WashPo on T.O.

So Tboy talked to recently appointed Washington Post theater editor Michael Cavna late on Friday.  (Sorry this didn't get posted earlier, but there were snowmen to be built.) Here's what Cavna, who's been on the job for about four months, had to say about the Tricia Olszewski business and how the Post came to its decision:

"I've enjoyed immensely working with her. I like her, and we like her, and we have nothing but praise for her work," Cavna said. T.O.'s reviews "are more than solid -- I feel that way, and it was my sense from Peter [Marks] and from [Arts Editor] John Pancake. We like her writing.... [T]hat's why she'll continue to do music and other things."

That said, Cavna acknowledged that T.O.'s blog bio "immediately raised a red flag."  The trouble was twofold, he said:

• There was the obvious issue of the Post's difficult public position, "now that she publicly has given the perception that maybe being a theater critic isn't for her."
• But, Cavna said, there was also a certain amount of basic editorial flock-tending involved: How does this person feel covering theater? "It sparked a conversation," Cavna said, that eventually involved editorial panjandrums up to and including Style section chief Deb Heard.

In those conversations, Olszewski "expressed discomfort in her role," Cavna said. "As you know, it's different from writing about movies or music; it's insular, and you're frequently in contact with those youre criticizing."

With all of the above in mind, Cavna said, "We talked with her and decided it would be better for her to step back from theater and continue as a pop music critic.  And what she expressed to me was relief."

Cavna said he'd "seen growth" in Olszewski's work, and spoke hopefully of her future as a critical writer. "She brings an intelligence to it," he said. "I've worked with numerous critics at large," and the non-discipline-specific gift the good ones have is "the ability to perceive...."

Cavna acknowledged that it's tough for any paper, even a paper with the Post's resources, "to maintain a top-notch freelance stable," but said the hassle of replacing T.O. was not a factor in the recent discussions. "We tried to remove that as a component.... I genuinely hope that this is the best thing for her, and the best thing all around."

As for who'll replace her, it's early going. No names yet, but "We're committed to finding another quality freelancer ... and not let it affect our coverage, and the amount of our coverage."

Note: Tboy's gonna leave comments open on this, at least for the moment, but let's try to stick to the topics of Cavna, the Post's position, and the Post's coverage, OK?  There's been a fairly full airing of people's views on T.O. and her performance and her fate, so let's let that one rest.

Comments

[Appreciative]

Thanks, Tboy, for the update. If we didn't get the behind-the-velvet-rope scoop from you, where else would we turn?

I'm glad you shed some light on the Post's perspective here.

[t-rae]

I am appreciative as well, T-Boy. Closure is good. Now I gotta get out and build my snowman before it melts tomorrow...

[Anon]

Now that T.O has decided to take down her website I feel that a .PDF of it should not be hosed on this website, it was her work and if she decided to take it down it should not be hosted on this site w/o her permission.

[heihachi]

Like I said before(in that other thread), I think this turned out well for everybody. It might have been slightly embarrassing, but TO got to work on stuff she's more comfortable with, we lost a critic who wasn't a 'favorite' of the drama nerds, and the Post is continuing to review and cover small theatres the same as before. I wish TO the best and hope she flourishes in her new duties. And I am thankful we got the early scoop, TO's take on it, and the Post's take on it.

[AKM]

Thank you for the scoop. To me, all this points to a larger problem with the Post's coverage in recent years. DC theater has certainly felt the effects of editorial choices that prefer covering the latest juke-box musical in New York over offerings in the actual community the paper is based in; where a review will languish in an editor's inbox for several weeks, only to be published with a weekend of performances left out of a four-week run; where a critic has a lack of knowledge and interest in the product they're reviewing, believing that what they are about to see is "second string". How can that NOT cloud the review? I just hope all this gets the powers that be at the Post to take a long and hard look at the editorial choices they have been making as regards the review process. Best wishes to T.O. - I just wish she had made her feelings of discomfort known sooner.

[Nova]

Its nice that the Post and T.O were able to work things out so that she wont have to review theater anymore, she didn’t seem to be enjoying doing that, but will still be able to review movies and music.

The best thing that could happen is maybe she will now be able to go to a local theater, just watch the play, and enjoy herself.

[LKH]

Does anyone know if this is the Mike Cavna who used to work at the San Diego Union-Tribune?