That is why one writes, for example, “Industry insiders criticize that the
product might lack sophistication needed to satisfy fastidious consumers,” when
it is actually (only) the writer that has such a view. After all, most formal
reports do not allow the writer to say “I think this stuff is too tacky.”
If one (or I to be exact) pursue(s) effective communication,
however, the sentence “I think this stuff is too tacky” is much better. If the
reader knows the writer well, that provides a context for the statement.
For example, if the reader knows that the writer is a wine buff when
s/he says “I think this stuff is too tacky” about a certain wine served on
a First Class flight, that conveys interesting news that one might want to take
seriously.
On the other hand, if the reader only reads a sentence saying that
“Industry insiders criticize that the product might lack sophistication needed
to satisfy fastidious consumers,” the reader does not know who the industry
insiders are and may not be too convinced by that statement.
The Japanese language often omits the subject and makes a
statement even vaguer. That often happens in press reports ending with a
sentence saying that ～～という見方もある meaning “there is a view…” when
that view is most likely the reporter’s; otherwise, the reporter should have
quoted the interviewee who made that comment.
As such, the effort of trying to be objective is tricky. Sometimes, simplicity is the best approach.
