The New York Observer says that CBS has canned Eddie Brill. They cite Mirth Magazine as the source. (Mirth is a new publication, run by FOS Larry Getlen. They are quoted in the original Observer story– scroll down to read about that one. In the Observer, Mirth is described as “a new publication about the comedy industry that is planning to release its first issue in March.” Upon reading Brill’s comments, Getlen spun out an opinion piece for his magazine, mainly taking issue with Brill’s crack about female comedians. Brill commented in the pages of the magazine, in the wee hours of the morning of Jan. 15, then, 12 hours later, walked back some of what he said and apologized. A lot.)

Mirth’s source says that CBS let Brill go for “speaking to the press without authorization.”

If we go by the Observer’s most recent headline, “Letterman Booker Eddie Brill Fired After ‘Women In Comedy’ Flame War,” Brill was canned because of the comments he made concerning female comics. They assume a lot.

If this were the case, the dismissal was unjustified and unfair. Brill (and all the other comedy talent coordinators) are paid (and well, we assume) for their opinions– specifically their opinions about standup comedy and standup comics. There is one way that CBS terminated Brill because of the comments about female comedians: CBS might be hypersensitive about gender issues in the wake of the controversy over the extortion attempt of October of 2009, in which a CBS producer “threatened to reveal that Letterman had engaged in sexual affairs with multiple female employees.” (CNN) And Letterman’s incessant attacks on Bristol Palin led some in the press to theorize that the host’s repeated jibes were more about gender than politics. Or maybe it’s about those seminars that Brill was conducting. It is entirely possible that CBS saw them as some sort of “pay to play” device. They may have been okay with such an arrangement until this latest hit in the NYT. Though they were only mentioned in passing, perhaps some “inquiries” were made that caused CBS to have second thoughts.

But, as we said late last year, be careful what you wish for.

We’re torn. We understand the power of the press. We also understand the considerable influence of the Times. And that power and influence could be a shortcut– for a handful of fortunate comedians– to the big time. And good for them if it happens!

But Jason Zinoman is but one man. One man who now wields (disproportionate?) influence by virtue of his new designation as comedy critic at the NYT. To those who rejoice at the prospect of regular standup reviews in the Times, we would recommend that they temper their joy with caution.

Such a column will have an effect on comedians, on consumers of comedy and on the business of comedy. And not all of it will be positive. Much of it may be negative.

We already note that Zinoman says that “most of those comedians are ordinary or bad.” We are not, at this point, going to dispute this claim, but we wonder why a critic would feel compelled to include this in the fourth sentence of the first paragraph of the essay that kicks off the whole comedy reviewing adventure.

And in his second column– on female comedians– Zinoman says offhandedly that “a majority of male stand-ups are neurotics nursing anxieties.”

Leaving aside the fact that Zinoman is bringing his prejudices and questionable assumptions to the task of reviewing standup comics (he is human, after all), we can’t help but think that this could end badly.

Well, it ended badly for one comedian.