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)