Posted: 2/16/17 at 12:11pm
The Times also has a number of freelancers on the theatre staff already. It would be nice if they would hire someone who is not a white man but I'm not holding my breath.
Posted: 2/16/17 at 12:16pm
also Riedel likely considers Ish a friend and would not want to byline the story. I am positive he had input.
I think it is highly likely the position will be filled from within, and their are at least 3 likely candidates who are not white males. I think the job is Alexis Soloski's if she wants it.
Posted: 2/16/17 at 12:21pm
"Yes, supposedly they are hiring a new critic. The job was posted. It pays over $100,000 a year."
That's a shockingly high salary for such an increasingly irrelevant job (for an employer with an increasingly problematic bottom line).
Posted: 2/16/17 at 12:34pm
Well it is in NYC and the cost of living is very high, as well as, the Times is the pre-eminent paper in the United States, so I can see how it would pay a lot. Plus, I've often wondered, how do the critics manage to know so much about the show they are reviewing? I wonder if they see it several times and take notes while watching? When I see a show once, I can write some thoughts about it afterwards (and I do on FB) but I can't write in near the detail that the critics seem to write in (and I just ended that sentence in a preposition! I know lol)
Posted: 2/16/17 at 12:34pm
Is it that shocking, though? It's the New York Times. I imagine they make over billion of dollars in revenue. It's probably the most read newspaper in the country if not the world.
Posted: 2/16/17 at 12:36pm
"Plus, I've often wondered, how do the critics manage to know so much about the show they are reviewing?"
That's easy - they receive an extensive press packet in advance. Sometimes with a full copy of the script/libretto.
"It's probably the most read newspaper in the country if not the world."
I wouldn't be surprised. But it's no secret that their readership is consistently shrinking (like every other newspaper in the world); from 935,000 in 2008 to 705,000 in 2013 (offset somewhat by digital subscriptions).
http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/03/media/nyt-cuts/
UPDATE: it does look like they had a good last quarter of 2016, however:
http://www.newsmax.com/US/new-york-times-donald-trump-readership-circulation/2017/02/03/id/771853/
That was probably due to the unprecedented wild election; it'll be interesting to see if growth declines or reverses as time passes.
Updated On: 2/16/17 at 12:36 PM
Posted: 2/22/17 at 12:27pm
Posted: 2/22/17 at 12:49pm
Granted that article still doesn't give us all the details, but man does Isherwood not come off well at all.
Posted: 2/22/17 at 12:56pm
"When Isherwood arrived in 2004, he was under the impression that Brantley would soon retire."
Brantley wasn't even fifty years old when Isherwood joined the paper--I can't imagine what on earth would have given him the impression that Brantley was planning to retire.
I hadn't previously heard of Isherwood feeling that he should be allowed to review HAMILTON because he reviewed IN THE HEIGHTS, but that's equally ridiculous.
Updated On: 2/22/17 at 12:56 PM
Posted: 2/22/17 at 1:15pm
Not to mention he then turned on Hamilton and decided to publicly bash it any chance he got...seemingly because they wouldn't let him do it.
Also, FWIW, I thought this piece was exceedingly generous to Isherwood. Calling him well regarded and a good critic is a stretch to anyone in this industry
Updated On: 2/22/17 at 01:15 PM
Posted: 2/22/17 at 1:30pm
Isherwood's hatred of Brantley borders on the pathological, and one could argue that he allowed it to influence his work by going out of his way to bash shows that Brantley reviewed favorably. I feel like that's something that hasn't gotten enough focus in the airing out of this situation.
Updated On: 2/22/17 at 01:30 PM
Posted: 2/22/17 at 1:33pm
I kind-of know Isherwood, and I must say that he is one of the most thoroughly unpleasant people I've ever met. Can't say I'm too sorry about his firing.
Posted: 2/22/17 at 2:17pm
If all that is true I think that he should have looked for a first string critic job at a different newspaper. The NYT is top dog but it sounds like he would have been more professionally satisfied being on a " lesser" one but having the first pick of shows to review.
If the firing holds who's going to want to hire him then?
Posted: 2/22/17 at 2:24pm
Isherwood will be employed again, but never in a position that even begins to approach where he was. And that's his own damn fault.
Posted: 2/22/17 at 3:08pm
neonlightsxo said: "The firing is going to "hold."
"
That's highly likely, I was just being hesitant since I am assuming it's not official until Isherwood exhausts all of his employment rights included hearings and appeals ects.
Updated On: 2/22/17 at 03:08 PM
Posted: 2/22/17 at 3:09pm
Drama!
Someone oughta make a musical out of that Vulture article!
Posted: 2/22/17 at 3:12pm
Sunny11 said: "neonlightsxo said: "The firing is going to "hold."
"
That's highly likely, I was just being hesitant since I am assuming it's not official until Isherwood exhausts all of his employment rights included hearings and appeals ects.
"
It's official. Isherwood was fired and is no longer an employee of the New York Times. It's certainly his right to pursue arbitration by whatever means his contract allows, but he's not in a state of limbo right now. He's gone.
Updated On: 2/22/17 at 03:12 PM
Posted: 2/22/17 at 3:12pm
Someone should email that article to Ryan Murphy so he can do a Brantley/Isherwood season of Feud!
Posted: 2/22/17 at 3:30pm
"Someone should email that article to Ryan Murphy so he can do a Brantley/Isherwood season of Feud!"
Hah, would watch. Alan Rickman would have been such a good Isherwood, sigh.
Posted: 2/22/17 at 3:32pm
Is it a feud if it's just Isherwood complaining about his cushy job and not getting tickets he isn't entitled to? I mean...
Posted: 2/22/17 at 3:40pm
Yeah, it's not a feud because Brantley could give a crap about Isherwood.
Posted: 2/22/17 at 3:44pm
It's a feud because he has been disparaging Brantley publicly and privately for years; he has the utmost contempt for him as a critic and I'm sure Murphy could extend the contempt to Brantley personally as well.
Brantley has stayed tight-lipped on his feelings about Isherwood, but Murphy could either get the real story or fabricate one.
Two New York Times theater critics feuding for a decade with the season finale resulting in one of them getting canned for unethical behavior sounds like enough material to base a bitchy "Feud" season on to me. Think of all the Broadway cameos that could pop up.
Murphy could sell it to FX by devoting an entire episode to reviewing Hamilton- Isherwood wants it, Brantley "steals" it and raves, Isherwood bashes the show (and Brantley) every chance he can get after. Lin and company guest star.
Posted: 2/22/17 at 3:50pm
Feud: "a mutual enmity or quarrel that is often prolonged or inveterate"
There's nothing mutual about this. Isherwood has a pathological hatred of Brantley that he's manufactured almost entirely himself. Brantley may not like Isherwood as a person, but from a professional standpoint, he would not feel threatened by Isherwood at all.
Posted: 2/22/17 at 3:50pm
I think most people would agree that Ish did some things that were wrong, but that does not resolve the firing question. I don't think it is a question of entitlement: he IS entitled to the free tickets that are a part of his job. I also don't think anyone here has a basis for saying Ben doesn't give a crap about this. And I agree with just about everyone that he is not getting his job back. What he is looking for is a buyout/severance. And the fact is, there is no other job as cool as the one he was fired from; and it is not unavailable to him.
