I was going to post about this last week, but I ran out of time and lost my nerve, for reasons that will soon become obvious. Still, the idea stuck with me, and as the issue doesn’t seem to be going away any time soon, I guess it’s time to tackle it head-on. This is going to be long, but I can’t stop myself.
[Imagine this next bit said in the movie trailer guy's voice.]
In a world where no piece of professional media can exist without an accompanying Internet message board, the barrage of commentary, courtesy of You™, may be doing irreparable damage to an intellectual tradition that stretches back thousands of years: that of the cultural critic. The word "critic" itself comes from the Greek kritikós (one who discerns), and implies a certain level of scholarship, perspective, education, aesthetic/historical understanding, and calm, considered, reasoned thinking. It’s a concept that seems to be directly at odds with the public’s ability to put 10 or 15 poorly-spelled words into a little box and click "post." And yet every day, at publications big and small, the public is doing just that… and being celebrated for it.
So I ask: In light of this trend towards all-user-generated-content-all-the-time, can those of us who get paid to have opinions maintain our dignity, our sanity… and our jobs?
After the jump, I attempt to inspire a rational discussion which will no doubt disintegrate into people yelling at me on the comment board. Won’t you come along?
I’m not saying I’m blameless. In fact, as few as five years ago, I was guilty as anyone of trolling about various forums and comment boards, making snarky/derisive comments about the topics at hand. Hell — I had a boring day job, and that’s what you do with boredom in the Interweb age. I imagine that, had I lived 50 years ago, I would have spent a lot of that time throwing rocks at trees, but that’s a different essay.
And then I came to EW. And boy, has my view changed. In my three years at this magazine, I’ve been told that I should have been aborted before writing a particularly snarky Lost TV Watch. My writing style has been compared (unfavorably) to that of Paris Hilton. My recent review of a Rascal Flatts show led to something like 500 comments, the majority of them calling me an alcoholic man-hater, and a few days ago a commenter made a vivid statement involving me, sodomy, and sausages. And it’s not just your good buddy Whittlz getting slammed: Other co-workers have been equally and regularly chastised on our EW.com boards, everyone from the youngest intern to the smartest Mark Harris/Owen Gleiberman type. Last week saw Dalton Ross, the biggest Survivor fan (and one of the funniest writers) in the history of ever, actually forced to defend his love for that show against commenters who said his criticism of the currently sub-par season makes him unqualified to write the weekly recaps.
Yet what really got my juices flowing was the response to a friend of mine’s review of a Taylor Hicks (pictured) concert in Newsday earlier this month. If you read J. Edward Keyes’s text here, you’ll see that he actually enjoyed the concert a great deal, calling the Soul Patroller "canny" and "giddy," while allowing that beneath his enthusiasm, his vocals were just "passable." It’s a solid, well-written piece of criticism, touching on the Idol fan phenomenon and betraying what seems like a genuine fondness for Hicks himself, which, P.S., totally ruins my friend’s hipster music-blogger cred.
And then, just below his review, I found the inevitable comment board… and I was shocked, not just at the negativity (which I’ve just come to expect lately), but also the total lack of reading comprehension skills on display. Fans thought my friend was mocking Taylor, calling him "rude" and using plenty of capital letters to display their distaste for his "so-called" review. But it was comments from a gentleman writing under the name "Dave Matthews" that stopped me in my tracks: "Wonder why you never get promoted?" he wrote. "Because if you cannot find something good to say about a concert in your area that made money for everyone, who needs ya?" Huh? I mean, ignoring for a second the unnecessary personal attack, there is the implication that a critic’s job is not, in fact, to criticize. "Matthews" then went on to post his example of a "winning" review, which you can read here.
