THE ENTERTAINMENT EDITOR OF A large metropolitan daily works in so special a field only students too foolish or confident or romantic to be deterred by reality can set out for the job. Even if they dare, students have little to go on. Where do entertainment editors come from? How do they get their jobs? What do they do?

Recently while preparing an article more concerned with theater than journalism, I tried to find out something about these men. Questionnaires were sent to entertainment editors on the newspapers of the 24 largest cities next to New York, whose critics were ignored because enough has been written about them and their special function. Cities smaller than San Antonio, Texas, also were eliminated, for their entertainment writers, when they have any, find little theater to worry about.

Twenty-one answered:

Norman Clark, Baltimore News-Post; Cyrus Durgin, Boston Globe; Elinor Hughes, Boston Herald; W. E. J. Martin, Buffalo Courier-Express, Roger Dettmer, Chicago American; Herman Kogan, Chicago Sun-Times; Henry Humphreys, Cincinnati Times-Star; John Rosenfield, Dallas Morning News; Bob Tweedell, Denver Post; Edwin Schallert, Los Angeles Times; Patterson Greene, Los Angeles Examiner; John K. Sherman, Minneapolis Star and Tribune; Ed Brooks, New Orleans Times-Picayune; Ewing Poteet, New Orleans Item; Bob Sublette, New Orleans States; Jerry Gaghan, Philadelphia Daily News; Harold V. Cohen, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Gerald Ashford, San Antonio Express; Robert Z. Hall, San Francisco Call-Bulletin; J. Willis Sayre, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and James W. O'Neill, Jr., Washington Daily News.

The most obvious fact gleaned from results of the questionnaire is that editors, with rare exceptions, do not expect entertainment writers to have special training. Almost all had some newspaper experience before taking over their jobs. Their college backgrounds seem average for any group of 21 newspapermen. Their newspaper work was varied, suggesting that an entertainment writer moves up through the ranks and gets his job, perhaps, by chance—there is an opening and the city editor thinks he can be spared. The job may even be a reward for loyalty—nine had been with one newspaper continuously and only four with more than three.

An exception, however, lies in the field of music. Of the 21 writers, two had musical training, one had operated a dance hall, one had managed a record store and one had been an official for a symphony orchestra. No other field of the arts is so well represented. This suggests editors sometimes feel anyone can cover theater, movies, radio, television and nightclubs but somebody musical is needed for music. Possibly it’s a simple matter: theater, movies, radio and television are easily understood but music, the editor thinks, is tough to fathom.

The job may seem full of prestige to the writer himself. The average length of service for a critic was almost 19 years, the median just over 20. Although he perhaps has flitted from job to job before becoming a critic, the writer then stays on.

Certain prestige factors are easy to spot. The critic’s by-line appears from once a week to every day. Some of the more cultured people in the community know his name. He envisions himself as a vital member of the community. Note, for example, some of his comments on the questionnaires:

I conceive it is my duty to promote the growth of the arts by means of moral support and encouragement. (Ashford)

Drama critics . . . should encourage local community and college productions. (Miss Hughes)

The non-New York critic can—and does—help the American theater by giving those acting kids and neophyte playwrights the pats on the back that keep them striving up the tough road. (Brooks)

The critic’s self-picture is that of a well-known member of the community, discussed by the educated people, a vital force in cultural life.

Editors, however, may have a different view, although this is not clear from the evidence. Since the editor usually does not expect special training, he may not think of the job as special at all. For example, few editors send theater critics to New York to sharpen their dramatic tastes. Some editors even feel that the critic can take time out to cover the court building, as in Poteet’s case, or be available for spot news assignments, as in Sublette’s case.

The non-New York critics’ place in American theater depends most often on their place in their own communities. They have little contact with Broadway; they seldom go there, Broadway seldom comes to them. In fact, statistics may be misleading here. The 16 cities with touring companies, the 10 with tryouts and the 11 with summer stock make the size appear more bloated than it is. Almost every critic listing tryouts and tours qualified the notation with a remark that this happens occasionally.

Few critics concern themselves with the art of writing and criticism. Most take a sociological and, perhaps, paternal approach: Brooks encourages, Rosenfield calls for an economic adjustment that would bring living theater to Texas, Ashford promotes the growth of arts in San Antonio.

This is borne out by a glance at their clippings. Style is not important. Even a writer like Poteet, who fires one astute judgment after another, never quite handles his insights in the urbane, delicate manner of a Durgin. Durgin, Miss Hughes and Dettmer are among the few who attempt to present their readers with a truly individual report. In general, there may be a wide difference between one critic and another in judgment but the writing is often equally undistinguished.

One of the finest qualities found, however, is the humility these newsmen have despite their self-picture as a wheel in the community. In most cases it appears not to be condescension but a deep, sincere desire to wield power gingerly. “Keep honest balance . . .remember theirs is not the court of last appeal,” admonishes Miss Hughes. Brooks describes himself as the “man who is on the spot to encourage deserving youngsters and groups to go forward and make worthy contributions to the American theater.” This humility — and an apparent lack of bitterness — may show drama critics are fully satisfied with their work.

At least, this study indicates, it is a job journalists, moving through the regular channels of a newspaper, hold fast to once they get it.