Present Tense: During a four-year spell as this newspaper's TV reviewer, I would get an occasional, but forceful, sense of a subject's displeasure. I was once called a cretin on live radio, writes Shane Hegarty.
A passing remark about a particularly ubiquitous Northern Irish entertainer was followed by a letter accusing me of having an anti-Northern bias. I didn't, but I had developed an anti-ubiquitous Northern Irish entertainer bias.
I never had a pint poured over my head - as one colleague did. I was never physically assaulted or insulted on a comedy video, as were some of those critics surveyed by the Guardianthis week. That paper's art critic, Adrian Searle, described how he once received a "poo in a jiffy bag" through the post. Even more remarkably, he no longer remembers who sent it or why. I think it's safe to say that if I had been sent a poo in a jiffy bag, I'd be likely to remember every nauseous detail.
The Guardian's query was triggered by the news that the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal this week overturned a £25,000 judgment against the Irish News, whose restaurant reviewer, Caroline Workman, had criticised a pizzeria's staff, described the atmosphere as smoky and a chicken dish as "inedible". By the standards of some writers, it was, in truth, a mild enough review, even given the one-star outcome. Anyhow, the Lord Chief Justice ruled that the jury had been misdirected, and he opened the way for a retrial.
And with that, critics across that jurisdiction breathed a sigh of relief, mixed with a splatter of suppressed bile.
The Belfast case had caused a genuine ripple through journalism, but whether it led to critics tempering their prose is open to question. The Observer's Jay Rayner declared that it had made no difference at all, that he had always had to operate within the libel laws anyway. The London Times's Giles Coren, on the other hand, had earlier this year written an amusing article on how the back-and-forths with the lawyers were becoming ridiculous; that if he suggested that something tasted of "vole vomit", the lawyer would ask, "And have you ever tasted vole vomit?"
However, if the Irish Newsdecision had been upheld, it would have had a lasting impact and would probably have led to more such cases.
Until the original decision, critics appeared well protected by the law of fair comment. They had to be careful, of course, as they had always needed to be. The law requires that a critic's opinion be honestly held and that they do not generalise from one experience to attack a person's character. They cannot mask opinion as fact by, for instance, saying they were "served pigswill", when what they mean is that they were served "something that tasted like pigswill". And they must ensure they have their facts correct: it's not good to say that "this chicken dish must violate several chemical weapon treaties" if, in reality, one has been served turkey.
Otherwise, the law in both Britain and Ireland protects the critic's right to fair comment, and does so in a broad and forgiving fashion. This is why the original decision against the Irish Newsreview was so surprising, because the piece had appeared to fulfil all those necessary criteria.
For a glimpse at how blunted a critic's knife can become under such a claustrophobic defamation culture, we need only look to Australia, where three high-profile cases have made reviewing an increasingly hazardous profession. The most recent reversal came after a Sydney Morning Heraldreviewer said that the flavour of oysters soaked in limoncello "jangled like a car crash". The restaurant later closed, and the court agreed that the review had been an attack upon the business. Now, any particularly piquant prose jangles like a car crash and reviewers complain that they are legally bound to be humourless.
So, this week's decision restored natural justice to the issue. And not just for the reviewers, but for the readers. Critics - whether reviewing food, books, movies, music, theatre, or wider culture - are often stars in their publications. They fulfil the role of both jester and guru. And readers know that a negative review can deliver a particular thrill. You would think that there are only so many ways of saying a meal, movie or book is bad, but a great critic will take impressive twists to prove you wrong.
The trick for any writer and publication is to resist the temptation to regularly throw a victim to the lions for the sake of pleasing the crowd. But they still have the right to criticise. And if they didn't, newspapers would have all the bite of an aged chihuahua.
That being my honest opinion, of course.
Post your comments on the PresentTense blog on www.ireland.com/blogs/presenttense