Okay, PopWatchers? Hi. Can we all please agree that the article he reprinted is NOT A REVIEW?? I’m not sure that’s even a thesis that should be up for debate. The article is, empirically, NOT A REVIEW. Period. It’s essentially a press release. But that’s what got me scared, and got me thinking: Is that sort of writing what you people want from us? Does it make you more comfortable if we stick to nothing but positivity and bunnies? Or is message board hostility simply a reaction to the fact that thanks to the Internet and American Idol and CNN’s I-Reporting team and blogs and Twitter and MySpace and whatever the hell else, You™ suddenly have a voice that’s commensurate in visibility and value to that of our nation’s most important cultural critics… and thus you don’t need them anymore?
Gosh. I guess I don’t know if that’s possible. Would life in an unexamined world really be worth living? I mean, I can’t imagine existing without the work of writers like Greil Marcus and Lester Bangs and Frank Rich (when he was writing the New York Times’ theater reviews, not now; God, I’m not even going to ask what the conservatives among you think of Frank Rich now) and Pauline Kael and Robert Christgau and Michiko Kakutani and others like them. I don’t think we’d know as much about our society, or ourselves. I want to understand where we came from, and where we’re going — which is what the best criticism tells us. It provides perspective, an opportunity for discussion, a seed from which ideas can grow. It moves us forward.
Now: Am I a Frank Rich or a Pauline Kael? HELL to the no. But I consider myself a proud part of that tradition. I’ve spent the better part of my adult life educating myself, cultivating opinions, learning about the journey of art through the ages. I take in almost-inconceivable amounts of music, movies, books, television, and media so that I can report on pop culture with an eye on its place in history. I also take time to craft that reporting, to shape my opinions. I take time to present them in a compelling way. I worry over commas, I fret over em-dashes. I use spell-check. I’m inspired by all those amazing voices that came before me, and, as with any craft, I aspire to be excellent at mine. And I believe that, if used properly and responsibly, it is a craft that has great value. I do not know that our society would be a better place if everyone was allowed to perform surgery or build skyscrapers or drive big-rig trucks just because technology came along that made those activities available to the masses at the click of a button. I don’t see what makes cultural criticism any different. Just because you can type into the little box and press "post" doesn’t mean you should.
I’m opening the floor to you now, PopWatchers. Because that’s what we do in these here modern times, it seems. I write something, you respond. Personally, I’m scared of a day when my giant corporate overlords decide my skills are no longer necessary, and they can make more money by just posting a giant scribble board with a sentence at the top of it like "RASCAL FLATTS SUX" or "CLAY AIKEN RULZ" and letting people go to town. Imagine the page hits! Imagine the click-through ad revenue! But… would you really want to be a part of that society?
I wouldn’t. And it’s not just cause I’d be out of a paycheck.
Discuss.
Comments (1-30) of 180
I actually agree with you. I love to read blogs like this and others but I can’t stand what people write in the comments. It’s usually hateful, obscene, or misspelled. I don’t understand why we can’t comment on any event without rapidly dissolving into a raging lynch mob. I just avoid them now.
It’s the times we live in: everyone is equal, everyone believes their opinion is as valid as anyone elses, everyone believes what they have to say is the most important and should be heard, and everyone wants to live in their own happy little shiny world where no one ever contradicts them or tells them anything they dont want to hear. By the way, for the record, my opinion is the complete opposite of everything I just typed. It’s like in that movie “The Incredibles” (fantastic movie, by the way): if everyone is exceptional, then no one is.
Hi Whitney,
I’ve been reading (and watching) your work at EW for several years now (and your colleagues’). I just wanted to say that I really support a) the critics mission b) correct grammar, punctuation and capitalization and c) spell checking. The world does indeed need informed, critical critics. That’s why I spend more time than I should reading tv watches (even those for shows I don’t watch). Don’t give up! I think the anonymity of posting is the real cause of the problems you describe. And trust me, it goes everywhere. I am a college prof, and you do not even want to think about what gets written about myself and my colleagues at rateyourprofessor.com and similar sites. So, anyway, keep up the good work and your spirits. You’ll always have at least some friendly, dedicated readers.
