The three news stories ran back to back last week but only one stirred much attention. One story warned that both NPR and PBS are facing a dire squeeze, even extinction, due to funding cutbacks. A second disclosed new data revealing YouTube’s more dominant share of TV viewership (are Emmys next?). The third revealed that the New York Times was about to replace four of its most prominent culture critics.
The critics story might have received further attention in a more alert pop culture but it was essentially buried, suggesting that some Times readers felt there wasn’t anything worth criticizing.
The formidable climb of YouTube in audience and influence has indeed startled the pop culture universe. Even Netflix’s content factory is now licensing the very YouTube creators whom audiences once disdained as amateurs.
YouTube and Netflix together account for 20% of TV viewing – news that would seemingly rivet advertiser attention. But AI is disrupting major ad agencies, causing them to slash jobs and shift marketing strategy.
In film, meanwhile, the expanding ambitions of Silicon Valley giants like Apple and Amazon threaten to challenge the slates of legacy studios. Investors have seemingly taken notice: Brands delivering the most future action among investors may not be for content at all, but rather for celebrity brands like Rihanna or Wiz Khalifa and his mushroom-growing kit.
The media has belatedly taken notice: Overall, the term “critic” itself seems outdated amid the post-Trumpian cultural chaos. That may have been what the Times concluded in “re-assigning” its gurus covering theater, TV, pop music or even classical music. Film critics were not affected perhaps because, as one Times veteran said, “there’s no space for what they cover anyway.”
In eras past, the re-assignment of a Bosley Crowther in film or a Frank Rich in theater would have prompted a cataclysm from the readership. In his memoir, Crowther admitted he was haunted by the financial impact of his reviews; a high-profile studio movie would be doomed by a negative Times review.
Rich’s theater critiques so consistently obliterated Broadway ticket sales that they prompted threats of advertising boycotts. The public battle of playwright David Hare against Rich inspired a Variety headline declaring “Ruffled Hare Airs Rich Bitch.”
Sime Silverman, who started Variety in 1905, hired street-tough critics to round out his critical fraternity. A burly one-time bartender named Jack Pulaski covered “legit” (as Variety called theater) and a circus performer names Al Greason handled film. The various critics hated Tobacco Road but oddly liked Birth of a Nation.
The most widely read tyrant among film critics was Pauline Kael, who even briefly tried her hand at development in Hollywood. She admitted that the critical sensibility did not translate to box office.
Sensibilities are also being challenged by the problems looming at PBS and NPR, threatened by a combination of Trumpian defunding and fading local support. Were Congress to reduce funding for public radio alone, up to 1,000 local member stations reportedly would face closure. NPR receives only 2% of its funding directly from the federal government, but PBS gets 15%. Congress may imminently end public support for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, which distributes money to NPR and PBS.
So will the Times replace its culture critics and where will they come from? Will their reviews take the form of podcasts or appear on more exotic platforms? Further, instead of focusing on theater or concerts, will Times critics review YouTube stars like Michelle Khare, the daredevil who emulates Houdini or tries Tom Cruise-like airplane stunts.
Survival in pop culture itself has become a stunt, they might argue.
