It’s not just a war on movie critics. It’s a war on TV critics, too, as outlined in this Broadcasting & Cable cover story about how newspapers are laying off their TV reviewers as quickly as they are their film critics. Both trends are strikingly similar. In both cases, newspapers, feeling the pinch of ad revenue lost to the Web, are cutting critic jobs to save money, figuring that syndicated and wire service reviews will suffice. Again, producers of specialty material (this time, instead of indie studios, it’s niche and cable outlets like HBO) worry that the absence of critics will hurt their shows, while the mainstream distributors (here, instead of the big studios, it’s the broadcast networks) are less worried about the disappearance of critics as a help or hindrance to their well-funded publicity campaigns. And again, the critics themselves complain that, with the loss of unique local voices accountable to the communities they serve, newspapers are tossing out what makes them distinctive — and what would keep people from turning elsewhere for their TV info.
Naturally, I agree with the critics on this one. A couple of points that make their case even more compelling than that of the vanishing movie critics: There’s an ever-expanding universe of TV programming choices, and more than ever, viewers need someone to help them sift through it all. Also, a lot of TV (unlike film) is local, particularly newscasts, and nationally syndicated critics won’t cover that. Finally, there’s a lot of programming even on the broadcast networks that’s dependent on public advocacy from established print critics (think of a show like Friday Night Lights, pictured).
One voice that’s missing from the B&C article is that of the reader, so I’ll ask you, PopWatchers: how much do you rely on your hometown paper’s TV critics for advice on what to watch? Would you miss them if they were gone? And which online sources do you trust for information about TV and reviews of shows?
Comments (1-30) of 35 Add your comment
I will weigh in on this, because well, i weigh in on everything to avoid work. I cancelled my local papers subscription four years ago, i haven’t read it since. why, because I can read EW online and The New York Times online. Yup, there’s a lot less need for critics in the smaller venues, because the bigger venues, of which EW.com is my favorite; are all available on line. It’s your responsibility to be better critics because you are the few we turn to, and trust. Appreciate the fact you have have been chosen over the masses, and let the masses of unemployed critics find other jobs.
I’m a little less dependent on TV critics than I am movie critics, but I still enjoy reading their opinions. It would definitely be ashame if we all got the same info from a wire service, which always feels so generic anyway.
When I’m home, I’m pretty dependent on my newspaper’s TV critics because we share the same opinions on most shows and because they always like to let us know when there’s going to be another character making fun of New Jersey, or someone from New Jersey, or basically anything about New Jersey at all. And it’s nice to know things like that. Especially since our state is so under-appreciated and always ridiculed, etc. etc. (that’s a comment for another day…). But yea, I rely on my newspaper’s TV critics on a day-to-day basis. If an episode of a show I like is going to suck, I won’t waste my time. Or if there’s a new show on that no one else has mentioned that could be good, I’ll watch it.
That’s how I got hooked on Veronica Mars half-way through the first season…
If I lived in NYC I would rely on my local paper – but out in the hinterlands you get a mixed bag….sometimes a cranky critic, sometimes ones who loves all things Disney….that is why I am an EW subscriber – I also like to read the New Yorker for their reviews too.
Unfortunately, I agree with Mozz. I turn to EW for my reviews because I can get it free online. I don’t have the money to have a daily or even weekly subscription to my local paper, so I don’t read it. When I was a teenager, I loved reading my local paper’s TV reviews, but my ‘rents were footing the bills for those papers (and the internet was still in its infancy).
I too never really read local TV critics, usually I just rely on things like EW. Though I can see where local flavor would be imporant in things like Friday Night Lights: Someone from Texas can say they got it right, that they got the Texas high school football, the city that rallies around them, etc. right. Though if EW hired someone from Texas it would still be covered. The only thing I can think of then would be local shows.
Aside from EW, AICN, and TWOP, I actually don’t read critics opinion’s. If something new is on that sounds interesting I’ll give it a shot and usually know within 20 minutes whether it’s worth my valuable time or not.