A++++++++++++++++++++++
I can no longer stand to read the comments (I never was one to post)on any story/article/critique on this site or any other. Its ridiculous anymore…what a wonderful article.
Whitney, I not only love your writing because you are snark-tastic, but because you have thought-provoking insights such as this. While I enjoy scanning a message boards as much as the next person, I agree that #1) people really need to use their spell-check, and #2) that you EW writers are there to provide an OPINION, not be “yes” men/women in this Hollywood-obsessed world that already has too many “yes” people. As my myspace page says “Read anything Whitney Pastorek writes, and you will see why I love EW.” Keep up the great work.
I couldn’t agree with you more. People who don’t understand the job description of a critic should save their vitriol for things they do understand. Having a different opinion than the reviewer is one thing but making personal attacks on the reviewer because they don’t love the same things you do is sad. You’re a talented writer and while I may not always agree with you, or all of your EW colleagues, I always appreciate the talent and intelligence you all employ while writing your critiques. Keep up the good work and don’t let the comments get you down.
I think the new trend of “everyone being a critic” is both a blessing and a curse. I’d rather read reviews from culture critics who have the knowledge, history, and reference to craft a thoughtful and intelligent critique to our world. But I do love that people (who are hopefully articulate and thoughtful) can also create a dialogue with these critiques. But sometimes, what goes on is downright scary. In the age of anonyminty, people can hurl whatever hate speech they want with no consequences.Take what happened to Kathy Sierra: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/29/MNGT3OTVAO1.DTL&hw=kathy+sierra&sn=001&sc=1000
This is not what I want as my “media”.
As one of your biggest fans Whitney, primarily due to your writing style, allow me to phrase this response as delicately as I can. There are two types of critics these days, the first being those who have a historical appreciation for the fields in which they critique. Their reviews help educate the reader, which will then hopefully get him/her to seek out those references. EW’s two principal film critics fall into this category, as they know more than the bubblegum variety of Hollywood films, taking the time to see the indies, foreign and classic movies.
Then there is the professional critic whose knowledge is limited to a certain specific genre; say rock music. These critics may have heard a few non-rock tunes growing up, but haven’t taken the time to truly study the great masters (Mozart, Wagner, Miles Davis, John Coltraine, Earl Scruggs, Tommy Jarrell, etc…), but find themselves reviewing a field which they know nothing about. They are nothing more than fanboys/girls.
Hm. I have a couple of thoughts.
a) people who disagree are more likely to post than those who agree, which is why the message boards tend to be negative.
b) while a critic should definitely give their honest opinion, i think they should remember that it is just an opinion and not a fact. There’s nothing I hate more than someone who basically says something is bad and stops there (not saying you do this, just in general). I want to know what aspects exactly you didn’t like, because those might be neutral to me, or even a positive, since we all interact differently with music (movies, books, whatevs).
c) I don’t tend to get angry when I disagree with a review, but rather when it is poorly written. I don’t remember who was doing the TV Watch for Weeds last season, but basically we would get a short plot summary. that’s it. I don’t need a summary. What I want is your personal reaction to it, so that I can compare mine to it.
Hope this wasn’t too scattered, and that it helped.
Alas, this secondary category of critic seems to be permeating EW on a more regular basis. Now, I have nothing against this particular critic, so long as they acknowledge that they are coming at the critique as a fan, and nothing more. But when they try and review a type of music outside their specialty, they are sorely lacking, and it offends me the reader. When EW tries to review music outside the rock/pop/rap category, say classical, bluegrass or children’s music, the critics fall short.
How about the magazine bring in a guest critic for non pop/rock/rap music reviews? It’s not like the magazine does a lot of them, so why not bring in a ringer for those rare occasions?
So where do you fall Whitney? You are your own category. When you write a review outside your specialty, you make it clear it is as a fan. Each word drips of your joy/disgust as a spectator. That is the mark of a good critic (and writer).
