i don't know, but a good guess is that any award ceremony not dealing with films that are out at the moment is probably more honest. if the AFI decides to honor glen ford, it's not because the producers of his latest film spent thousands because they could gain millions by having the public run out to the theaters and pay to watch glen's lates pic.
it's not that the oscars are disshonest, it's that winning it is not a complete surprise. the fact that you made a great film is not enough. you don't just wake up one day and discover your film has been nominated. the producers campaign for the nomination, buy adds in variety magazines, etc. so that is the grumble about the oscars.
some films that finished their runs at the theaters, when they win at the oscars, or just get a lot of lip service and nominations but don't win, actually come back to the theaters a second time around. it's all a money thing. how much can you spend to try to make more. it has very little to do with wether you made a great film or not.
award ceremonies to me are a big snore.
the few AFI award ceremonies i've seen were totally bizare.
welles' was ridiculous, sinatra with fat jokes, unrelated guests, etc.
huston's, every guest commented on his womanising. it was an ode to his penis more so than to his films.
ford's was totally bizare, it was more about nixon, and danny kaye, than it was about ford. danny kaye did a stand up comedy, and honored nixon, and every one ignored ford!
and merry christmas to all