Confirmed: Isherwood gone from NYT- Page 2

[Kad]

Posted: 2/6/17 at 4:07pm

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.

[LaneBryant]

Posted: 2/6/17 at 6:45pm

It would be lovely to get a critic that was not a white man........

[AC126748]

Posted: 2/6/17 at 7:46pm

LaneBryant said: "It would be lovely to get a critic that was not a white man........

 

"

There isn't going to be a new full time critic but yes, let's continue compiling our wish list!

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 2/6/17 at 7:47pm

LaneBryant said: "It would be lovely to get a critic that was not a white man........"

 



 

[djoko84]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 6:34am

Isherwood and Brantley were always very different in their reviews. Isherwood was much nicer and easier to impress than Brantley. I thought it wasn't fair to the shows that Brantley reviewed because I always thought Isherwood would be much kinder to them. I'd rather have them stick to just one guy.

[10086sunset]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 9:27am

http://broadwayjournal.com/charles-isherwood-exits-new-york-times/

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 9:32am

"Broadway Journal" seems to be just a personal blog by this Boroff guy, but I've heard elsewhere that Isherwood is out. And not laid off.

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 12:30pm

I've heard the same, neon. 

[Taryn]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 12:47pm

newintown said: "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."

They should probably bring their online advertising portals into the 21st Century. I can't even describe how difficult it is to manage advertising in the NYT.

[Skimbleshanks2]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 3:54pm

I never trusted his opinion... I only like it when the true queen BEN BRANTLEY reviews theater...

[Smaxie]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 3:58pm

>There isn't going to be a new full time critic but yes, let's continue compiling our wish list!<

As per this piece in Deadline, they are advertising for the position of theatre critic. 

http://deadline.com/2017/02/new-york-times-culture-desk-charles-isherwood-leaves-as-layoffs-loom-1201903894/

"Theater Critic Opening

We are seeking a critic with a deep appreciation for plays, musicals and theater history, but it is equally important that this person is able to connect the themes and issues on stage to those of the wider world. The writer must be gifted at assessing performances and stagecraft, but also eager to help readers understand the ideas that drive the work. While a background writing about theater is a plus, it is not a prerequisite…Most important, this critic must be able to convey with wit and emotion what makes plays and musicals important, irreplaceable and often unmissable."


And if they do consider some of their freelancers, there are four women writing for them, any of whom I would love to see take on that role: Elisabeth Vincentelli, Laura Collins-Hughes, Alexis Soloski and Elysa Gardner. 

Updated On: 2/7/17 at 03:58 PM

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 4:01pm

That Deadline post, like the blog posted elsewhere, is misleading. Isherwood was not laid off. I really wish the NYT was being more transparent here.

[AC126748]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 5:03pm

Without knowing all the facts, many of us -- myself included -- assumed that Isherwood was bought out because the Times was reducing their arts coverage. That would be in line with what has been reported and with other similar situations in the last few years. It turns out that Isherwood was let go due to matters concerning his professional comportment. Neither Isherwood nor the Times has issued a statement, so I assume that Deadline's writing that he was "laid off" is simply lazy and inaccurate reporting based on assumptions.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 6:15pm

Yes, that's my point. Lazy reporting. I wasn't sure of the situation at first, but I'm way more sure of what happened now, 24 hours later... 

I don't think it's fair of the NYT to stay silent on this. What he did affects their coverage and they're being dishonest by not disclosing it. 

Updated On: 2/7/17 at 06:15 PM

[MadonnaMusical]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 6:56pm

macnyc said: "I vote for the New York Times to hire Whizzer!

 

"

Yassssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss"

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 7:50pm

Strange timing, especially as shows have seemingly been equally shared out between Ben and Charles, also to let him go on the beginning of a very congested season.

The Arts Editor is no doubt still seething from that Tuck Everlasting review!

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 7:50pm

Strange timing, especially as shows have seemingly been equally shared out between Ben and Charles, also to let him go on the beginning of a very congested season.

The Arts Editor is no doubt still seething from that Tuck Everlasting review!

[AC126748]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 7:53pm

Phantom of London said: "Strange timing, especially as shows have seemingly been equally shared out between Ben and Charles, also to let him go on the beginning of a very congested season.

The Arts Editor is no doubt still seething from that Tuck Everlasting review!

 

"

The reason he's no longer working for the paper has nothing to do with his writing. 

[10086sunset]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 8:01pm

Does his posting the review on Facebook have anything to do with this?

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 8:02pm

No.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 10:28pm

Well, is there any chance someone could provide the story? There seem to be people in the know on this thread dropping all kinds of coy hints. :)

Updated On: 2/7/17 at 10:28 PM

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 10:30pm

There's some stuff in the ATC thread.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 2/7/17 at 11:05pm

Somebody will cover this soon. It would better for them to get out ahead of this but apparently not. They can be real idiots sometimes.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 12:02am

Apparently he was emailing a big producer? According to All That Chat - how the hell do you actually read that message board? I find it so confusing. 

Why isn't Reidel on this? 

[ntrackbar]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 9:46am

neonlightsxo said: ""Broadway Journal" seems to be just a personal blog by this Boroff guy, but I've heard elsewhere that Isherwood is out. And not laid off."

Just a point of fact about Boroff...he is a seasoned writer having worked for many publications over the years including Bloomberg, Barron's, and Crains. 

So many of us decry that journalists are being laid off in droves, especially in the arts. I find it admirable that he is trying to strike out on his own. If he wasn't doing good work or was some blogger without legit experience, I would get it. But considering he doesn't have the same resources he probably did at Bloomberg or other publications, I just want to applaud him for getting out there and actually reporting.