Jump to content
fondoffouettes

When the Press Determines Stardom: Who Gets Recognized?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, fondoffouettes said:

I agree with Whiteside. 

Wow. I'm surprised he posted that. But I completely agree as well.

Share this post


Link to post

  Glad he said what the rest of us were thinking.  I would love to know what the dancers think about the choreographic choices themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, nanushka said:

The caption for the photo on this NYT article reads as follows:

As was brought to my attention, the other dancers pictured are all principals or soloists.

Yet are clearly not worthy of mentioning by name when Copeland is in the picture.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, ABT Fan said:

Yet are clearly not worthy of mentioning by name when Copeland is in the picture.

Exactly. And the article is about the company's upcoming seasons, not about Copeland specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, fondoffouettes said:

72688349_BB45_4_BBB_9_F18_F0_F795_ADB54_

I agree with Whiteside. 

So agree. Shame on the NYTimes. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, nanushka said:

Exactly. And the article is about the company's upcoming seasons, not about Copeland specifically.

It should have said dancers of American Ballet Theatre. Why did this happen? Did the person captioning recognize Copeland and assume she was the "star"? I really wonder how this works. Does anyone know?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, vipa said:

Why did this happen?

*sigh*  Where to begin?

Share this post


Link to post

Generally, the people writing articles do not write their own headlines.

In some contracts, it is stipulated that individuals and/or dancers at a certain rank be acknowledged, and the company is responsible for creating captions and tying use of the photos to using the captions, but I'm not sure how much clout they have (de factor or de jure) in enforcing the standards.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, vipa said:

It should have said dancers of American Ballet Theatre. Why did this happen? Did the person captioning recognize Copeland and assume she was the "star"? I really wonder how this works. Does anyone know?

The NY Times wants "clicks" on their website, and using Copeland's name presumably results in more clicks than captioning the photo in some more general way.  This is the first time that I'm aware that any other principal at ABT has openly complained about the disproportionate attention given to Copeland by the media.  Bravo, James!

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, abatt said:

This is the first time that I'm aware that any other principal at ABT has openly complained about the disproportionate attention given to Copeland by the media.

It's a rare example of any dancer taking on the press.

Share this post


Link to post

Now, at least, we have a bit of confirmation that there are some company members who are as displeased with the endless, tiresome Misty myth as some ballet fans.  No matter who it may be writing the stories, the headlines, or the photo captions, in this instance it's management at the NY Times that publicly reveals itself as complicit with Copeland's personal management in promoting her in perpetuity, to the great detriment of others.

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, laurel said:

Now, at least, we have a bit of confirmation that there are some company members who are as displeased with the endless, tiresome Misty myth as some ballet fans.  No matter who it may be writing the stories, the headlines, or the photo captions, in this instance it's management at the NY Times that publicly reveals itself as complicit with Copeland's personal management in promoting her in perpetuity, to the great detriment of others.

That may be appropriate to the comments section of the NYT -- that would be their call -- but not here.  When you have an official source showing collusion, you're welcome to post a link or citation.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I’ve written photo captions for nearly a decade, and am sensitive to the implications when you do or do not ID an artist. I could imagine writing the caption in question if it was in a piece all about Copeland, or even if the photo accompanied a paragraph or two about Copeland in a piece that wasn’t entirely about her. But that wasn’t the case here. If the dancers have relatively equal presence in the photo — and especially if they are of similar rank — it’s insulting to ID one artist but not the others.

For the photo in question, given the number of dancers, I probably would have just written “Members of American Ballet Theatre” rather than ID any of them. 

Helene is correct that captioning and headlines would fall to an editor. The author probably had nothing to do with this caption.

I don’t necessarily take Whiteside’s comment to be a dig at the Misty phenomenon (even though I originally posted this in the Misty thread). It’s entirely possible that he, or any other dancer, is happy with the positive media attention Misty had brought to the art form, yet at the same time critical of the press’ blind spot when it comes to other artists. I do, however, think his comment could easily be interpreted as criticism of the outsized attention given to Copeland, and that’s why I was initially surprised he was putting this out there.

Edited by fondoffouettes

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, vipa said:

It should have said dancers of American Ballet Theatre.

There's another reason it should have said that: because doing so would have meant respectfully using the company's official name, rather than misspelling it for the sake of ridiculously strict adherence to house style. That is of course a separate issue, though.

Quote

 I do, however, think his comment could easily be interpreted as criticism of the outsized attention given to Copeland, and that’s why I was initially surprised he was putting this out there.

In putting it out as an IG story rather than as a standard IG post, he at least shields himself from some of the potentially negative consequences (e.g. easy reposting, an exploding comments section, etc.) of speaking out. IG stories are ephemeral — at least to the extent that anything posted online can be. (It has of course been rendered more permanent by being reproduced here, and perhaps in other places.)

Edited by nanushka

Share this post


Link to post

Where did Whiteside post his response?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Helene said:

Where did Whiteside post his response?

On his Instagram, as a story, not a regular post.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ABT Fan said:

On his Instagram, as a story, not a regular post.

Yes, still public-facing. Just temporary.

Share this post


Link to post

Many thanks!

Many thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

Is the comment necessarily critical of misty or the paper, or just the slight?  No comment on the dance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Vs1 said:

Is the comment necessarily critical of misty or the paper, or just the slight?  No comment on the dance.

 

Whiteside's comment, you mean? It definitely doesn't seem critical of Misty. I'm not sure how "unimpressed with this @nytimes caption" could be read as not critical of the paper (given that someone at the paper presumably wrote the caption and the paper itself published it). I don't know what you mean by "or just the slight."

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, nanushka said:

Whiteside's comment, you mean? It definitely doesn't seem critical of Misty. I'm not sure how "unimpressed with this @nytimes caption" could be read as not critical of the paper (given that someone at the paper presumably wrote the caption and the paper itself published it). I don't know what you mean by "or just the slight."

The slight meant that I guess someone who seeks recognition would find offense at the omission or characterization.

The paper meant that, while  we are not allowed to speculate ,this board generally recognizes pr firms and other factors regarding misty's position, so I thought maybe he was referring to that generally and not the specific author ,photographer ,copywriter, or publisher. She's the famous one and it is easy to just mention her in any press and have others basically copy or rewrite the essence of any story as fact in other media.

 

 

Edited by Vs1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Vs1 said:

The slight meant that I guess someone who seeks recognition would find offense at the omission or characterization.

The paper meant that, while  we are not allowed to speculate ,this board generally recognizes pr firms and other factors regarding misty's position, so I thought maybe he was referring to that generally and not the specific author ,photographer ,copywriter, or publisher. She's the famous one and it is easy to just mention her in any press.

I think the purpose of using the tag @nytimes was quite likely to link his criticism directly to the paper. At least, that's the message that comes across pretty clearly to me. Again, it's a NYT caption that he says he's "unimpressed with." I'm not clear on how else that could be interpreted.

Edited by nanushka

Share this post


Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×