Why know a work before reviewing it?

For many people, reviewing an artist's work, or even talking about it, without being acquainted with it is standard practice. After all, far too many self-styled critics have reacted to a film or a book by that ultimate critique - demanding that it be banned - without having seen or read it. So, the case of an Australian TV reporter left 'mortified', after admitting to not listening to the new album by British singer Adele and yet being flown up to London to interview her for her latest work, may seem much Adele about nothing to many. But it seems the practice of commenting about something only after one familiarises oneself with it - and finding it wrong if that procedure isn't maintained - is not dead yet.

The reporter, Matt Doran, apparently overlooked the new album emailed to him before the interview, managing to listen to only one song from the album. As he insisted, it was an 'oversight', not a 'deliberate snub'. For many critics here used to asking actors in pre-release interviews what their diet was during the shoot, or what the hero's current relationship is with the heroine, any distinction made between 'oversight' and 'snub' may sound puzzling. For them, Oscar Wilde's tactic may serve best, 'I never read a book I must review; it prejudices you so.' Of course, that advice will be consumed minus the irony he slathered it with.