If critics cared about ethics...

... we'd heard about it in the news a while ago.

If critics knew about ethics (actual credentials) and meant to respect its values (moral standards) they would :

• NEVER lie, make stuff up to make a point
• NEVER be hypocritical, say something and do the opposite
• NEVER pretend to be someone else just to say what they really mean
• NEVER teach "ethics" the wrong way, with oversimplifications and misunderstandings
• NEVER abuse the institutional authority granted by the aura of a serious publication to spew misinformation and subjective half-truth
• NEVER plagiarize or corrupt journalistic content
• NEVER work for a corrupt employer with conflict of interest or unethical positions
• NEVER condone censorship of any kind (or limitation of the freedom of expression), either in film creation, in film circulation, in writing or publication, be it for partisans or detractors.
• NEVER approve and/or legitimize the publication of an incorrect/deceiving article, be it theirs or one they are aware of.
• NEVER fly half-way across the world to review a movie that premiered in their own town.
• NEVER try to disguise/forge/misrepresent an argument in order to conceal the truth and overinflate either a positive side or a negative side to win over a misinformed/brainwashed readership dishonestly.
• NEVER accept privileges (junkets) or retributions (bribe) that endanger the integrity of their independent scrutiny.
• NEVER owe journalistic favors (dictating the content/orientation of an article) to employers, sponsors, readers, peers, filmmakers or any member of the film industry.
• NEVER allow to go unchecked the apologia of xenophobia, violence, sexual abuse, criminality, death threats, death penalty or any unethical ideologies.
• NEVER give public/professional support to people guilty of unethical deeds/ideology (Jean-Luc Godard, Roman Polanski, Mel Gibson, Leni Riefenstahl, Mao, Staline, Dubya, pedophile priests...)
• NEVER accuse people who are still innocent until proven guilty by a legit court of justice.
• NEVER accept the sponsorship from alcoholic beverages which prohibit underaged audience/readers access to your film publications and/or film screenings.
• NEVER muddy film interpretation with political partisanship

But, of course, we don't ask movie reviewers to be philosophy savvy, much less ethics-wise. But in case they do claim such authority in the critical judgements of their articles, we expect them to refer to universally recognized philosophical concepts and framework, not to invent their own jargon indulging a dubious logic.

And yes, I know that the simple fact of working for a media corporation automatically makes you breach several of these rules...

Related:

• Ethics according to FIPRESCI