‘You give us $150 dollars and we’ll review your show.’ It sounds like a bizarro-world version of ‘You give us 22 minutes, we’ll give you the world.’
But that is, boiled to its essence, what the Los Angeles theatre website Bitter Lemons has just proposed to the southern California theatre community. Citing the general reduction in theatre reviews both nationally and locally, the site has laid out a plan whereby theatres (or individuals) can pay $150 and be assured of a review of at least 300 words, but one which is wholly independent and will be solely the opinion of the site’s critics, not a pandering paean to whatever show or patron has ponied up the bucks.
While I’m prepared to take Bitter Lemons at their word about protecting the independence of their critics [full disclosure: I know one of their critics, Katie Buenneke, largely from Twitter], the optics of this proposal, as well as many practical elements, seem hugely problematic. The moment money changes hands between a producer (or producing organization) and a media outlet (be it vast or grass-roots), the necessary divide between both parties starts to break down. No matter how strong any “walls” may be, when editorial choices are determined by outside dollars, and when the economic viability of a media outlet may be dependent upon those covered, the opportunities for ethical compromise are rife.
Bitter Lemons became almost compulsory reading for me this year as the site was a central disseminator of information, inquiry and invective during the heated debate over Actors Equity Association’s promulgation of new guidelines for the 99 seat and under plan that had been used in Los Angeles over the past 25 years. In passionate and at times exhaustive detail, Bitter Lemons has been a champion of retaining the 99-seat plan as is, and I fully expect the site to continue to fight for that cause so long as supporters in the Los Angeles AEA community seek to make their case.
That’s why I bring up the optics: here is a theatre site, arguing for the right of union actors to work for notably less than AEA actors elsewhere in the country, that is saying their theatre coverage is dependent on being paid to cover that same community. To be sure, there are some apples to oranges issues in this comparison, but as I say, I’m referring simply to how it looks, not the particulars.
So let’s go to practical issues. “The Bitter Lemons Imperative,” as it’s called, suggests that it’s easy for companies to shoulder the expense. “Most producing companies already have it in their budgets, if they have any budget at all.” While I cannot be definitive, I strongly doubt that’s an accurate statement; I’m unfamiliar with any theatre company that has a budget line for reviews. What they may have, as the policy statement on Bitter Lemons sets out a bit further on, is “thousands of dollars for mailings, postcards, advertising, many companies even pay anywhere from $500 to $2k for a publicist.” But equating marketing with criticism is a comparison with which I suspect few critics would feel comfortable. When a company pays for an ad or a brochure, it explicitly controls the content; when it pays for a publicist, it’s engaging someone to work with the media, but in a manner where there’s no quid pro quo, explicit or implied.
I find myself wondering about where this plan might leave the very newest theatre companies in Los Angeles, which may have budgets so low that the $150 fee to Bitter Lemons is beyond thinly stretched means, and which are already providing (presumably) a pair of complimentary tickets as well, which have their own dollar value. Does this mean that they will go unnoticed by Bitter Lemons? I fear this will only reinforce an economic stratification insofar as the site’s coverage goes, where only companies with sufficient means become worthy of the site’s attention, instead of decisions being made according to editorial choices and interests. If Bitter Lemons learns of an intriguing show that doesn’t write a check, will that show in essence be the proverbial tree falling in an empty lemon grove?
There’s no question that theatre coverage, arts coverage and frankly all manner of paid journalism are under vast pressure right now (take note of an impending newswriters’ strike in Philadelphia or the new round of buyouts at The Denver Post). But those who have set out to offer independent arts coverage have done so by soliciting general support that isn’t tied to an editorial imperative (you pay us, we cover you). Their efforts are more akin to public radio and television campaigns; offhand I think of campaigns by The Arts Fuse in Boston and New York’s The Clyde Fitch Report. Ad sales, already in evidence on Bitter Lemons, are another revenue source; if the site incorporates as a not-for-profit (if it isn’t already), contributions may be further advantaged, particularly with foundations that support new media journalism and the arts, separately or together.
