In 1999, Columbia University's National Arts Journalism Program (NAJP) published "Reporting the Arts," a study examining arts coverage in mainstream American news media. Focused on 15 newspapers in 10 U.S. metropolitan areas (Charlotte, N.C.; Chicago; Cleveland; Denver; Houston; Miami; Philadelphia; Portland, Ore.; Providence, R.I.; and the San Francisco Bay area), the study emerged as the Internet bubble crested, and well before terrorism, an economic slump, and two foreign wars altered American news dramatically, the arts being just one component.
"Reporting the Arts II: News Coverage of Arts and Culture in America," a comprehensive follow-up released in October, aims to discern what, if anything, has changed or stayed the same. The study's findings may be dismaying: While arts sections maintain "relative positions of prominence" in newspapers, newspapers themselves "are shrinking." Thus, "a stable position in a declining environment translates to less coverage than it did five years ago."
More worrisome, not only did none of the papers tracked in the study increase their arts coverage, but, indeed, "seven cut back severely, five cut back moderately, [and] three maintained roughly the same levels." From The Charlotte Observer and the Chicago Tribune to the Denver Post, Houston Chronicle, and Miami Herald, articles are typically "shorter now than they were five years ago."
András Szántó, a co-author of both reports, opined in a November 1999 Back Stage interview that theatre was "an underprivileged area of arts coverage," with performing arts accounting for 11% of coverage and "close to 50%" of coverage consisting of "mechanically generated listings." In a follow-up interview this week, Szántó, now the NAJP's director, said "there's a practical answer and a much more complex cultural explanation" for the stagnation and/or decline in arts coverage.
"The report goes to great pains to show that much of this is attributable to adverse industry trends that have shrunk newspapers in general," Szántó said. "We're not saying the arts have been singled out; we're saying [the arts] have failed to grow. And that may simply be the end of the story for newsroom decision-makers: There's less ad revenue, high print costs, fewer readers—an open-and-shut call. But it's not that simple. In terms of readers' interests—outside big cities, especially—you can make a valid case that holding things [steady] fails to serve constituents. There are many signs that arts and entertainment coverage is, paradoxically, a hopeful area for newspaper growth in the future."
Yet this assessment, Szántó concedes, has caveats. Arts coverage might also be on the wane "because of a failure of will or imagination or leadership issues. Where family-owned papers used to have a special obligation to arts coverage because owners were involved in civic functions, the chaining of newspapers means civic responsibilities may be less intensely felt. There's a sociology of newsrooms: At many small papers, arts pages are sometimes called 'women's pages,' and, by implication, those who call it that are older men less attuned to the arts. Then there's the fact that most newsroom decision-makers rise through the ranks on the hard-news side; it's rare that the arts get a strong hearing."
Curiously, Szántó says a resumption of the culture wars of the '80s and '90s, as unpalatable as that may seem, might be just the thing to jump-start a reversal of the trend: "Newspapers love controversy and scandal. The problem is there's little day-to-day, routine coverage of arts institutions in the same way you'd cover, say, politics. But institutions have to make it two to tango. Large groups with significant PR staffs and resources are adept at working the system, and the press does love popular, high-arts events because it satisfies arts journalists and has the allure of a blockbuster event—a film, a Broadway show. Yet, on the whole, arts institutions could do a better job on a local level of connecting with newsroom leadership. There's a kind of quiet trench warfare: Everyone is dug in their bunkers and there's not enough maintaining of contacts that would be helpful to arts institutions when that inevitable crisis breaks out."
Which brings Szántó to yet another avenue of approach: "Societally, over the last quarter-century, we've seen institutions once shrouded in secrecy opening up their doors: restaurants with open kitchens, C-Span, Court TV. In each case it's been generally to their benefit. That transparency has yet to happen in arts institutions. Think about all the backstage issues in movie reporting—reports of which director is involved in what project, which producer is hiring what writer for which script. Some of that might be public obsession with movies, but in the end, scrutiny benefits the business. It keeps people interested in the arts industry and what it produces."
Louloudes on the Local Scene
Speaking not just of "Reporting the Arts" but also of the controversial decision by The New York Times to revamp its free listings, Virginia Louloudes, executive director of the Alliance of Resident Theatres/New York, said that arts coverage, like the arts in general, is "in the midst of a paradigm shift. The Times listing change is symptomatic of the need to sell papers—they, like any paper, have competition from other papers and electronic media. You can argue the merits, but they are not unique in that outlook."
Louloudes said that New York City has special challenges for arts journalists: "You have so many arts events it's overwhelming, and for a paper that needs to make a profit, it is hard to cover anything adequately. I think there's been an attempt at the Times to try and improve things by getting new writers and more reviews. What people are upset about is that, unless you're a Broadway theatre, you can't get any coverage."
A more pressing challenge facing ART/NY's membership is the perennial shortage of funds for advertising, marketing, and publicity—precisely the tools Szántó suggests as ways to get on the radar of newsroom decision-makers. "When I got to ART/NY in 1991, there were under 100 member theatres. Now there are 400—and 260 have budgets under $100,000 a year. What can they do?"