Wall Street Journal writer admits to leaving most shows at intermission...- Page 4

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 12:40pm

She received approval from executives at WSJ before printing this column, so it's safe to assume her job is safe and that the execs at WSJ achieved their original goal: attention. A clear baiting on their part and the BWW Message Board bit.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 1:52pm

Dear Wall Street Journal:

Your Ms. Kaufman has demonstrated that she has no integrity as a cultural critic.

Her views on contemporary culture are no longer of interest to anyone but you and you alone.

The readers of the Wall Street Journal deserve a cultural critic who at least demonstrates some knowledge about culture. But they do not deserve a writer who treats them with the utter contempt she recently displayed.

Feel free to tell her that we recognize the contempt she has for us, and since that column, the feeling is mutual.

If you are loving this attention, perhaps yours is the job that should be in jeopardy.

Yr pal,
Joey

Updated On: 12/9/14 at 01:52 PM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 2:19pm

"I don't have to like her to think she doesn't deserve termination for doing her job."

I would argue that she's not doing her job. She uses her position to secure tickets ostensibly to cover 'culture' of which Broadway is a huge part. She then stays for half of the show and jets...hoping that the press rep doesn't see her. If she were doing her job, she'd say, 'Ugh...I had to flee MATILDA because those I couldn't understand a word those wretched children were shrieking.' But no...she didn't do that. She did not do her job. People aren't upset about her opinions, they are upset at her actions.

And if people were being fired for writing racist, sexist, homophobic things, John Simon would have been a greeter at Walmart since the 70's.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 2:29pm

She's not doing her job. If she's there, as an invited guest, with comped press tickets, and she's writing about it, she'd better sit through the whole show. End of story. The public's impression of your review is that, regardless of content, it was reviewed fairly with all "information," for lack of a better term. Information being, you know, the entire performance.

I wouldn't suggest someone in her position lose his/her job for poorly reviewing shows watched in their entirety. That would be "doing her job." This is not. This is doing part of her job, then bragging about only doing part of her job in an article written AS PART OF HER JOB. I still have to wonder what anyone -- writer, editor, etc. -- thought was going to come of this. I hope this woman never sees another press comp again AND never writes another published theater piece in her life. She's an embarrassment.

Updated On: 12/9/14 at 02:29 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 2:34pm

I hope she never writes about books or music either.

[LarryD2]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 6:56pm

But...AGAIN...how can she have an opinion if she doesn't bother to see/hear/experience what she's writing about.

Again, you (and others) are misreading what she actually wrote. She's not writing a review of an individual piece of theater. She's offering an opinion--an opinion that many of us do not agree with. Her opinion is that most of the theater she sees is not worth her time. It's provocative, and obviously touched a nerve in many of you. I imagine she knew it would.

I don't agree with what she wrote. I don't believe she should be fired for holding it. Your mileage may vary. And that's really all I have to say on the matter.

[trentsketch]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 7:01pm

We're not misreading what she wrote. She brayed out an editorial about being a naughty little minx, sneaking out of theaters at intermission and hoping that the PR people who gave her free tickets don't catch her. Now why would she be afraid of being caught leaving? Maybe because she knows that a media critic comped tickets to a theatrical event is expected to watch the whole thing?

[Pootie2]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 7:08pm

^That's a good point.

If Kaufman did not believe what she was doing was genuinely wrong, she wouldn't feel the need to hide her escape from the press agent.

[whatever2]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 8:49pm

> She's not writing a review of an individual piece of theater. She's offering an opinion

Larry, I think you're hanging on a technicality here and consistently ignoring the larger point.

