>Cutting costs, but paying a price, by trimming movie criticism (Salt Lake Tribune)
(Via Romenesko)
… I never was a big reader of Official Newspaper Movie Criticism, but these days I pay even less attention to professional film critics. I read and appreciate intelligent, well-written stories about movies, actors and the film industry in general, but I just can’t get down with criticism.

The recommendation algorithms on sites such as Netflix and Amazon outperform any movie critic I’ve ever read when it comes to identifying films I’d like to see. The automated recommendations deliver both movies I’m guaranteed to enjoy (anything by Wes Anderson, for example) and, with surprising regularity, movies I never would have found otherwise (like Primer).

Sean P. Means, in the story linked above, writes of movie critics getting the chop in today’s budget-cutting newspaper climate:

“Another bean counter’s argument is that people can go online and glut themselves on movie criticism from entertainment-specific Web sites and bloggers. True, but quantity doesn’t mean quality.”

That’s an attitude I think most newspaper people, not just movie critics, share. Unfortunately, it’s wrong. Quantity, in aggregate, does indeed equal a certain type of quality. Collectively, our audience is smarter, more capable and no doubt better-looking than we professional journalists ever were or ever will be.

Sorry, newsroom dinosaurs (who come in all ages, I hasten to add), you can’t turn back the clock. More importantly, you shouldn’t want to turn back the clock. The future of our industry is exciting if you have the right attitude. If you don’t, please check out immediately and make way for those of use with faith in and a vision for the future of newspapers.