Some critics get enthusiastic over big Hollywood blockbusters. Others go for artsy, independent features. Readers can take the prejudices of each type into account. Ebert doesn't fit into either category. He might say that he can appreciate both sorts of film. It looks to me more like he's scared of looking bad to both groups, afraid of alienating the aesthetes and of losing his access with the big Hollywood crowd. Many's the time we've seen "Two Thumbs" up from Roger and his spineless clone on a video and rented some worthless, big box office trash. Ebert's too afraid to go out on a limb and call garbage garbage, so long as it's popular garbage.
Speaking of his spineless clone, Richard Roeper, who has the personality of a butt-plug, IMHO, it just occurred to me that Siskel's demise may have something to do with Ebert's noticeably higher profile in the political arena. Siskel, a real mensch, was the senior partner in that relationship. Maybe he specifically forbade Ebert from opening his pie-hole about politics, and now that he's gone Ebert is free to spew his nonsense to his heart's content.
Chalk that up as one more reason I wish Siskel was still with us.