TV Criticism

Since the Daily Mail recently decided not to replace their TV critic with a regular in the job, there has been a bit of debate about the value of TV reviewing.
Today in Mediaguardian, Mark Lawson questions whether or not we need to change the way we do things. Previously, Peter Preston in the Observer, questioned the need for critics, and Jeff Jarvis noted the move too.
Overall, the consensus seems to be that maybe the Mail’s onto something and with fewer “water-cooler moments” and mass audiences not being quite as big as they once were, we need to review how we review TV.
Mark Lawson noted today that in America, the full “review” of a programme actually appeared in print before the programme airs, as opposed to the shorter previews that we get – effectively not making editorial judgments either way until after we’ve had the opportunity to watch a show.
Well, yes, audiences aren’t what they were, and the growth of PVRs like Sky+ or downloading/streaming over the net is going to mean less linear watching of programmes and more self-scheduling. But that doesn’t mean that TV criticism shouldn’t be regular.
I can see the case for bringing forward reviews to before the programmes; there’s nothing more frustrating than reading about how great a programme was when you missed it. Inevitably I start scouring BBC3/4 or More 4 listings in the hope of a repeat. A recent case in point is “How Music Works with Howard Goodall.”
But dropping the regular reviews altogether is exactly the same as not reviewing all the major new films or theatre productions. And cinema and theatre has always been self-scheduled. I choose when to go and see a film – and it’s rarely on the very first day of release. Quite often it mightn’t be for a couple of weeks afterwards. Theatre’s even harder, with months or even years going by before you get to see a new production.
Frankly, if my newspaper(s) of choice were to drop their regular TV reviews, then I’d quite likely consider dropping them. For all the rubbish on television, there are still some fine programmes on most evenings, and a TV critic always has the option of reviewing a long running programme instead of whatever last night’s new one-off documentary was. Only Victor Lewis-Smith in the Standard seems to do this – and I don’t mean reviewing just the big episodes where someone gets killed or whatever.
What I’m more than happy for is the results of reality shows to be removed from TV review columns. Lawson again mentions that the news sections of papers tend to cover who’s been voted off X-Factor, I’m A Celebrity or Strictly Come Dancing, because TV columns have much earlier deadlines and can’t be printed in time. To be honest, this kind of “news” is the same as reporting Box Office top tens. That is to say, I’m sure that some people are interested, but it’s not really in the jurisdiction of the critic.
However, just because The Sun only uses its critic once a week is not reason for others to follow suit. Only last week, Media Guardian “questioned” whether certain personalities who are paid large sums to be big-name film reviewers actually watched the films they “reviewed”. Is that the kind of pattern the broadsheets should follow?
I don’t think so. As it is, I don’t think TV criticism is taken as seriously as film criticism, and there’s no earthly reason why it shouldn’t be. You’d be doing your readers a disservice if it was done any other way.


Posted

in

Tags: