Donald Rosenberg, ousted Plain Dealer classical-music critic, talks about court loss

Critics, as it is often said, like to have the last word in an argument. But on Friday, one outspoken critic lost his war of words with the very newspaper that employs him.

Donald Rosenberg, the former classical-music critic of Cleveland's the Plain Dealer, was pulled off his regular beat in 2008 after writing a number of highly critical articles aimed at the Cleveland Orchestra and specifically its music director, Franz Welser-Möst .

Claiming age discrimination and the damage of his reputation, among other things, Rosenberg, 58, filed suit in court against the Plain Dealer as well as the orchestra. The trial, which was closely watched by cultural leaders and journalists around the country, took close to four weeks to complete and included testimony and depositions from Welser-Möst, conductor Christoph von Dohnányi and the music critic Tim Page.

On Friday, an eight-member jury ruled against Rosenberg on all claims.

Speaking by phone, Rosenberg said he wasn't sure yet if he would challenge the decision. "My lawyer and I have not discussed that yet," he said.

"We were disappointed of course," he continued. "We knew from the outset that we would be charting unexplored waters. I was fully aware of the risks but that didn't stop me from standing up for my colleagues. I felt the issues of freedom of expression and critical independence needed to be addressed."

Rosenberg is still employed by the newspaper as an arts and entertainment reporter covering classical music, opera, dance and more. He said he still reviews concerts, but not those by the Cleveland Orchestra.

Rosenberg said his relationship with editors at the newspaper had been strained during the trial. "I don't know what it's going to be like now," he said. "My immediate supervisor is sympathetic so I work well with him. But the people above him -- I have not had communication with them."

Susan Goldberg, the Plain Dealer's editor, was responsible for reassigning Rosenberg in 2008. Her office referred inquiries to the newspaper's legal representation.

"I think the decision today confirms that the Plain Dealer has the right to change critics' and reporters' assignments at any time," said David Posner, the lawyer who represents the newspaper and Goldberg. "And there was never a consideration of age in the decision."

Posner is a lawyer with the firm Baker Hostetler.

Since he was pulled from his beat, Rosenberg said he has only been to see the Cleveland Orchestra twice on his own expense. "I've stayed away. It's just too painful to go," he said.

He added: "It's been a great orchestra and I wish it all the best."

-- David Ng

Photo: Donald Rosenberg. Credit: Plain Dealer

Comments

[Janet]

From now on, Cleveland critics will write only laudatory reviews of Franz Welser-Moest's directorship of the Cleveland Orchestra? We'll have to rely on out-of-city and out-of-state reviews of the Cleveland Orchestra's performances if we hope to learn anything objective -- maybe. Because the verdict sets a chilling precedent: In this cost-cutting era, when newspaper staff are being downsized, music critics everywhere will have to wonder if they dare say anything negative, or even objective, about any "darling" of a city's deeply entrenched powers. Another issue: What REALLY bothered Welser-Moest about Mr. Rosenberg's reviews?

[David Thompson]

Tempest in a teapot? This guy was fired because his reviews became an embarrassment to the paper. It's not like he was a professor with lifetime tenure, exercising his paid right to educate the masses as he saw fit. Instead, he was on the payroll to sell newspapers, by writing reviews that are reliable and entertaining. I've been to plenty of concerts where I wondered if the reviewer had heard the same performance that I did (though he said it was the one that he reviewed). Hey, the reviewer is in show business, too, so why sould he have a right to lifetime employment, if his reviews no longer have credibility?....

[tscholl]

Sorry, but I live in Cleveland, go to the orchestra, and for a time, read Rosenberg's reviews. I stopped reading him early on in Welser-Möst's tenure when I realized I could write them myself, without attending the concerts. And that was a feeling shared by many of us in Cleveland who care about music, the orchestra, and indeed, the state of critical writing.

Rosenberg was, sorry to say, one of those writers who was so close to his subject that he got lost in it. Very reminiscent of the situation at New York City Ballet after Balanchine's death, when writers, week to week, indicted Peter Martins for not being Balanchine.

One of the more striking revelations of the trial was that Rosenberg had an office in Severance Hall, the home of the orchestra. I've heard of press offices before, but those are usually tended by the organization, not the 'journalists' who cover them. I fault the Plain Dealer here, for allowing the general coziness Rosenberg had over the years. But really? What sort of critic is that close?

Two more points: Rosenberg essentially admitted his bias against Welzer-Möst at the trial. 'Nuff said.
And most importantly, the Plain Dealer didn't fire him. They let him cover everything BUT the orchestra, to the great relief of those of us who care about the orchestra and hated seeing it sabotaged any time Welser-Möst took the podium.

The discussions of the quote in bad translation, etc., have long been nothing but a distraction from the facts of the case: the guy hates Welser-Möst, has been trying to defend 'his' orchestra quite openly, and became a joke in the process.

[tscholl]

And sorry, Janet. But what REALLY bothered Mr. Rosenberg about FWM's appearances?