Open Forum Friday: Should Film Critics Be Allowed to Accept Free Stuff?
There’s an interesting debate that’s been raging across the blogosphere this week that has to do with the ethics of reviewing movies and attending press junkets. It’s a debate that’s been around for quite a while, but with blogs becoming such a big influence as of late, the situation has become even more complex. Earlier this week, the Federal Trade Commission passed new guidelines for posting product reviews online that would require writers to make it clear if they received payments or free promotional items from advertisers in exchange for their words. Full disclosure seems only fair and logical, but what does this mean for movie blogs, where the vast majority of reviewers get into free screenings or receive review copies of the films that they write about?
The ethical dilemma was further demonstrated by the recent press junket for Couples Retreat, where Universal Pictures paid to fly media folks out to the tropical island of Bora Bora for interviews and “activities”. The argument is often made that junkets exist primarily for the glossy Entertainment Tonight puff pieces, but plenty of people involved in these will also write reviews. Could all this V.I.P. treatment possibly sway their impression of a film? Nah, of course not, they’re professional journalists and this is their job. But what about all these bloggers? Do they have any sort of obligation to be honest and maintain their integrity? I’m sure some would rather keep the studio folks happy so that they can, in turn, keep on living the dream… and to be honest, that’s all part of the game. What do you think, can press junkets and celebrity schmoozing influence the opinions of bloggers and film critics? Is it dishonest if they do not disclose all of the free stuff they receive? Do you trust bloggers more or less than professional journalists? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (15)
This is just one reason why you can trust Critics!
Posted by Big Hungry on October 9th, 2009Oh and people in general.
Speaking as a critic, I have no problems taking something for free from the man, and still trashing his product afterwards.
Posted by Henrik on October 9th, 2009I agree that a critic should have to disclose any conflict of interest, but I don’t like the idea of it being a law. This is a gray zone.
Posted by MJS on October 9th, 2009I seriously don’t give a flying fook what critics have to say about a film, bribes or no bribes.
Posted by Tommy on October 10th, 2009I have no problem with critics receiving free stuff, plenty of them are barely scraping by and this helps them continue doing what they do. On the condition they’re reasonable things like free tickets, screening dvds etc, not things like plane tickets and opulent prizes.
The minute someone’s criticism is affected by bias due to freebies, screw them. In fact, it’s probably safe to just refuse these things fullstop.
Posted by stevie_baby on October 10th, 2009Reed was bought off with a set of glasses from Burger King, can you imagine what he’d do for a free trip?!
Posted by rus in chicago on October 10th, 2009From an article at PCMag since that NY Times link sent me to a login page:
“The FTC provided the example of a college student with a well-known gaming blog who receives a free copy of the latest game for review, and posts a positive review. The student would have to tell readers that he received a free copy of the game, and the manufacturer should tell him that he has to disclose their relationship.”
We’re not talking about Roger Ebert or A. O. Scott. We’re talking about people even lower on the totem pole.
Also:
“The issue highlights the difficulty in distinguishing between legitimate news sites and paid content in an age when anyone with an Internet connection can set up a blog.”
Indeed, and it also raises the question of enforcement, particularly with movie reviews. How can YOU be sure I wasn’t “compensated” in some way to talk nice about a movie you hate? I love this gem as well:
“It’s unlikely, therefore, that a positive review for the latest iPhone on a popular gadget blog would result in an FTC investigation, provided that the blog reveals that Apple provided them with a free iPhone for testing purposes.”
Which is exactly why the FTC provided the video game example at the beginning, so you know it is NOT about that. They claim their biggest concern is with bloggers promoting health care products without actually trying them, but doesn’t that fall under the domain of the FDA? By the by, why isn’t FTC being aggressive in regulating how much pharmaceutical companies can advertise on television directly to consumers? This whole thing reeks of a smoke screen and is completely unnecessary. Bah!
Posted by Dave on October 10th, 2009There’s no need for a law dealing with something so trivial. If a critic writes bogus reviews, people’ll stop reading them.
Posted by Nat Almirall on October 10th, 2009hmmmm … well yeah you give a product that you are confident about to a critique to review that product. Ideally the critique being a person that is reputable will do an appropriate critique and will get people interested in the product, even if the critique doesn’t like the product. A good movie review can be negative but should also include a bit of anti-thesis that can sway some people to wanting to see it. Example: “…If you love a mindless gorefest… OR … It’s a hipster romantic comedy about banal people and might be good to butter up a date…” etc.
Following this logic (ideal though it may be) I have no real problem with the freebies that critics get. In the end a critic is only worth as much as his or her reputation and established sensibilities if that is lost then their value is zero.
Posted by Ian on October 10th, 2009I’m all for full disclosure, even putting an itemized dollar amount as a footnote at the end of the review.
If advertising didn’t work, companies wouldn’t spend billions of dollars on it, same thing with swag and junkets, it’s effective, that why it won’t go away.
The itemized footnotes would probably be more entertaining than alot of the movies themselves.
Posted by Duke Togo on October 10th, 2009I don’t think it matters much. I come to Filmjunk and listen to the podcast because I have similar taste in movies to Sean, Jay and Greg so if they recommend something Im willing to check it out.
If their opinion is based on freebies or not doesn’t really matter. If they all of a sudden started to recommend terrible movies I’d stop visiting the website.
Posted by Niklas on October 11th, 2009” If they all of a sudden started to recommend terrible movies I’d stop visiting the website.”
<__>
You should know Jay is in the back pocket of Big Poutine.
Posted by Dave on October 12th, 2009critic and critique are different words right? i mean, one is a noun and the other is a verb… am i wrong about this…because Ian’s post confused the hell out of me the first time i read it.
Posted by Mike on October 12th, 2009Sometimes I get frustrated with say certain mags because what I would consider a leniency on a Mr G Lucas or when The Texas chainsaw massacre remake got a great review on aint it cool and you see Harry Knowles actually in the fucking film. However, if free stuff is going out and you give it a bad review, I’m sure the PR guys can find a nice blurb elsewhere.
Posted by Byron on October 12th, 2009I’ll change my opinion on the last Star Trek movie if CBS / Paramount sends me the DVD to review.
Posted by Reed Farrington on October 13th, 2009Leave a Reply