BTW, /where/ a particular critic is published or quoted is 'technically' only relevant (for verifiability) as far as the 'reputation' of the publication. Time and Womens Wear Daily are equally 'reputable sources', in the very sense I mean, as in that if either one publishes an interview with a major personality you can be pretty damn sure the person actually said the quotes. Writing "Bob said 'I love it!'" is a 'statement of a fact directly known to the author'. The interviewer saw and heard the interviewee say it, unless they are lying, the publisher let them get away with it, and the interviewee didn't scream bloody murder. Doubtful for either of those magazines.
The same critic's interview published on the fansite 'www.ilovebooks.com' fails that test (His published quotes are 'notable', but not 'verifiable'). In the little known 'Collection of My Interviews of Book Critics', written by 'Joe English Professor, Ph.D.' and published by Oxford University Press it definitely passes due to scholarly review.
OTOH, the interview quotes of an 'unnamed Palestinean' as part of an article in Time about the West Bank pass the verifiability test, though 'notability' of the quotes would depend on context. The same article in Womens Wear Daily does not, as they are much less likely to have fact checked it as thoroughly, which is needed for something such as that. It's much more plausible that the WWD author spent his entire 'in country' time sitting in the hotel bar writing a fake article and got away with it. Get it?
It's also unlikely, TBH, that Bloom would have said anything different if he was asked the exact same questions, in the same order, by the same person, in the exact same context except that the interview was for Time. Also, a formal 'review' by him would have said the same thing....just in better language.
As far as a book review by a professional, which is a 'direct statement of opinion by an expert', where the critic is published is a function of his 'reputation', not vice versa. Peeps write reviews for Time instead of The Podunk Daily because of their reputation, and the fact they are published in Time is just an indication of that.
Say that famous reviewer retires, and only writes occasional reviews for his hometown paper, The Podunk Daily, to 'keep his hand in'. They are just as usable, though it might be harder to verify that (you can assume a reviewer published in Time is a 'good' one, you have to check the other one out).