"A new stage play called The Future, imported from Britain to New York, deals with this question in a very personal way, via the most urbane of settings: the dinner party and its clash of personalities," says the review. Yes, very personal.

The review even mentions Mr. Denton's boyfriend. "Derrence Washington embodies all the potentials Senexate has to offer, as the lone brash American who likes money and fast cars." The Senexate is, apparently, the soma-like (remember Brave New World from high school?) drug that enables the characters to stay forever young and gives the play a plot.

Mr. Denton was so enthusiastic about the play that he hosted a cast party at his Soho home last Friday. Now that's commitment to the theatre!

Is this the future?

The Sword of Damocles hangs no more for David Pogue.

To refresh your memory, Mr. Pogue—easily one of the most widely-read technology columnists in the country, and a major asset to the Times—was recently found to have spoken at a seminar for communications professionals, something strictly against the New York Times standards.

This is not the first time his compliance with the Times' standards or ethics have been called into question.

Among others:

• June 2009: David Pogue takes a paid speaking gig in California for an industry trade group, theConsumer Electronics Association's "CEO Summit." He was reprimanded by way of—per the Times—being "reminded of the policy provisions barring acceptance of speaking fees or travel expenses from all but educational or other non-profit organizations that do not have lobbying or political activity as a major focus."
• August 2009: David Pogue writes a glowing review of Apple operating system Snow Leopard in the Times. He has also written a book about the operating system, and thus, plainly stood to profit from his own review.
• September 2009: David Pogue's many conflicts merit their own column from the New York Times ombudsman, Clark Hoyt ("He Works For the Times, Too") in which three separate journalism ethicsists conclude unanimously that Mr. Pogue's work outside the Times often stands in strict ethical opposition to the paper. No punishment is doled out; a disclosure is added to his blog. Mr. Pogue's response is that he is "not a reporter."
• October 2009: David Pogue takes a speaking fee from defense contractor Raytheon and a trip to Disney World. As previously mentioned, Times standards prohibit staffers for taking fees from anyone other than non-profits.
• May 2011: It's revealed that David Pogue is dating PR professional Nikki Dugan; the firm she works for represents a number of companies David Pogue has written about. Times technology editor Damon Darlin explains that there were no conflicts; Mr. Pogue told him about the relationship in December, when it started, and that all pitches from Ms. Dugan's company will go through Mr. Darlin from that point forward. (A source tells the Observer that the relationship between Mr. Pogue and Ms. Dugan started as early as April 2010.)
• June 2011: It's revealed that Mr. Pogue took another speaking engagement, this time to a group of communications professionals.

(He's also had some slightly turbulent problems at home involving press, and continues to.)

Given the seriousness with which the Times takes their standards policy—and given the precedent for violations of it: zero-tolerance, whether you understand the rules or not—one would think Mr. Pogue's status with the Times would be called into question.

Not so much. The decision, as handed down for delivery by Arthur Brisbane, the Times' Public Editor:

[An] inquiry into it has led to a Times internal review and, as a consequence, Pogue is barred from making any more speeches like this one to public relations professionals.

Also:

...the speech flagrantly violates the prohibition against giving advice at paid P.R. conferences.

But unlike less lucky (or popular) Times staffers, David Pogue will not be fired, and will only have a fraction of his supplementary income hedged by the Times. If not entirely predictable, it's a lucky break: Mr. Pogue still has issues closer to the chest to concern himself with. Heavy hangs the head onwhich the crown of technology-writing for all of geekdom hangs, or something along those lines.

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

As we've done for the last week

Via spokeswoman Eileen Murphy, the Times has yet to deliver a decision.

Mr. Pogue's scuffle with the paper's standards isn't notable for any particular degree of heinous behavior—writers speak to P.R. professionals at luncheons and seminars often (the writer of this post has, too, but only once, he didn't get paid for it, and it was nothing short of unpleasant and otherwise, an experience he'd rather not have ever again).

