Fade to Black

From Defamer, courtesy of Romenesko, news that the Detroit Free-Press has decided to go without a movie critic:

We have since learned that The Freep, which is owned by Gannett, will NOT be replacing Terry Lawson, making it the most highly circulated newspaper in the country (daily readership = 320K) without a full-time, in-house film critic.

And, um, so what? What law says that every paper has to have a film critic? Are movies any different in Detroit than they are in Cleveland, Kansas City, Miami or Altoona? Nope. Same movies. There's nothing local about movie criticism—or TV criticism, or book reviewing, or any number of things that newspapers persist in doing long past the time when they make any sense. (Can somebody explain to me why every newspaper seems to have a couple of reporters in Arizona for the Super Bowl this week? What a colossal waste of money.)

These are tough times for newspapers, yada yada yada, but they're made even tougher when newsroom managements won't make the easy, obvious cost cuts, much less the tough ones. A movie critic in every city? Why? There's virtually nothing unique about it. There are tons of reviews all over the Internet of movies (and books and TV shows and music). Most movie-going readers prefer the opinions of their friends, anyway.

It's very simple: With resources tight, editors should spend money on something readers can't get anywhere else. Restaurants, architecture, live music—these are all unique local arts that deserve dedicated local critics. Movies? Not so much. In fact, in most cases, not at all.

The Defamer story has the perfect punchline about the demise of the Freep's critic: "from what we've gathered, readers don't seem to mind much."

Comments

[Mike Orren]

Here's some nice irony:

While I wouldn't have hired a movie critic for Pegasus News, one of our staffers is a movie nut and former part-time movie critic. And so we let him style himself as "the film guy" so long as he did his other stuff too. Results:

1. We found out there was a lot in local film that no one else was covering.

BUT most importantly:

2. His reviews of nationally released films do so well in Google / Google news that they are our #2 source of traffic and new users. #1 is all other search (but film dwarfs all other categories). Yes, there's a fair amount of hit-and-run out of market traffic, but there's also enough that sticks to make it well worth it. Doubly so if/when we close a deal with a local theater chain to sponsor his coverage of area film fests.

The takeaway? Maybe it isn't about dropping movie critics, but rethinking what they do and what they cover.

[David Feld]

Hi Mark - You've said what I've been thinking for some time. I agree on every point except book reviewing. The publishing market is more diverse than movies or TV, with regional publishers and many books targeting a geographical demographic. These publishers/books/authors have little chance of meaningful national exposure. In that sense, I'd say the book reviewer is closer to the music reviewer, who can stay relevant by focusing more on local scenes.

But I'm right with you regarding movie reviews. I'd rather see the effort put toward fostering online communities where a wider range of voices can be heard.