That is one of the most bizarrely wong/wrongheaded things I've read on here in a while. Let's break it down:
"Frank Rich told the truth in the NYTimes commentary on The Tonys."
The piece was in NY Mag.
"If you tell the truth these days you are labled "mean-spirited," "a hater," "unnecessarily negative," "jealous," or other names to try to intimidate those you dare assert an honest assessment of a show, or situation, or talent."
Where did anyone do any of those things?
"Too bad, because discourse used to be a way for people to learn from exact and pointed and unabashed constructive criticism."
It isn't anymore? News to me.
"Frank has a laser eye for detecting a true lack of talent or inspiration."
OK
"This is show business where people pay hard-earned money..."
Exactly how much did you pay to watch the Tonys?
"...to be entertained, inspired, and uplifted, not to be pandared [sic] to, or condecended [sic]to by a mass of over-paid"
Exactly how much are they paid?
"and pampered CBS executives from on high, who, I would dare say, wouldn't know a true theatrical experience even if they pulled it out of their ass, along with their head."
Who are these execs you think micromanaged the Tonys. Oh, and how exactly are they pampered?
"I applaud him, especially about the hideous way the Memorium segment was done."
That's great. But it wasn't exactly a cutting edge revelation, now was it? In fact, do you want to count the number of times that very sentiment was expressed here and on other media since Sunday?
It happens I think Frank did a great job of nailing the show. I really only took exception to one thing-his criticism of Alan's short. Not that I enjoyed seeing his hideous legs, but it is obvious that Rich didn't get the rather clever jab at the Grammys since he seemed to react to them straight up.