Two-Fisted, In-Your-Face, 100% Pure Arts Journalism

Really Hard Hitting Journalism Here One of the important things a journalist should do is follow up on a story. After the big headline, the responsible journalist has the duty to follow through with the hard work of tracking down the whole story, with all its complications and nuances. Fortunately, I'm not a real journalist. I'm just on the internet, and I follow the rules of internet journalism: (1) Report controversy, not story; (2) there should be a picture of a cat; (3) do not generate your own content; and (4) seriously, get a picture of a cat. Don't worry. I've got this internet journalism covered. Two weeks ago, I shared a link to a column by Chris Jones at the Chicago Tribune, in which he shared his thoughts on the Chicago Symphony Orchestra creating its own magazine and calling the writers who do features and previews in it "journalists" (despite the fact that they are on the payroll of the organization they are ostensibly covering). Apparently, Jones' words were not taken very well by arts writers around the internet. Barry Johnson, writing for Oregon Arts Watch took plenty of umbrage with Jones. In his view, this is exactly the kind of thing that arts organizations should be doing in order to save arts journalism. One week ago, I talked a bit about a baffling set of proposals for the 2014 theatre season, by Star Tribune writer Graydon Royce. (I still don't have a good handle on them, by the way.) This exercise in turning out content as quickly as possible ruffled quite a few feathers in the Twin Cities theatre community, prompting another "modest proposal" back to the critics. Meanwhile, over at HowlRound, director and editor Polly Carl issued her own list of proposals for how to get on with the business of writing, reporting and reviewing the arts. I'll let you know if someone has a snarky retort to her, because keeping you well informed is my job, even if I am tragically underpaid for it. Speaking Of Being Underpaid Actor's Equity Association held a town hall forum this week to discuss the now-standard practice of touring musicals hiring performers under short term tiered contracts instead of full production contracts. I could get bogged down explaining the differences, but the only one that anyone cares about right now is this: tiered contracts pay $700-$1100 a week; full contracts pay $1800. The meeting was jam-packed, but no action was decided upon. It's all well and good to argue about who's not getting paid enough, but what about the actors who aren't getting paid at all? A recent article from The Hooded Utilitarian delves into the the gray area that is nonprofit theatre. The article focuses on The Flea Theater in New York, a small company that is about to move into new $18 million digs. The Flea, however, works on the backs of a small army of 150 "volunteer" actors who receive no pay for their work. This article (with multiple updates and footnotes), explores the issues that come with an organization relying on professional-grade work without professional-grade pay. It's Hard Out Here For A Nonprofit No matter how you feel about artists not getting paid, the reality is that there are economics at work that virtually guarantee this situation. Over at Nonprofit Quarterly, you can find sobering figures on how much profit a nonprofit needs to stay alive. And if that's not enough to make your sphincter tighten, they have another article about all the tricks and compromises a nonprofit company company will have to make in order to stay afloat. Hint: not many of them have much to do with the nonprofit's mission statement. Death and Tax Breaks Here at home, the Minnesota Film & TV Board may face a major audit in the legislature over accusations that the board and it's Snowbate program (which offers tax breaks and incentives to film and television productions that set up shop in the state) are not pulling their weight. Most states have some sort of similar program, and movie makers looking to shoot on location can spend months sifting through the myriad options, for ways to squeeze a few more cents out of states. Since Louisiana introduced the first target tax incentives for movies in 1991, there has been an escalating arms race between the states. This leads to the inevitable question: do the the costs of the tax breaks outweigh the benefits? The Motion Picture Association of America, of course, says "YES" emphatically; but then, that's part of their job. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, on the other hand, says "NO" just as emphatically. In his view, the competition to give away tax dollars to film producers has created a race to the bottom that produces no tangible economic gains. Even some filmmakers have gone on record to say that the ever-escalating tax breaks aren't helping much. The MPAA has their studies to with all kinds of numbers showing sky-high returns, but it's helpful to look at Louisiana, the state that started all of this. Even though they managed to steal Homefront from us (the book it's based on is set in Minnesota, but producers changed the setting to Louisiana to capitalize on their tax breaks), official reports on the program show a return to the state of only about 14% of what was spent. Where There's a Will… My apologies for the awful, unforgivable pun above; but if there's one thing that will open the audience's wallets, it's Shakespeare. He's the go-to guy when times are tough. It's just too bad that his repertoire isn't getting any bigger. Or is it? A recent article at Big Think takes a look at the efforts to find Shakespeare's "lost works" through computer analysis of structure and word choice. Of course, this can only lead to more insane arguments over whether or not someone named "William Shakespeare" actually wrote all those plays. And when it does, I'll be right there to cover the controversy, without much original research, but with plenty of cats. It will happen.