Commenting on reviews

[Jan McNulty]

I think they assume you will watch tv on your device. It's probably safer to cover yourself and have a license. How do you prove you haven't watched live tv?

[rowan]

I think you don't have to prove that you don't watch or record live TV. They have to prove that you do.

[billboyd]

Many defendants have claimed that their TV was only used to watch ITV. I don't think this has ever been accepted by the courts.

[chrischris]

I haven't had one of those yet, although I see the "modest charges" are £1.99 a month for the web version and £9.99 for the fancy digital edition for iPads and the like.  Personally, I don't think it at all unreasonable for people to expect to view an average of 1 article a day for free (The Times please note) - especially given that many things don't make it into the physical editions of papers these days - but I don't see why they should expect to do, in effect, the equivalent of reading a full newspaper online for no charge at all, any more than I think people should be allowed to do loads of viewing of TV programmes via iPlayer without paying the license fee: neither model is economically sustainable in the long run.

 

I agree with you. However, the problem is that people, particularly younger people, are now so used to getting things for free, it's very difficult to suddenly change things. I know it's completely unreasonable, and 5 years ago I probably would have felt differently, but I am now so used to reading newspapers for free that I just feel annoyed when I am asked to pay. A completely ridiculous attitude I know, but I think that's the case for many people. I don't know much about BBC/ Iplayer, but I know lots of people now just download films for free from the internet, and rarely go to the cinema, or rent them. One of the reasons blockbusters has gone under.

[chrischris]

Interesting article about the future of arts journalism

 

http://www.thestage.co.uk/columns/shenton/2013/04/the-future-of-criticism-is-already-here/

[Anjuli_Bai]

It is an interesting article.

 

Seems to be the same supposition that if the critic/writer is paid that equals quality.  While unpaid equals lack of quality.  What does that say of those who have been both paid and unpaid? 

 

I think the bottom llne is it's a protest against the inexorable future.  It is difficult to see something one loves doing, and does well, and is one's livelihood being overtaken by technology.  The reflex is to defend the past while denigrating that which is overtaking the past - but unfortunately that doesn't change the oncoming new world of information distribution. 

 

And, I find it a bit arrogant to assume that quality goes down if more people participate.  Perhaps if more people have the opportunity to write the overall literacy  may go up as interest in producing a product increases.   There has always been shlock and there always will be - being a paid writer doesn't not guarantee against shlock.

 

If you go to a dance performance would you rather have the opportunity to read only one or two reviews written by a critic paid by and to a certain extent controlled by an editor/publisher - or would you rather have the opportunity to choose to read any number of reviews written by many people of varying abilities?    However eminent the paid critic - it is still only one view - one subjective review.  Personally, I enjoy having the choice to read a number of reviews. "Choice" to me is the key word.

[Jan McNulty]

I've just come across this article by Nick Ahad:

 

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/lifestyle/the-arts/theatre/nick_ahad_whatever_you_may_think_of_them_critics_deserve_recognition_of_their_craft_1_4188813

 

"Well, maybe they do and maybe they don’t; it doesn’t actually matter. The critic is an important piece of the jigsaw that makes up the whole picture of a cultural conversation. Our role is not to comment on the process, but the end result."

[Jan McNulty]

If anyone has got a free day in London on 27th April this event might be good:

 

http://www.dance-ground.com/2013/04/paul-gambaccini-and-mariella-frostrup.html

 

"27 April – 11am to 4pm:  Victoria and Albert Museum (free event in the Lydia & Manfred Gorvy Lecture Theatre) presents ‘The Art of Criticism’, a public event hosted by two of the UK’s most popular broadcasters, Paul Gambaccini and Mariella Frostrup.  ‘The Art of Criticism’promises to be a day of lively discussion and debate with questions and answers flowing freely between the audience and the day’s guest panels about what makes a critic, what the job entails, what its significance is in the world of music, dance, theatre, film and visual art and what the future holds.

 

Paul Gambaccini will host the morning panel – ‘Meet the Critics’ - with three critics from each section of the arts  discussing their roles and answering questions from the audience.

 

Mariella Frostrup will host the afternoon session – ‘The Art of Criticism Now and the Future’ – which will take the form of a roundtable discussion.

 

Critics taking part include Libby Purves (The Times, Chief Theatre Critic), Barry Norman (Film Critic and Broadcaster), Sarah Crompton (The Daily Telegraph, Arts Editor in Chief), Fiona Mountford (Evening Standard, Theatre Critic), Donald Hutera (The Times, Dance Critic),Larushka Ivan-Zadeh (Metro, Film Critic), Jason Solomons (Observer, Film Critic and Broadcaster), Claire Allfree (Metro, Books & Theatre Editor), Erica Jeal (Opera, Deputy Editor),Marina Vaizey (The Guardian, Art Critic and Author), Corinne Julius (Evening Standard, Art and Design), and more.  www.vam.ac.uk/whatson/event/2428/the-art-of-criticism- "

[chrischris]

I see that the Independent on Sunday has cut some of its arts critics/ coverage, I believe because of lack of money at the paper and, I assume, what they owners consider to be a lack of interest.

[chrischris]

http://www.thestage.co.uk/columns/shenton/2013/07/the-arts-journalism-cull-begins/?utm_campaign=shentons-view&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter