tc368313@ohio.edu
When you think of the word "critic" does your mind
automatically jump to the word "biased"? Mine sure does, which is weird because critics are supposed to be journalists and journalists naturally
are not theoretical biased. In fact, they are supposed to speak the truth and
only the truth. So why is it then that critics get away with what is basically
stating their opinion on a certain matter, whether entertainment or food? Are
we, as readers, supposed to immediately trust what they say and believe it's
truth due to the fact that they have the title of journalist? What even
qualifies critics to have that title?
Are they even considered "real" journalists?
First of all, what does it even mean to be identified as a
"real" journalist? That statement is as condescending as saying
someone is not a "real" doctor. Are they just pretending to do the
job they worked hard in school to achieve? I feel like a lot of people look at
critics in that spectrum- those people who pretend to know what they are
talking about but it isn't really relevant to anything going on in the world.
No, the work doesn't include investigative reporting,
intense interviews, or even hard hitting breaking stories that appear on the
five o'clock news. Nonetheless, though, critics of all kind influence the perspective
of the audience and give insight on current events happening within a society.
That reason alone is what makes a critic a "real" journalist.
 |
| Image via www.mylionking.org |
How their opinion influences the audience
Let's face the facts- the reason you didn't go see that new
movie last Friday was due to the bad review it received in the local newspaper.
Not only did the film critic influence the decision that was made, they harmed
sales for the particular movie while also saving a potential customer from
wasting their night spending money on a poorly made comedy.
Critics are viewed in positive and negative ways. What they
have to say can lead to a business going under or rising from the ashes. Their
professional views can cost someone a once in a life time experience or save
that person from a decade of regret. These seem like dramatic cases, but in all
reality, what a critic says tends to be path most people build their social life
around.
 |
| Image via www.icanbarelydraw.com |
Do they even follow an ethical code?
One of the major issues that arise with critics are whether
or not they are ethical in their reviews. Do they display the whole truth or
are they only stating their opinion on what they thought was right?
In both the entertainment and food scenes, basic ethical
codes are established that cover issues concerning fairness, honesty, and
respect for others and their work. According to Association of Food Journalists, a good review equals good journalism. Critics don't aim to give
bad reviews on restaurants or events; they want to give good reviews and maybe
some hard criticism through feedback on things that might need to change.
Reviewers have to follow the same standards of professional responsibility
as any other journalist. This means not abusing the power given through the position
to be bias or lie about a certain meal or theater production that didn't
fascinate the critic on a personal level. Critics must look past their own
views and critique through the perspective of the potential audience.
Above all, though, under the ethics code, critics avoid
conflicts of interest. It is very easy to accept something that is offered for
free, such as a meal or an extra movie ticket. Reviewers do not accept these
offers, though, because not only would it take away from the experience as a
whole, it would be ethically wrong. This is the reason that some critics go
incognito when out at events, so that no one will recognize them.
 |
| Image via www.bethesdamagazine.com |
Transparency is the key to a critic's success
I feel like the most important thing for critics to focus on
in the news industry is transparency. It should be the duty and responsibility
of a reviewer to disclaim to the audience whether his or her review on a
restaurant, show, music performance, or film is biased. If a critic cannot be straightforward
from the beginning, then how is the audience to know what is and is not
credible? The Kansas City Star requires that entertainment and art critics stay
until the end of a performance or disclose to the readers that they had to
leave early due to a deadline.
Everyone makes mistakes
Nobody is perfect. We all have our flaws that we try to
conceal but are so bluntly obvious that there really is no point trying to hide
them. Critics are just people, people who can influence the outcome of a major business,
but still people. Their job is to go
into a situation with an open mind, but sometimes their own beliefs get in the
way of reason. I believe this is a major reason why so many critics can come
off as horrible people. Society seems to view them in two different ways: an
instigator for change or the messenger of doom.
 |
| Image via livinglovinghobart.blogspot.com |
No comments:
Post a Comment