Siskel and Ebert, Burt Sugar-Critics, Analyst or Reviewers?
Lookin at the solicitation and offers to review a WSO, some things come to mind.
First, what is the difference between a critic, an analyst or reviewer?
Who is going to give you more knowledgeable, in-depth, unbiased and constructive information for an informed decision?
Speaking only from a consumer point of view, which is the best or best combination?
Do Siskel and Ebert( when they were a team ), Burt Sugar and The Fight Doctor and the like have or need to solicit the entity they are going to analyze or review to have a credible , balanced, honest and fearless review?
Are guys with their unabashed style and honesty afraid or hold back something?
When someone solicits for a review copy of a WSO, the innuendo, temperament and tone seems to me as like to say:
1) " Give me a review copy and I promise to give you a good review, regardless if its good or not".
2) "Give me a review copy because my review will help a new warrior like yourself ", essentially saying he is only going to review the "good" parts, even if there aren't any.
3) " Give me a review copy and if there is something that does not outright work, whether in part or total, I will still be very, very "gentle", and sort of tippy-toe around it.
4) " Give me a review copy and I will highlight only theeee most positive stuff, regardless of content."
I am not saying a person needs to be brutal to be constructive, but at some point, if something actually needs to be brutal on some particular point, a person soliciting for a review copy does seem to be the one that will do it.
Leo Leporte seems to be an honest , balanced chap. He seems to be all three: reviewer, analyst and critic.
He's one example, to me anyways, of someone bringing constructive opinion about a product, and even when he gives something a bad review or a "not recommend" , its hardly ever nasty, brutal, uninformed or personal, he seems to qualify positive and negative comments with no axe to grind, very constructive and open with his comments, no matter what side they happen to land on.
He would not hesitate, so far, to steer one to a product that he is not sponsored by and will give balanced positives and negatives on any product, and can qualify the weigh....like although he may point out negatives when he is on that end of the spectrum, he may say those negatives are not necessarily true negatives, although it is something a potential purchaser need to know and that it still may not outweigh the positives of the product and the inverse may be true on some other products.
Now Siskel and Ebert get into too much detail about a lot of stuff simple movie fans don't really care about. Should a WSO review be in that detailed in style? NO.
But the manner and fearless honesty they bring on their views , coupled with the fact that 8 out of 10 movies and rentals they both recommended turned out to be damn good movies to me, lends me to have some liking to their approach.
Same with boxing analyst---you think Burt Sugar, Atlas or Fernie Pacheco solicit out their reviews and analysis to the entities in question, the way people ask for a WSO review copy, BEFORE the product is presented, or is it that their welcomed intelligence , honesty, experience, constructive balance, observations and fearlessness to say EXACTLY what they think , along with fans and industries respect for their knowledge gets that offer to them WITHOUT their need for solicitation?
Essentially, their body of work , and public trust, solicits, in and of itself , products "TO them.
Again, a WSO reviewer does not necessarily have to be that detailed and thorough.
And maybe product marketing has some different logistics, but these ingredients or some of them, are not without merit.
The 13th Warrior
First, what is the difference between a critic, an analyst or reviewer?
Who is going to give you more knowledgeable, in-depth, unbiased and constructive information for an informed decision?
Speaking only from a consumer point of view, which is the best or best combination?
Do Siskel and Ebert( when they were a team ), Burt Sugar and The Fight Doctor and the like have or need to solicit the entity they are going to analyze or review to have a credible , balanced, honest and fearless review?
Are guys with their unabashed style and honesty afraid or hold back something?
When someone solicits for a review copy of a WSO, the innuendo, temperament and tone seems to me as like to say:
1) " Give me a review copy and I promise to give you a good review, regardless if its good or not".
2) "Give me a review copy because my review will help a new warrior like yourself ", essentially saying he is only going to review the "good" parts, even if there aren't any.
3) " Give me a review copy and if there is something that does not outright work, whether in part or total, I will still be very, very "gentle", and sort of tippy-toe around it.
4) " Give me a review copy and I will highlight only theeee most positive stuff, regardless of content."
I am not saying a person needs to be brutal to be constructive, but at some point, if something actually needs to be brutal on some particular point, a person soliciting for a review copy does seem to be the one that will do it.
Leo Leporte seems to be an honest , balanced chap. He seems to be all three: reviewer, analyst and critic.
He's one example, to me anyways, of someone bringing constructive opinion about a product, and even when he gives something a bad review or a "not recommend" , its hardly ever nasty, brutal, uninformed or personal, he seems to qualify positive and negative comments with no axe to grind, very constructive and open with his comments, no matter what side they happen to land on.
He would not hesitate, so far, to steer one to a product that he is not sponsored by and will give balanced positives and negatives on any product, and can qualify the weigh....like although he may point out negatives when he is on that end of the spectrum, he may say those negatives are not necessarily true negatives, although it is something a potential purchaser need to know and that it still may not outweigh the positives of the product and the inverse may be true on some other products.
Now Siskel and Ebert get into too much detail about a lot of stuff simple movie fans don't really care about. Should a WSO review be in that detailed in style? NO.
But the manner and fearless honesty they bring on their views , coupled with the fact that 8 out of 10 movies and rentals they both recommended turned out to be damn good movies to me, lends me to have some liking to their approach.
Same with boxing analyst---you think Burt Sugar, Atlas or Fernie Pacheco solicit out their reviews and analysis to the entities in question, the way people ask for a WSO review copy, BEFORE the product is presented, or is it that their welcomed intelligence , honesty, experience, constructive balance, observations and fearlessness to say EXACTLY what they think , along with fans and industries respect for their knowledge gets that offer to them WITHOUT their need for solicitation?
Essentially, their body of work , and public trust, solicits, in and of itself , products "TO them.
Again, a WSO reviewer does not necessarily have to be that detailed and thorough.
And maybe product marketing has some different logistics, but these ingredients or some of them, are not without merit.
The 13th Warrior