Thinking out loud re: NYT coverage of theater
Posted by: SallyFx 05:25 pm EDT 03/19/17

Don't shoot me if you think I'm taking sides as to what is the more important story. I am not. What I am referring to is the relative shortness of shelf life in both print and electronic media. The "Miss Saigon" story has been their lead theater story both on the home page and online theater section. One would think that a day would be long enough for it to get the notice it needed/deserved and it's still available for forwarding and all the wonderful things one can do these days. Okay, so why do I care? The review for "The Price" was done by a relatively unknown critic and was never featured on the home page. Again, I would have had no problem had they both been featured. "Miss Saigon" is still the featured story above all else in the theater section. Much of what I post from the NYT requires me to drill down into the theater section which itself is a lowly (alphabetical order, of course) section of Arts. Theater is not the only section I see this in. The highly-prized exposure of the NYT homepage clearly reflects editorial decisions as to what is "newsworthy." Let the other sections choose their battles. How many non-ATC'ers even know the show opened? Again, this is not in any way a reflection of my thoughts regarding "Miss Saigon" (I have sufficient scar tissue already), it's just the first time I noticed a major Arthur Miller revival ignored on the NYT homepage. I would make the same comments regarding any story that was the lead today.

Previous: SIREN'S DEN: A ROCK MUSICAL - Official_Press_Release 05:50 pm EDT 03/19/17
Next: re: Thinking out loud re: NYT coverage of theater - Singapore/Fling 09:23 pm EDT 03/19/17

Privacy Policy

Time to render: 0.031196 seconds.