Oh, one last thing. Personality. Some people just don’t understand when a critic uses sarcasm or, really, any kind of emotion. So, if I was a first time reader of one of your columns, I might not get what tone you are goin for (I might read it as outrage instead of the mix of humor, sarcasm, wit, trepidation, anger and whatever else that it is).
Oh, and also? most peple are dumb. haha i know that sounds ridiculous, but it tends to be true, at least on the internet.
The odd thing is, people just seem to lose a sense of perspective these days when someone intrudes on their hermetically sealed little yes-man world. For example, take a look at the guy who started all this: Taylor Hicks. I mean, let’s get real: we are talking about Taylor Friggin Hicks here LOL I mean, I LOVE Huey Lewis and the News, but c’mon, it ain’t exactly Mozart we are talking about here. What the Net has done is give a voice to the various lunatic fanboys/girls who really have nothing to offer or any kind of even remotely balanced opinion on anything. They have a right to speak out too, but I have a right to get completely annoyed by pretty much everything that comes out of their mouths. Thank God the Net didn’t exist in the time of the Beatles, it would have been literally impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion of the actual musical merits of the greatest band in the history of rock.
People misspell from time to time (I am no exception) mostly because we type too fast. To critique is to have an opinion. Everyone has their own opinions. However Whit, you have a great opinion are a great writer.
Whitney,
Allow me first to say that I love your writing. I think it is smart, current, and you make me laugh in a job that makes me cry. I think you are right about everything you said. I graduated from film school with a focus on theory and not production and so my eye has always been one that watches and responds and not so much produces. I have been told however that I should just shut-up and try and make something better when I have a problem with a movie like King Kong and I offered criticism on my blog.
The question I have is that University taught me a couple things. The first is that writing a Shakespeare exam should not be done at 3 in the morning the day it is due. The second is that criticism has fueled theory for hundreds of years. Did anyone ever write to Laura Mulvy or Foucault and tell them to shut the hell up. Maybe. But I doubt it.
To Be Continued.
My point however is this:
The world of Pop Culture is now viewed as something that is accessible to everyone. Since we all own TVs we should all be able to have an opinion on what we are exposed to. In theory that makes sense but when you consider the fact that what is created is done so for mass consumption is not done for mass criticism. God knows I have disagreed with Owen Gleiberman before but that certainly doesn’t mean I feel it is my right to go online and tell him to love everything I do.
Being a critic means having a point of reference and that is why I enjoy reading EW so much. It provides me with an opinion I didn’t perhaps consider and allows debate to be fueled.
Everyone throwing in their two cents however is not appropriate and those who do should do so with the knowledge that in the real world where they aren’t hidden by a message board they would be told that if they can’t say anything nice they shouldn’t say anything at all.
Love Tim.
I completely agree with you Whitney. You are one of my favorite writers here at EW and I always get a little giddy to read one of your reviews/blog posts/articles/etc. I don’t understand the personal attacks and rude comments on message boards. I’ve noticed the disturbing trend of bashing the reviewer if their opinion doesn’t jibe 100% with their own. It’s just so sad that critical thinking/reading has nearly become obsolete. What happened to having a reasoned debate with someone who’s opinions differed? Since the internet offers anonymity, is that an excuse to talk and treat people with a level of disrespect you’d never even consider face to face? I think it says a lot about the world we live in today.
Whitney – I think you’re very on point with a couple of points. Personally, the reason I’m a part of these message boards is that I sit at my computer all day and my job is boring. If I didn’t have to work in front of a computer, I would never be on this site (no offense). The boredom, for some people, I think, leads them to create trouble on these boards and to post unpopular, and controversial view points to see what will happen. That being said, I think, in our own right, those of us who are bored at our jobs and on the net all day are also students of pop culture, and even the history of art and sociology. We have, literally at our fingertips, access to everything that is currently “news” or “media” worthy in the world. I still enjoy reading critic review as well as comments, to get other opinions and to see where I fall. I, like the other posters, don’t appreciate it when things turn uncivilized. Not sure what the answer is.