But Mr. Pogue's intense popularity has shielded him from facing serious consequences from his editors at the Times, while less popular writers with fewer scraps with the Times standards'—if any at all—have been summarily dismissed on first instances.

The typically prolific Mr. Pogue has been somewhat quiet on Twitter over the last week (only one Tweet today, for example).

PogueWatch will return on Tuesday.

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

As previously mentioned, David Pogue has had entanglements with the Times standards in the past; it's been two days, and still, no answer on the fate of the columnist over the recent revelation that he accepted a paid speaking gig for communications professionals, something strictly against the Times' rules. [Over the last two days, a spokeswoman from the New York Times has told the Observer that the issue is still being discussed with Mr. Pogue's editors. As of this post being published, today's call to said spokeswoman has yet to be returned. We will update if we hear from her. Again.]

Mr. Pogue is arguably one of the most popular personal technology columnists in the country, if not the most popular, and as far as technolgy writers go at the Times, brings to the paper an otherwise unrivaled audience.

Yesterday, we noted Mr. Pogue's Twitter feed had slowed down; last night, he revved the engine, as it were, and even struck out against a critic accusing him of being an Apple "fanboy." Mr. Pogue directed his online assailant to a page on his website specifically tailored to deflect critiques of being an "Apple" fanboy, which come in response to his often unrelenting praise of Apple products (and the fact that he authors a bestselling series on them as well).

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

To recap:

Mr. Pogue was paid to speak for a seminar where he helped instruct publicists how to pitch him. This is not simpatico with the way the New York Times does things; their guidelines strictly forbid such engagements. Precedent? Thomas L. Friedman was once forced to return a $75,000 speaking fee. The Times called it a "misunderstanding." The difference between Messrs. Friedman and Pogue?

Mr. Pogue has something Mr. Friedman didn't at the time he had to return his speaking fee: an extensive laundry list of very public conflicted interests with regard to his writing for the Times, none of which have landed him in any more trouble than a severe ink-lashing from the paper's then-ombudsman. A spokeswoman for the Times told us yesterday that the they have yet to render a verdict on Mr. Pogue's fate, explaining that discussions with Mr. Pogue's editors were still "ongoing." As of this writing, that same spokeswoman told us these discussions were indeed still ongoing.

If the Times were to have to cast Mr. Pogue aside, not only would the loss would be immediately quantifiable—he has more Twitter followers than the entire Times technology reporting staff combined—but would present an opportunity to the paper's competitors (namely: the Wall Street Journal) who have the kinds of standards Mr. Pogue's other engagements wouldn't violate. The Journal, for example, kept former Hillary Clinton advisor Mark Penn on board even after his egregious conflicts-of-interest (drumming up business for his communications firm with advocacy in his columns) were called out by Gawker.com in 2009.

[Trivia: The spokesman who delivered the Journal's stance on Mark Penn's ethical brouhaha is Robert "The Bobster" Christie, who's now at the New York Times as the VP of Corporate Communications, and who has had to deal with more than one ethics question regarding David Pogue since he defected there last March.]

Meanwhile, Mark Ragan, the CEO of Ragan Communications—the company who produced the David Pogue broadcast in question—decided to comment on the matter in yesterday's post. Among other highlights, Mr. Ragan takes the time to note:

Never has the word 'scandal' been more overblown.

What David does that IS useful for PR people is dig out a few pitches that he finds clever. As a tech journalist,  he is forever approached by companies that have launched new gadgets. Most of those pitches are from PR people.  He is in a unique position to tell them how to stop bothering him and other journalists and do their job better.

That unique position, of course, being "poised to profit from doing so," something explicitly against the Times guidelines. For his part, Mr. Pogue has been quiet on the entire matter; outside of it, as well. The typically prolific Tweeter has updated his feed only four times over the last two days.

fkamer@observer.com | On Twitter