The omission of Deadline.com is a matter for the creators of Metacritic to deal with. But given your earlier complaint about obscure websites being judged on the same level as major publications, it's funny to hear you pushing for the inclusion of Deadline.com; I know who they are, but they're the closest thing to an obscure website that might appear on Metacritic.
And no, you didn't deny that A Christmas Story Live! got good reviews. I never said you did. But as this thread confirms, you posted the first negative review the show received, then followed that up with another one (adding that it received a number of negative reviews). There's nothing wrong with reporting that a show got bad notices, but why not give equal time to the positive ones? It's only fair. And you did omit the grudgingly favorable comments in the Washington Post review that clearly influenced Metacitic's decision to label it "mixed" (albeit with the lowest possible score in that category). You may not be aware of it, but you're coming across like a cheerleader for the bad reviews.
Like I said, I don't think Metacritic is perfect. I do, however, feel it's the best game in town; it's definitely a better barometer of a film's critical reception than Rotten Tomatoes. |
