A qualitative study of the validity of daily newspaper criticism, this report was based on the examination of the work of two competing critics and one relatively neutral cultural journalist covering four plays performed during the Stratford, Ontario, Shakespearean Festival. After examining the theoretical and philosophical context in which criticism is produced, the report presents the critics' and journalist's reviews. The third section records interviews with the writers on such topics as the purpose of a critical piece and whether criticism can be right or wrong. Observations and hypotheses based on the writers' work and interviews include the following: (1) widespread confusion exists over the designs and intentions of newspaper theatre criticism, (2) critics are generally believed to devote more of their writing to evaluation than is the case, (3) a reader's perception of what the critic has written will be almost entirely overshadowed by the evaluative component, (4) critics underestimate the effect their writing has on individual professionals, and (5) critics' standards show little relationship to those of regular theatregoers. (MM)