Tuesday, September 04, 2018

The Wall Street Journal Reviewed or Did Not Review Big Apple Circus? Here is How Each Replied to My Request for Comment


For the background to this, see the post that follows below.   

To The Wall Street Journal:

I decided it best to begin with Charles Passy, who the wrote Journal article.  I sent him a link, and wrote:

I am hoping you will consider answering the following two questions:

1.  Is the Wall Street Journal aware of this?

2.  If so, how would it explain allowing for such?

In addition, I would welcome any comments you may have

From the Wall Street Journal

Mr. Passy replied almost immediately:

“Wow, that’s pretty amazing.  When I used to be a reviewer, I was accustomed to critiques being taken out of context, but this is a whole other thing.

Thanks for bringing to our attention.  I’ll alert editors and let them decide if they want to follow up.”

To the Big Apple Circus:

Their website gives three contact e-mail addresses.  I addressed my request to two of them — Inquiries and Creative Director:

I refer you to the posting I did on the Wall Street Journal quotes about last year’s show, as they appear on your website. I would welcome your comment.  Am I wrong?  Might you have made made arrangements with the Wall Street Journal to quote from the article?  Thank you for your anticipated reply.

From the Big Apple Circus.

So far, nothing. 

I did notice yesterday, when trying to pull up their website, that you are sent directly  to Ticketmaster for sales.  The website itself appears to be totally missing in action.


Speculating, it seems most likely to me that either.

1.  Big Apple Circus publicists quoted the article without permission, and, if the Journal noticed it by accident, they did not take the time to realize what had actually happened, or looked the other way.

2.  Through possible inside connections with the Journal, Big Apple Circus secured, or thought they secured, permission to use the quotes.

It is impossible for me to believe that the Journal, which employs some of the best critics out there, would condone such a thing.

WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENED?

No comments: