Not long ago, critics’ opinions had the power to shape culture. They were serious figures – cut-throat and often unashamedly pretentious – personified in the body of ‘gonzo’ style journalists like Lester Bangs, the politically-defiant Ellen Willis, or the harsh, formidable Anton Ego (the antagonist from Disney’s Ratatouille). Critics could shut down a restaurant or ruin a musician’s career in a matter of words, their columns offering the definitive opinion on the things we should like (or shouldn’t).

However, in recent years, it feels like the role of the ‘all-powerful critic’ has fallen from omnipotent to obsolete. In the face of worsening levels of media literacy, online harassment and doxxing – with the fandom of a certain pop-star sending music journalists death threats for simply doing their job – many fans have begun to reject the confines of traditional criticism. At the same time, the rise of social media – specifically platforms like Letterboxd and Substack – has allowed anyone to broadcast their opinions, without having to adhere to traditional editorial processes. But what happens to culture if everyone is allowed to define it?

Way back in 2016, The New York Times published a piece marking the very start of this shift. It was written by AO Scott, a long-standing critic at the Times (and self-proclaimed “scold, snob and a paid hack”). He argued that on the internet, “everyone’s a critic, and that’s how it should be”. The article was published during social media’s peak, when Twitter was still Twitter, Instagram stories were but a few months old and TikTok was an unknown concept.

But since then, we’ve seen social media become a lot less, well, social. We spend less time online reading and engaging with fellow users, and more time scrolling from one ephemeral bit of content to the next. Our shrinking attention spans are only helping to further impact an already hard-hit media industry: in the past year alone, Variety, The Chicago Tribune and The New York Times have cast aside their critic-adjacent roles. “Arts institutions are facing challenges and looking for new opportunities,” the Times’ lead culture critic Sia Michel said of the changes. “Our readers are hungry for trusted guides to help them make sense of this complicated landscape, not only through traditional reviews but also with essays, new story forms, videos and experimentation with other platforms.” In other words: more TikTok.

For Chris Cotonou, film critic and deputy editor at A Rabbit’s Foot, the internet has heralded “a whole new way” of engaging with criticism. “[Social media criticism is] the equivalent of doomscrolling for the snappiest, funniest bit of text and then moving on to the next one,” he says. “It’s supposed to be entertaining, offering a sort of periphery level litmus test of public taste and opinion”.

But for Laura Snapes, the deputy music editor at the Guardian, good criticism still abounds if you know where to look for it. This never-ending sea of opinion means that only “the strongest critical voices” are able to cut through, she says. “There’s some really interesting stuff on Substack. That’s what blogs were always like,” she says. “Talent always breaks through. [Whether] that comes from Substack, Letterboxd or TikTok. You just have to find your way. I got my first freelance commission at the Guardian from Twitter.” This chimes with Cotonou. “Anyone who is breaking through, because what they say actually resonates with people, is someone worth paying attention to,” he says.

Anyone who is breaking through, because what they say actually resonates with people, is someone worth paying attention to

“Recently I’ve received loads of pitches from 17 and 18-year-olds who can really write, and who are interested in being a critic in a more traditional way,” Snapes continues, adding that she feels optimistic about the state of the industry. “I don’t think [that people who think music criticism is too soft] are reading enough criticism. I read and write spicy criticism all the time, so I definitely think it’s still there. Yes, there are some critics who have to be relentlessly boorish, but if that’s stopping you from writing good criticism, you shouldn’t be doing it anyway.”

Arguably, the booming prevalence of platforms like Substack, and even those witty one-line snipes on Letterboxd, is helping to bolster diversity of opinion within criticism. These platforms have become a space for writers, who might have otherwise faced barriers accessing an industry that is so defined by nepotism and class. With a widening gap in the last year between middle-class and working-class people who engage with arts and culture, this is an unequivocal positive. 

Cotonou acknowledges that social media can “open up new avenues for conversation and even voices from parts of the world that were previously ignored by mainstream media institutions.” Plus, not only does social media allow a more diverse range of voices to speak, he says, but it also enables audiences and readers to encounter a broader range of opinions. “We’re all accessing fragments of each other’s cultures and interests.”

Evidently, algorithms and streaming platforms have forever changed the role of the traditional critic, somewhat diminishing their impact. Equally, though, social media has helped to spotlight critical voices that we previously might not have heard, allowing people with a wider range of experiences and opinions to be part of an otherwise elitist industry. Ultimately, although traditional criticism should – and does – still have an important place in culture, there is also something to be gained by giving a platform to lesser-heard voices.