True, she is not a theater critic and her columns are not reviews -- important points an alarming number of posters here continue to ignore -- but that doesn't mean her behavior doesn't fundamentally compromise her credibility.

i can think of lots of shows that pulled it out of a nose-dive in the second act, along with a few that actually sucked after the entr'acte. girlfriend, however, can't -- she's already left the building. if her remit is to write broadly about culture, she simply can't do that effectively if she only exposes herself to the first half of it. has she really read all the books she's written about, or did she stop at page 125? does she listen to the final movement of new symphonies? she's compromised her credibility not because she's said, "i'm not doing what a critic's supposed to do" but because she's said, "i only half-observe the arts and then have the audacity to make broad pronouncements about their state."

i don't think the Journal should replace her because i disagree with her, i think they should replace her because she's (brazenly) admitted to forming opinions without gathering enough facts. there's just too many QUALIFIED people out there to allow someone who's so clearly burnt-out on her (influential) job to continue to hold it.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 12/9/14 at 9:25pm

We work hard for our pay checks to enable us to go and invest in tickets to an art form we adore, so it's gaoling that this entitled woman gets free tickets, to then slam the art form and leave in the interval.

All press agents should withhold gratis tickets to all of the WSJ. Personnel until this woman is relieved of her duties.

This woman insulted every theatre goer. Who plonks down hard earned cash at the box office.

[Pootie2]

Posted: 12/10/14 at 12:41am

http://deadline.com/2014/12/broadway-bolter-wall-street-journal-1201317524/

[Taryn]

Posted: 12/10/14 at 1:38am

I am in the minority in thinking the whole thing is kind of overblown. She is far from the first person to leave at intermission, far from the first journalist, either. Far from the first industry professional with comps. Her employer clearly doesn't have a problem with it. Comps aren't really part of the marketing budget, because they only cost the show something if the show is entirely sold out otherwise and they absolutely would have sold that seat, which is uncommon for most shows. There's not a line item int he marketing budget for comps. (And, in fact, it is not theatre goers who fund the marketing budget for shows in their early days when most press is coming in -- it's the producers and investors. The dream is, of course, that the audience will begin to fund the budget, but most shows don't get to that point.)

I just don't think she's particularly unique in her attitudes. I think that the WSJ let her (or had her) write about it because it was nice link bait that would get them a lot of attention. And hey, it worked.

[binau]

Posted: 12/10/14 at 2:39am

You don't think it is unusual or unique that someone who has received a large number of comps over the years almost never stays for the show?

I find it strange on many levels, most of all that they would bother to do that (if they are likely not going to enjoy the experience why even risk it?) - they seem to have wasted A LOT of their own time over the years. This can't be a common occurrence, surely.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/10/14 at 7:05am

Joanne Kaufman asks "I mean, whose dog did I poison?”

PalJoey responds: Mine.

[MVintheheartland]

Posted: 12/10/14 at 11:28am

Based on her latest rebuttal,she's still a douche. Even more so now.

[Pootie2]

Posted: 12/10/14 at 11:36am

I would hope that people who have a primary interest in theater and have a sense of propriety in relation to a situation tangentially related to her job (either you decline free tickets from the very beginning or you stay for the whole thing) would cancel their WSJ subscriptions.

Otherwise, just blacklist. Win-win there, really. No comp tickets for WSJ, no wasted marketing funds from the theater biz. I doubt shows would stop paying WSJ to actually print advertisements, if they do that in that paper, but I wonder just how much money WSJ gets from the theater business overall (how much realistic economic leverage exists).

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/10/14 at 12:42pm

The always-interesting (but not always agreeable, although none of us would ask for his resignation) James Wolcott--CULTURAL CRITIC at Vanity Fair--offers these thoughts:



VANITY FAIR: Premature Evacuations

[Back Row]

Posted: 12/10/14 at 1:07pm

When I read the column, one of my first thoughts was: Don't they have editors at the WSJ? Didn't anyone think that publishing this might be a bad idea? And the answer is: apparently not. The tone deafness that Ms. Kaufman demonstrated in her column does not seem to be an isolated affliction at the WSJ. That's why I think that cutting off free tickets from just Ms. Kaufman, or even firing her, does not get to the root of the problem. This is a WSJ problem, and a more effective response would be to deny comps to anyone from the WSJ. That might get their attention.