Reeling Into Self-Commoditization

Thumbing through the dead-tree edition of the Mercury News – quick exercise these days -- looking for weekend movies, I was struck with this thought. Forget commoditization; we’re now into the age of self-commoditization.

My movie tout sources used to be five. Joe Morgenstern is my first Friday read in the Wall Street Journal. He’s been wrong about one movie in four years ("Smart People"), and his writing is a sublime pleasure. I’ll check into MetaCritic or Rotten Tomatoes, just to see high scorers across the country, to make sure we’re not missing anything. Our son Joe is a film festivalgoer; we keep his emailed reports. Fresh Air’s roster of critics is worth a listen.

And, there used to be the Mercury News. Bruce Newman’s work was solid, his taste usually good and his take on the world consistent. Now as the Mercury News reels back to its early days, pre-Silicon Valley, rearranging beats as if musical chairs is being played in the newsroom, local critics have become an endangered species, reassigned to the amorphous “general assignment” and beyond.

Merc readers see Newman’s byline occasionally. Usually, though, it’s reviews-by-wire-committee. Newspapers have access to dozens of reviews from their wires, and too many of them, like the Merc, pick those reviews as if they were one-offs.

Take this weekend’s Merc reviews. Nine reviews. Seven bylines. Stephen Holden, New York Times.  Carrie Rickey, Philadelphia Inquirer. Christy Lemire, AP. Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel. Robert Philpott, Fort Worth Star-Telegram. John Anderson, Washington Post. Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times.

All have their talents, but I don’t read any of them frequently enough to trust their judgment.
Sure, I can buy the argument that imperiled newspapers can spend their money on better things than their own film reviewers, given that film is largely a national medium.  But why not pick among the best reviewers --- the web makes that incredibly easy – and give their readers the consistent, known-over-time voice and judgment they want to know?

Instead, newspapers have taken yet another franchise – film reviewing – and turned it into a commodity.

I've noticed a similar phenomenon with restaurant reviews. Again, as readers, we want a consistent -- and experienced -- voice. Sheila Himmel, the Merc's longstanding critic, took one of the earlier buyouts. Now we see a succession of bylines, many committing the cardinal sin of sprinking the word "delicious" throughout their reviews -- a sure sign they have insufficient food vocabulary to serve. Again, another franchise going, going, gone, as Yelp, Urbanspoon and others have become more timely and useful.

Recall all we’ve said about news – especially national and international news – being commoditized, available anywhere and everywhere, with readers agnostic as to source or byline?

Well, newspapers are now doing that with film reviews – and much other wire content, I fear. Commoditization is one thing; self-commoditization is quite another. It’s time, as newspapers re-section, re-jigger and re-think, to keep the reader in mind. In reviews, that means consistency in voice, in judgment and in byline.

Comments

[Charlie McCollum]

Ken, I couldn't agree more with your points about arts criticism and how many papers (including the Mercury News)have decided it's commodity news that does not need a local voice.
But, as the editor who picked those nine reviews, the reality often is: What review is available in time of our deadlines. We can't be consistent about what writers we pick and, most often, we can't use the some of the very best (New York Times, LA Times, etc.) because their reviews move way too late for our purposes.
It is one of the realities of depending on the wires for coverage and monumentally frustrating for those of us who have to try to put together the best possible package for readers on a weekly basis.

[Rich Copley]

I totally agree that if you are not going to review locally, selecting a specific byline for reviews is important for consistency. It also can be important when controversial films such as "Religulous" or "W." roll around. A paper that just offers a tossed salad of critics can be open to criticism that they picked a review to advance an ideological perspective, whereas on that goes with the same voice can say, "That's our critic, and that's what he or she thought of this film."

[Chris Lloyd]

Ken, I agree that one of the worst aspects of the massive loss of local critics is that readers are left without a consistent voice to rely upon. Over time, a reader builds a bond with a critic -- even if it's an acrimonious one. Even the old saw, "He hated it so I know I'll like it" is an example of a successful reader/critic relationship.

Worse yet, by offering up wire reviews that readers could easily obtain elsewhere on the Web, we've given them one less reason to see our paper/site as indispensable.