Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NatCh
Further, it's exactly the agenda driven hype that makes folks dismiss reviews that are positive -- kind of a catch 22. (sigh) If reviewers were dedicated to presenting as impartial a review as possible on all things, then we'd actually have reviews that we could trust, instead of having to figure out and compensate for whatever agendas a given reviewer might be pushing (that's supposed to be their job as journalists).  |
It seems to be that, in general, those who agree with the reviewer will claim it a good review, while those who don't will claim bias. (Not saying you're doing that, NatCh, this is a general observation.)
The reality is, we don't know what is going on in that reviewer's head, only what he committed to paper. Also: One should never forget that people who write for a living need people to read their works. I think _this_ trumps all possibility for bias and prejudice. This reviewer has done his job just by the fact that we're still talking about his review.