Public Tuning Out TV Critics
Part 1 of 2
BY CHRISTOPHER GILDEMEISTER
TV critics have been a staple of journalism since television
became a prominent part of America’s cultural landscape. In that time, they
have come to consider themselves the “gate-keepers” of American popular
culture. TV critics’ reviews are greatly influential in determining which
programs receive awards like the Emmys. Their words influence which programs
viewers watch. Their articles and reviews give prominence and credibility to
the programs they like, and mock ones they do not. And when critics ignore
programs which do not meet their own standards of “artistic” achievement,
many viewers miss out on programs they might enjoy, simply because a critic
has chosen not to inform them about it. In all this, TV critics have
wielded a huge influence over the entertainment industry and the average
viewer at home. But this influence is increasingly diminishing, and may be
coming to an end.
A recent article
in Broadcasting & Cable magazine, the weekly “bible” of the
electronic media, laments that recently “the ranks of critics have grown
noticeably leaner…In the past two years, more than one-dozen longtime
critics at major-market dailies -- including the Dallas Morning News,
Seattle-Post Intelligencer, New York Newsday, New York
Daily News and Houston Chronicle -- have been either let go,
shunted to different beats or been forced to take the ubiquitous buyout.”
One reason for this change is simple economics. As
newspapers find it increasingly difficult to compete with “new media” like
the Internet, they are forced to divest themselves of assets – including
personnel. Another reason is the Internet itself. While some “hard news”
functions are arguably performed more efficiently by traditional outlets
like newspapers, in areas like film and television criticism the Internet
offers a far wider selection of options from a much broader variety of
viewpoints, while simultaneously making possible more specialized
commentary. For specialized interests, the Internet provides specifically
targeted criticism: a reader interested only in the horror films of Val
Lewton, Turkish adventure movies or Japanese animation produced from
1965-1970 can be assured that there are websites devoted exclusively to such
interests. And in an era when literally anyone with an Internet connection
has the capability to contribute their opinion to an existing bulletin board
or blog, or even begin their own, the utility of professional “critics” is
dubious…particularly when such critics’ sensibilities so often ill accord
with those of the viewing public they address and supposedly represent.
For while it was not mentioned in Broadcasting & Cable‘s
article, one other factor suggests itself as a reason for the rapid erosion
of TV critics’ prominence: the critics’ failure to reflect the sensibility
of most Americans who watch TV. When, time after time, viewers and parents
follow a critic’s advice and turn on a program, only to find it offensive
and repugnant, in very short order such viewers will stop listening…and the
critics’ influence, importance, and value to their employers will
correspondingly diminish.
This column
has previously discussed the
overwhelming demand for family-friendly TV programming safe for children.
Yet those who dare to suggest that television ought to feature more
family fare are subjected to endless calumny by TV’s supposed critics --
“supposed” because, while the word “critic” implies critical faculties,
these individuals rarely exhibit such, instead heaping praise on the most
extreme examples of graphic and gratuitous gore, sex and profanity. Yet
these critics, rather than responding to the obvious wishes and desires of
their readers, persist in celebrating only the most disturbing programs on
TV. And despite the fact that such critics work for outlets across the
country, they share a nearly identical mind-set…one which rarely agrees with
that of the viewers and readers in their local area.
“There is nothing more local than television. I suppose
three or four reviewers could handle the critiquing duties for the whole
country. But what that surrenders is localizing all of that national
[content],” says
Dave Walker, TV critic for the
New Orleans Times-Picayune and President of the
Television Critics Association,
in the B&C article. Yet the same critics who make this argument are
generally the first ones to rail against the notion of “community
standards,” which broadcast stations are supposed to take into account when
considering whether network programs are appropriate for audiences in their
local area. Enraptured by the very programs they are supposed to be
analyzing, most TV critics apparently believe that if a program is all the
rage in Manhattan, that it therefore must (or should) be one in Toledo, Salt
Lake City, Minneapolis and Mobile. They angrily condemn local stations
which opt not to air such shows, and condemn all who object to offensive
programming as “Puritans” out to trample “First Amendment rights” by
“censoring” programming which the critics (and often, only the critics)
enjoy.
Naturally, the critics themselves do not see things this
way. TV critics “alert readers to what’s fresh, smart, ground-breaking or
just plain strange enough to be engaging. And each critic brings a different
sensibility, lending the TV Zeitgeist a diversity of cultural perspectives
and social values, along with aesthetic appreciation,” claims Diane Werts, a
TV critic who writes for Newsday, TelevisionWithoutPity.com and
TVWorthWatching.com, in the
B&C article.
This statement is so ludicrous as to be laughable. Far from
representing “different sensibilities,” or demonstrating a “diversity of
cultural perspectives and social values,” the overwhelming majority of TV
critics consistently march in mental lockstep with the very entertainment
industry they are supposedly paid to critique. The values of the
entertainment industry are those of most TV critics, who rather than
informing the public about the threat posed to their children by today’s
entertainment, and advocating on behalf of their readers’ preferences,
instead willingly act as shills for Hollywood. “The relationship between the
nation’s TV critics and the networks whose product they critique has been
long symbiotic, if not always harmonious. But networks nevertheless rely on
critics to create awareness and remind viewers that a show is premiering,”
notes Broadcasting & Cable.
Most likely, this happens because critics enjoy considering
themselves superior to the supposedly ignorant masses. Look again at Diane
Werts’ assessment: according to Werts, TV critics know “what’s fresh, smart,
[and] ground-breaking.” Implicit in this is the assumption that the average
member of the public does not.
That such an assumption is ill-founded – and that
professional critics, in their negativity and desire for Hollywood’s
approval, poorly serve the average Americans who make up their audience –
will be demonstrated in the next TV Trends.
"Critics are academic types who want to prove how smart they
are…[and who] tend to be social misfits with extraordinary powers of
observation. Being misfits, they tend to bash sentimental movies because
[those movies] remind them of a loving, nurturing world to which they do not
belong." -- Tom O'Neil, movie columnist for theenvelope.com (Washington
Times, August 22, 2007)