I’m confused. Do you actually want my opinion on this or not? Most everyone here so far seems to be agreeing with you. Would it really matter to you what I have to say? Is that the point you’re trying to make?
I’m in total agreement with you, Whitney. The anonymity of the Net, and the rampaging egos of many in the blogosphere, have led to far too many discussion boards degenerating into personal attacks, unsolicited political opinions, and the most atrocious spelling and grammar since the Little Rascals closed the clubhouse.
Maybe it’s time for the webmasters to get a bit more Draconian. If a post is poorly written, DELETE IT. If a post skews wildly off-topic, DELETE IT. If a post appears to be written solely to tick off others, DELETE IT. (I’m thinking specifically of the blogger who used the comments on Robert Altman’s death to write “another Hollywood liberal bit the dust”). Anyone who can’t write a post without exercising courtesy, common sense, and a desire to be relevant to the topic should spend less time writing and more time reading.
You’re allowed to disagree Esme, even if the rest of us aren’t. It’s sort of the point – she’s allowed to disagree with us, we’re allowed to disagree with her.
I absolutely still see the relevance of critics. 100%. I disagree with them lots (not about RF though Whitney, it was a brutal concert!), but I still enjoy reading an informed opinion.
I think it’s silly when people get worked up about critics being CRITICAL – TV Watch is a perfect example. You’re accused of hating a show if you say anything negative about it. But this doesn’t make any sense! Everything is bad sometimes! It needs to be pointed out so that maybe it will be avoided next time.
My point: the comments tend to be negative because of the anonymous nature of message boards. People can say things that they can’t say in real life because they will be judged. It’s crappy, and I don’t envy you, because if I was the object of those hateful sentiments, I’d be upset. But the critic is still relevant. And I love you!
Whitney, please continue to have opinions and report them in an intelligable, witty manner. I devalue most of what is said on message boards, because it is trite, indecipherable drivel. But I know the time and thought process that goes into your presentations and I respect that.
Whitney, you are right. As posters have mentioned before, it is not right for posters to hide behind anonymity and personally attack people. While I have nothing against people posting and expressing their opinion (agreement or disagreement), they should a) be at least somewhat polite (what happened to nettiquette?); b) learn how to freaking spell!; and c) take a grammar course or two. It doesn’t need to be perfect, but it needs to be comprehensible. Again, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a critic and posting your opinion, but it shouldn’t be so vile, so personal, and so poorly written. Critics have studied their craft, and they should be given some respect for that. By the way, Whitney, don’t worry. Your Apprentice commentary is the best part of that waste-of-airspace of a show, and almost 100% of all posters on that blog agree with you. Your job appears to be safe for the foreseeable future!
Dear Leviathan, err Sovereign, err Whitney-
Should us masses should not opine at all because we’re too dumb? Maybe we shouldn’t vote either? The point of POPULAR culture that it appeals to everyone, right?
Your post hints that published writers should have manifest destiny. Yet how many times have “commenters” corrected a fact on one of Popwatch’s postings? Whitney, you yourself have corrected postings after comments were left.
Your colleagues have expressed love for us “commenters” on several occasions. Postings inspired gems as the popwatch confessional, beat this caption, and EW’s inspirations. If the feedback’s so bad, why does Dalton Ross post his favorite letters every week?
Reader feedback may not always be brilliant, but we are the people you are trying to reach out to (the readers).
Those who dislike the comments boards are welcome to ignore them, or can improve them by posting smarter comments.
While some critics certainly are educated, many of them aren’t. Not every local newspaper has an “educated” critic. Not every online blog has a writer who expresses his or her views in a civilized manner.
