Journal-World wrong to replace local critic Niccum's movie reviews

By Eric Melin

Friday, August 11, 2006

Every Friday morning as I sit down to my desk at work, I grab a copy of the Lawrence Journal-World and immediately open it up to the Pulse section to see Jon Niccum’s newest movie review. Part of the great thing about having a local paper is getting to know your local movie critic’s tastes, and after five years in Lawrence, I feel like I know Niccum’s pretty well.

For the past three weekends, though, the Journal-World’s entertainment editor and local film critic has not had a new review appear in the paper. In their place are “piped-in” reviews from the Associated Press wire. When I contacted him, managing editor Dennis Anderson declined to speak on the record about the absence of Niccum’s movie reviews.

I like the opinions that I read to be attached to someone with accountability, not some faceless critic from Miami or Orlando who works for another paper, and may or may be not printed again the following week. When I grew up in Kansas City, I read Robert W. Butler from the Kansas City Star every week. As with Niccum, I don’t always agree with him, but I loved reading his articles because I was gaining a perspective. Because I was a regular reader, I knew where his opinions were coming from, and used that as a barometer for whether or not I wanted to spend money seeing a film. I would also re-read them after seeing the film and compare my opinions with his.

Niccum has been doing this a long time, and he has earned the right to have a regular voice in the Journal-World. I believe that a local slant is important, and that is absolutely why he should be able to continue writing movie reviews. Just because the films he reviews are not made locally does not mean that there isn’t a local slant to his writing. The media affects everybody differently, depending on where they live. There is something to be said for geography, and every time I read a Roger Ebert review, I know he is seeing the films in Chicago and writing about them from a Chicagoan perspective.

Niccum has huge local ties. He wrote for seven years at The Pitch, for which he was also the music/film editor. He’s been the Journal-World’s entertainment editor for four years, and has been reviewing movies in Lawrence for six. In addition, he has been a member of the Kansas City Film Critic’s Circle since 1994, and its president since 2003. If you look up Niccum’s reviews at RottenTomatoes.com, he’s logged 280 of them. That’s a lot of links on a hugely popular national website that all lead back to Lawrence.

Obviously, I write for Lawrence.com, which is a subsidiary of the Journal-World. Also, I know Jon Niccum personally. In January of 2005, my film reviews, which had begun to appear in the Journal-World with some regularity, were also pulled from the newspaper as a result of a re-proportioning of writers. It was decided that Lawrence.com writers were to stay with Lawrence.com, and only Journal-World writers would get printed in the daily paper. Sure, it stung a little bit. I was elated to get my reviews in the Journal-World when I did, and I am thrilled to continue writing for Lawrence.com, both online and in print. But this article is not some kind of sour grapes thing. Over a year and a half later, it is a little late for that.

One of the things that make the Lawrence Journal-World a great paper is that it reflects the community. Bringing in faceless movie reviews from the AP wire doesn’t do anything to help that image. It erases the newspaper’s individualism and replaces it with something you can get anywhere else. For a community that came together to fight against another Wal-Mart being built, it’s ironic that the Journal-World doesn’t mind that same “mall mentality” on their entertainment page.

More movies at scene-stealers.com. More Melin at a stage near you.

Lawrence.com blogs are collections of short, frequently updated posts by members of the Lawrence community. Blog writers, and comment posters, are solely responsible for what they say. (Please take the time to read our full policy.)

If you're interested in writing a blog on lawrence.com, send us a couple of sample entries.

Comments

lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy

Posted by OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) on August 11, 2006 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wow. i don't read the movie reviews all the time, but always for movies i'm thinking about seeing. I did notice the review of Taladega Nights and thought it was odd the writer was from Miami.

http://www.lawrence.com/news/2006/aug/04...

Bring back Niccum! Your point is correct that the local lens used to view these films is worth keeping around. I had almost gotten to the point where if Niccum liked it, i knew i'd probably like it.

Posted by hellohawk (anonymous) on August 11, 2006 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Niccum rules! Trust me, I grew up in Manhattan, where the local movie critic was (and maybe still is) G.W. Clift--what a choad! I never agreed with him, always thought he had terrible taste. Never thought that about Niccum, although I don't always agree with him either. But at least he digs down into the movie; he has an "ear" for them, and that's hard to find. We should definitely keep him in there!

Posted by c_doc77 (anonymous) on August 11, 2006 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The sad thing is that the World Company is beginning to mirror some of the nastier attributes of their corporate counterparts. Its bad enough that according to NPR 80% of Lawrence residents pay them a monthly bill, but now they've decided to stray from their local roots by abandoning local opinions in favor of foreign ones - and Miami and Orlando is as foreign as it gets to Lawrence, KS. I wouldn't be surprised, if while usurping their corporate media agenda, they decide that Melin's contributions to Lawrence.com are no longer needed. Maybe they'll decide to post reviews from that guy that looks like Groucho Marx instead. And don't think it a strange thing, if while eliminating all the local flavor of the paper, they decide to sell their profitable "enterprise" to Rupert Murdoch. Then maybe we can get editorials from Bill O'Reilly. Let me guess, Dennis Anderson. No comment, right?

