While in general I agree that civility, respect, and an informed outlook should be prerequisites in any piece of criticism (there are instances when a certain level of vitriol is appropriate), tempering one’s criticism (I include praise as something that occurs within a piece of criticism) based on considerations of the time or effort spent in creating the work is irrelevant. If it takes me days to craft a mediocre quatrain, while someone else knocks out a beautiful, inspired, timeless sonnet in half an hour, I deserve no sympathy or credit for my mediocre effort because I labored so arduously over it, nor should the writer of a great work be penalized because it came to fruition in one shot. These are the breaks of any creative endeavor and should form no part of our assessment of it.
Regarding remuneration, that, too, I believe, should have no part in our judgement of the merits of the work. I’m excluding outright advertising or salesmanship masquerading as genuine criticism, though that, too, is subject to literary and informative standards. No one is forced to write or video hifi or any other reviews. Whether they do it for love or money or both, it has no bearing on the reader’s or viewer’s assessment of the quality of the work. Any creative endeavor once released to the public has to stand on its own merits, completely separate from any of the factors that brought it into being.
Finally, any work, once published, is beyond the reach and defenses of its creator. If I write a book, compose a piece of music, paint a painting, make a video review of hifi gear, whatever the public has to say about my work is its prerogative. If I don’t like it, then I must lump it. Coming to my work’s defense is at best poor form, and often, when the defense includes snide comments about the critics of my work, especially if my injured feelings cause me to misrepresent that criticism, peevish and small-minded. If I write something and people don’t understand it, it’s very likely I haven’t been clear. If I make a video with technical problems, the fault is mine, not the viewers’, who are under no obligation to grant me latitude for logistical issues that may have contributed to my video’s shortcomings. If I think I’ve been clear in my writing and the reader is simply too dense to grasp what I’m saying, or my video is technically sound and the viewer’s criticism is unwarranted, nothing is gained by rushing to its defense. As much as it galls to be misunderstood or unjustly condemned, as authors there is nothing for it but to sit still and take it and hope for a better reception next time. And if the percentage of people objecting to some aspect of my work is small, then what am I complaining about anyway? All my protesting does is make me look petty.
Creating anything and serving it up to the public is a risk, and, like it or not, once it’s out for public consumption, it belongs to the consumer, not us. If our work, and we, can’t withstand criticism, we should do something in which outside assessment has no place. No reader, listener, or viewer owes us a favorable judgement of our work, regardless of how hard we worked on it, how sincere our intentions, or commercial-free our motives. Should we make an effort to be civil and well-informed when offering our criticism? In general, yes. But, when a work is great, it will be praised; when a work is laughable, it will be laughed at; and sometimes the public, for any number of reasons, just gets it wrong. These are hard truths all artists - and critics, as writers or videographers, are artists of a sort - come to terms with. Come hell or high water, the work must stand on its own.