If there is an appreciable difference, then media critics have a problem.
Don Cheadle

This makes no sense. Professional critics are people who know a great deal about the thing being criticized; any set of voters is a wide demographic mostly consisting of people who know little about it.

Substitute any other terms for the two here: Do they want to please movie critics or Protestants? Do they want to please restaurant critics or people in the middle 50% of personal yearly income?

Being knowledgable is better than being ignorant, so knowledge is inevitably elitist. Granted, it’s a more accessible form of being elite than, let’s say, vacationing in Gstaad. But critics of any kind don’t have an obligation to dumb down their taste so that it matches people who don’t know better. Critics don’t have to like the latest Michael Bay or superhero movie just because it makes a lot of money. Nor should they dislike it for the same reason. Being popular and profitable has no necessary connection to being well-made.

Now, you could make the argument that FS1 shouldn’t care what critics say. They aren’t in a quality-driven business; they’re in a ratings-driven business. If they could get higher ratings by running a continuous tape of monkeys throwing shit at each other, their shareholders might want them to do it. However, the reality is that advertisers at this point are more sophisticated than that. All eyeballs on the screen are not equal; more educated people tend to have more income to spend on products — which explains why you don’t see many Jaguar commercials during “Undisputed,” but you do see a hell of a lot of ads for testosterone boosters aimed at the overweight and under-employed guy wondering why he can’t get it up as often or as far these days.

Like what you read? Give Richard Alan Nanian a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.