Stay in the Loop
BSR publishes on a weekly schedule, with an email newsletter every Wednesday and Thursday morning. There’s no paywall, and subscribing is always free.
…And then there were none: The Inquirer's last theater critic
The Inquirer's dwindling theater coverage
SaraKay Smullens
When I moved to Philadelphia in the mid-1960s, choices in Philadelphia theater were as old-fashioned and limited as the city's restaurants. Well, no more. Today Philadelphians (and even the city's growing tourist community) can choose from among some 50 professional theater companies, not to mention the annual Fringe Festival and outside touring companies.
In contrast to this explosive growth, the Philadelphia Inquirer has spent the past decade responding to a series of internal budget crises by cutting back on its arts coverage. This month the Inquirer— the newspaper of record for America's fifth largest city— eliminated its last remaining staff theater critic position.
Howard Shapiro, who has been with the Inquirer for 42 years and its theater critic for the past ten, was reassigned to the paper's South Jersey bureau. He has responded by taking a buyout and retiring early. Shapiro will continue to write reviews as the Broadway critic for The Classical Network, a group of National Public Radio affiliates in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
No art critic, either
Shapiro was not singled out. The Inquirer's respected cultural news reporter, Amy Rosenberg, has also been reassigned. More staff shifts are said to be in the offing, all in the direction away from substantial and meaningful arts coverage.
The Inquirer hasn't had a full-time staff art critic/writer since 2005, when Ed Sozanski took a buyout. Sozanski now writes one free-lance museum piece each Sunday.
As of October 29th, the Inquirer will have only three full-time arts staffers: the music critic/writers David Patrick Stearns and Peter Dobrin, and the cultural institutions writer Stephan Salisbury. All other coverage of theater, art and dance at the Inquirer will be provided by free-lancers or generated by other Inquirer departments, which are themselves already spread very thin.
"'Frankly, readers…'
To be sure, the Inquirer will continue to provide theater reviews by three knowledgeable and dedicated free-lance critics: Toby Zinman, Wendy Rosenfeld and Jim Rutter. But full-time staff critics provide a broad overview, institutional memory and a sense of continuing dialogue with readers— the sort of conversation that Inquirer readers get now from, say, the paper's staff music writers, Stearns and Dobrin. Try to imagine the Inquirer relying exclusively on free-lancers to cover politics, or sports, or business and you will get some idea of the disastrous effects of this decision.
Like all print publications these days, the Inquirer is under desperate pressure to find a new business model in order to survive. I understand that its managers must make budget-cutting choices. But the decision to eliminate staff theater critics sends a clear message: "Frankly readers, we don't give a damn about Philadelphia theater."
(Full disclosure: In the mid 1970s I wrote a free-lance column on relationships for the Inquirer. And I have been a clinical consultant for two plays produced by Theatre Exile, whose co-artistic director, Deborah Block, is my daughter-in-law.)
Blame focus groups
I'm told that this latest shakeup began with focus groups involving both Inquirer subscribers and non-subscribers. These groups begged for more suburban coverage— and the Inquirer, ever attentive to its focus groups, responded by shifting Howie Shapiro and others to the 'burbs.
One must wonder: Don't suburbanites attend theater? This patronizing decision makes it seem that suburbanites spend all their time at soccer games and potluck suppers.
I was thrilled when Bill Marimow, the two-time Pulitzer Prize investigative journalist, returned to Philadelphia this past April to lead the Inquirer after the paper's former owners let him go because they didn't think he was up to the challenges of the digital age. Marimow, who in the interim led the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University, doesn't seem the kind of shortsighted guy to shoot Philadelphia's theater community— and, by extension, his readers— in the foot.
The case for print
Conventional wisdom holds that print journalism is dying, and that trying to save the Inquirer is like trying to save the Titanic. But do we accept that it's OK for children to grow up in homes without books?
Every major city needs a fine, printed newspaper to hold in our hot, supportive, caring hands, one that helps us survive in every conceivable way, from exposing corruption to applauding civic pride and accomplishments. Surely theater is one such accomplishment.
If focus groups are what get the Inquirer's attention, Philadelphia's arts community needs to form a focus group of its own. I hope Marimow and publisher Bob Hall are both inundated with complaints about their artistic misjudgment. Marimow can be e-mailed at {encode="[email protected]" title="[email protected]"}, Hall at {encode="[email protected]" title="[email protected]"}.♦
To read a response by Dan Rottenberg, click here.
