coldtowne worship

andrea · Post by **andrea** » January 31st, 2007, 5:59 pm

and deservedly so!

http://www.austin360.com/blogs/content/ ... towne.html

ratliff · Post by **ratliff** » January 31st, 2007, 7:14 pm

I'm looking forward to the first rave about Austin improv that's not a naked conflict of interest, but these will certainly do in the meantime.

shando · Post by **shando** » January 31st, 2007, 7:22 pm

ratliff wrote:I'm looking forward to the first rave about Austin improv that's not a naked conflict of interest

Explain?

kaci_beeler · Post by **kaci_beeler** » January 31st, 2007, 7:36 pm

shando wrote:
ratliff wrote:I'm looking forward to the first rave about Austin improv that's not a naked conflict of interest
Explain?

I think that dude, while an awesome writer and guy none-the-less, was/is a Coldtowne Conservatory student and has a certain infatuation with a certain female.

shando · Post by **shando** » January 31st, 2007, 7:52 pm

kaci_beeler wrote:
shando wrote:
ratliff wrote:I'm looking forward to the first rave about Austin improv that's not a naked conflict of interest
Explain?
I think that dude, while an awesome writer and guy none-the-less, was/is a Coldtowne Conservatory student and has a certain infatuation with a certain female.

Aha.

I read that and wondered what's a "guy none-the-less" until I understood what you meant.

I am the last to know anything even remotely related to gossip.

ratliff · Post by **ratliff** » January 31st, 2007, 7:56 pm

Sorry, I'm just being cranky, and also demonstrating how out of step with the zeitgeist I am.

Traditional journalistic ethics forbid one from reviewing or reporting on something that you have a direct personal interest in. This rule has been honored more in the breach than the observance for many years in Austin arts writing, so it's churlish to point it out now, but it still puts me in a black mood about the state of modern journalism whenever I see it, even when it's benefiting worthy subjects and/or my friends.

It's nobody's problem but mine.

shando · Post by **shando** » January 31st, 2007, 8:05 pm

I can see what you're talking about in this case. Like I said, I don't ever know anything about anyone's personal lives.

But do you think Brenner has a conflict fo a personal nature? I mean, he and I are friends, but that has sort happened in parallel to the scene he's covering.

Also, that journalistic ethics violation is not only rampant on the Austin arts scene. Take a look at the Scooter Libby trial.

ratliff · Post by **ratliff** » January 31st, 2007, 8:11 pm

Oh, absolutely. I didn't mean to pick on the Austin arts scene; it's pandemic.

I think it's harder to avoid in arts coverage, particularly outside of big cities, because the scene's a lot smaller. Obviously, nobody wants to tell Robert Faires or Barry Pineo that they have to choose between being artists or critics, but it does create the possibility of ignoble motives. The ideal is a situation in which there's no way a critic could have an ax to grind, and that's impossible anywhere. But the more you can reduce the possibility, the better.

And the danger of a misleadingly glowing theater review has long been eclipsed by the danger of Fox News shilling for Bush or CNN plying the Clinton line. But to me it's all part of the same problem, so I merely note it for historical purposes.

Jastroch · Post by **Jastroch** » January 31st, 2007, 8:51 pm

While it's tough in a small market, nepotism is avoidable. The integrity is questionable, however, we did have two killer shows that weekend. Also, I'll never complain about getting ink.

ratliff · Post by **ratliff** » January 31st, 2007, 8:53 pm

Nor should you. I would be more upset if I didn't think it was well deserved.

York99 · Post by **York99** » January 31st, 2007, 9:18 pm

This is a sticky subject. I think some disclosure in the byline or somewhere is the most ethical thing to do mostly. However, there is a gray area here. Blogs weren't a consideration when I was in Journalism school, but there are two sides to this coin. On one hand, it is carried by a news organization's web site. On the other hand, it is a blog, which is known to be a personal log.

I guess my feeling is that perhaps it should be accompanied by some disclosure, but as long as he was honest, then none of his readers really get hurt.

shando · Post by **shando** » January 31st, 2007, 9:32 pm

Yes, I think disclosure is the key in these situations. I don't know Matt that well, but I'm guessing he liked you guys a ton fom seeing your shows, which led to his taking classes and all the rest that followed from that. A simple "I love CT so much I'm even taking classes there" would go a long way (see Brenner's article about playing Maestro for a similar thing).

ratliff · Post by **ratliff** » January 31st, 2007, 10:28 pm

Agreed.

ratliff · Post by **ratliff** » January 31st, 2007, 10:28 pm

York, how many professional schools did you attend?

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » January 31st, 2007, 10:32 pm

shando wrote:Yes, I think disclosure is the key in these situations.

Agreed. While I've no doubt that it's well-deserved praise, not disclosing his relationships artistically with the theater and/or romantically with ______ are almost glaring omissions. Disclosure like that should take nothing away from such a positive review, so why leave it out?