I’ll say again that I’ve found Bitter Lemons invaluable in my education about the 99 seat debate. I am also repeatedly on record as arguing on behalf of paying arts writers and reporters for their work and I applaud new models for sustaining them (and worry about others). But linking coverage to cash on the barrelhead smacks too much of payola, of pay for play, even if it’s out in the open. I think it can only serve to diminish the site’s credibility, and may well, in the long run, result in a diminished Bitter Lemons, which would be a shame. After all, can this model hold up if paying companies start receiving blistering pans, or simply indifference?
As someone who believes deeply in theatre and in theatre journalism, I have to say that if I had to choose where to allocate $150 in the Los Angeles theatre community right now, I’d probably use it to pay an actor before a critic. No bitterness intended or implied.
Update: June 5, 4:45 pm: In writing this post early this morning, I hadn’t yet seen a corollary piece by Colin Mitchell of Bitter Lemons about the early response to the Bitter Lemons Imperative. It reads, in part:
“On the eve of opening night for previews at the 2015 Hollywood Fringe Festival, Bitter Lemons has over 30 exclusive Bitter Lemons Reviews ordered and purchased – that’s right pre-purchased – and those top quality works of theater criticism will be rolling out over the next couple of weeks. . .
We offered a deeply discounted 50% off our regular price of $150 just because we love the Fringe community so much and understand how important it is for them to get quality coverage from a truly experienced, savvy, historian of the ephemeral arts, plus we saw this as the perfect opportunity to introduce the Los Angeles Theater Community to our new business model for theater criticism.”
Is this an arts journalism post or a post about Bitter Lemons’s own business acumen, one that that also essentially functions as a sales tool? The lines seems to be blurring very fast.
Update: June 6, 5:15 pm: In expressing my concerns about the “pay for review” practice at Bitter Lemons, I attempted to address the issue with respect for the site and and shared concern over the dire economic models for arts journalism. Some responded saying it should be given a chance, and time will tell. So now that I’ve seen one of the “paid for” reviews on the site, I want to share with you a bit of what one fringe production has gotten for their $150:
I don’t know about the rest of you people, but if someone pays me to write about them, I suck them off with such vigor that their ejaculate explodes into the back of my skull with such force that I feel like the bells of Notre Dame pounded by Quasimodo on a Keith Moon bender.
So, since I’m only in this for the money, and the bloodthirsty mercenary in me trumps any pretense of integrity and balance, the rest of what follows in this review of Scott Claus’ “Sin: A Pop Opera,” at the iconic Three Clubs bar—a review he or someone else associated with him paid for—will be a bunch of positive, compromised hokum.
Perhaps this is merely showing off in the wake of comments and blog posts about the new policy, or perhaps as Isaac Butler posited in his post “Startling Chutzpah In The 99-Seat Arena,” we’re all just being punked. But regardless of Bitter Lemons’s motivation and intent, I think they’re doing serious damage to their credibility. I would really urge all makers of theatre in Los Angeles to put their money back in their pockets and, if they paid by check, they might want to stop payment now.
Update: June 12, 6:00 pm: The American Theatre Critics Association has issued a statement regarding the Bitter Lemons review policy. It reads:
The American Theatre Critics’ Association, the only national organization of professional theater critics, is concerned with the model started by Bitter Lemons. While it does not guarantee a favorable review or allow theater companies to choose the reviewer, this pay-for-play arrangement creates a clear appearance of a conflict of interest. That appearance, even if spurious, undermines the crucial credibility of not only Bitter Lemons’ critics, but all critics.
Our profession has fought for decades to preserve the image of independence. When our work is put out for sale to those we cover, we are concerned not just for the criticism itself but for the bypassing of editorial judgment in deciding what to cover and what not to cover.
Additionally, Steven Leigh Morris, editor of Stage Raw, another significant Los Angeles theatre site, made the following statement to me regarding his site’s selection of critics in the wake of the Bitter Lemons Imperative:
It is Stage Raw’s policy that any reviewer who has accepted remuneration from a theater as quid pro quo for a review of that theater is ineligible to write reviews for Stage Raw.
Joe Saltzman, a professor of journalism and communications at USC, said that words such as “appalled” and “atrocity” flashed in his mind when he first heard what Bitter Lemons was up to.
Then he checked out the website, saw Mitchell’s explanations, and read some of the reviews.
On further reflection, Saltzman said, “I think it’s not that bad a deal. It’s a fascinating way to try to solve a very difficult problem I thought was unsolvable. They don’t have money to hire critics, so how else do they keep a pool of talented, freelance critics? As long as it’s transparent, as long as the audience isn’t being fooled, I don’t have a problem with it.
An article published this morning by the L.A. Weekly, “A New Scheme To Have Shows Pay $150 For A Review Will Hurt L.A. Theater” is by Steven Leigh Morris, editor of Stage Raw, who does not cite his own site’s policy regarding critics who work under the Bitter Lemons plan. But his summary of the problems with the plan are specific and concise:
Mitchell’s market-based initiative puts this all backwards: It places the primary relationship of the critic with the theater rather than the reader. It entails a contract by which the critic is paid by the theater to write something in public as an ostensibly neutral observer, while the theater is banking that the critic will entice audiences. Meanwhile, the critic becomes the servant of two masters — the theater-as-employer and the readers, who have a rightful expectation of candor. This is why traditional print media have always insisted on a separation between critics and the theaters they review.
Howard Sherman is the director of the Arts Integrity Initiative at The New School for Drama.
Howard – First, thank you for all your work with Downstage Center — it was a podcast I really enjoyed.
A question for you on this: I work for an organization with very strong ethics rules — we can’t accept more than a token gift (donut, advertising pen) from a contractor because of the appearance of conflict of interest. The appearance of conflict of interest is a key aspect here: even if the paid reviewers are truly independent, there is that appearance that taints everything.
Here’s the question: Theatre critics get complementary tickets from theatres. Isn’t that the equivalent of paying to review. Sure, cash doesn’t change hands, but it is a gift of value that saves the critic from shelling out cash.
I do regular theatre writeups of shows on my blog [blog.cahighways.org] (I no longer call them reviews, as I’m not a trained critic – I’m a computer scientists). I’ve had publicists offer me tickets. I always insist on paying at least what the discounted price would be for the ticket, because the work ethics have been drummed into me.
I’d like your thoughts on the subject.
Daniel: the practice of complimentary tickets for critics has been around for longer than I’ve been working in the field; it gave rise to the moment in the film of “The Producers” when Zero Mostel hands a critic his tickets with a $100 bill wrapped around them and surely predates that by decades. That said, it’s not unique to theatre, since publishers provide free books, recording labels send CDs (or maybe just downloads now), and so on. It’s also not unique to the arts, as press credentials give sportswriters access to games and competitions of all sorts. Does that mean it’s ethically pure? Of course not. But there’s a tacit understanding that there’s not a quid pro quo, and while in the era when media outlets were fat with money it was something that might have warranted a closer look, now we’re in a situation where print in particular is perpetually devolving, as it cuts space and lays off employees. If they were forced to start paying for tickets to things they might cover, the result would be to hasten even further cuts, at least in arts coverage; I somehow suspect sports coverage would survive. Every so often a producer or arts organization gets upset with a critic and tries to “ban” them, but it’s a futile gesture, since that’s when media outlets will suddenly find money to buy their seats. I admire the ethical rules under which you operate, and have no doubt that many producers and organizations would be delighted to be paid for critics seats, rather than comping them. But for established, legit media outlets, I think everyone understands the limits of the tacit agreement about press comps; it has grown murkier with the proliferation of online outlets of limited history, structure and means, but its still up to every producer/presenter/company to decide if they wish to provide comps, and to every outlet to govern whether such a practice has an effect on their coverage. As for the distinction between “reviewer/review” or “critic,” I think it’s a semantic argument. Everyone is, in their own way, a critic; it’s just that not everyone has or chooses to create a platform to spread their opinion beyond word of mouth. P.S. Thanks for the kind words on “Downstage Center.”
