The reviewer’s fallacy: when critics aren’t critical enough
Interesting point the article indirectly hits on:<p>- <i>&quot;Chummy logrollers—a perception heightened in the social media age. In a 2012 Slate piece called “Against Enthusiasm,” Jacob Silverman wrote, “if you spend time in the literary Twitter- or blogospheres, you’ll be positively besieged by amiability, by a relentless enthusiasm that might have you believing that all new books are wonderful and that every writer is every other writer’s biggest fan.”&quot;</i><p>I&#x27;ve always assumed studios had simply managed to, through some means or another, &#x27;corrupt&#x27; most reviewers in a process similar that happened to video games. I wonder how much of the problem might be that people are now just too close to the things, and in particular the people behind the things, that they&#x27;re reviewing? It&#x27;s far easier to be &quot;critical&quot; (read: truthful) about things and people you have no connection to. But in today&#x27;s world of social media, reviewers and the creators of the products they&#x27;re reviewing are going to be in near direct, if not indeed direct, communication. Knowing full well that speaking honestly about a product could hurt people you&#x27;ve formed relationships with is not something easy to do.<p>For megafilms like &quot;The Last Jedi&quot; (currently at 90% on rotten tomatoes contrasted against 49% for viewers), how many of the reviewers have at least one direct relationship to somebody involved with the project? It doesn&#x27;t need to be corruption. Plain old reluctance to be honest to those close to us or do them soft favors with no expectation of direct personal benefit -- that basic aspect of human nature would go a long ways towards explaining the deterioration of honesty in reviews. Or taking it to another level, we often wear rose colored glasses towards those close to us. This entire process might be entirely subconscious.