Media Critics

Criticism

I don't necessarily believe media critics need to be an experienced member of the media profession to be analyze it. If they are going to analyze it according to rules, regulations, etc, then yes, they should be because while some of those laws are there to help journalists, they sometimes unknowingly only hinder them more.

However, I think it was Plato that said, "We analyze works of art not only to judge them, but to better understand them."

If a critic (and I use the word int he sense of someone described in paragraph one) were to criticize a piece, they probably already believe they know everything there is to know about a piece due to research and prior knowledge. Sometimes it takes fresh eyes and an innocent look at something to pull information out of it, to look at it in a new light and provide insight. I don't believe the whole reason people criticize work is to find fault - like he said, sometimes you're just trying to understand it.

The idea of a critic is to have someone impartial and distanced from whatever it is they are judging. I don't believe that someone well versed in the industry already would have that distance. They would have already formed opinions about surrounding ideas that would leak over onto the product.

Finally, the media isn't selling itself to other media. It's selling itself to the public eye and to people who truly are impartial to the implications of media regulation and law. They don't know about them, so their views are fresh. Criticism should come from those you're selling to.