Talking Point: How do online reviews compare with offline reviews?

By "offline reviews", I mean traditional press (i.e newspapers, magazines). By "online reviews", I mean internet-only content (i.e blogs, websites). There are businesses that straddle both camps, but we'll ignore those. The typical distinction is that people writing for published media tend to be professionals, whereas online writers are mostly amateur enthusiasts. There are those who straddle both camps, like newspaper columnists/critics who run a blog for their own personal reasons... but, for the purposes of this post, I'm going to make a clear distinction and compare the two.

Ultimately, which is best: offline or online reviews? Is it as simple as that? Are pro's inherently better than amateurs? "Pro" only means it's a fulltime job you're paid for, after all. It's not strictly indicative of quality and skill.

Do magazine reviews get to the nub of the matter like blogs? Will blogs always be seen as a place for hobbyists/amateurs?

I think every blogger would love to have their writing published in a magazine or newspaper with good circulation. At least I assume so. The beauty with magazines is you're always communicating with people who care enough to have spent money to read the content you help create. Online, you can certainly attract a "core audience" revisit your site/blog, and it's also more likely people with no awareness of you will find your writing and be persuaded to stay by the strength of content. Does that happen with magazines?

Some online reviews aren't subject to editorial process, either. It can be someone's undiluted (un-spellchecked!) work. There's no enforced proof-read, no word-count requirement, and no office politics. I'm not saying this happens, but you do sometimes have to wonder if certain film magazines ensure a sympathetic reviewer's assigned to cover, say, Transformers 2, if that film's advertising revenue is to the magazine's benefit.

So what do you think? Do you read more online reviews than offline? Is that because sites/blogs are easier to access and free? Is there genuinely more value with online reviews? Or does the professional sheen of a published review automatically carry more weight?