Response to Duncan's Question on Critics

"Why do people need to be told what to think about art in the first place, why do we need critics in our newspapers and online?"

 It's not necessarily the fact that critics of art or even political policy are writing with the intention to tell the common person how to think. They generally seem to be writing with the hopes to shed light on perspectives that might not have been thought of before, especially if the reader has no real understanding of the subject at hand. Not every individual who may be intrigued by a form of art has gone through the necessary training as you speak of to criticize a work.

There are of course exceptions to this, as with anything, who may attempt to sway the reader into thinking a certain way. This, however, is most often accompanied by personal opinion or there is money involved to create a certain image for an opening, a film, etc. True criticism from your view point would be based off of education of the practices at hand, so criticism tainted by personal opinion or a larger purpose than to inform should not be taken as true criticism.

Newspapers and even independent organizations on the internet are subject to what we would call paid-content, where a payment is made to a writer to make a band, art show, etc. look more appealing than what is true.

My question from these thoughts would be: Have critics, speaking particularly about newspapers, always been tainted with outside influence?