No sure who to blame - Panda Bear seems like an easy target but it could just as easily be baseball's steroids scandal, the presidential election or the WGA strike - but the Internet age is fostering too much distrust. 
Not that this is revelations, but I start to wonder about honesty, heroes and villains, deception and undeserved credibility. That extends from Internet gossip about rock stars to over-hyped records to Roger Clemens' denials about steroids. (Could Mike Wallace not bring himself  to ask why the Rocket threw a splintered bat at Mike Piazza - an act that now looks like a clear case of 'roid rage?)
And when the year-end lists emerged, and Idolator did a great job tracking and analyzing them, it seemed impossible to find a source to trust. Not that any of them are wrong-headed, but there seems to be no criterion, no gold standard for recorded music.
Critical top 10 in music, as opposed to film, means "top 10 records I received and listened to or realize that I should have." Panda Bear, who topped Pitchfork's list, made an album that contains a couple of genius tracks, "Bros" and "Comfy in Nautica," but the year's best? Not sure why.
The guitarist James Blackshaw, whose records I have purchased and enjoyed immensely, released an album in the middle of the year that I never heard about until it made Pitchfork's list. I seemingly was not alone: The New York Times just reviewed it.
It's a splintered world out there and I'm guessing it will only become more-so and as we in the so-called Big Media attempt to keep up with every major indie band and find time to analyze the Janet Jacksons of the world, too, it seems like its time to add more transparency to the critical process.