Critics should be the last journalists to go

Allow me to explain how I see the difference. Stars, grades, ratings and scores give readers an instant judgment on the value of an option, and allow readers to make easy comparisons among options. If I want to know whether to see a particular movie, I can look online to see if Ebert gave it a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down." I can look up how many stars a Michelin-rated restaurant has, or check the Metacritic rating for a DVD or video game.

But criticism can do more than simply render a judgment and assign a score. Good criticism is context. It describes a work in terms of what has come before it and where it stands relative to other works today, whether that be in performing or visual arts, writing, food or any other creative discipline. Criticism introduces a work into the living, developing legacy of its discipline and helps readers to see not just where the work fits within that discipline, but how its introduction might help shape the direction of that discipline in years to come.

That's a much more ambitious goal than deciding if a concert was a "B+" and "A-."

Ratings lend themselves well to crowdsourcing. I sensed that back in 1999, when I created ThemeParkInsider.com, and there are now thousands of sites online which enable readers to rate items, then aggregate those consumer ratings to create overall scores and rankings. I suspect that many news publishers see the success of those websites and wonder why they are paying for critics to evaluate movies, books, shows and restaurants that their readers would rate for free.

But no one ever beats the competition by offering the same thing at the same price. (Which, in the case of online content is... free.) If all you've got to offer readers is a UGC rating and review site, well, you better have been first to market and built a huge audience then. Because thousands of competitors now are offering the same thing.

A critic though, gives a publication a unique voice, something than can distinguish that publication in the information market. In addition, that critic can provide the leadership that can help inspire people to participate in a particular rating community, and give them an example to help those readers develop well-thought comments that will be useful to others.

It's depressing to read other journalists embrace the idea of sacking critics. Once we accept the inevitability of screwing our readers to save a buck, we help ensure an inevitable abandonment of our publications by those readers.

Here's a crazy thought: How about a newspaper that's nothing but critics? That is, experts with the training and experience to report news as well as to place it in an appropriate context for readers. Let them be the voices and leaders of their communities, and scrap the "straight" news reporters who too often bring nothing to a story beyond stenography. Let these critics cover the arts, entertainment and sports... as well as business, labor, education, the environment and politics.

Where would the news industry be then? Could readership be tanking any worse than it is now?

In a hypercompetitive news market, newsrooms need more educated, informed and unique voices, not fewer. The critics ought to be the last journalists to go.

Robert Niles also can be found at http://www.themeparkinsider.com