I have been meaning to put this in the main section of Arts Journalist for a while.
In response to my previous post SMH Forgoes Arts, Chris Dobney, the Herald's Online Arts and Entertainment Editor posted the below comment on March 22:
Hi Nicholas,
We were all disappointed at smh.com.au that Siobhan Doran decided to leave the blog but if you read it you will see that, first of all it was her decision, and, secondly, she did not confirm that decision to us until the Sydney Festival was over. 
Both Siobhan's departure and its timing were disappointing to us.
I have now taken over the blog. And I would be the first to agree that I could post more often than I find time to. But there have been three blogs since 1 Feb.
The first was on the Sydney Festival, the second on the Mardi Gras Festival and the third, which went live today, is on the state of new Australian theatre and its level of support within Sydney's mainstage theatre companies.
You can read all three blogs at the url below and make your own decision whether Fairfax is doing its job properly as regards our theatre coverage.
In response to your comments about why arts previews and reviews are 'mixed in'. We take seriously our task of providing people updated information as to what's on and what's coming up. Often we will run a preview, together with other details about the show, maps etc. When a review comes in, the preview is replaced. Our policy is to distinguish at the story level what is a review and what is a preview. If a piece is a review, the word 'reviewer, is appended to the byline, right at the top of the page immediately below the name of the show.
I hope this helps address some of the issues you've raised and I'm happy to receive any suggestions you might have as to how we might improve further.
The blog entry on March 22 was an interesting survey of the three main theatre companies in Sydney and their commitment to new Australian writing.
You probably need to read it for yourself to see what you think of their replies. Beware the flashes of marketing spin though.
In regards to Chris' explanation of what is happening at Fairfax, it's good to admit that he could spend a bit more time posting online. As I said previously, the arts blog has generated healthy debate and regular posting would actively encourage a good bit of argy bargy. No doubt, he is probably flat out writing for a number of different sections.
Which brings me to the explanation about the Preview/Review section of the arts pages which is, at best, flimsy.
What Chris doesn't tell you is that behind the gates of Fairfax, the online development and support for the entertainment pages is nearly non-existent. Online Tumbleweed I heard someone call it.
It is blatantly obvious that money spent within the interactive media of smh.com.au goes to the more profitable advertising revenue sections such as business, sport and breaking news. And that makes good economic sense. Fairfax are a listed private company and they could choose not to cover the arts at all if they so wished.
If you haven't been into the other sections of smh.com.au recently, pop in and have a look and see the resources allocated to those pages.
At the very least, however, we could expect the Herald to separate Preview and Review sections, not just at 'the story level'. The Herald is actually quite unique and I don't think that I have come across another media outlet in the world that actively combines preview articles with review articles. Please let me know if you find an equivalent. I still maintain that this practice is misleading and lazy and that the readers of the smh.com.au entertainment section deserve better.
Image: Sanford Mauldin Photography
Posts
2 comments:
"The story level"? Please! What "story level"?! Years ago, before the dot com era, it was traditional that you either got 'preview' or 'review' in 'The Age' and 'The Sydney Morning Herald'. I can state this as fact because for 8 years I was the publicist for seven of Melbourne's major annual cultural events and I have also been a theatre practitioner for as long as I can remember.
'Previews' were often preferable to 'Reviews' because they spiked interest in a production, event, whatever. They were generally well-written and often accompanied by great photos. They were also often tagged with booking info. Having received a 'Preview' piece, and in spite of how much I would beg for a 'Review' it would never happen. Ever. You would, simply, get one or the other.
I have some great 'Preview' pieces in my scrapbook. One is a full page in The Age with a fantastic photo ... and it did me well. It inspired us all at a time when the production was just starting to come together and the $10,000.00 of my own money I had sunk into it was waiting to, at least in some very small way, be returned to me via the box office. (Of course it wasn't ... but that's love.)
The differences now appear to be that 'Previews' are flimsy little inconsequential 're-interpretations' of the media release. I was actually embarrassed for Lily Bragge after reading her 'Preview' on "Miss Saigon" in Melbourne. The little known fact that would seem to be escaping everyone at Fairfax is the extent to which a journalist's integrity is compromised by obtuse and fatuous reportage.
And with all due respect to Mr Dobney, that's got nothing to do with "story level", but everything to do with trimming budgets (as in cents per word) and a real commitment to debate, ideas, discussion, themes, those involved, juxtaposition to other events on at the same time, bodies of work, history of production, writers, directors, designers, actors, mums, dads ... detail. You know, the number of words it becomes expensive to buy.
Sadly where Fairfax is concerned, it would seem that 'cheap' has no trouble entering the smh.com.au domain at either "story level".
... and another thing. Wasn't Rob Brookman so lovely in the way he responded so nicely and generously to Mr Dobney's questions. Warmed the very cockles of my heart it did on this grey, wet, blustery old Good Friday morning. Why, when compared to the way he 'responded' to you Mr Pickard, it was positively informative, constructive, polite and professional ... (Nicholas, is this how you spell 'sycophant'? ... not for the purposes of this comment of course. I'm writing something else.)
Isn't it quaint watching the old guard still believing that their audiences (and potential audiences*) still only get their information from the 'traditional' media sources?
*Note to self while drawing up blueprint for new theatre company: philosophy regarding "audience development" is important in funding application.
Post a Comment