Death Spiral

Tom Bernard, the veteran co-head of Sony Pictures Classics, has a theory about critics. He believes when critics in key communities are fired by their penny-pinching newspapers, it's the movies that suffer - especially art movies. He feels he can statistically demonstrate that filmgoers learn to trust certain local critics and that, when they leave, box office sags.
                                                                    - from Variety

Maybe that's true. Newspapers have cut more movie and TV critics in the past couple of years than any other critics. The thinking, of course, is that movies and TV are not geo-specific and that wire copy can be a cheaper substitute. Movie critic Marshall Fine, who has set up his own movie blog after a long career in print journalism, adds his voice:

These misguided newspaper organizations (and, increasingly, magazines) have decided that the way to recoup is to get rid of us critics and those lavish salaries we're all pulling down. The wrong-headed thinking goes something like this:

"Well, sure, we have someone who is in touch with the local community, whose critical voice they've come to recognize and understand. But really--isn't one movie review pretty much like another? Can't we spend our money on something more important and simply fill that movie-critic void with syndicated reviews off the wire services?"

That approach misses the point that one critic isn't the same as another; we aren't interchangeable. Readers rely on specific critics whose work they trust and whose taste they understand.

Unfortunately, too many outlets regard critics as mere consumer guides. At our best, we're part of the conversation, a mediator/interpreter between the artist who creates the movie and the audience that sees it... There are fewer and fewer places to find serious reviews in print. And fewer still where the most important graphic element isn't either a star rating, a letter grade or a thumbs-up/down kind of symbol.

Many newspapers now seem to believe that journalism is simply a consumer guide. If it is, then one report can substitute for another, and maybe no one will notice. It isn't just happening with arts journalism. In the past several years, foreign bureaus have been closed, investigative units have been off-loaded, and generic wire copy has come to occupy more and more of the local and regional newspaper. Coverage of state government has dwindled as papers eliminate their state bureaus. At a time when we've seen first-hand the damage that can be caused when the press backs off, we're cutting back even more.

Here's the problem for news organizations. Generic news doesn't build readership loyalty. There are too many ways to get information now, and the fewer reasons you give readers to come for your unique version of the news, the fewer readers you'll have. Readers do notice when coverage gets genericized, and when news is made generic, it changes the kinds of readers you attract.

Though the arts don't generate a lot of ad dollars, there isn't an arts marketing manager out there right now who's not wondering why they shouldn't stop advertising in their local paper when the coverage dumbs down or dries up.

The most lucrative arts advertising is movie ads. If Sony is noticing a hit to its business when newspapers dump their critics, how long do you suppose it'll be before the movies ditch newspapers too? If the local department store or car dealership notice a drop in effectiveness of their ads when the political columnist or popular TV critic goes, they'll follow too.  A classic death spiral.