Here on our great forum, we have a rule, don't just criticize, give constructive criticizm. Now I'm asking, why don't these so called "professional" critics do the same?
Hmm... that's what I call coincidence. A somewhat similar subject was on tv out here yesterday in the form a movie. The movie was based on a famous English theater-play. Not bad movie too, I must admit.
As for that rule; that rule exists practically everywhere when someone takes each other at least a bit serious.
Honestly, I've seen more of "this is crap" kind of thing than "this was bad, and here's why, and here's what could've been done to make it better". Actually, I don't think I've ever seen the latter. Now, as for reasons to this,
There could be numerous of reasons for this; one of them you already mentioned. But instead of looking away from the author himself, try to look at him (or her) for a change. Much success
often brings (sometimes unintentional) arrogance. I am convinced that I have to give no examples of that here, as there are more than enough to name if you just look outside your window... as a matter of speaking, of course. I mean, I don't live in a city where many celebrities live... I think just one, come to think of it...
I could guess that they have the excuse of their editor making them write over exagerations to sell whatever they are selling. But what ever happened to freedom of speech? I bet the editor would say something along the lines of, "You can say whatever you want, but how you say it, that's up to me."
Protection, mostly. The media tends to twist and bend words as much as they possibly can. The first example that comes to mind happens to be about football/soccer, Ruud van Nistelrooy. He has always been a good player for his (now former) English team, Manchester United. However, last year he got in a small fight with his coach/manager (which still isn't completely cleared up) and lost his first team place. As a matter of fact, despite that v. Nistelrooy is one of the best players of Europe, if not the world, he wasn't even played once. The media swamped both him and his coach/manager. Much later (not too long ago from this time) was explained that both gave no explanation in order to protect each other. Despite that they nowadays hold quite the grudge against each other, they still respect each other as the person as they are. (
note: This is NOT the exact story of what happend with Ruud van Nistelrooy)
Now, I'm going to provide two examples of critics being well, idiots. The first is an album critic. Now, the band he/she was criticizing, has brilliant music, great vocals, great everything, except for one thing. According to this critic, the band's lyrics weren't deep enough. They weren't "influential" enough. And that was ALL he/she complained about. The rating that the person gave? 4/5. What the hell is up with that crap? Honestly, you're rating a BAND that plays MUSIC not some friggen essay that's supposed to move people to believe in Global Warming.
Perhaps I can shed some light on this. Lyrics are becoming extremely important in numerous of styles of music; especially when asked to someone who seems to have a thing for it as well, which is probably the case in what you are referring to.
Um... two years ago, a band got quite successful out here with a single song. If you can honestly call it a song, as it is in my book as one of the most annoying songs of all times. When the title is roughly translated to English, you'd get something like: "Watz happuning!" The song itself (the music) wasn't bad (well, it was, but that's my opinion) but the lyrics were next to horrible. Of course there are good examples too, take the
Bloodhound Gang as example. They take nothing serious in their lyrics, but that is probably the good thing about them - I like them once in a while, but that's just about it.
Another example (and the last I would give) is the song itself. If the song is aiming on a certain audience, by making a slow (and if necessary, emotional) song, the lyrics are probably far more important than the song itself. Just yesterday, my mother was nearly crying in front of the TV because she heard a song of the Belgian band, Clouseau 'Laat me nu toch niet alleen' (Don't leave me alone) which isn't such a great song itself, but the lyrics are quite emotional. The song itself has no meaning for me - it doesn't 'touch' me - but certainly does for her, which I can understand because of what she has been going through quite recently.
The next example is Pirates of the Carribean 2. Now, this show was (from a local newpaper) rated in the top ten WORST list. How did that come to pass?
Really? I haven't seen it yet.
Here's the basic reasons. One, it was too long. Boo friggidy who. Two, it was a dissapointment. No argument there, the first was definitely better. But if this had been the first movie, you would've thought it was pretty good, but not great, which it is.
It is generally known that when the first movie (or the first part of something) is
extremely successful, it is even harder to succeed that success. I'll be as free to give two examples here.
I am a loyal listener of the Dutch Top 40 since two or three years. Even though I must admit, since Mr Wessel van Diepen retired, I haven't been so loyal. Anyway, two (and a half) year ago, Dutch singer, Guus Meeuwis scored a giant hit that destroyed every Dutch record out here and got in the book of 'best hits of all times' top 10 - 10th place. He was in the Top 40 for about half a year, if not longer. When the song finally left the Top 40, another song got in (De Weg / The Road), but how in the world are you able to succeed the success of his other song? That's practically impossible, no matter how you look at it. I am personally of the opinion that De Weg is a good song, as a matter of fact, it is one of my favorite songs of all times, but the general audience will immediately compare it with his previous and extremely successful song, which they shouldn't have. But by all means, De Weg was still somewhat successful, by scoring a Top 3 hit.
Another example is something everyone will know: Pokemon. To be honest, I was quite fond of Pokemon before it became a hype in its first season. And I still keep admitting it, I really liked it too - for as long as it lasted. The second season was clearly less good (but still acceptable) but every season after that one was... pardon me, but they were crap. They kept driving on a single success of one thing.
Now I know that you MUST rate it as a sequel, but making it one of the top ten worst? That sounds like you just put it there to sell papers. And that's a load of bull****.
They know the potential, but it was never used.
In conclusion, if these critics want to show just how valuable their opinions really are, they better well damn give some constructive criticizm. Any idiot can say "that movie sucked cause it was too long", but to point out what could've made it better, that takes at least some intelligence. And hell, if we can't read something intelligent in the newspaper, where can we?
It's media. Media doesn't have to give a proper explanation. What they show, people will believe. And I honestly believe you are using the same sources as me when it comes to news, as another coincidental news flash just shot through my mind which I read a few days ago. Radiofreak.nl recently showed a poll of what kind of media was believed the most by people of 13 'till their 29th - I'm in that area too.
I roughly translated the news report, but skipped everything which is not of importance - including what radio station, what tv station, what newspaper etc. is the most reliable and stuff.
85.5 percent of the youngsters says to have faith in the media. The newspaper scores the highest with 88.8 percent. Radio is doing quite well with a second place. 85.4 percent says to have faith in the media. Television scores 79.4 percent; Internet 69.7 percent. The research is done by research-company, De Vos & Jansen (never heard of, sorry).
Newsreader Philip Freriks (the 'image' person of the 8 o' clock news) is according to 67.8 percent the most reliable person when it comes to information. Of the youngsters, 34.2 percent calls the television the most important source of information. Internet and newspapers shares a second place with 21.3 percent.
The newssite of the NOS (uh... the main news site in the Netherlands, you could compare it with CNN in the US) is being called the most reliable by the youngsters. 65.4 percent of the researched people mentioned this.
EDIT: What might be worth mentioning is that that research named a certain 'rumor' site the least reliable. The next day after that was published, that 'rumor' site claimed that the researcher of that research passed away in a car accident. (of course this is not true)
