On second (and third) thought...

It was late. I was tired. And emotions ran high when I spotted, and linked to, the New York Times article on Lorraine Hunt Lieberson's cancellations. I'm guessing that's why it wasn't until later in the morning, when I read Susan Elliott's report on that article at Musical America, that the Times piece finally struck me as being potentially objectionable.

But Elliott -- for whom I've written for pay on occasion, let the record show -- is a reporter and editor of sharp instinct and direct utterance. And once I read her headline ("NY Times Goes on a News Hunt") and description ("When a performer is ill, what is the media's role?"), it finally did dawn on me that the Times piece -- much of it speculation, denial and innuendo -- was indeed rather troubling. That night, I had dinner with a dear friend who also plays a role in this classical-music business, and practically the first thing she asked me was, "What did you really think of that article you linked to?"

For most of us who admire Ms. Hunt Lieberson's work and have followed her career, the Times piece didn't tell us anything we weren't already thinking. Even Craig Smith, the close professional associate of the singer whose published quote gave voice to our greatest fear, didn't say anything we hadn't all begun to ponder -- privately.

But is it news, in the sense that it belongs on a printed page in the mass media?

Maybe so -- after all, Hunt Lieberson's cancellations have no doubt cost some presenters money, and doubtless many music lovers are confused and concerned as to why this highly touted performer mostly hasn't been turning up lately.

But at the same time, to what end should speculation be allowed to virtually substantiate rumor? What role should an individual's right to privacy play in determining whether a story like this one should be reported to a broad public -- many of whom will most likely accept what the article suggests as truth, simply based on where it appeared? And why, lacking hard facts, should this particular story be spun this particular way in print, when in the case of any number of other famous artists -- one cult-favorite pianist in particular -- constant cancellation has been spun as jitters, even caprice?

I am most certainly not here to indict the Times. Far from it. My respect for the knowledge and ability of that congregation of writers and editors is immense. I've personally benefitted from writing for the paper a couple of times -- and I don't just mean in terms of prestige (although that can't be denied), but in terms of bettering my craft through working with some of those people. Nor do I doubt for a moment the genuine concern individuals there hold for Hunt Lieberson, whose performances have been covered in the most glowing terms imaginable.

Still, all newspapers -- the Times included -- are beset these days by other media offering more immediate access to both fact and opinion. Hard news turns up on the net and the tube long before printing presses can roll. (Elliott's report on the Wakin article, you'll note, appeared only hours after the article itself turned up online.) On a far more mundane level, concerts are subject to almost-immediate online chatter, and new discs are inevitably discussed on blogs and boards long before they hit the streets.

So naturally, the Times tries harder, even in its cultural coverage, to assert a primacy both among those who don't frequent chats, blogs and boards and those who do, or might. New albums by Kanye West and Kate Bush, to name but two attention-grabbing musicians, were discussed in the Times well ahead of release date, which used to be something of an unspoken starting line. And critics are forced to dash up the aisles in order to file reviews that might appear on the paper's website in a matter of hours. (Just like the old days!)

I acknowledge all of that as the way the game is played, at least in this city. But how much is too much? At what point does breaking a story become invasive, perhaps even offensive? I'm only just beginning to mull this over, and really can't begin to come to a definitive conclusion. So if anyone happens to come across discussion of this article and its impact, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know.

Playlist:

Kurt Weill - Symphonies Nos. 1 & 2; Lady in the Dark Symphonic Nocturne - Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra/Marin Alsop (Naxos)

Johannes Brahms - Piano Trios Nos. 1 & 3 - Trio Solisti (Marquis)

Gioachino Rossini - La Cenerentolla - Joyce DiDonato a.o., SWR Radio Orchestra Kaiserslautern/Alberto Zedda (Naxos)

Witold Lutoslawski - Twenty Polish Christmas Carols*; Lacrimosa*; Five Songs for female voice and 30 solo instruments** - Olga Pasichnyk*, Jadwiga Rappe**, Polish Radio Chorus Krakow, Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra/Antoni Wit (Naxos)

King Crimson - The 21st Century Guide to King Crimson - Volume Two: 1981-2003 (DGM)

King Crimson - Larks' Tongues in Aspic (Virgin)

Comments

[Alex Ross]

Steve, all well said. In the case of an artist of LHL's stature — or any artist, really — the reporting needs to meet a high standard, especially if you're implying that the artist's management is lying. I think you need something more than a "murmur of concern."

[Sieglinde]

I don't know how many messages or e-mails were left for LHL and her London manager, but it would seem that there was at least an effort to contact them regarding these concerns. I'm not a journalist or professional critic, so I'm not familiar with the Code, but as a fan, I'm interested in issues (whether "private" or otherwise) that *directly* affects the public face of a performer. I don't care about Debbie Voigt's sex life, but I sure would like to know the details of her drastic weight loss because it is consequential to her career and artistry; similarly, LHL's cancellations have to be explained somehow. There are always fine lines and ambiguous benchmarks, and the slope is always slippery, but we're not talking here about the kind of latte Nicole Richie bought at the Starbucks yesterday. In the end, I would like to know what the deal is ... and legitimate "murmurs of concern," to this opera consumer, can be newsworthy too, if that's all that can be gathered.

[Anastasia]

Agreeing with your latest remarks, Steve; I'm another who found the original piece quite troubling.

Had there been solid, substantiated facts in the original piece, I'm frankly not sure where I would have felt a cross over the line to "invasive" reporting. As the article stands, though, the most pressing issue (to my mind, at least) is the employment of speculation at the expense of good journalism.

[Alex Ross]

Sieglinde, they did reach her North American manager, who denied that it was anything but a back injury. He said the same thing to us at the New Yorker when I mentioned her withdrawal from Dr. Atomic. I think this puts a high burden on the reporter to line some hard facts on the other side. Maybe these suspicions will prove well founded, but I really believe it's up to LHL to tell the story when she wants to, if she wants to, if there is a story.

[Sieglinde]

I guess I don't know all the facts; then again, it's imperative for journalists to look elsewhere (other than the proverbial horse's mouth) for them, if it's an important story, and LHL is particularly important to all of us. The NYT article itself may not have met some people's standards, but the issue gets murky when 'privacy' has to be considered vis a vis newsworthiness (e.g. if a reporter actually comes across medical files indicating this or that). But I shouldn't say more about this, because I really don't know anything-- I can't even decide now if I love Elizabeth Futral or if I just really, really like her. But going back to LHL, all this talk persuaded me to get a ticket to her Carnegie Hall appearance with the Boston Symphony on the 28th of November ... expensive seat, ouch: I may have to cut down on either extra helpings of the Met Romeo or nutrition/booze. I need a sugar daddy big time. :)