Manufactured gloom and doom, WSJ-style

So what to do with Alexandra Peers' gloom-is-here story in yesterday's WSJ?

Peers argues that the sky is falling for American art museums. That's certainly the conventional wisdom. Here's the real story: So far the sky is still in good shape.

Yes, some museums will have to trim some expenses: Five percent here and there. Under-endowed museums may trim a bit more. That is not a crisis, that's not "trouble" and that is not a particularly "tough toll." (Arts people might want to read the whole paper: "Trouble" and a "tough toll" is when an entire American industry -- say, the auto industry -- is on the brink of extinction.) Or think of it this way: A non-profit cutting five percent of expenses during a recession isn't a crisis, it's standard operating procedure.

As if to prove my point, Peers cites a bunch of weak, often speculative examples:

• The Parrish Museum is waiting to begin a construction project until it raises more money. That's not a sign of doom, it's prudence;
• The Nelson-Atkins is trimming hours. That's true, but a minor adjustment in hours is hardly a sign of crisis;
• New York museums in particular are accustomed to raising lots of money from bankers. Who knows what will happen with them now. True. But that's about donors, not about museums. (Yet. Plus there's no data to indicate massive problems with donor follow-through, and the only museum staffer Peers found who would address that question shrugged it off.)

In fact, Peers only cites one museum facing major problems: The Contemporary Museum in Honolulu. Peers' line about Honolulu is the best independent clause in her story... and it is almost immediately followed by the most ridiculous: "the Museum of Modern Art in New York has instituted a hiring freeze and won't host any parties at Art Basel Miami Beach this year." That's a sign of a "tough toll?" Are you kidding me?)

I'd argue that the real story here is that the top 50 or so American art museums are so well-run that that 45 (or more) of them are well-positioned to weather this recession. That's a sign of an industry's health, not a sign of pending crisis. (In a related story, a few months ago a major business magazine asked me to write a version of Peers' story. I reported it and found little cause for gloom and doom. The magazine, expecting cultural carnage, killed the piece.) However, that brings me to my last point...

So far Peers' story is just goofy, a misguided waste of space. It becomes journalistically embarrassing when you consider this: Peers and the WSJ run a whole story on woe-is-the-museum and they missed -- flat, completely missed -- the one major American museum that actually is facing doom-and-gloom: The Detroit Institute of Arts. Oops.