Quote:
Originally posted by RudeBoy
If it's new-journalism. Hell, it's a review, it's supposed to be objective.
It's just like giving an artist a negative critic just because you dislike him/her personally.  |
No it's not. Stop being dramatic, please.
Some of the positive reviews mentioned GaGa, it's NATURAL. Music business, you're destined to be compared. Like someone said,
freedom of speech. You can't tell a journalist what they can and can't write, and if you try, expect a lawsuit. It's not "supposed" to be objective, it can be whatever. Journalists do give an objective view, but it's still their opinion. Otherwise, there wouldn't be reviewers/journalists to write these things, and you'd see/listen to things without early opinion. If you don't care for an early opinion, don't read them. That's why people have their personal choice of who they read. Example, some people like CNN, others Fox News. It's how the world works.
Another example is
Blackout. Britney's best reviewed album, however 99% of them mentioned how horrible her personal life was and talked about it, yet still scored the album accordingly. Yes, people will see certain reviews "unfair", but it just got a negative review. Deal with it.
But I believe people can express opinions without sounding just plain hateful.