Posted by liz (Liz Weslander) on August 11, 2006 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting blog, and I think you have a good point. It's unfortunate you didn't have access to, or weren't at liberty to print, more information.

Niccum did a TV column this morning, is he now the paper's tv columnist? If so, is he happy with this switch? Is there more of an audience for tv writing than film writing? Are the AP articles temporary until they bring in someone new to do film? Those are the first questions that come to mind.

Posted by c_doc77 (anonymous) on August 11, 2006 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All are very good questions that deserve answers.

Posted by leslie (Leslie vonHolten) on August 11, 2006 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, bring back Niccum's reviews! Many of us like to read cultural criticism & commentary, which is going by the wayside more and more on a local level. It's too bad; when a community loses its interpreters & critics, its dialogue disappears, and its culture becomes neglected.

It's impossible to prove, but I'd say a big reason KC's arts/music/film scene is so vibrant is because the Star keeps a good number of critics and reviewers on staff. To a degree, they help keep people informed, and they challenge all participants involved in the culture.

Posted by chesty (anonymous) on August 11, 2006 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I disagree often with Nicccum's review (and don't know the guy), but this is dumb. The J-W HAS someone local who writes interesting, discussion-creating reviews already on staff, but chooses to farm out to the wire or whatever syndication they have available. I'd understand if the reviews had been poorly written or incompetent (I've read him for years, back to The Pitch, and he's very readable). And I'd understand if the J-W didn't already have this in place and didn't want to exert effort to get that content from someone local.

But this change to something LESS local, from our local paper... I don't get it.

I think it's lazy when the sports page runs a Miami Herald editorial instead of someone from the J-W staff. And I find this just as lazy.

Posted by Jester (Nick Spacek) on August 11, 2006 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Much as I despise Butler's reviews in the Star, they usually made me go see movies I never would have seen otherwise... and since the Pitch canned their local reviewers years back, the JayDub and Star were the only papers still using local talent...

Posted by Luxor (anonymous) on August 13, 2006 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I blame Niccum for starting the trend of using ALL CAPS for EMPHASIS in the Journal-World. It's a journalistic abomination.

Posted by morgan (anonymous) on August 14, 2006 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have always enjoyed reading Jon Niccum's movie reviews. I can not believe that the Journal World is selling out by "piping in" other critics reviews. This is a local paper and one of the few things it had going for it was Jon's movie reviews. I hope they bring back his reviews, or at least have the guts to respond to why they are no longer in the paper.

Posted by smerdyakov (anonymous) on August 15, 2006 at 11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've often wondered why the LJW wasted its staff's time on reviewing national releases, whether books or movies, etc. A touring band that stops in Lawrence is more worthy of a local critic's review, if only for historical record, but the appeal of such reviews isn't exactly for the day-after reader...if you missed the show, is a review of something you didn't see really interesting at all? ...and if you already saw the show, do you really need someone else to tell you what to think about it?

Instead I'd like to see more reviews of local music releases, local artists' gallery openings, local theater, etc -- so much excellent art goes unnoticed by the LJW! And that's too bad with so few local media outlets to cover so much going on...

That said, I do think there's a place for Niccum's reviews. Who among readers in this town doesn't know where he's coming from and can base whether a borderline movie might be worth checking out or not? And though small his voice may be nationally, it is a shame to see yet another independent voice go by the wayside.

Whether Niccum's reviews were rightly pulled from the LJW pages, I think, depends on what more worthy coverage is sacrificed for them. If it's possible to cover more local artists AND have Niccum's stay, I'd bring them back ... otherwise, I'd say the LJW has made a decision that will potentially be in the best interest of our local art culture.

Posted by Eric_Melin (Eric Melin) on August 16, 2006 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Whether Niccum's reviews were rightly pulled from the LJW pages, I think, depends on what more worthy coverage is sacrificed for them."

That's an interesting point. Considering that Niccum wrote only one review a week and probably spent maybe 2 hours at most writing it, I can't see the LJW gaining much more local artist coverage than it already has. And since they're running wire reviews in their place, how has any room been created for such a thing? Now any local slant on these movies (they are running reviews on anyway) is completely missing!

Posted by lchronister (Levi Chronister) on August 16, 2006 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree completely with Eric's last post. I'm all about seeing more local content in the LJW, but if by just replacing a local writer with a national one you're not gaining any extra column inches for locally written content and taking away a local voice/angle about these movies, then I don't see the point.

Journal-World wrong to replace local critic Niccum's movie reviews

Comments

Post a comment