Let's cut to the chase.  Does anybody really seriously believe that Ben Lyons would be on this show if his dad, Jeffrey, wasn't a high profile critic with a lot of name recognition?  And his other biggest asset is that he sounds and looks like a boy bander moonlighting on "Dancing with the Stars." The producers of the show have obviously cast him as a foil to Ben, who comes across as more cultured. If that is all that is required of Lyons (to be a dweeby counterpoint to Ben that the kid demo can ID with) then he succeeds.

But I ask more from a critic, even if I don't happen to agree with them very often. I don't care how old they are.  I ask, "Are they intelligent and perceptive when they review a movie and are they effective, entertaining communicators? Do they occasionally give me an "ah ha?"

Cenk is setting up a false dichotomy here: egghead intellectual critics who talk about Bergman versus "joe the lunch pail critics" who speak to the tastes of the masses.  Some of my favorite critics (Pauline Kael, Janet Maslin, Ebert, Stephen Holden) have been my favorites because they have been perceptive on the level of "fine arts cinema" and are still very able able to recognize and recommend a good mass market potboiler if it works on it's own terms as an entertainment.

For me, Lyons comes across as an enthusiastic amateur who is not particularly insightful or entertaining, and who senses and resents the fact that a lot of people don't take him seriously, despite the fact he is on TV.  It's not that Lyons never says anything intelligent or that I never agree with his conclusions, it's that there are probably at least 1000 other critics who could do the job better that he does. He's been sent by central casting to play a role. He's not a top notch critic.  If the want a foil for Ben, they could do a lot better.