WIRED Mag talks film journalism, small movie bloggers and the state on online reviews - not just movies, but books, products, etc. Interesting read.
https://t.co/IU1MddB35z
@Javi_Vhender @vulture A painfully stupid conspiracy theory. No cabal of critics taking bribes. If so then Vulture would have named - i dunno - maybe ONE critic or produced a single "bought" review (as an example or a smoking gun)? Didn't. Because he'd be sued for liable and lying #Bunker15
@The_Illuminerdi A painfully stupid conspiracy theory. No cabal of critics taking bribes. If so then Vulture would have named - i dunno - maybe ONE critic or produced a single "bought" review (as an example or a smoking gun)? Didn't. Because he'd be sued for liable and lying #Bunker15
@Proddigital_POP A painfully stupid conspiracy theory. No cabal of critics taking bribes. If so then Vulture would have named - i dunno - maybe ONE critic or produced a single "bought" review (as an example or a smoking gun)? Didn't. Because he'd be sued for liable and lying #Bunker15
@NestorCine@vulture A painfully stupid conspiracy theory. No cabal of critics taking bribes. If so then Vulture would have named - i dunno - maybe ONE critic or produced a single "bought" review (as an example or a smoking gun)? Didn't. Because he'd be sued for liable and lying #Bunker15
@OutofMyGeekMind @YouTube A painfully stupid conspiracy theory. No cabal of critics taking bribes. If so then Vulture would have named - i dunno - maybe ONE critic or produced a single "bought" review (as an example or a smoking gun)? Didn't. Because he'd be sued for liable and lying #Bunker15
@ovandoster A painfully stupid conspiracy theory. No cabal of critics taking bribes. If so then Vulture would have named - i dunno - maybe ONE critic or produced a single "bought" review (as an example or a smoking gun)? Didn't. Because he'd be sued for liable and lying #Bunker15
@CloudySkyEnter@YouTube A painfully stupid conspiracy theory. No cabal of critics taking bribes. If so then Vulture would have named - i dunno - maybe ONE critic or produced a single "bought" review (as an example or a smoking gun)? Didn't. Because he'd be sued for liable and lying #Bunker15
@GoldoClak@vulture@RottenTomatoes A painfully stupid conspiracy theory. No cabal of critics taking bribes. If there were then the Vulture article would have named - i dunno maybe ONE - critic or produced a single "bought" review (as an example or a smoking gun)? Didn't. Because he'd be sued for liable and lying
@ScreenHub@RottenTomatoes@SilviReports only shocking thing is that people bought this painfully stupid conspiracy theory. No #Bunker15 doesn't rig RT reviews. No one does. If Vulture idiot found grand scheme. He woulda named maybe ONE critic "in on it!" Didn't cuz he didn't wanna get his butt sued off for lying!
@Cinema7Arte Painfully obvious bogus click-bait conspiracy theory. Does this even warrant a response? If Vulture idiot found a grand scheme to rig RT reviews, he woulda name at least (idunno) ONE critic that was in on it? Didn't Cuz he didn't wanna get sued for liable. #Bunker15
@ayokasystems A mind-blowingly stupid conspiracy theory. No, please don't call #Bunker15 hoping to rig reviews. Doesn't happen. Not 5 years ago. Not now. If did, Vulture idiot author woulda name (maybe ONE) critic that was a part of it. Didn't cuz didn't wanna get sued for liable and lying.
@cinema_daily_us @vulture A shockingly stupid conspiracy theory. Incredible that it even warrants a response. No crime ring to rig RT reviews. If one existed, Vulture woulda named ONE critic that was a part of it. Didn't. Cuz they didn't want to get sued for liable because it was a lie to begin with.
@SilviReports@ScreenHub in a world of dumb conspiracy theories, it's incredible anyone got suckered by this one. Not #Bunker15 , not anyone, buys positive RT reviews. If author actually thought that, he would have, I dunno, PRODUCED a single review that was so-called "bought". didn't!cuz there was none.