It’s interesting to observe this matter has prompted a firestorm of protests, some quite angry and adamant, among LA theater people, on Facebook. I come from the old school of basic, time-tested journalistic ethics, which sometimes makes me wonder if I am a dinosaur.So seeing so many expressing their problems about this launched initiative somewhat renewed my hopes that age-old ethical standards are not old-fashioned or simply dead. One of the most common rationalizations people crossing ethical boundaries try to make are things like “Yes, but it doesn’t apply to me, because I know I am unbiased,” as if that happens like magic, and just because they say this, it makes them an exception to the defined values everyone else must follow. The “it doesn’t apply to me” rationalization is one of the most common copouts in Washington today, where appearance of impropriety is sometimes as damaging as real impropriety. These things matter. I’m not saying the missteps and poor judgment always stem from ill intentions. But any breakdown in standards can’t help but have ill effects somewhere down the line. Due to the number of protests to this BL initiative that I am seeing, I can’t help but believe that a great many in our community believe that.
Howard, a good number of newspapers across the country DO pay for their reviewers’ tickets — maybe 20%? (It used to be nearer 40%, when I did a survey a couple of decades ago.) Not in NY of course — when I inquired about paying for tickets there, press agents laughed at the idea — but in this as so much else, NY is not America. (See the 99-seat theater controversy, to start.) However, when my paper considered paying for tickets, some Pittsburgh theaters told me quietly it would mess up their system, since they already had press seats set aside. And I argued against our paying, since I knew editors would eventually begin questioning whether reviewing small theaters was really worth that expense, etc. However, as I say, you’d be surprised how many papers do pay as a matter of policy. — Chris Rawson, Pittsburgh
[…] their show. General reaction to the decision has been poor, there have even been a few blogs (one, two, three) railing against the issue. There has even been criticism on Bitter Lemons […]
I just skimmed through a few of those reviews and it looks pretty sad if that’s what the review market for LA Theater has become. So outwardly crass and vulgar.
If anything I wouldn’t want to be on that review list, it almost seems like a kiss of death.
[…] to be true. Just like the recently panned (and rightfully so) Bitter Lemons Imperative (plus one, two, three), here’s an idea that might have sounded good on a surface read, but when you dig […]
Ugh was my first thought about this payola, Suckers was the second and then my eyes rolled. Really? It’s such a bad idea I don’t know where to start, but Howard did a great job pointing out the negatives, except he was too kind.
My two cents, from a lifelong journalist, actor and reviewer … Hmmmm, but with that background I could get the theater I’m acting in to pay me $150 to review the play I’m in.
Thanks for this article, Howard. When Peter Michael Marino (“Late with Lance”) posted about Bitter Lemons, I thought it was a joke. In a world where there is no really successful paradigm for music or theatre promotion, this “service” adds insult to injury.
Thanks for this, Howard. Speaking as a long time theater critic – I’ve been at it in L.A. since 1986 – I’ve been deeply disturbed by this effort on Colin Mitchell’s part to turn arts journalism into a money-making enterprise. It’s especially disturbing coming at this time when theater artists in our community are under fire by their own union, which has failed to understand or respect the desire to create great theater in a 99 seat venue. The idea that theater companies here are paying for their reviews (and not paying their actors) will further stain the community’s overall reputation, already unfairly compared with New York or Chicago and other places. I would urge people of integrity to protest and desist from participating.
Thank you Mr. Sherman!
To add more confusion to the matter, Colin Mitchell himself has become one of the paid reviewers. So now he is promoting a website which is looking to pay critics to review plays, calls for cash from theaters, keeps a cut for the website and gives the rest to the critic and as a critic himself keeps the entire bundle for his own reviews. Can this slope get any more slippery?
So let me get this straight: one of their critics goes to review a Fringe show, and uses this juncture as the opportune moment to either critique the system of which he’s a part, or mock the audience’s perception of what he’s doing? There just seems to be NO self-awareness happening here.
[…] LA Times, and has been excoriated across the board (from the LA Weekly (Steven Leigh Morris) to Howard Sherman (former head of the Theatre Wing) to ACTA to many others). I’ve even discussed it […]
[…] Howard Sherman: You’d Like Your Show Reviewed? $150 Please […]
[…] Lemons: «LA Bitter Lemons, an outspoken Los Angeles theatre site which Arts Integrity’s director challenged over its pay for review strategy about a year ago, has posted a short piece by editor Colin Mitchell which seems, in essence, to […]