So here's a great recent example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/arts/28auto.html
This is the review which I am told appeared as "the front page story on The New York Times' Arts section". Worthless, from start to end, with such insightful comments as:
It is by far the best game of the series, which made its debut in 1997 and has since sold more than 70 million copies.
(Though of course he doesn't bother actually explaining to us why it is "by far the best in the series".)
And such informative comments as:
Grand Theft Auto IV will retail for $60.
Which is the equivalent of a movie reviewer telling us that the ticket will be priced at $8-$10, depending on the theater.
About the only comment in the entire review that attempts to deliver some kind of criticism is this:
It all adds up to a new level of depth for an interactive entertainment experience.
... though it must be noted that at no point does he attempt to explain why this "new level" is newer than the level of, say, San Andreas or Crackdown. And the reason for that is that he simply doesn't know, and even if he did know there would be no point in telling his readers because they wouldn't know, and would be too dumb to understand.
The New York Times, ladies and gentlemen. Criticism at its best!
