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

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.

"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.

I hope she never writes about books or music either.

---

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?

> 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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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

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

---