What if there were no show and everybody came?

The truncated Golden Globes presentation on Sunday -- now down to a 9 p.m. hourlong news conference if they read names really slowly, plus some canned interviews preceding on NBC and God knows what after it -- has left those charged with covering entertainment news a bit confused about how to handle it. Do they just publish a dry, straightforward story dotted with movie and TV stills and a winners' list and bury it somewhere, or really cover the hell out of the fact that it's a far less colorful happening because of the writers' strike?
I myself, having covered Hollywood awards shows of all kinds since about 1990, vote for the latter. Ever since they became a televised event, the Golden Globes have been given way too much credibility given that they are determined by fewer than a hundred "journalists" covering show biz for media outlets in other countries, many of whom can have their votes influenced by, um, shiny objects.
I won't be going this year, but I would actually enjoy capturing the weirdness of presenting statuettes that go undelivered (do they mail them or have one of the aforementioned "journalists" hand-deliver them and then stick around expecting a free lunch?). Underdressed and unstyled stars trying to figure out whether to find a party (HBO already canceled its fete) or stay home in fuzzy slippers. Acceptance speeches Webcast on fan sites? This would be ever so much more interesting than the same old stuff that comes out of the Beverly Hilton every other year.
And you can bet the AMPAS board and Gil Cates, producer of this year's Oscar cast, are going to be wondering how the Globes' news conference format is received with fans at home as they brace for the possibility of a writerless, actorless, picketed Academy Awards next month.
Stay tuned...