To read readers' responses, click here and here.
In contrast to this explosive growth, the Philadelphia Inquirer has spent the past decade responding to a series of internal budget crises by cutting back on its arts coverage. This month the Inquirer— the newspaper of record for America's fifth largest city— eliminated its last remaining staff theater critic position.
Howard Shapiro, who has been with the Inquirer for 42 years and its theater critic for the past ten, was reassigned to the paper's South Jersey bureau. He has responded by taking a buyout and retiring early. Shapiro will continue to write reviews as the Broadway critic for The Classical Network, a group of National Public Radio affiliates in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
No art critic, either
Shapiro was not singled out. The Inquirer's respected cultural news reporter, Amy Rosenberg, has also been reassigned. More staff shifts are said to be in the offing, all in the direction away from substantial and meaningful arts coverage.
The Inquirer hasn't had a full-time staff art critic/writer since 2005, when Ed Sozanski took a buyout. Sozanski now writes one free-lance museum piece each Sunday.
As of October 29th, the Inquirer will have only three full-time arts staffers: the music critic/writers David Patrick Stearns and Peter Dobrin, and the cultural institutions writer Stephan Salisbury. All other coverage of theater, art and dance at the Inquirer will be provided by free-lancers or generated by other Inquirer departments, which are themselves already spread very thin.
"'Frankly, readers…'
To be sure, the Inquirer will continue to provide theater reviews by three knowledgeable and dedicated free-lance critics: Toby Zinman, Wendy Rosenfeld and Jim Rutter. But full-time staff critics provide a broad overview, institutional memory and a sense of continuing dialogue with readers— the sort of conversation that Inquirer readers get now from, say, the paper's staff music writers, Stearns and Dobrin. Try to imagine the Inquirer relying exclusively on free-lancers to cover politics, or sports, or business and you will get some idea of the disastrous effects of this decision.
Like all print publications these days, the Inquirer is under desperate pressure to find a new business model in order to survive. I understand that its managers must make budget-cutting choices. But the decision to eliminate staff theater critics sends a clear message: "Frankly readers, we don't give a damn about Philadelphia theater."
(Full disclosure: In the mid 1970s I wrote a free-lance column on relationships for the Inquirer. And I have been a clinical consultant for two plays produced by Theatre Exile, whose co-artistic director, Deborah Block, is my daughter-in-law.)
Blame focus groups
I'm told that this latest shakeup began with focus groups involving both Inquirer subscribers and non-subscribers. These groups begged for more suburban coverage— and the Inquirer, ever attentive to its focus groups, responded by shifting Howie Shapiro and others to the 'burbs.
One must wonder: Don't suburbanites attend theater? This patronizing decision makes it seem that suburbanites spend all their time at soccer games and potluck suppers.
I was thrilled when Bill Marimow, the two-time Pulitzer Prize investigative journalist, returned to Philadelphia this past April to lead the Inquirer after the paper's former owners let him go because they didn't think he was up to the challenges of the digital age. Marimow, who in the interim led the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University, doesn't seem the kind of shortsighted guy to shoot Philadelphia's theater community— and, by extension, his readers— in the foot.
The case for print
Conventional wisdom holds that print journalism is dying, and that trying to save the Inquirer is like trying to save the Titanic. But do we accept that it's OK for children to grow up in homes without books?
Every major city needs a fine, printed newspaper to hold in our hot, supportive, caring hands, one that helps us survive in every conceivable way, from exposing corruption to applauding civic pride and accomplishments. Surely theater is one such accomplishment.
If focus groups are what get the Inquirer's attention, Philadelphia's arts community needs to form a focus group of its own. I hope Marimow and publisher Bob Hall are both inundated with complaints about their artistic misjudgment. Marimow can be e-mailed at {encode="[email protected]" title="[email protected]"}, Hall at {encode="[email protected]" title="[email protected]"}.♦
To read a response by Dan Rottenberg, click here.
To read readers' responses, click here and here.
Sign up for our newsletter
All of the week's new articles, all in one place. Sign up for the free weekly BSR newsletters, and don't miss a conversation.
