LA Times Highlights the Good, Bad and the Ugly of the Bitter Lemons Imperative


And there’s a little bit of all three here. But I was surprised to see an academic actually look at it calmly and reasonably and come to the conclusion, “Well let’s wait and see…” rather than the knee jerk reaction of the Torch and Pitchfork crowd.

Here’s that snippet from the article:

Joe Saltzman, a professor of journalism and communications at USC, said that words such as “appalled” and “atrocity” flashed in his mind when he first heard what Bitter Lemons was up to.

Then he checked out the website, saw Mitchell’s explanations, and read some of the reviews.

On further reflection, Saltzman said, “I think it’s not that bad a deal. It’s a fascinating way to try to solve a very difficult problem I thought was unsolvable. They don’t have money to hire critics, so how else do they keep a pool of talented, freelance critics? As long as it’s transparent, as long as the audience isn’t being fooled, I don’t have a problem with it. I wouldn’t be happy paying $150 for a bad review, but if you had enough faith in the work, you could gamble.”

I’m sure Saltzman will be pilloried as well, for what I have no idea.

Many thanks to Mike Boehm the author of this article for reaching out to me and others and for maintaining an excellent standard of trying to look at all sides of this thing.

Wish I could say the same for pretty much everyone else.

More soon, but until then, have a gander at the work that the Bitter Lemons Review Brigade is churning out and decide for yourself.

Comments (2)

U 49347 t 4713834

I’m still reading, and I do have to say that the quality of the reviews have been on a steep incline. I’m particularly fond of Rohrer’s recent offerings. I’m curious to see where this leads long term and post Fringe.

U 35088 t 4659361

Thanks for letting it play out, Matt.

Login to add a comment...