As a part of our mission to promote diversity within film criticism, disappointment media enforces a clear policy against the practice of selective gatekeeping that is so harmful to the industry.
Should a studio or publicist refuse to provide fair and equal access upon request to a film as has been provided to our peers, disappointment media shall provide no coverage for that title in any form at any point, even in cases in which unequal access is eventually provided. Should equal access be provided and a request be made that coverage should be held to a later date, that request shall be met.
For a single infraction, no action other than withholding coverage shall be taken against the studio or publicist, or other films represented by the offending party. Should said behavior be shown to be a habit, as defined by the site's staff, a one-month freeze on all coverage for said party may be instated.
The exceptions to this gatekeeping policy are if access is provided to no one (no advance screeners or screenings are available to anyone) or if access is ONLY provided to the trades (Variety, Indiewire, THR, and the like). Any other exclusions (guild requirements should those critics be permitted to review from the link, Rotten Tomatoes critics only, an “abundance of requests,” et cetera) are in fact gatekeeping and shall be deemed an infraction of this policy.
Studios should realize that the writers of disappointment media do not request screeners in an effort to watch a “free movie” or even to see the film early. Timely access is a portion of what it takes to do our job effectively. The relationship between publicist and critic is a mutually beneficial one, but gatekeeping causes it to become parasitic with the critic as the victim. This will not be tolerated by disappointment media.
Should a studio or publicist refuse to provide fair and equal access upon request to a film as has been provided to our peers, disappointment media shall provide no coverage for that title in any form at any point, even in cases in which unequal access is eventually provided. Should equal access be provided and a request be made that coverage should be held to a later date, that request shall be met.
For a single infraction, no action other than withholding coverage shall be taken against the studio or publicist, or other films represented by the offending party. Should said behavior be shown to be a habit, as defined by the site's staff, a one-month freeze on all coverage for said party may be instated.
The exceptions to this gatekeeping policy are if access is provided to no one (no advance screeners or screenings are available to anyone) or if access is ONLY provided to the trades (Variety, Indiewire, THR, and the like). Any other exclusions (guild requirements should those critics be permitted to review from the link, Rotten Tomatoes critics only, an “abundance of requests,” et cetera) are in fact gatekeeping and shall be deemed an infraction of this policy.
Studios should realize that the writers of disappointment media do not request screeners in an effort to watch a “free movie” or even to see the film early. Timely access is a portion of what it takes to do our job effectively. The relationship between publicist and critic is a mutually beneficial one, but gatekeeping causes it to become parasitic with the critic as the victim. This will not be tolerated by disappointment media.