Confirmed: Isherwood gone from NYT- Page 3

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 9:56am

Ok sure. I'd never heard of him before. If he was "actually reporting" why did he write a piece that reads like Isherwood was laid off when that is not the case? It doesn't seem like he actually reported to me. I'm not a reporter but I've heard this Isherwood story from several different friends in the past few days. Why do I know more than he does?

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 10:00am

Boroff has definitely come up here and at ATC before. He's a registered user at the latter. Not sure about here.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 10:01am

Being a registered message board user is supposed to make me consider him a serious journalist? I don't see the connection, Lizzie.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 10:03am

No, I was addressing that you said you'd never heard of him.

[ntrackbar]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 10:35am

I guess my point was that he isn't some no name, unprofessional writer. You may not have meant that, neon. Anyway. Your point about "laid off" versus "fired" is definitely worth asking. I come down to the following two thoughts...

First. We don't know the conditions of the termination (often the term used is a very careful one hammered out by attorneys...and in this case, it may still be in flux which is why everyone on record is being extra careful) and it may not come out for quite a while what the actual story is - indeed, there are people who claim to know the real reasons, but vague, anonymous claims on a chat board are no more evidential. 

Ultimately though it comes down to the larger point for me about being first versus being most accurate. It is a question we see raised in every discussion about journalism these days. Not here to say what is right. But it is worth pointing out that this happened on Friday and rumors were kicking around for days. The Times and Isherwood are not yet on record about what down (again, I am sure attorneys are working out what can or more likely cannot be said). Boroff finally reported on it. More details will come out and if he was inaccurate and a journalist of integrity, he will correct the phrase that he used. I am one to give him the benefit of the doubt that he used every word carefully. 

Anyway...not trying to deviate from the bigger story here. Just adding my two or three cents in about Boroff. I have enjoyed his writing in the past and look forward to him continuing to carve out a space in the world of theater journalism and the business we all love so much.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 10:37am

OK.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 11:06am

@ntrackbar I think the still "bigger" story is that no journalist, or outlet, should get a pass when they mis-report. And it seems like certain journalists took the base "news" that was already out there and went off on a tangent about something that cuts close to the quick for them rather than pursuing the actual story that is worthy of reporting. 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 11:08am

Agreed on that point.

[ntrackbar]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 11:10am

A fair criticism. Interested to see how this all plays out. 

[BroadwayBen]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 12:29pm

This is the story everyone is talking about, and the fact that no one is sharing a complete story tells you something, I think.    The fact that Reidel chose to ignore and instead write about something silly at "Natasha" shows you how apprehensive everyone is tell this complete story.   Maybe a Times editor will eventually write about it, but I don't think they'll have the guts either.  

[newintown]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 12:31pm

There may also be legal issues; whenever almost anyone in a visible position is fired these days, they get to spin the event, so as to avoid any defamation lawsuits (whether suspected winnable or not).

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 12:49pm

BroadwayBen said: "This is the story everyone is talking about, and the fact that no one is sharing a complete story tells you something, I think.    The fact that Reidel chose to ignore and instead write about something silly at "Natasha" shows you how apprehensive everyone is tell this complete story.   Maybe a Times editor will eventually write about it, but I don't think they'll have the guts either.  "

 

I agree that this is the story everyone is talking about. Your point is concerning to me. I know you're probably right, but from what I know of the story, what Isherwood did affects his bias, and therefore was delivering dishonest writing. The Times is just going to ignore that and stand by his writing? That seems against what they believe as an institution. And personally, as a subscriber, I'm concerned. Because this is a theater department story, we're going to ignore this?

I understand there are legal issues but it shouldn't just be ignored.

 

[ntrackbar]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 12:53pm

Neon - I TOTALLY agree with you. I am just more of the mind that people aren't ignoring it, it is just taking time for the details to come out. And as much as I would like the Times to be open and honest about what happen (especially IF something untoward did go down)...I think we may be more likely to see the gory details from other publications. 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 12:55pm

Oh, I hope so. Based on the fact that so far they're "no comment"ing is why it seems to me like they're trying to ignore it.

NYT Ethics policy http://www.nytco.com/who-we-are/culture/standards-and-ethics/

[M.O.A.I.]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 5:01pm

Is the full story online anywhere? This board is being unusually vague... Rudin, Seller, David Merrick? Who the hell was he emailing and why?

[AC126748]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 5:31pm

I've only heard a rumor as to why Isherwood was shown the door--albeit from a source I'm inclined to trust. But that said, I don't want to post anything specific on a public forum that I haven't confirmed. 

[macnyc]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 5:36pm

I hope Trump doesn't get wind of this story! He'll be tweeting about a New York Times instigated coverup.

 

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 7:19pm

macnyc said: "I hope Trump doesn't get wind of this story! He'll be tweeting about a New York Times instigated coverup.

^Shame on BWW you cannot like posts, that was very funny. Oh wait you were being serious?

Isherwood has been gone 2/3 days and nothing has really come why, so no major smoking gun then?

Obviously he was a second stringer, but for all other publications he would be a first stringer, if the New York Post decided to do serious theatre criticism again, only a thought!

 

 

"

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 2/8/17 at 9:18pm

Phantom of London said: "Obviously he was a second stringer, but for all other publications he would be a first stringer, if the New York Post decided to do serious theatre criticism again, only a thought!"

or maybe the Journal American will start publishing again and hire him. or the Long Island Farmer. 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 2/9/17 at 8:23am

AC126748 said: "I've only heard a rumor as to why Isherwood was shown the door--albeit from a source I'm inclined to trust. But that said, I don't want to post anything specific on a public forum that I haven't confirmed. "

 

Same. I don't feel comfortable posting specifics. Sorry.

[Broadwaydancer2]

Posted: 2/10/17 at 3:48am

Elysa Gardner please loved her work on usatoday

"

 

"

 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 2/10/17 at 9:24am

ntrackbar do you really still think the details are going to come out? Because it's looking less likely to me every day.

[ntrackbar]

Posted: 2/10/17 at 10:54am

I do. It has only been a week since it went down. I could be wrong, but I would be very surprised if it didn't come out. 

[macnyc]

Posted: 2/10/17 at 11:44am

If the departure does involve an ethics breach, I think the Times has an obligation to disclose that. Although, in the current political climate, the fallout will be rougher than usual.

Updated On: 2/10/17 at 11:44 AM

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 2/10/17 at 12:00pm

Reading this thread is leaving me with far too many questions and chills