The internet and blogs offer wonderful opportunities. We can all unleash our secret desire to become critics. There is an awful lot of stuff out there written by amateurs: some of it awful, some of it outstanding.

So, how is it possible that someone who carries the title of "Entertainment Reporter, BBC News" can write something this shoddy?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7540819.stm

I don't intend to be mean. I like to think that I respect the critical viewpoint. Good critical writing really excites me, and although I have mixed with actors who use the word 'critic' as if they were swearing, often patronisingly stating that critics do not and cannot understand the plight of the hardworking thespian, I find this kind of thinking pretty narrow and intolerable. Critics represent an element of the audience; and if you're involved in a performing medium, you have to consider the audience's viewpoint even if you disagree with it.

But the article in question here is something else. It is simply appalling writing. It does more than simply pander to the cliche that David Tennant doing 'excitable' or 'nervous' looks just like that guy off the telly doing the same thing; it seems to make no kind of commitment whatsoever. Tennant's performance is lacking in "emotional intensity" and yet really cuts loose with "full dramatic force"; he makes it very clear from the offset who is "the star of the show" through his anonymous brooding, rather than the really big hint that he's playing, er, the title role in one of the greatest plays ever written. But I'm pussyfooting around here. There are two bits that I will be throwing around in my head for days, trying to make them make some kind of sense:

1. "In many of the scenes Tennant is barefoot, which adds to the intimacy of the play. "

Sorry? Run that by me again. The play is intimate because the lead character doesn't have any shoes on? So, what: it makes you feel like you've stumbled on him at home, or in the bathroom, thereby creating intimacy?

This, however, takes the cake:

2. "Tennant also uses his hair to great theatrical effect. From the sleek combed-back style of his first scene, he ruffles it to display despair, rage and madness. It deserves a credit of its very own."

His hair? Are you kidding?

I'm sorry. This sounds mean spirited. I just don't understand how one of the most well renowned and highly thought of broadcasting corporations in the world dares run this rubbish up the flagpole of their website. It genuinely sounds like an 11 year old has written it, trying to sound like a reporter.

I haven't seen the play. Most of my family are going next week. I will get the full report from my daughter who, incidentally, thinks that this review is as poorly written as I do.