By Bill Marx

Television offers so little discussion of local stages that I had to check out WGBH’s Greater Boston segment on the state (artistic and financial) of the city’s theater, which aired last week. Of course, I wasn’t expecting much, but I was surprised that – in a predictable effort to assuage the anxieties of suburban audiences as well as local stage companies and businessmen — the genteel boosterism strayed so amazingly far from reality.

The Wilbur Theatre becoming a comedy club? No problem …

The Wilbur Theatre turning into a comedy club? The recent Boston Foundation report detailing static audiences, flawed artistic leadership, shrinking grant and foundation money, extinction for some small theaters? Nada a word. But there was plenty of air time for a long video clip segment whose voice-over narration by GB theater host Jared Bowen extolled the excellence of recent productions from downtown, regional, and medium-sized theaters, including mediocre shows such as The Huntington Theatre Company’s staging of The 39 Steps.

I have no problem with the segment going into what is right with Boston theater, giving credit where credit is due, praising artistic accomplishment and courage, especially the increasing professionalism of the smaller theaters. Bowen and Terry Byrne, the easily pleased hosts of GB’s occasional theater review segment, along with Louise Kennedy, theater critic of the Boston Globe, ladle out optimism with profligate ease. That is what they are supposed to do. Though I wish the smaller theaters got more than a single mention about how they take on unnamed “risky” plays. Boston Theatre Works is not the only worthy stage hanging on by a thread. And notice how often the praise about shows revolves about box office returns, extended runs, and pleasing governing boards. Would anyone come away from the segment excited about what is going on artistically in Boston theaters? Even the show’s flackery reeks of bad faith.

And it takes more than mouthing ‘lifestyle’ jargon about “transitions” and “cycles” to deal with the few problems that made the TV cut: the lack of activity (especially the staging of straight dramas) in downtown theaters, changes of artistic leadership at the American Repertory Theatre and the Huntington Theatre Company, and the effects of an economic slowdown.

At the very least when serious challenges come up they should not be dismissed with a flick of a blurb – this gives the impression that they are minor disturbances that can easily fixed (by the hand of Adam Smith, by the right artistic director, by the coming of “hot” young actors taking a vacation from the movies) and that leaves a forthright discussion of theater’s predicament back where it started – on the back of the back burner of the media, the city, the state, audiences, etc.