Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz leads off today's column with a lengthy discussion of whether professional “critics” have become irrelevant “dinosaurs” due to the “explosion of online opinions” -- in other words, whether professional critics have been eclipsed by, or at least made redundant, by the proliferation of amateurs.

Kurtz's assessment focused on critics who assess “cinema, theater, television, books, music, art, restaurants and the like” -- conspicuously omitting “media.” But let's come back to that in a second. Kurtz writes that he enjoys the work of amateur critics, but also relies upon professionals who have developed expertise over a long period of time, and concludes:

The litmus test, then, is whether the journalist or the critic, by virtue of his expertise or connections or digging or sheer writing skill, adds significant value -- that is, value beyond what a reasonably intelligent political junkie or foodie could produce in his spare time. Those who can will survive; the rest may be swept out by the online tide.

And that's where the elephant in the room can no longer be ignored. Howard Kurtz is a critic. He's the nation's most famous and most influential media critic, in fact. And the “value” he produces is highly questionable, unless you consider endless tittering (and Twittering) about sex scandals to be of “significant value.”

Kurtz, for example, apparently praises his employer's coverage without reading it. Does that add “significant value” beyond what a “reasonably intelligent political junkie ... could produce in his spare time”? And he ignores evidence that his Washington Post bosses may have lied about an embarrassing scandal. And Kurtz politely looks the other way while CNN -- his other employer -- endorses the hyping of Birther conspiracy theories. How about that -- is that value beyond what a reasonably intelligent person could produce in his spare time? Or his repeated inability to understand basic media criticisms?

How about this? Or this? Or even this? Are any of those indicative of a critic who “adds significant value”? Of course not. And that's what makes Kurtz's column today so awkward: Howard Kurtz writing that professional critics who fail to add “significant value” risk being “swept out by the online tide” is like Sarah Palin announcing that dishonest politicians who quit halfway through their jobs won't be taken seriously.