I'm not sure I understand. And this may just boil down to a personal preference (in other words I'm not trying to say I'm right and you're wrong). If I want to know what the movie is about, i.e. 'just the facts ma'am', I can get that in the trailer, I can read spoilers online, I can look for a script somewhere... But there are a ton of movies out there with a good idea, and with good actors, and good effects, that are garbage. I don't want the facts. I want to know if the movie moved you, or surprised you, or made you think, or made you laugh. I want objectivity when I listen to the news (which as e said is impossible, but should be strove for). But when I'm looking for your opinion, I want to know just that. Your opinion.
Going back to the original statement, should the target audience be kept in mind. I'm not sure how a critic can do that. Does he say that white males will like it, unless they're Christian, and then they will be offended, except for the Lutherans, who will find it quite humorous, unless you're a gay, white, Lutheran, in which case you will likely cry...
It doesn't take much for me to get to know a critic. I don't listen to Doug Wright on a local station here in Utah because we just don't have the same opinions and ideas. Ebert is even hit and miss for me.
I'll say it again, I really like how Roeper does it. He tells you a) if he liked it, and b) why he liked it. He doesn't try to guess if you're going to like it.
Ebert and Roeper just reviewed a movie they both liked, but found 'disturbing'. It's about a teen who lures in, kidnaps, and I believe tortures a suspected pedophile. They both gave it a thumbs up, but based on their review, I figure I'm going to pass on it. In my mind they have done their job.