Moving On III

Much as I want to move on, if people keep posting comments requiring responses, I'll respond. As always, you're welcome to move on if you don't like what I post. Please, please do.

Allison writes,

I think you've got your targets mixed up, Leonard. If you want "separate but equal", then theatres ought to invite bloggers along on opening night like everyone else. (That's what happens here). And your beef - if indeed it is a question of professional ethics - seems to me not to be with George, who transgressed no understandings, but with the theatre company that issued the invitations in the first place. Have you taken this issue up with them?

I reply,

I think your targets are mixed up, Allison. I am not advocating for "separate but equal." I think "separate but equal" is wrong, and if you've read the post you'd know that. Indeed, the headline of the post in question read "Why Do Bloggers Endorse and Embrace "Separate But Unequal"? and the last line of my post read "Why would anyone, in 2007, endorse and embrace the idea of separate but equal? Didn't we resolve that a long time ago? Maybe you're drinking out of different water fountains, too." So I'm not embracing it, I'm saying it shouldn't be as such.

[this paragraph has been redacted at the request of individuals connected to the production of 100 Saints You Should Know.]

You can also call the three press agents I have called so far to discuss this matter and ask them what we discussed. My solution -- which is explicitly stated and, I think, quite clear in Moving On II, is: "...my position is to bring certain blogger-critics into the fold, not to keep them out of it. If they're good enough to be comped, to publish reviews, to be used to generate buzz, they're surely good enough to play by the rules, whatever they might be." That's not 'separate but equal,' Allision. That in the fold with everyone else and considered quite equal.

Further, my beef is with George and Playwrights Horizons. This idea that George, because he was given comp tickets, is suddenly freed like some shackled animal from any ethical questions or professional concerns or expectations is nonsense. And Playwrights Horizons is breaking its compact with its artists and with the rest of the media by saying bloggers are fully welcome to review a production in an early preview but the rest cannot. That must not and will not stand, and no, I will not drop it.

Statler writes,

"Dear oh dear. Way to go about making a fuss over nothing.

2 separate issues going on here and it's best to treat them seperately. Firstly the part about reviewing a preview - this is almost entirely about being fair to the production. Given that Playwrights Horizons provided George with the tickets on the basis he would write about it, and with no suggestion of any form of embargo there really shouldn't be anything else to be said on this. As Alison says, if you really have a problem with this take it up with the company.

The second aspect of publishing a review having left at the intermission I have more of a problem with. Given that George has stated the tickets were on the basis he would write about it "after seeing the performance" it does seem inappropriate to write about it after seeing half the performance. To me, this has breached the conditions on which the tickets were provided. I think George really had 2 options at the interval - stick it out and write his review or alternatively leave, pay for the tickets and not write the review.

For my own site, we decline press tickets as it allows us more freedom to react honestly and means we are under little or no obligation to the theatre to write anything at all. But we also generally try to avoid commenting on previews.

But seriously, this really shouldn't be a big deal. Let it go.

I reply,

There are indeed two separate issues going on here, but I maintain and will continue to maintain: "This idea that George, because he was given comp tickets, is suddenly freed like some shackled animal from any ethical questions or professional concerns or expectations is nonsense." And I have taken it up with Playwrights Horizons, a representative of which called me yesterday because now they're concerned, apparently, that negative publicity might be a problem, or to explain their "side" of the story, or something like that. I would advise you not to tell me what to do or what to write. If I choose to make this a public issue, that's my choice.

When you discuss the problem of George having left at the intermission and that being wrong because it "breached the conditions on which the tickets were provided," the problem here is precisely that no conditions were apparently provided whatsoever, and George took that to mean that was required to hold, or to demonstrate, or to espouse any personal ethics or responsibilities in that situation of his own, only one of which is to see the entire performance if you're going to write a formal review of it. According to Matt Freeman and Aaron Riccio (that defender of all things George Hunka, apparently) -- and I'm more or less paraphrasing, not quoting -- Playwrights Horizons basically said they could write anything they wanted to, so George did. I'm not saying Playwrights Horizons is innocent here by any stretch. I'm saying that just because Playwrights Horizons or any other group says, "Here are the comps -- equal to the comps we give to all the critics -- but we're not going to hold you to any ethical standards whatsoever," that doesn't mean George or anybody, as part of a community, really is freed of ethical or professional questions or concerns or expectations or responsibilities.

And as far as letting it go, no. Period.

Sphere: Related Content