> But the critic still has to be within the ballpark of popular tastes if the expectation is a mass audience that really trusts their recommendations, right?
Not really. A professional critic usually writes a longish review describing the item and why they liked or disliked it, as well as the conclusion. If they are good at description, that's useful to me even if I don't share their likes and dislikes. If they hate things I love, then I can look for their negative reviews as places to start. If they love things I hate, their seal of approval is a good sign for me to keep walking. I can trust their recommendations even if I don't follow them, if I think they are fair and honest and have consistent opinions. If their opinions blow with the wind, I probably won't trust their opinions, even if they agree with mine.
I found Anthony Bourdain trustworthy, but I do not like a lot of the dishes that he really did (no thanks to organ meat and blood sausage), so I wouldn't blindly follow his suggestions.
Not really. A professional critic usually writes a longish review describing the item and why they liked or disliked it, as well as the conclusion. If they are good at description, that's useful to me even if I don't share their likes and dislikes. If they hate things I love, then I can look for their negative reviews as places to start. If they love things I hate, their seal of approval is a good sign for me to keep walking. I can trust their recommendations even if I don't follow them, if I think they are fair and honest and have consistent opinions. If their opinions blow with the wind, I probably won't trust their opinions, even if they agree with mine.
I found Anthony Bourdain trustworthy, but I do not like a lot of the dishes that he really did (no thanks to organ meat and blood sausage), so I wouldn't blindly follow his suggestions.