Reaction: On TV Critics, Fandom, and Subjectivity

These articles from Slate highlight the unique plight of the weekly television critic. Most other forms of media reviews do not have to deal with the segmented and broken up delivery of content that comes with TV. One quote that speaks to this comes from Noel Murray, who said reviewing a TV show episode by episode akin to, "Reviewing a book chapter by chapter, or reviewing a movie every 15 minutes." This is especially the case with serial television that tells one story over the span of multiple season, but somewhat less applicable to procedural dramas that adhere to a fairly staid format.

So, is it right to watch TV under a microscope, explicating things like symbolism and editing on a weekly basis, even though the show in question should probably be viewed as the aggregate of its episodes rather than any one in particular? Perhaps, and perhaps not. There may be no immediate answer to the legitimacy of this type of review, but it is a good idea to keep it in mind while reading various reviews. Furthermore, the notion of the reviewer as a fan of the show in question brings into question how objective he or she can actually be about the show, and if such objectivity is even to be reasonably expected of TV reviews.

In one of the articles above, there is a hyperlink to a tweet from Alan Sepinwall wherein he says he pre-reviewed one night's shows thanks to advance screening copies he acquired. This makes me wonder if his impression of the episodes he watched differed from the viewing experiences of those who watched them with commercial breaks as they were broadcast live. Is one better than the other?

Another link that piqued my attention was Sepinwall's review of an episode of NBC's Community in which he had a cameo appearance. I followed the link from the Slate article because I'm a fan of Community, but the article turned out to be an interesting one about Sepinwall's appearance in the show. He pointed out that, while there were certainly reasons for him to decline the invitation to be on the show, he did it anyway and had a great time in the process. The fact that a regular critic of the show appeared on it seems a bit suspect, but I really don't take issue with it. After all, a piece written by someone passionate about the reviewed content often reads much better than one written by an entirely objective journalist.