DAVID HARE AGREES WITH ME. I have previously posted here and here on the New York Time critics who suffer because they don’t like the theater. The New York Post (the newspaper of record in our household for forty years) has on Page Six today this account of an encounter at a dinner between the distinguished British playwright David Hare and the Jill Abramson, the managing editor of the New York Times. “Abramson was seated next to Hare and immediately launched into a speech about the supposed superiority of the Times’ theater coverage.” Hare replied, “‘You must be kidding. The Times has contempt for the theater, especially Broadway, and especially plays.’” Abramson’s reply implied that it is not important that a New York Times theater critic like the theater: “Listen, it is not our obligation to like or care about the theater. It’s our obligation to arbitrate it. We are the central arbiter of taste and culture in the city of New York.”
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- “A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? (1)
- Nick: Further informing my perspective was that in the writings of classical Romans the middle-aged authors opined...
- ARE PEOPLE LESS VIOLENT? (COMMENT). (2)
- Dick Weisfelder: My prior comment was just in the context of sports. Whether or not from Pinker, I have seen the...
- erik: It seems doubtful that human nature has changed. The most likely explanation would be that modern culture gives...
- HOW BANKS PREPARED FOR A U.S. DEFAULT. (2)
- GREECE’S ADVANTAGE IN THE CHICKEN GAME. (2)
- Nick: That makes sense. It reminds me of the stories Pater Familias would tell me about how in Boston the person with...
- Dick Weisfelder: Greece seems to me to be playing a game that Karl Deutsch called “underdog.” While one...
- FOOTBALL PLAYERS DELIBERATELY CAUSING CONCUSSIONS? (3)
- Nick: It was my understanding that boxing gloves were to protect the puncher’s hands and not the...
- Dick Weisfelder: Remember the Roman arenas? Bare knuckled boxing? Such injuries were taken as natural and accepted in...
- Mary Jane Schaefer: This isn’t about football. Or even sportsmanship. Well, it is about sportsmanship. But what...
- A 25 % CHANCE OF A EURO DEFAULT? (1)
- Nick: The fact that this has gone on for so long is pretty perplexing. The Economist is referring back to articles it...
- DECIDING WHAT KIND OF PATIENT YOU ARE. (1)
- Dick Weisfelder: One can be very open to new technology, but also risk averse. The recent debates about how to...
- “A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? (1)
Meta
For all that people fall over themselves to praise the Times, I have yet to hear anything good about it, or read anything in it that impressed me.
Even Curt Schilling called out the Times for the willful, stubborn, and (shocker!) arrogant ignorance with which Murray Chass covered baseball and its new statistics.
Wow, the Times is arrogant even when dealing with sports? I hear you get a free lifetime subscription if you can tell the front page from the editorial section.
Pingback: Pater Familias » IS THE NEW YORK TIMES THE ARBITER OF TASTE AND CULTURE?