Everyone’s a critic. Or at least that’s what they want you to believe. It’s hard to open Instagram or TikTok without being served a video of someone trying to shove an opinion down your throat.

Influencers especially love to chime in on everything from the latest blockbuster releases to Broadway performances. These voices have transformed the way we discover and discuss culture, becoming trusted tastemakers in their own right and even earning coveted spots on red carpets. But in an era where everyone has an opinion, how do we know who to trust?

It also doesn’t help that (if you haven’t heard) traditional journalism is struggling; the critics who helped shape generations of arts and cultural conversation are becoming increasingly rare. In the last year alone, legacy publications like The New York Times and the Washington Post have either restructured their arts and culture desks or cleaned house of their entertainment critics. It’s a sad reality that has given way to the rise in influencer hot takes while devaluing the role of the critic in the era of consumable content.

However, even in the face of adversity, some journalists remain steadfast in their devotion to their not-dead-yet art form. Thankfully, there’s a place where that passion is rewarded.

Tucked away in coastal Connecticut, the Eugene O’Neill Theater Center — branded the launchpad of American theater thanks to its namesake playwright — is home to the National Critics Institute. Led by highly respected theater critics Chris Jones and Naveen Kumar, NCI is a two-week (or, this year, 12-day) bootcamp — for critics.

The fully funded fellowship offers a fast-paced, immersive environment for arts writers at various stages of their careers to strengthen their critical writing skills. Selected from a competitive applicant pool, fellows attend nightly events ranging from dance performances to staged readings to films and are expected to file a coherent, articulate review with about a 10-hour turnaround time.

The 2026 cohort ranged from staff writers and editors (like me) to freelancers and even one recent graduate with national journalism awards already under their belt. We arrived with different backgrounds and varying degrees of expertise across theater, television, film, books, and music, but left with a shared understanding of the role of the critic. In daily morning feedback sessions evaluating our reviews from the previous night’s performance, Jones and Kumar emphasize a guiding principle for critics: Be in service of the art.

So what does that look like? Making every review a rave? Never writing a brutal takedown? Not exactly.

There’s a common misconception that critics are mean and bad because sometimes we dislike what we see. The word “critic” itself carries a negative connotation as a result. But the best critics write about those experiences in a constructive way. What was it about the new musical that didn’t click? What questions did the play’s plot gaps leave unanswered? Why was the ending of the film disconnected from its first three-quarters? It is our job to highlight those questions and offer solutions while remaining an advocate for the art we consume.

During the course, actor Caroline Aaron reminded us that the word “criticism” is derived from a Greek word meaning “able to discern.” That discernment isn’t simply about identifying what doesn’t work — it’s about recognizing what does, understanding why, and considering what a piece of art is trying to achieve. A critic’s ability to do that comes from expertise: from years spent immersing themselves in a particular art form and developing the knowledge to ask more meaningful questions. Some critics, myself included, even bring professional experience from within the industries they now cover. That perspective doesn’t mean every work deserves praise; doing so would be a disservice to artists and audiences alike. Instead, criticism should challenge, examine and ultimately ask how the art we love can continue to grow.

Even when we don’t praise a particular performance or an author’s latest novel, it doesn’t mean we don’t still love the art form itself. If we didn’t love it, we wouldn’t forgo familial obligations and evenings with friends to spend hours watching the stuff.

Critics have that special combination of discernment and expertise without external influence pressuring what we say and how we say it. It helps, too, that journalists are trusted because of our platform. But, unlike influencers, our platform isn’t our brand. That separation allows us to remain neutral and not write raves about everything we see. As one guest put it during a lecture: Being a cheerleader as a critic is a kiss of death.

That’s what keeps the stakes high at NCI. It provides a haven for fledgling critics to try and fail, to be unapologetic in their takes and stances, and to learn by doing. We spent hours shaping thoughtful assessments of the work in front of us, not simply explaining what we saw but trying to capture why it mattered — and how it made audiences feel.

On our final day, Aaron urged the cohort of critics not to let the craft die. It’s a message I’m determined to carry with me. So next time you’re debating which Broadway show to see, whether that new movie is worth spending three hours in the theater for, or even before diving into Netflix’s latest rom-com, check with a true critic — the ones offering an honest review while remaining in service of the art.