The introduction of a rating system for cultural reviews by Aftonbladet’s cultural section sparked a heated debate within the Swedish journalistic community. Aftonbladet’s culture editor explained the move as a way to increase visibility in the digital landscape, framing it as a form of “consumer information” to guide readers toward commendable works and warn against overrated exhibitions. This pragmatic justification, however, was met with immediate backlash. Many critics, including Jenny Högström in GP and Josefin de Gregorio in SvD, decried the system as reductive, populist, and contributing to the ”dumbing down” of culture. Social media amplified this sentiment, with many expressing their disdain for the perceived simplification of artistic merit. This initial response largely lacked nuanced discussion, characterized by a reflexive rejection of the rating system.
The ensuing discussion, while passionate, often lacked substance. The majority of critics seemed more concerned with signaling their intellectual superiority than engaging in a productive debate about the pros and cons of such a system. One notable exception was an article by Norwegian professor Eirik Vassenden, who offered a more insightful perspective based on his experience with rating systems in Norwegian media. Vassenden argued that the core issue isn’t the ratings themselves, but rather the underlying “attention economy” in which modern cultural journalism operates. He observed that critics, driven by the need to generate clicks and engagement, are incentivized to produce “extraordinary” or “unexpected” takes, often by resorting to exaggerated praise or condemnation. This observation shifted the focus from the inherent value of ratings to the broader pressures shaping critical discourse.
While Aftonbladet’s rationale for introducing ratings was couched in terms of consumer guidance – helping readers navigate the cultural landscape – the ensuing debate highlighted a fundamental tension between this aim and the realities of online media. Proponents of ratings could argue that they encourage clarity and accountability, forcing critics to justify their assessments more rigorously. Numerical ratings, in theory, demand a more concrete articulation of a critic’s evaluation, compared to the ambiguity sometimes found in traditional reviews. Additionally, the ”consumer information” aspect, while disdained by some, serves a legitimate purpose in helping readers discover new works and make informed choices. This resonates with the idea of criticism as a service to the reader, rather than solely an exercise in intellectual analysis.
However, Vassenden’s analysis complicated this perspective. He argued that the pressure to gain attention online could incentivize critics to prioritize sensationalism over nuanced evaluation. The temptation to award extreme scores – either exceptionally high or low – might overshadow the actual merits of a work, turning the review into a performance rather than a considered judgment. This introduces the risk of polarization, where critical discourse becomes dominated by extremes, hindering genuine engagement with artistic merit. The desire for virality might overshadow the primary function of criticism – providing insightful and balanced perspectives on cultural productions.
A specific instance involving Aftonbladet’s literature editor, Rasmus Landström, illustrated the potential pitfalls of ratings. Landström’s assessment of the August Prize nominees, where he gave one book a significantly higher rating than the others, prompted skepticism about the sincerity of his evaluation. This incident suggested that the pressure to create a ”talking point” could outweigh the critic’s genuine assessment of the literary works. The apparent discrepancy between the diverse nominated works and the uniform ratings cast doubt on the validity of the scoring system, suggesting that it was driven by a desire for attention rather than critical rigor.
The broader context of this debate is the precarious state of cultural journalism. Declining readership and budgetary constraints have forced many publications to reduce their cultural coverage. In this environment, the search for innovative approaches to engage readers is understandable, even necessary. However, the Aftonbladet case highlights the potential unintended consequences of adopting strategies driven by the attention economy. While the need for new formats and modes of expression in cultural criticism is undeniable, these innovations must be carefully considered to ensure they enhance rather than detract from the core function of criticism – providing insightful and thoughtful engagement with art and culture. The challenge lies in finding a balance between capturing reader attention and maintaining the integrity of critical discourse.
