Scholar critic v. media critic

After an interesting conversation with a friend, I was stimulated to think about the differences between scholarly criticism and that type of commentary from the media. Borrowing from my conversational companion, is the role for those voices located in the media more to promote and market the artist's work, leaving the scholar-critic to inform and interpret?

In the large, Midwestern city in which I live, there is something of a tradition in the media of promoting art and being either kind with criticism or veering away from commentary and providing lightweight education if the subject matter is thorny or difficult and perhaps inspired but less than well executed. This type of criticism is often witty, but not necessariy terribly complex or deep; no 21 paragraph analyses of the artist's oeuvre here in the Heartland. Get 'em out to see the thing, then let the chatter commence.

A recent post in the Chicago Tribune by a reader states, "...I long for the days when critics (such as Frank Rich) could write reviews as well as any playwright could write a play, and create a criticism that was not bound up in what appears to be an insatiable need in today's reviewers to be celebrity critic whose words are quoted in newspaper ads and on the backs of published scripts." (12/5/07 - postscript to Jones' review of the NYC staging of Osage County)

I would tend to agree with this comment. Attending a large chunk of regional theater, I find opening night is cluttered with critics who are there as much to see and talk to each other as to drink in the staging and craft gorgeous commentary that enlightens us as to what we can expect or how we should think about the experience.

So I await and expect from scholars what I thirsted for from others.