As a younger type trying to break into the world of film criticism, I have to say I find it disheartening that magazines and newspapers are cutting back on the number of critics working today. But l find it doubly disheartening to hear opinion journalists supporting the same thing. Says Matt Yglesias:

“Michael Phillips did a review for The Chicago Tribune recently of You Don’t Mess With the Zohan. Meanwhile, The Los Angeles Times ran a different review of the same film by a different reviewer. But Zohan is Zohan in Chicago, LA, Orlando, and wherever else the Tribune owns papers. Reducing staff such that the entire Tribune company only reviews each film once, and then runs that review in all its different papers, seems like a way to cut costs without compromising quality.”

Ugh. Imagine if I typed something like this:

“Clarence Page wrote an op-ed for the Chicago Tribune recently about the end of the Democratic primary. Meanwhile, The Los Angeles Times ran a different editorial about the same sequence of events by a different op-ed writer. But the end of the Democratic primary is the end of the Democratic primary in Chicago, LA, Orlando, and wherever else the Tribune owns papers. Reducing staff such that the entire Tribune company only opines on the topics of the day once, and then runs that op-ed in all its different papers, seems like a way to cut costs without compromising quality.”

Sounds pretty silly, right? But seriously consider it for a second: why does a chain of newspapers need any more than a half dozen op-ed writers, each writing twice a week on the national issues of the day? In the world of CNN and Fox News and MSNBC, national politics are national politics–we’re all working with the same facts. Why bother investing in home grown talent to interpret events for your readership?

Look, I appreciate what Matt’s saying. But a good critic understands the city in which he works; the movie might be the same from city to city, but the audience isn’t. An audience in D.C. is probably looking for something different than an audience in L.A. New York City movie fans are not the same as Chicago movie fans. More importantly are regional differences: a critic working out of NYC has no idea how to watch films with the eye of a critic writing for a rural audience.

Even if every audience in the U.S. is looking for the exact same thing out of the film industry, however, why is a paucity of opinion on any topic a good thing? And why bother stopping with movies? We might as well only assign one person per paper chain to review Matt’s new book. Jonah Goldberg could review it for the Tribune in LA, Chicago, Tampa, and elsewhere. I don’t think Matt would like that, now would he?