Confirmed: Isherwood gone from NYT

A poster on All That Chat is reporting (as-yet-unconfirmed) that Charles Isherwood is no longer with the New York Times. The initial post was made at 10:30pm last night and has not been removed, which leads me to believe there might be some credence to it.

One would assume that if this news is true, it might signal a reduction in theater coverage. Or perhaps the Times is moving to a structure with a sole full-time critic and a stable of pay-per-article stringers (as has been the case with their classical music coverage for years).

A search of the NYT archives shows that Isherwood last filed an article on January 30.

http://www.talkinbroadway.com/allthatchat_new/d.php?id=2363742

Updated On: 2/7/17 at 12:41 PM

Aw man, bummer news if true. Not because I am particularly enamored with Isherwood's criticism, but because it would likely indicate the elimination of the position of the second critic, and that's bad news for everyone. (Fingers crossed that perhaps they're hiring someone new, but I am not at all optimistic.)

I agree with the poster above. I hope they keep the position, but I'd be happy to hear that Isherwood is gone. 

I'd be very happy if a) Ish and his wacko writing and opinions were gone from all news organs, and b) if the Times did decide to invest less in theatre reviews. People fawn on those subjective bits of poorly-written, ill-informed opinion too much as is.

"Fired" is different than "laid off", though.

Or bought out.

Not to keep bashing Isherwood, but I would be elated if this news turns out to be true. I groan each time I click a new show's review and see Isherwood's name in the byline. Brantley is a far superior critic.

GreasedLightning said: "AC126748 said: ""Fired" is different than "laid off", though.

Or bought out.

 

"

What purpose would the NYT have to buy out one of their writers in the middle of one of the busiest Broadway seasons in years who has been writing for them for so long...? 

 

"

Not meaning this in any sort of sarcastic or condescending way, but do you know anything about current trends in the newspaper business? I'm a full-time journalist--this is my industry--and I've seen this kind of thing happen more times than I can count. Buyouts are exceedingly common, happen at all calendar points, and more often than not effect long-term employees. Arts coverage is also usually one of the first targets for cutbacks because it's viewed as less essential. There are *many* examples of exactly this kind of situation. Stringers are cheaper than full-time staff.

Updated On: 2/6/17 at 01:49 PM

Honestly, I hope the Times gets somebody new and really, really good. The New York theatre criticism scene could use a fresh face.

If the numbers in that article are true, a 19% drop in ad revenue, on top of the slow decline in Times ad sales and subscription/readership over the past decade would lead me to believe they plan to scale back on all arts coverage and writers.

I don't think it's a bad thing; it may encourage people to do their own research and form their own opinions.

Ha! I thought I could type that with a straight face, and I just could not.

I think people already do their own research, and that's the source of the problem, The internet has geometrically increased the amount of information and opinion one can get about any given show, and the Times has no way to compete. Money today is made in execution, not in content. The Times is carrying around a pair of white elephants. It has a shrinking print edition the remaining demographic for which is frightening as a business source, and a clumsy digital edition (also weak demographically) with an absurd paywall that has literally driven away more traffic than most websites could only dream of attracting in the first place. 

The cost of maintaining an Isherwood made sense when the paper attracted robust advertising. Most of what's left is paid for in the name of nostalgia. Look at it this way: what's the biggest theatrical juggernaut of this decade? what is its estimated outlay to the Times? I'll give you a hint: it's less than Isherwood's salary. 

I vote for the New York Times to hire Whizzer!

"Honestly, I hope the Times gets somebody new and really, really good. The New York theatre criticism scene could use a fresh face."

This, this, this times a thousand. And perhaps--gasp--even a female critic? There is so much discussion around the lack of female playwrights/book writers/composers/directors, but that goes hand in hand with the lack of female critics. If female stories and POVs were demanded from reviewers, it would increase the likelihood of them actually making their way to the stage. Not to mention I am just beyond bored with the white male purview of Brantley and Isherwood and how it informs their dramatic opinions. 

You'd be more likely to see stringers covering higher-profile productions and/or reviews that cover multiple shows (which several publications do already- i.e. New York Magazine) than someone being promoted up to Isherwood's position. The trend has been downsizing, not sideways moves.