Change is bad. (Not really)

A film critic laments in The Guardian that influencers are easily influenced.

The article shares how the movie industry no longer needs newspaper film critics to reach audiences.

The Internet allows anyone to post their opinion, and yes, it allows those with opinions to grow a larger audience than any “respectable” newspaper film critic (or any journalist) could have ever hoped for.

The industry naturally prefers to use influencers over critics. (The same thing is happening with politics. Politicians do not necessarily need journalists to reach voters, and prefer to seek out their preferred journalists who are friendly to them.)

Manuela Lazic‘s column undermines itself by painting ‘influencers’ with a broadly negative and hyperbolic brush.

“If all discussion of a film’s merits before release is left to influencers, whose driving ambition is to receive free merchandise by speaking well of the studio’s products, what can we expect the film landscape to look like?”

Lazic provides insight into the challenges of being a critic in the Internet age. The risk of online backlash to a negative review is most prevalent in my mind.

The professional critic and the professional journalist are two sides of the same coin.

Our currency is credibility. Our overall audience may be smaller. At the same time, it is more consistent.

During my journalism career, I’ve watched the repeated rise and repeated fall of other news sites and journalists who chase audiences.

I’ve plotted a steady course, growing my audience, and have the career I want.

As for the laments in Lazic’s column, feel free to lament, but it is wasted energy.