Did Taylor Hicks really start all this? I don’t know. I can say that as a fan of his, I’ve read some negative reviews that seem quite respectful, while I’ve read others that are, quite frankly, insulting. Whitney, you personally do not do this, but several “critics” seem hellbent on boasting about their supposed intellectual superiority moreso than they are writing an actual critique. And yes, when a critic is essentially insulting my intelligence and calling me an uncultured moron for appreciating someone who the critic personally does not find talented, it hurts. Maybe it shouldn’t, but it does. Education may lend credibility to a critique, but it doesn’t make a preference for belcanto voices more valid than a preference for a rough, gritty one. Just my two cents.
You read the comments?! We don’t know what we’re talking about. Stop taking our comments seriously.
There is a difference between an critique and an opinion. This is something many writers have to realize otherwise you’re no better than a “commenter”. Saying Hicks’ vocals were good or bad is an opinion, comparing them to something or someone else’s is a critique.
Sometimes I wonder if the folks at EW know the difference. Was it taught to you in school? Did a mentor share this wisdom? Perhaps not and that’s how we end up with overly edited film reviews that read more like a plot synopsis than a critique.
The world will balance itself out. And if it doesn’t: stop accepting comments. Turn that option off in your blogging software. Then you won’t need to worry what we’re thinking.
But what do I know? As I said first off, don’t read the comments, we don’t know what we’re talking about!
Whit-
Opinions are like a**holes, everybody’s got one. I read TV Watch’s for shows that I don’t even watch because I enjoy the humorous break in my day (i.e. I am a bored office drone.) I think the people that react so vehemently (sp??) whenever the writer does not share their glowing opinion of a show/band/movie is because in this You(TM) age people feel personal ownership of all things media. I know people who would lose their minds if something happened to their blackberry, ipod or cell phone and they became disconnected for 5 min. Please keep writing The Apprentice TV Watch, I watch it full well knowing that I will be able to laugh at it for a second time while reading you column the next day. Same goes for Wolk, Slezak and Barrett. PS – Slezak I need a full on TV Watch for the Bachelor. The mini-watches to popwatch you post make my Tuesdays!
Thank you, Whitney. I absolutely agree with you.
I almost never comment on these boards, but I read Popwatch almost every day. There are probably 100 readers for every commenter, and the readers all think you all do a great job (otherwise they wouldn’t be reading)!
I don’t think that blogs and comment boards are threatening real critical commentary. I hope when people are allowed to engage in a discussion on comment boards like this, the presence of a well written and well-reasoned article can only give them something to bounce their ideas off.
Everybody wants to seem smart and feel like they have a valid opinion; but it’s people like Pauline Kael and Lester Bangs that help people formulate those opinions. Most people get their opinions from smart, well-informed critics and if cultural critics disappeared, I think, so would many of the commentators who post. But this is a discussion that goes beyond the internet. Higher culture always worries that lower culture threatens its existence. People are always going to worry that reading tabloids and romance novels threatens the existence of satire or political commentary, but those things still exist and still thrive and we still need people who are capable of writing them. cont…
Whitney – I think that critics need to expect a certain amount of backlash. After all, the role of art is to create passion in its audiences.
With that said, do I think the vitriol that we see on some (many/most) comment pages today is necessary? No. I equate it to a three year old who can’t find the right words getting frustrated and screaming at anything or everything.
You’re a highly articulate writer, as are your colleagues. You obviously care about the topics and art forms you review, and you’ve clearly done your homework. The people who write the negative stuff are overly emotional and inarticulate and they’re taking their rage out on you.
Don’t take it personally. The rest of us think you all rock (thus my subscription to EW since, um, the month it started).
Personal attacks are wrong.But publications like EW have encouraged the “snarky” approach to criticism and now you have to deal with it. There was a time when critics tried to be well informed and provide information as well as opinion. These days many critics seem to know absolutely nothing about the artists and programs that they critique.It is ironic in this day of instant information on the internet that some don’t even take the time to read about the subject that they are supposed to write about. Also, there is too much comment on people’s personal lives, their sexual orientation, etc. when it has nothing to do with the quality of their work. If critics earn respect by putting out quality work, I believe that they will eventually get it from most readers.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.