Television critics need to change too
Michael Gay July 13th, 2007
Most people who work in TV start their day with the overnights and that morning’s newspaper to read the TV columnist who is ready to attack any errors you made the day before. It’s something we’ve all dealt with, and now All Your TV says it’s time the critics realize the world has changed.
But while the television industry has undergone a seismic shift in recent years, most of the members of the TCA [Television Critics Association] are still operating as if it’s 1987. They attend the twice-a-year gatherings, and use those panels as fodder for columns throughout the rest of the year. They complain about the hours they spend listening to presentations, joking that it’s all like some sort of “death march.”
This blog post seemed even more appropriate today after I read TVNewser’s story about Philadelphia Inquirer veteran VT columnist Gail Shister being moved off the TV beat and to the Metro desk.
What do you think? Are TV critics even needed at papers anymore?
17 Comments Add your own
1. barky | July 13th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
I’ve never heard of this guy (or his blog), but it was pretty damn funny.
Maybe it’s just because I work online, but I can’t remember the last time I even read a piece by the local TV critic here.
2. Brad | July 13th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Critics, I thought they were called Pundits now?
TV Critics in the Newspaper…it’s good to know that dinosaurs stay together.
3. 5w30 | July 13th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
TV folks NEED TV critics.
Especially in NY and LA, and somewhat in DC.
Because the execs and producers want some kind of professional, if sometimes resentful, feedback.
In smaller cities [and big ones], tv critics should function as critics of local broadcast media, you know, the people who steal newspaper stories on a daily basis and put them to video. Substantive criticism, not anchor a is having an affair with anchor b from competing station crap.
Maybe that’s tough … having to watch Action News 35 Live! vs. The Sopranos …
4. Anonymous | July 13th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
The Oregonian’s TV critic almost never covers Oregon TV, and is infamous for it. So the site Oregon Media Insiders does it for him. As for Shister, I wouldn’t be surprised if she took over TVNewser. Maybe TV blogs are the new TV column.
5. Frank Catalano | July 13th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
What — are you proposing that TV is above criticism?
Far from it. The only reason TV critics might no longer be necessary is that it’s hopeless. Reality TV. Entertainment masquerading as news programming. And the occasional rare gem of a series that gets buried and needs to be identified.
No critics are universally loved. But they serve a good purpose, if you find one you agree with: As to whether something is worth your time or, in the case of pay media, your money.
6. Michael Gay | July 13th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Frank - I wasn’t implying we don’t need critics. I’m asking if they’re needed at newspapers. I think #4 said it perfectly “Maybe TV blogs are the new TV column.”
Thanks everyone for the good replies on a Friday night!
7. Frank Catalano | July 13th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Michael: Valid point. The Web can be a better vehicle for critics. But even some TV critics get it and have their own blogs which can be even more lively than their columns and aren’t subject to space or frequency limitations (one of my favorities is Melanie McFarland at the Seattle PI; great TV Gal blog).
Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, I was a critic once (though I called myself a “reviewer,” since I thought “critic” was too imbued with self-importance). And I reviewed books and movies for newspapers and magazines, not TV. Still, the same principles apply: Give people an honest assessment if they should waste their time and/or money. And that role still will exist, no matter what the distribution medium, as you imply.
8. Eric Deggans | July 13th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Writing as a TV critic who is headed out to TCA on Sunday, i’ll admit i’m a biased source. But so, too, is the author of All Your TV, who admits at the end of his TCA critique that he was denied admission to the press tour, which might inpsire a little anti-TCA agita.
When i served on the TCA’s membership committee, i tried to open up our ranks a little. But the fact remains that if more than 200 or so critics are admitted to press tour the whole event becomes much more unwieldy for everyone. So giving membership to those who only write for web sites has been a slow process.
I think good TV critics tell great stories about television. they help people understand the medium and echo the sharpest thinking around. I don’t hear many people saying newspaper sportwriters should be eliminated just because blogs can tell you the score of a game seconds after it ended. So why would you eliminate a TV critic just because a blog can post reviews qiuicker?
Some TV crits around the country may be boring. But I dare you to read anything written by Tim Goodman in San Francisco, Alan Sepinwall in Newark, Melanie McFarland in Seattle, Glenn Garvin in Miami or Tom Shales in washington without enjoying it — at least, a little bit.
