Jon Landman, NY Times’ incoming culture editor
[NOTE: The second part of my Landman Memo is here.]
What if a tree falls in the forest and the NY Times isn’t the first to hear it?
When it comes to cultural coverage, that often means that the news didn’t happen…at least not on the pages of the NY Times.
My guess is that this tendency is intensified by the Times’ own news
guidelines, which appropriately require a reporter who arrives at a story late to credit the publication that got there first. When you
consider yourself the nation’s premier news source, do you really want
to disclose that the LA Times or (shudder) a mere blog scooped you? Can we just pretend that this particular bit of news didn’t happen? When it comes to cultural reporting, the answer is often yes.
With the shift from Sifton to Landman
as the NY Times’ editorial arbiter of culture, it’s time to give Jon
my unsolicited (and probably undesired) evaluation of what’s wrong with
the Times’ cultural coverage and how to fix it.
Let’s
start with the what’s missing. I’ll go with what I
know—several important stories I’ve been following lately, which
have been non-events in the pages and webpages of the “paper of record.” I highlight these not to hype my news-fielding ability, but to show how much the august news organization must be dropping the ball, if a sole practitioner keeps scooping them from left field.
First and foremost are the following two stories, AWOL from the Times, but of major significance to the future of art museums in this country:
—The
Cleveland Museum of Art’s application for court permission to deviate
from the written stipulations of now deceased donors that their money
be used for art acquisitions, not museum expansions. This
story was broken by Steve Litt of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. But as far as I know, CultureGrrl was the first to highlight the egregious disregard of donor intent inherent in the museum’s
action, as well as the likely chilling effect on the confidence of potential
future donors that their wishes will be honored. This is not just a Cleveland story: It raises concerns of
national artworld importance.I followed up with a close analysis of the will of Leonard Hanna, the most munificent of the donors
who figure in Cleveland’s court application. His written stipulations show that he had
carefully considered (and reconsidered) how he wanted his bequest spent
and he articulated his requirements clearly and unequivocally. The Wall Street Journal weighed in on the Cleveland story. Not the Times.—In the Times’
home territory, the NY State Board of Regents last month disseminated a proposed permanent amendment that would prohibit museums and historical societies from applying deaccession proceeds to operating expenses,
payment of outstanding debt, capital expenses or loan collateral. (I broke that story here, commenting further here.) If the regulations become final, institutions chartered by the Regents (the vast majority in the state) will be prohibited from using deaccession proceeds for anything other than the acquisition, preservation,
protection or care of collections.This proposal, now in the comments phase, is not only of major significance for anyone in New York State who cares about museum governance. If adopted, it could serve as a prototype for the rest of the country.
Another missed story, of less consequence but nevertheless widely discussed in conservative-leaning media, is the National Endowment for the Arts’ Yosi Sergant flap, which resulted in this week’s statement by NEA’s chairman, Rocco Landesman, dissociating himself and his agency from the deposed communications director’s actions and reaffirming the nonpartisanship of NEA. The Times’ only coverage related to this contretemps came in yesterday’s paper and was prompted by the White House’s issuance of new guidelines that mandate a separation between grantmaking and politics.
Those of us who are intensely interested in the fate of the Barnes
Foundation would have welcomed a detailed Times review from the
Toronto International Film Festival of Don Argott‘s The Art of the Steal,
the new muckraking documentary about the planned relocation of the fabled
collection to Philadelphia. (I guess, like me, they’ll get around to covering it when it’s screened next week in New York.)
A bit of inside baseball (but significant to
readers who are interested in museums and/or WW II-related compensation) is
the Association of Art Museum Directors’ new online registry listing American museums’ restitutions and retentions of objects claimed by Nazi-era victims or their heirs. Again, ignored by the Times.
But let’s leave behind the rarefied realm of visual-arts news and travel to the boundary-defying “Peace Without Borders” Juanes concert last Sunday, which reportedly attracted more than one million fans in Havana. The
Times’ failure to assign a reporter or reviewer to an event as
important for its political as its musical overtones is hard to comprehend. This oversight only reinforces the perception that the Times is
not nearly as attuned to interests of its Latino readers as it is to those of its non-minority
audience.
The Times’ Miami-based Damien Cave, who did publish a preview of the concert and its ramifications, was reduced to tweeting the event (on his own site, not that of the NY Times), by watching its live broadcast. What even Damien missed, but the Miami Herald caught, was Juanes’ cry of “Cuba Libre!” (“Free Cuba!”) at the end of a concert that had been billed as non-political, but nevertheless (as Cave DID point out) was replete with pointed innuendos.
All that the Times managed to publish about this watershed pop-cultural happening was this Associated Press report, not in its Arts section, but buried (probably because of deadline exigencies) on Page A8 in the “Americas” section. That account was edited to shorter length than what had been filed by AP’s reporter, Paul Haven.
Why is it Timesworthy when the NY Philharmonic performs before a rigidly selected audience in North Korea, but not when a pop idol from the U.S. energizes an astonishingly enormous Cuban audience?
These are just some of the very recent errors of omission (the ones I’m most familiar with) that should be pondered by the new regime at the Times’ culture desk. The first step is to understand why this is happening with such disturbing frequency. The second is to develop an action plan to see that it doesn’t.
COMING SOON: How to Improve the NY Times’ Arts Coverage.