As Eli Sanders posted on November 14 (for some reason our search engine is giving me a 404 error when I try to go to the post, so I can't link it right now), among the Seattle Times staffers to be let go is Sheila Farr, art critic.
Farr is one of many writers at the paper to take the buyouts, but it was more than a simple voluntary buyout. Farr explained in an email:
The newspaper is eliminating my position as art critic and offered me a different job doing some arts coverage as well as hard news. I decided not to do that and turned in an "expression of interest" in a voluntary lay-off, which was accepted. I will continue in my position as art critic until 12/12.
If the Times wanted to keep Farr but lose the critic job, then what is its reasoning for keeping a full-time theater critic? Is the paper sending a message to the city about the importance of theater over art? If so, how is it measuring that? (Or am I imputing too much actual intention to what may just be a roiling mess over there?)
Either way, it's depressing.
Comments (11) RSS