This comes to us courtesy the "Page Six" section, which for good measure goes to once-respected film critic turned right wing quote-monger Michael Medved to get his response to their misrepres... er... I mean "news story."
MEDVED: "I think they're just trying to generate controversy . . . They know that making Holmes and Watson homosexual will take away two-thirds of their box office."
In other words, even MICHAEL friggin' MEDVED 'gets' that the quote is in jest. When you can't even get MEDVED to go along with your sensational non-story, you know you've crossed a "stupid-line."
This, of course, does not STOP the story from being linkable at Andrew Breitbart's right-wing movie-buff circle-jerk known as "Big Hollywood," under the headline "SHERLOCK HOLMES, DR. WATSON HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP IN NEW FILM."
"Big Hollywood," it may also be noted, has published FOUR stories in the past two days on the subject of FURY at the supposed lack of patriotism in the new G.I. Joe movie. None of the four stories come from sources who have actually SEEN the film.