Should film promoters cite only (or mainly) the views of recognised film critics when trying to publicise a film?

Or should they use the views of bloggers and the general public?

"There is a fear that it could spell the end of the critic. I’m hoping that it will highlight the inconsistencies of the internet and reinforce the point of us. People will realise they can’t be guided by ‘Pete63’ because they don’t know who it is."

Mr Solomons stressed the importance of the relationship between the critic and the public and said: "When a film-goer reads a critic whose views chime with theirs, they know that if the critic likes a film then they go along and enjoy it. That wouldn’t happen with a blogger they don’t know."

Well, sure. But when critics start out the public does not know who they are.

In any case, if the public choose to rely on reviews from people they do not know, that’s the public’s problem. Market forces will decide what works for film promoters and the public alike. As always.

When you think about it, the role of critic comes from an age when access to spreading one’s views was limited and expensive. A few people landed these sacred newspaper jobs, and started to believe in their own wisdom.

All change!

Another media elite – busy becoming obsolete and de-layered.