• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JoanFontaine

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    NYC and HPNC
  • Gender
  • Springsteen fan since?
    Day One

Recent Profile Visitors

8,865 profile views
  1. 400 shows since 1978 but don't ask her to recite the lyrics of Born To Run?
  2. River tour?? A bunch of kids!
  3. Michael Riedel reported this. He's the chief theater critic for The NY Post, and he's writing a book about Broadway for Simon and Schuster. He's the real deal. Could these plans change? I suppose. But he wouldn't report this without solid basis, especially knowing the widespread interest this was sure to generate.
  4. I am, especially if the schedule is like a Broadway show, he would play Tuesday through Saturday (no shows Sunday and Monday nights). But it seems like he's calling the shots, so maybe every other night? Two related notes, NBC Nightly News picked up the story, and reported that the fans on social media are excited (us). And I ran into Gil tonight, Bruce's (former?) bodyguard outside of 15 Central Park West, where Sting lives. A sign! (of what??)
  5. I think tickets will be tough, not impossible. Go for mid-week, mid-stand shows, search for best available, getting one ticket is always easier than two (forget four!), take what comes up, don't throw anything back, while there are seat locations that are better than others, it is a very small theater, and as always, minimize mistakes at checkout by storing/checking your credit card information in advance (might be Telecharge (they seem to have a lock on Broadway venues), not Ticketmaster - to be determined).
  6. Less than 40,000 tickets - about one night at Giants Stadium - do not throw back tickets! HA.
  7. The Boss is Broadway bound. Bruce Springsteen will make his Broadway debut at the Walter Kerr Theatre for an eight-week run in the fall, The Post has learned exclusively. Sources say Springsteen will do a pared-down version of the set he usually performs in huge arenas and stadiums all over the world. “He wants to play a smaller house,” a source at the Kerr says. “He wants to try something more intimate, and he likes the idea of being on Broadway.” Dates haven’t been finalized, but Springsteen will likely open in November. He’ll perform five times a week. Jujamcyn Theaters, which owns the Kerr, gave him a sweetheart deal he couldn’t refuse: no rent for the eight weeks. The 975-seat Kerr has been empty since the musical “Amélie” closed in May. “He’ll keep the lights on in the building, and they’ll sell gazillions of dollars worth of booze,” a source says. Springsteen will sell out the run in a minute, though whatever he makes will pale in comparison to the tens of millions of dollars he makes on tour. But as one music source says: “He’s got all the money in the world. He can do what he likes.” Some insiders believe Springsteen’s Broadway gig may be a curtain raiser to another project — turning his best-selling memoir, “Born To Run,” into a musical. Several producers, dollar signs dancing in their eyes, approached Springsteen about adapting the book for the stage after The Post reported he was interested in the idea. It could be a blockbuster along the lines of “Jersey Boys” and “Beautiful: the Carole King Musical.” But that’s a long way off. In the meantime, you’ll be able to see the Boss “live and in person” at the Kerr this fall.
  9. I didn't want to start a separate thread on this, and realize it is off topic, somewhat (fire me, please!!), but the NY Times fired its public editor today (in my opinion, she blew the handling by the Times of the Manchester evidence), not to be replaced. From the Times: In announcing the elimination of the public editor’s role, Mr. Sulzberger wrote: “Our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be. Our responsibility is to empower all of those watchdogs, and to listen to them, rather than to channel their voice through a single office.”
  10. Be nice.
  11. I'm not alone in thinking that just because The NY Times can publish something, it should. There are ethics in journalism. A balance between the right to know, the need to know, being insensitive, jeopardizing ongoing investigations and protecting public safety. This is an ongoing investigation of great importance in its earliest stages. I don't see the value to the public that overrides that.
  12. Because they are getting paid, to feel like a big shot, probably a dozen more reasons.
  13. The NY Times just did it again, by printing exactly what was in the knapsack, based on an "unauthorized source" who refused to be identified because the British authorities do not want anyone talking. How is this different from possessing stolen goods - especially since the Times is profiting by it (clicks on their website equals advertising revenue)?
