Peter Friedman
Lawyer

View Peter Friedman's profile on LinkedIn

Ruling Imagination: Law and Creativity

July 28th, 2010 | art law, Legal News

Donald Rosenberg v. Plain Dealer & Cleveland Orchestra, continued

The Plain Dealer reports that attorneys for Donald Rosenberg completed the presentation of their evidence to the jury in Rosenberg’s lawsuit against the Plain Dealer and the Musical Arts Association, the governing body of the Cleveland Orchestra. I expressed a lot of my views on what I perceive to be the weaknesses of Rosenberg’s case a couple of weeks ago. What I have read so far has not changed my opinion.

First, it is important to note that Rosenberg is not claiming that the Plain Dealer was in breach of contract when it reassigned him to a different  beat after his many years of writing reviews of the Orchestra. His only legal claim against the newspaper is that the reassignment constituted age discrimination. As I wrote previously, that’s an odd claim, since the entire thrust of the case is that the reassignment was wrongful because it was done at the Orchestra’s behest. Reassignment under pressure of someone who doesn’t like what’s being written doesn’t sound like age discrimination to me. And he testified that he never mentioned age discrimination at the time of the reassignment. According to the Plain Dealer story, he thought it was “onerous and unusual” that the person doing the reassigning had told him he’d covered the Orchestra for a long time. I guess he’s claiming the Plain Dealer reassigned him because the beat had become too burdensome after his many years, but I cannot imagine that the physical and mental burden of covering the Orchestra formed any part of the Plain Dealer’s thinking in reassigning a 57 year old guy to a different beat.

It’s also not clear at all what legal damages Rosenberg suffered. He testified that he had not lost pay or benefits under his reassignment in 2008. He had no legal right to the position reviewing the Orchestra, and try as he might to establish that his critical reputation has suffered, he by all appearances seems to have skyrocketed in reputation in the music community, which sees him as a martyr on the altar of critical integrity.

It’s funny: the music community never seemed to be particularly concerned with Rosenberg’s critical integrity during his years covering the Orchestra under the direction of Christoph von Dohnányi despite his close friendship with von Dohnányi.

Rosenberg’s claims against the Musical Arts Association are in the nature of defamation claims. The problem is that unless he can establish that someone affiliated with the Orchestra lied about him, there doesn’t seem much there there. There’s nothing illicit about someone who’s being reviewed complaining about the review. Nor is there anything illicit in the employer of the reviewer listening to and even responding to those complaints. And it’s not as if there haven’t been complaints about Rosenberg. Rosenberg admitted on the stand that, in the Plain Dealer’s words, “others — including newspaper readers, members of the orchestra and others in the community — had complained about what was perceived as a pervasive negative tenor to his reviews of [Franz] Welser-Most [the Orchestra's conductor and von Dohnányi's succesaor] .”

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not thrilled with the idea of newspapers shaping their coverage to please the subjects. I just don’t see the newspapers employees having any legal right to ensure that the newspapers don’t do so. Nor is the Plain Dealer’s alleged favoritism of its subject in this instance, even if true, one of the more glaring instances of this aspect of journalism. There’s no First Amendment requirement that the media be objective.

Now that Rosenberg’s lawyers have called all of their own witnesses, the Plain Dealer and the Musical Arts Association will have an opportunity to call their own. Then the lawyers will give closing arguments, the judge will instruct the jury in the law applicable to the evidence, and the jury will deliberate. At several steps on the way, as well, the judge could conceivably stop the trial and rule in favor of the defendants if the judge decides no reasonable jury could find that Rosenberg can recover on his legal claims.

Stay tuned.

This article has 3 comments

  1. Janice Harayda Says:

    As a former book critic for the Plain Dealer (1987-1998), I appreciate the thoughtfulness of many of your comments. But I don’t see the legal relevance of your ad hominem comment that “Rosenberg has always struck me as the kind of guy I hate going to restaurants with,” in part because of “nit picking.” Your comment is troubling for two reasons:

    1) It is certainly important for music critics to describe the big picture — for example, the overall cohesion of the playing or the validity of a conductor’s interpretation. It is also vital for critics to see and describe what some might see as “nits,” such as whether a soprano sang a high B-flat instead of C or a violinist came in a beat too late on a solo. These “nits” matter for many reasons including: feedback for musicians, a truthful report for concertgoers, and, for an orchestra of the stature of Cleveland’s, the accuracy of the historical record. What you may see as “nits” can contribute powerfully to the impression left by a concert.

    2) I haven’t read Don’s recent reviews. But his comments on von Dohnányi’s concerts never struck me as picking nits. Don also reviewed music books for me, and his comments about books didn’t fault trivial matters. They were fair, balanced and well-written. Your comparison of Don to a guy who might “stiff the waiter” is, on more than one level, especially unfortunate.

    Finally, as someone who has shared a meal with Don, I’d like to say that he didn’t pick nits about the food, either. He was a charming dinner companion.
    Janice Harayda

  2. pfriedman Says:

    Janice — I think you’re right, and I’m going to delete those comments. I have no beef with Rosenberg as a person; I just don’t see the legal merit in his lawsuit. So there’s no reason to leave that snide put-down up there. I’ll leave your comment so as not to engage in a cover up of my mistake. I appreciate you calling me out on that, and I am very grateful for your kind words too.

  3. david Says:

    I was early in this debate but I am on board with this new discussion. Balanced and fair. In every law suit it is always good to ask whether Common Sense fits the law. In my view, it does not. Unless it is shown that Rosenberg was anything less than a professional with an opinion others disliked, the Common Sense Rule applies.He disliked the ability of Franz to do justice to the great Cleveland Orchestra (whose members and performance ability he never criticised) and even if his employment contract allowed the reassignment, he was damaged UNLESS it can be shown that he had some objective other than honest criticism grounded in his many years of experience.

Add a comment