Frankly, I understand why director Michael Bay wouldn't particularly like critics. If I made movies like "Transformers" and its sequel that raked in tons of money and received reviews like the delightfully entertaining drubbing administered by Joe Morgenstern in the Wall Street Journal, I'd do all I could to dismiss them as well.

Still, had to laugh at this quote attributed to Bay, perhaps not coincidentally, also in the Journal: "Critics have always torn me down. But I make movies for people, not critics."

OK, please say there's a missing adjective there: "Normal" people. Ordinary people (good movie, by the way). Regular people. Well-paid people. Perhaps even "people that actually have a life" or "People who aren't jaded and bitter." Having spent enough time around critics, I can certainly understand and even vouch for most of those characterizations.

But implying that critics aren't actually people? Hey, I saw "The Island" (and I'd like those two hours of my life back, by the way), and none of the critics I know look anything like the non-people in that.

The Los Angeles Times also tapped into the critics disconnected from audience theme, which makes the false assumption that because something is popular it must be brilliantly executed, while giving Bay additional opportunity to marvel at how "vicious" the reviews were. From what I read, though, most of the reviews were pretty clear that "Transformers" would be commercially successful and sought to review the movie in the context of what it was seeking to achieve -- nobody expected a toy-based summer popcorn pic to be "Masterpiece Theater" -- and still labeled it a big, noisy mess. The fact that some movies are review-proof is hardly news, any more than the fact that some movies and TV programs adored by critics hold little interest for a mass audience.

Bottom line, methinks somebody's been spending a little too much time hanging around the Autobots, until sorting out flattering people from critical people becomes something of a blur. Either that, or Bay might have just been a little lazy with his language. In that case, then one could truthfully say that there's less to his statement than meets the eye.

There are plenty of reasons why Rupert Murdoch's journalistic enterprises are viewed with a jaundiced eye, and the recent announcement that former Fox News Channel exec John Moody has taken an uber-position at News Corp. should raise additional red flags at rival studios.

That's because Murdoch has never been shy about using his far-flung assets -- foremost among them the New York Post -- to jab at competitors. And if that happens to destabilize other media conglomerates -- or have reporters yapping at their heels at inopportune times, like leading up to primetime's upfront sales period -- so much the better.

Because of this history, the timing and tone of reports in the Post are often suspect, even when there's a rational basis for them. The paper's most recent salvos against NBC Universal and Disney, helpfully for the purposes of this demonstration, appeared simultaneously. One report last week stated that CNBC is in a supposed panic over its anti-Obama image, while another the same day placed ABC Entertainment chief Stephen McPherson in the Post's gun sights, with anonymous sources (and one ad buyer) saying the ABC exec desperately needs to find a new hit because of this spring's poor performance with a crop of new series.

Page Six used "an insider" to report about a "top-secret" dinner in which top GE and NBC brass held a "powwow" to discuss "whether CNBC has become too conservative and is beating up on Obama too much." CNBC denied that was the point of the meeting, but this alleged cabal has already provided ripe fodder for Bill O'Reilly on Murdoch's Fox News Channel, who has been in a blind rage against NBC ever since Keith Olbermann began regularly mocking him on-air.

As for McPherson, there's no question that ABC has struggled of late, though I'm not clear as to how that distinguishes the Disney-owned network from any broadcaster except CBS and, to a far lesser degree, the CW. Even the Post conceded, "To be sure, McPherson's job isn't in jeopardy ... but his reputation as a talented script doctor and series shaper is indeed on the line." And as we all know, there's nothing more painful for a TV honcho than a tarnished rep as a "series shaper."

Again, these articles wouldn't particularly stand out until you consider the source -- which is why Moody's News Corp.-level gig bears watching. Obviously, there are cost-cutting advantages and synergies to be found in allowing "worldwide editorial properties to share content and resources across the entire company." With one person coordinating all that coverage, however, the question is whose ox will News Corp. gore? Already, a Post-Wall Street Journal-Fox News echo chamber exists, with the first paper's conservative tilt and the latter's editorial pages feeding and legitimizing items for use by FNC's right-wing talent.

Moody was famous (or notorious) for circulating "the memo" to Fox News staff, which directed them on how to approach that day's coverage. It will be interesting to see what kind of marching orders emerge from his new role, but don't be surprised if well-timed barbs at other studios just keep on coming.