Are Interviewees Subject to Journalistic Double Jeopardy?

Why do Calendar interviewers seem compelled to insult their subjects? In the Nov. 7 interview with Marlo Thomas (“In the Prime of My Craft Now”), the writer actually reprinted lines from a negative Times review of Thomas’ performance in “Six Degrees of Separation” and then asked for her reaction. I can only assume this was done either to remind all of your readers just how nasty the review was (in case we had mercifully missed it the first time) or it was done simply to hurt Thomas. What purpose does that serve?

Can’t one simply ask the question: How do bad reviews affect an actor? Is it necessary to humiliate a performer by specifically printing an opinion one more time for all to read? It wasn’t even the interviewer’s own opinion. It was chosen and quoted, apparently, only because it was so negative.

Many actors choose not to read reviews at all. It’s that old adage: What you think of me is none of my business. Particularly if one is performing in a play, it can prove beneficial to ignore a printed opinion in the morning paper.

I’m not attempting to dispute the role of reviewers here. But caution is called for. One might conceivably experience great self-doubt and anxiety before stepping once more onto that stage.

If Thomas had tried to spare herself by not reading that one review, it has now been graciously spelled out for her word by word. I can’t imagine that during the course of the interview she requested that.

I am reminded of a friend who was interviewed for a New York paper. In concluding the article, the journalist stated that the reason for the emotional instability of her subject was that the person’s mother never cooked dinner for her children during their formative years. Instead, she resorted to opening cans of soup after working 15-hour days. In other words, the actor just wasn’t brought up right. Not only did this infuriate the subject, but it humiliated her mother, who lives and still works as a literary agent in New York City.

I don’t see why this dime-store pop psychology is necessary. Why do journalists so often look for weak spots or try to throw their subjects off balance? Who needs to know what last week’s reviewer said? I don’t believe it is a rare glimpse into Marlo Thomas’ inner psyche to read how she responds to a personal attack.

If a quote from a negative review is used, how about a quote from a positive one as well to balance the picture? How about leaving reviews and other forms of analysis out of an interview altogether? How about hiring a writer who can ask intelligent and relevant questions?

How about allowing the work of a wonderful and accomplished actor to speak for itself?