  14. Last night The NY Times public editor weighed in on the decision to print the evidence photos. I think she got it wrong too. Reporters are citizens of the world first and foremost, and journalists second. Here is her column: Around midday on Wednesday, The New York Times published several photographs showing, in eerie detail, the makeshift shrapnel, shredded blue backpack and powerful lead acid battery used by the Manchester bomber who killed 22 people. The story accompanying the photos, describing the forensic evidence and crime scene found by investigators, said the bomber’s torso had been heaved toward the entrance of the Manchester Arena. Nothing in the story directly states the source of the material but it says the evidence was photographed and distributed by British authorities. Now, British officials are accusing U.S. intelligence of leaking the material, saying it could seriously impede an investigation into the deadliest terrorist attack in Britain in more than a decade. Following complaints by Prime Minister Theresa May, President Trump has called for a Justice Department investigation into the “alleged leaks.” Why did The Times publish the evidence and how did it weigh the public interest in the information against any potential damage to the investigation? Dean Baquet, the executive editor, said he understands why some readers are concerned but he stands by the decision. The judgment is that there is a public benefit to telling people how terrorists work, including the makeup of their bombs, the kinds of packs they carry. The [C.J.] Chivers story did that in a remarkably astute way, including interviews with experts. This was not highly classified information. And it did not violate anyone’s privacy. Nor was it insensitive. I understand the upset. Nothing is more powerfully upsetting than what happened in Manchester. But explaining how terrorists work is important journalism.It is rarely an easy decision when editors are weighing the public’s right to know against government concerns that publishing certain information might jeopardize investigations. In this case, the decision to publish has generated hundreds of emails from readers expressing a mix of fury and disappointment at The Times’s decision. “In many instances there is a strong public interest case for publishing information leaked by government officials, and in a number of those, a justification for doing so rapidly,” wrote Charles Worringham of Queensland, Australia. “I cannot immediately see any such justification for the NYT’s rapid publication of photos of the Manchester bombing (forensic close-ups of the detonator, backpack) that have apparently been leaked by U.S. officials, while police investigations are still at an early stage and their publication could potentially hinder or disrupt those investigations. While the blame could be laid at the feet of the leakers, I would ask the NYT to respond to the position that running the story so quickly potentially damages the broader public interest (i.e. avoiding the possibility of compromising investigations), rather than serving it.” Here’s another from Bradley Tice of Orange, Conn.: “The photos are virtually meaningless to people, but appeal to prurient interests. The New York Times has shared evidence that is meaningful to people who have aided and abetted these terrorists and may help them evade capture.” Typically in cases like this, there is an internal discussion among top editors in the newsroom where questions are raised of just the type that readers are now voicing. Most likely that happened in this case as well, although editors have declined to discuss such conversations. In most cases where journalists obtain sensitive material — and in this one, as well — I start from the position that a publication’s job is to inform the public, and if government officials believe information could jeopardize crime or intelligence operations, the onus is on them to make their case. In this instance, it’s not clear whether government officials — either U.S. or British — had such a discussion with The Times or whether this was complicated by the possibility that U.S. officials leaked British investigative evidence. The British government claims that’s the case. But the story refers only vaguely to its source. Perhaps such discussions with British investigators did take place, and The Times found the argument unconvincing. So should The Times have published? It’s hard to say conclusively without knowing whether British officials made a specific case for how this would endanger their investigation. I’ve seen only general assertions of that claim without any specifics. (It’s worth noting that The Guardian, USA Today, NBC News and others all have now published the forensic evidence.) In the absence of such information, I support The Times’s decision. The photographs and story are unquestionably compelling and provide insight into an event of crucial public interest. That doesn’t mean the public has some vital need to see these photos; but by that standard neither do they need to see plenty of other stories and photographs. Times editors might have at least softened the reader uproar by offering a brief explanation within the story of how they evaluate such sensitive decisions, particularly in a case of such international significance. The outcry wasn’t hard to predict. Plenty of readers might still object, but they would at least see that judgments like these aren’t made lightly.