Reviews: They aren't just for long runs

Imagine if someone sat the sports editor down and said, "OK, we're going to cut way back on space and eliminate all next-day game stories. Why should we rehash what won't be repeated again? No fan can go back and see the Giants beat the Padres 3-2. Instead, we'll devote our sports coverage to trends and human-interest features." 

The reason we don't do that is because next-day game stories serve as a record of an event: both for people who were there (they want to validate their own experience and perhaps also tussle with a differing interpretation of what they saw) and those who weren't there and want to experience it in some small degree after the fact. The comparison between sporting and cultural events isn't exact, of course. There are stylistic differences in the ways we cover athletic and artistic happenings. Sports stories tend to be more numbers-driven. People love statistics, and newspapers deliver. Cultural stories tend to be more impressionistic and delivered through a lens of interpretation. Still, like a good sports game story, a good review manages to both document an event and provide analysis and context.

Several years ago, I was researching a story about the 50th anniversary of the Fresno Philharmonic. I went to The Fresno Bee's ancient clip files and started pulling old reviews from that long-ago season. They documented not only what was played and the reaction of both reviewer and crowd but also served as historical record. Through these reviews, I was able to reconstruct not only an entire season but also an impression of what it was like to play in a symphony orchestra in those days. Setting aside entirely the issue of how well we're archiving the Internet, what sort of historical record will we be leaving 50 years from now if we don't provide one-night-stand reviews of some kind?

Many editors have been indoctrinated, thanks to this give-everything-a-grade-Entertainment-Weekly world of ours, to think of reviews in purely consumer-driven terms: This concert was good. This play was bad. This opera was "worth" your money. They forget the fact that cultural events are also news. Reporting about them through reviews helps stitch together the supporting fabric of a community. It gives people a sense that things are happening around them and not just in big cities hundreds of miles away.  It also subtly shifts the focus of a paper's cultural coverage from overwhelmingly promotional (such-and-such is coming and here's why you should see her) to a better balance between cheerleading and honest critique (yes, she came to perform, and this time she sucked).

From a purely economic perspective, too, reviews tend to draw small but faithful clumps of readers who look to their newspaper as a chronicler of significant events in their community.

A sports game story also has a consumer element too, of course, in a more subtle and cumulative way. (The Dodgers are doing really well this season; you should come out and see them in person!) Theater and concert reviews are often more subjective. But that's the nature and tradition of the medium. And there's no doubt that the nature of sports coverage will have to change with the immediacy of the Internet: more breaking news online, more context and analysis in print. Still, though, the news gets covered -- whatever the format. Why should it be different for cultural news? 

Sure, resources are scarce today and not much space is available in print. Obviously not every one-time event (or recurring event, for that matter) is worth a precious review -- just as not every sporting event gets its own game story. But there are the acknowledged biggies that happen in any community, and they need to be covered. We need to think of innovative ways to do this: have a shorter review in print that directs people to an expanded one online, for example. But cutting all reviews of one-time events is going to be just another strike against us.