Music critic Donald Rosenberg, as you’ve probably already heard, has lost his lawsuit against his employer, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and the Cleveland Orchestra. At least two conductors testified during the trial, which must be some kind of record. Martin Bernheimer (click on his name) provides wise commentary on the case.
I don’t have much to add. Though I was obviously rooting for Rosenberg, I can see why (or I think I can) he lost. From the outside, it looks like the Cleveland Orchestra had every right to complain about Rosenberg’s reviews (though it shouldn’t have) and his newspaper had every right to re-assign him (unfortunately).
What the whole situation points up is that a music critic, like every other reporter, serves at the pleasure of his newspaper. But it rubs both ways. If the newspaper doesn’t back up its music critic 100 percent, he ceases to be an effective music critic, because he can’t say what he has to say, or report what he has to report. His newspaper’s protection and support is the crucial ingredient in his independent voice and freedom of speech.
classical life 
It’s a very sad day, indeed, when journalists are prevented from writing their own truth. Who can you trust if you know that opinions in the news are manipulated?
On the other hand, my issue with classical music criticism is that there aren’t enough critics to represent a varied opinion. No one man’s opinion will ever be absolutely right. Can you imagine if ONLY Roger Ebert or ONLY Anthony Lane reviewed films? For orchestras, they often have only one local critic (if they are lucky) reviewing them year in and year out. So if that reviewer really does hate the performances and there is no other reviewer around to either agree or disagree, it can present a problem. Yes, I know the reputation of the writer will make a difference in how that point is viewed. (Bernheimer mentions the younger critic who is “far less sophisticated in musical matters” as taking over.) Still, we need MORE critics, not fewer.