In a previous post, I questioned the value of mainstream critics, whose overwhelming groupthink renders them worse than useless. But I’m not sure that the ‘specialist’ press is really that much better. A recent incident on an internet mailing list (which I won’t name), featuring the editor of a well-known rock magazine (which I also won’t name) made this abundantly clear.
A few days ago, said editor printed a throwaway one-liner in his magazine dismissing a band I’ve actually seen a couple of times in fairly damning terms. On the bands independant fan email group, some fans (myself included) understandably took exception to this. The words ‘hack scribbler’ were used.
Next thing we know, this ‘professional critic’ comes bargeing into the forum, agressively flaming everybody concerned, with his basic message being “how dare we peons disagree with him because he’s paid to do this for a living, and we’re just rank amateurs hiding behind the anonymity of computer keyboards”.
Of course, the reason we’re anonymous people to him is that he’s never met us at gigs, and the reason for that is that he’s a London based music journo who never ventures beyond the M25 (or should that the North Circular?). We go to gigs in places like Crewe or Swansea, the sort of places no London-based hack scribbler could even find on a map. The band in question know who I am, for starters.
That’s the whole ‘blogs versus dead tree media’ argument in a nutshell. It again raises the question whether professional critics still serve any useful purpose in the days of the Internet.
To answer your question, yes professional critis do still have a useful purpose, but this particualr instance of one has ceased to act in a professional manner.
The useful purpose is to be a repository and clearing house for knowledge of current events in their subject area. To make a living at this you have to know your subject area very well and have excelent communication skills to keep that information moving.
A true professional in any field does not need to slag off the amateurs because the superior quality of his observations justify his superior status. Behavior such as related here justifies his being ranked at an inferior status by those who know what they are talking about.
The “dead tree media” can only survive by providing quality output from respected journlists. That respect has to be earned, and can be lost very quickly. I doubt people insulted in this way will buy “dead trees” of his particular brand for a while.
Another thing this journalist has to learn is that on blogs and the like, everyone is hidden behind their keyboard – including himself.
Some people seem to compartmentalise things and believe that internet personas are somehow not real people. I can’t do that, especially with people I’ve actually met face to face. They’re definitely not anonymous people hiding behind keyboards to me.
Pingback: Where Worlds Collide » Blog Archive » Karnataka, Crewe Limelight, 26 Oct 2008