I’m not sure why All Your TV doesn’t realize it, but most major TV critics already have blogs now, including me. (It’s called The Feed)
We post stuff every day or more often — and sometimes our blog posts get as much attention as our newspaper work.
TCA-bashing is a sport many folks enjoy, and i don’t want to stop anybody from releasing a little tension. But the fact is, TCA allows a guy like me, writing 1,000 miles from New York and 5,000 miles from Los Angeles, to make personal connections with the most powerful people in the media business.
That’s probably why folks like Brian and Mr. All Your TV want access to TCA as well. And that’s what makes the event well worth the 16-hour workdays over three weeks. Hopefully, the stories I tell in the weeks and months to come will reflect that insight as well…
9. Eric Deggans | July 13th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Forgot to sign that last post:
Eric Deggans’
TV/Media Critic
St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times
10. Dan | July 13th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
How about this idea…
Watch the show and decide if YOU like it.
Radical I know. Why do we have to have someone
else tell us what we like? Your Priest, your Reverend,
your Wife, your Boyfriend, your friends?
Just watch or read or listen to stuff you think might be
interesting YOURSELF, for goodness sake.
If it’s great, talk it up. If it suck, tell people.
Oh, gee, nobody is paid? Sorry.
dr
11. Steve Boriss | July 14th, 2007 at 6:37 am
We may or may not need TV critics, but we will no doubt end-up with a whole lot fewer of them. There is no reason to have people in each metro area writing about the same shows when we could have a handful of the most talented do it for the whole country. This will be an example of a “productivity gain” our economy will get from the Internet (Steve Boriss, TheFutureOfNews.com)
12. Charles | July 14th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Guys, if it weren’t for comics, who would read the paper EVER?
I think that if you want to stay relevant and have things in the paper that people care about, you need some TV columnists. I think even if the mentality of newspapers change from being the primary news source to just a suppliment, people will still expect in-depth entertainment coverage.
You can also read the newspaper AND websites. It’s not a either-or.
13. Frank Catalano | July 14th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Let’s not forget that just having a few really good national TV columnists (in any medium) ignores the fact that there may still be a need for locally focused commentary about TV — much as the newsies may hate it.
If “hyperlocal” is indeed a trend (and I’m not fully convinced it is, since I’ve seen it rise and fail about three times in the past 15 years — but let’s assume it), why not hyperlocal TV columnists?
14. theTVaddict | July 15th, 2007 at 7:26 am
TV Critics and Bloggers can (and should) co-exist as they both serve an important purpose. Helping publicize television — a medium that let’s face it, needs all the help it can get.
Bloggers and critics not only inform viewers of the positives and negatives with regards to a particular show (ie. stay away from ACCORDING TO JIM — not funny). They help publicize small shows that viewers may not know about. (Ie. This week, AMC premieres MAD MEN — a show that quite frankly looks fantastic and deserves to find an audience)
While I have the utmost respect for numerous critics across the country (Tim Goodman, Alan Sepinwall, Maureen Ryan to name a few) the TCA and networks in general have to start realizing that sites like mine and many others are starting to gain as many readers as the so-called ‘mainstream media.’
Next summer, I expect to be at the TCA Press tour and will be very disappointed if the TCA executive doesn’t take my admission seriously. Love it or loathe it, bloggers are here to stay.
Daniel
15. Dan Gideon | July 16th, 2007 at 9:37 am
OK, Eric Deggans, I’ll say it: There is really no need for sports columnists anymore.
If newspapers think they are doing their readers a service by sending a beat reporter into the locker room to get the new “110 percent” quote, fine. Occasionally, they will actually break a story.
But most of what a newspaper writes about sports could be solved if the teams showed raw press conferences and bloggers wrote about them. That’s all I need.
16. Stewieo | October 7th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Pushing Up Daisies:
Looks like it could be good.
“Bitch” used twice by the only black cast member to refer to women. The word was jarring and inappropriate for the atmosphere of the show. The was it was used also seemed sexist and racist to me.
17. Stewieo | October 7th, 2007 at 11:07 am
The “way” it was used that is.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed