Listen to this interview with Kate Copstick from the Humour Me Comedy Show which is a British production. Copstick is described as “one of the most respected, revered and feared comedy critics in the industry.”

We’ll let that sink in.

She’s respected, revered and feared. In the course of the interview, Copstick downplays the fear factor, even dismisses it. But a comedy blog saw fit to unironically describe her as “most feared.”

It’s a lengthy interview, so it’s way too long for us to “Fisk” it. But it sends many chills down the spine.

As much as Copstick might protest that she approaches standup in an analytical or intellectual manner, if you listen closely, she seems to be informed by emotion. (The fact that she analogizes her use of the “star-system” of reviewing standup comics to a system of reviewing potential mates is very telling.)

Copstick slags that very star system. She claims to hold it contempt, but, the more she talks about it, we eventually find that it isn’t so much the star system that she dislikes but its use by others. She seems particularly annoyed that people she deems too inexperienced to have/impart an opinion about standup are allowed to do so. She condescendingly refers to a four- or five-star review from a hypothetical website–“IDon’tKnowMuchAboutComedyButIKnowWhatILike.com” she calls it. She basically goes on to say that such opinions are worthless (compared to hers) and that it’s a disservice to the public and to standup that they exist. Essentially, though, she’s revealing herself to be elitist. The message is: Who do these people think they are? Her opinions shouldn’t be forced to compete with upstart websites.

We suppose such an opinion is to be expected from someone in the legacy media. Not all the folks in the media are so disdainful of the folks in the electronic media. But a surprising number are.

She admits to being a failed comedian. Red flags go up immediately. Copstick spins this as a positive thing. Being a bad comic, she says, makes her better able to spot a bad comic. She likens it to being an alcoholic. We paraphrase, but Copstick essentially says, “An alcoholic can always spot another alcoholic.” In our experience, we’ve known too many alcoholics who think that everybody is an alcoholic. Glass of wine with dinner? Definitely someone with a problem, goes the logic. Not exactly comforting to hear a comedy critic employ such twisted reasoning.

She also seems to imply that she’s a failed journalist as well. At the very least, she implies that she’s slumming it, that her current dalliance with standup comedy criticism is not “proper.” (And by “proper,” she means legitimate. And, by extension, we get the feeling that she feels that standup may not exactly be legitimate. At least not the vast majority of it.)

These are not the kinds of things we’re comfortable hearing from someone who is allegedly respected, revered and, worst of all, feared.

As with Jason Zinoman, we are uncomfortable with the assumptions and prejudices that Copstick brings to the table.

Copstick writes for the Scotsman. She reviews comedians who perform across the pond. So the amount of “damage” she could do to the comedy scene over here is minimal.

Why anyone would want an American version is beyond us.