You are not getting it. We are not saying "The media shouldnt do this because BvS was good". We are saying "The media shouldnt do this because its unprofessional". I dont think insulting the director of another movie while reviewing a seperate movie, and having that as your blurb for the review, is professional at all. Its just bad reporting. These reviewers have made the hate personal, they have used excessive hyperbole, from "These movies are the donald trump of movies" to "anybody who likes these should be ashamed of themselves" to "Why are you watching it we told you in our review to not do it". Thats the thing thats not right. We are not saying "This movie is bad and here is why" is wrong. There is no reason to drag BvS in Lego batman review, when thats the whole reason you are doing it, without any meaningful comparison. Just cheap shots. And thats what those RT blurbs are. Mark Hughes wrote a great article about it :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhug...s-despite-medias-gloom-and-doom/#361ec37f6f4e
An excerpt :
"Suicide Squad is falling victim to this typical press scenario not only because of the all the usual factors coming into play against it, but also because of a sort of inertia that overtakes the press once a line of thought has been established. "Gore the exaggerator," the first U.S.-Iraq war when the media acted largely as cheerleaders for the White House, the McMartin Preschool abuse story and surrounding media hysteria, and many other examples exist of the press jumping onto hyperbolic or outright false bandwagon sentiments and hyping them for attention in order to attract viewers and increase revenue. It's not just common, it's a consistent aspect of modern mass media. There are entire press outlets dedicated to the pursuit of tabloid journalism, rumormongering, gossip, and muckraking.
Nobody informed about the press (note: I've worked as a political journalist, op-ed writer, news reporter, news program producer, and entertainment writer in print, radio, and online for many different outlets -- including national and worldwide -- on and off since the early 1990s) would seriously argue this isn't generally true, even if they might debate how widespread it tends to be. The point being, it not only happens but happens frequently enough we can point to multiple occurrences of major historic import within any several-year period. And it happens in less historic, more mundane ways on a far more frequent basis.
So it would be absurd and dishonest for anyone to pretend it doesn't happen in entertainment journalism. If news correspondents in a war zone can allow relationships, trade-offs, personal gain, bias against individuals or organizations, laziness, and various other factors to heavily influence their coverage, then yes certain movie reviewers or film bloggers or comic book fan sites can sometimes have less than 100% pure motivations when they put words to page.
This isn't about "bias," a favorite word tossed at film critics as if it's a terrible accusation. Bias means feeling personal animosity or favor towards someone/something. It isn't always defined as "unfair" or "unreasonable," but that's how most angry fans interpret the term when they use it as an accusation. For too many movie fans, any contrary opinion is "unreasonable" since it criticizes something the fan loves. The same people often don't mind at all when the bias works in their favor, when media and film reviewers are praising and promoting the movie the fan happens to like. So it becomes a situation where bias folks agree with isn't unreasonable, but bias they disagree with is unfair and unacceptable. "
Now if you think reviewers who wrote those RT blurbs werent being unprofessional, we just have to agree to disagree. Because in my mind, telling people to punch themselves just because you didnt like their movie is a bit extreme and unprofessional.
