Or "Opinion Pieces Where Our Magical Mystery Sources May or May Not Be the Same as the Ones All the Others in our Menace Cliquedom Use". What's funny is who has x number of subscribers despite not being all that good (or downright worse compared to others on that list yet is above them, oddly), but there aren't many of them I'd want to mention anymore since a number of them just put out drek, too wound up in their Star Wars cause to forget all the blunders Star Wars I-VI had made. Or other things.. But as with all things, some of those "Fandom Menace" people sometimes say things that aren't untrue or not based in a silly obscure rumor that everyone seems to know about.
And like it or not, a new series may not be what we want from it but if it carries the franchises' values, what problem is there or how big is the problem (depends on what the "problem" is deemed as being)? DS9 was arguably contentious back in the day as well. As were VOY and ENT, though not always for the same reasons or even remotely similar ones. And it's a form of art and all art is subjective. Just like the youtube critic channels that put on their own shows.
Yes, except I might opine we're comparing apples and sparrows. CBSAA covers far, far, far, far more shows and with their own narrative style (they're not exactly TV or movie critics, they just make the stuff for all the Siskel & Ebert proteges to comment on, and some of their stuff contains commentary too).
And, yes, those "Fandom Menace" folks (like or dislike or anywhere in between) sometimes do appearingly seem to share the mystery sources or have plot holes in some of their narratives (rose-hued spectacles regarding a certain OT, ST, and PT series of films are definitely head-scratchin' material), and are occasionally right. Just like every other human or group of humans.
But, yeah, they're all the same - providing entertainment and entertainment is as varied as audience desires.
You forgot to mention Paul Joseph Watson and Jimmy Dore in that other allegory too.
