It does seem a shame that it has moved into a 'paper criticism good, electronic criticism bad' debate when it really seems to be more about the publishers abdicating on their responsibilities towards in-depth coverage of their subjects. The importance of a salaried critic, as the article MichaelB posted points out, is that they are given a relatively stable platform from which to develop their style/voice/readership for better or even for worse (and the danger that their mannerisms become so ingrained that they end up doing a parody of their own criticism - i.e. they purely force the film to fit in with their attitude rather than trying to observe it with some objectivity as well)
It also provides some incentive towards going to the rubbish plays or the bad films - as Glenn Kenny pointed out, one of the good aspects about leaving Premiere was that he was not obliged to
have to go and see
Sex and the City! I don't expect any casual fan to force themselves through something they have a good idea that they are going to hate (but I would respect them for going and trying to give the film a fair chance anyway!) but I do feel that if you are getting paid for your considered opinion you should pay full attention to a performance or eat a good amount of the meal that you are reviewing (which is why I abhor the idea of critics flouncing out in the middle of things they are supposed to review -
you are supposed to be our eyes and ears!)
However casual fandom and blogging has its own peculiarities and difficulties as well - because of not getting paid for your work, you have to decide not just want you want to cover but what you can
afford to cover. That may be understandable but it does lead to ghettoisation as people may just stick with the areas in which they have most interest in rather than exploring outside their comfort zone - they have more excuse than a salaried critic to do so but it is still a problem if you want a 'well rounded' reviewer able to talk with some authority about Hayao Miyazaki, Carl Dreyer
and Tim Burton!
It takes experience and time to digest films and reach that level of all round competence with a few 'specialist subjects', though here it could be suggested that things have not really changed at all except that critics are serving their apprenticeships on forums and blogs rather than holding that knowledge in until their first paid review for a paper and then developing their voice there. They are developing in a more public space rather than in a private one (though the advantage is that the Internet can feel more of a private, informal conversation space despite its wide broadcast range). The pool of available talent has just gotten more transparent to others!
I feel you also need to have people whose opinion you respect to gauge yourself against, to agree or disagree with, people with a back catalogue of material that you can look through to see where your opinions coincide or part ways. I sort of agree with the quote in the above article that people like reading people with similar views to their own because the audience is looking for someone with a similar take on the world whose opinion on things they have not seen might be similar to theirs. However I think that is only the start - then it becomes quibbling about the differences, about trying to understand what one critic loved or hated versus your own response (to use a general example, I generally respect Mark Kermode's reviews but cannot stand The Exorcist!), and the reader feels comfortable in creating their own idea of cinema, and enjoying reading film critics for their own takes on film for the chance to hear another person's opinion rather than to get a God-like pronouncement of what is definitively great or not.
The problem seems to be that papers are looking for critics to a) have a distinctive point of view that sets them apart from everyone else, which is something that can lead to critics becoming ever more extreme parodies of themselves in an attempt to give themselves distinction, or to b) be a mouthpiece for the worldview of the paper or magazine (this can be conforming to the political leanings of a paper, or could be as apolitical as writing reviews in a fluffy celeb-focused 'Heat' magazine style - either way it strikes me that they are still analysing the audience they are writing for more than the film itself).
I would much prefer a situation where critics were asked to put the primacy of the film above other considerations, to subordinate themselves to the piece of work under discussion.
Then after taking that perspective add your own impressions and tailor it to your audience. It seems a lot of print publications in which film criticism is not their main task ignore that first step in the rush to fold the film into their perspective on the world and how that fits in with the 'style' of the rest of their publications and are not interested in either objective analysis of a film or in personal opinions that may be at odds with their 'brand image' (see the upping of review ratings of The Da Vinci Code by newspaper editors a couple of years ago).
No wonder people are moving to the Internet for a little more freedom in saying what they want, whether that is to analyse films in more depth or to be able to post longer rants than they would otherwise be able to!
