My April piece Critical Sinking — a close look at the conflict between The Cleveland Orchestra, the Plain Dealer and critic Donald Rosenberg which lead to the reassignment of a highly skilled music critic who covered one of the best musical institutions in the world — prompted a letter asking for more details.
I read your recent article "Critical Sinking" with great interest. I thought it was fairly balanced, however, one paragraph left me wanting more.For those interested, I've scanned the chart described in the story. Each X represents an individual sentence. So for each article Rosenberg penned about a Welser-Möst-led performance, there may be several Xs under each category.
On page 73 the article states: "For the meeting, Julie Clark, working for the orchestra’s media relations department, assembled a point-by-point critique of all 150 sentences Rosenberg had written about Welser-Möst, from his guest-conducting performance on Feb. 12, 1993, to the latest concert before the meeting. She rated each sentence as “positive,” “mixed” or “negative."
I wonder if other readers had the same reaction as me. I would have liked to know the results of that critique. Did the research show a predominant slant to these sentences or not? Why was the result of that study not revealed? Was the information denied to you, not requested or merely not pursued.