Theatre, Celeb Journalism, And Journalism

Two articles over on the ARTicles blog at the National Arts Journalism Program. First, Laura Collins-Hughes has a take on this year's Pulitzer for theatre and why it's important that the finalists are all women:

...women playwrights are vastly underrepresented on our stages. Because "diversity" isn't just a buzzword. The Pulitzer isn't important in itself; it matters because of its ripple effect. Quite simply, winners and finalists get noticed. They get produced. The Pulitzer changes the composition of our canon, the stories we as a culture tell ourselves. Women's voices need to be a much more significant part of that.

Second - I've been in LA this week talking to critics gathered here for the NEA Arts Journalism Institute in Theatre and Musical Theatre. We've been discussing the role and boundaries of arts journalism and what constitutes the new journalism. Is it journalism when a theatre or dance company produces its own video interviews? It's difficult sorting out the role of the critic when everyone seems to be setting up shop as a journalist of one sort or another. So a recent dustup between a Toronto radio host and actor Billy Bob Thornton during an interview got me to thinking about how we define "real" journalism.

If there's an expectation that star interviews aren't real journalism, then where's the line where "real" journalism begins? So coverage of Universal is compromised by pre-set conditions. What about coverage of the LA Philharmonic? Billy Bob gets to say what he won't talk about ahead of time. Does Stephen Sondheim get the same treatment? Renee Fleming?