Alan Sepinwall of the NJ Star Ledger is our tv critic, and I rely heavily on his reviews. I trust his, Matt Seitz’s and Maureen Ryan’s blogs, as well as EW.
Without TV critic a lot of shows I wouldnt’ even be watching right now but I don’t read my hometown newspaper tv review. Once in a while I go online and read it but it’s not really a review. I have an EW subscription and that’s what I rely on.
My “local paper” is NY1 – and therefore my local tv reviewer is Dalton Ross. Yes, I trust him implicitly!
Jack Matthews and David Hinckley from the Daily News are my local critics, but Dalton Ross is also pretty much on the money. Sometimes I rely on telelvision critics and sometimes I would like to judge for myself.
Here in Chicago, we have good entertainment sections of the paper, and I read those along with EW and Newsweek. I also read CommonSenseMedia.org online for the scoop on kids’ programming — they give in-depth breakdowns on sex/violence/drug use/etc./ content so I can make good choices for my kids.
Tim Goodman at the SF Chronicle (SFGate online) is hands down the best TV critic I’ve read (and snarky to boot). Two columns per week of the best advice around, plus two blogs (with lively commenter discussion), all free.
In Denver, we had Dusty Saunders who wrote for the Rocky Mountain News for 50 plus years. His reviews of local & national tv had a great historical perspective to them. He accepted a buy-out last summer, so he “retired.” I miss his columns, even though I didn’t turn to him every day or even week.
I don’t usually read reviews, anywhere, for two major reasons: one, TV/movies are extremely subjective, and I prefer to make up my own mind; and two, most critics cannot seem to write a review without giving away major plot points, which just ticks me off. I can’t tell you how many times my enjoyment of a show has been lessened because of reading a review and knowing what’s coming. I go on “what I hear the critics have said” sometimes, but even so…if a show has been universally reviled I might skip it, unless something is really compelling (recent case in point – I just had to go see Tim Olyphant in Hitman!), and if a show has been universally praised I won’t watch it if something is unappealing (like I can’t bring myself to watch Friday Night Lights because it’s basically a soap opera). That being said, if I do get sucked into a review, it’s either from EW online or Kurt Loder.
I think every point made about why the case for TV critics is more compelling in fact demonstrates why it is an equal crisis for both film and television critics. There are more movies than ever, there are plenty of movies which are only released in one or two markets and could lose a lot of national attention and there are many movies which need an advocate in order to be seen and allow even more to get made. It is a sad time to lose both kinds of critics.
The TV critic for the Ann Arbor News has been syndicated for as long as I can remember. I’m reading my local newspaper less and less, and finding sites like EW.com, TV Gal, and Salon.com to be better sources for entertainment-related news (and television-related news specifically).
There is an upside to all this: as people read fewer and fewer newspapers, these critics have less influence. Yet, the blogosphere has grown immensely and television is often a topic that numerous blogs comment on. The broadcasters (many of whom are part of the same conglomerate that owns these shrinking papers) have no control of the influence of many, many voices.
I’m a movie and TV buff, but I don’t listen to critics. Most of the time they are so isolated from the normal audiances that they just don’t line up with what I like , and I’m a movie snob.
Like someone mentioned before me, I am fortunate enough to have Tim Goodman of the SF Chronicle as my local TV critic. He’s fantastic and has THE best taste. A must read. He can be found at sfgate.com. And no, I don’t work for the Chronicle (I wish!)
I did started watching some show because they were talked about everywhere *cough Heroes cough*, but that’s about it! Otherwise, I read critics now and then, but sometimes I want to see a movie or am addicted to a TV shows eventhough they’re bad. The point is I know they’re bad and I don’t care.
Though we at times disagree, I love reading the articles, blog and chats from the Saint Louis Post Dispatch’s Gail Pennington.
It’s really nice to know when a show has a local connection, or when the next time the Food Network is featuring a local restaurant.
I get all my TV info from TWoP, AV Club, and EW.com. In that order.
We still have local TV and movie reviews here in the Dallas with the Morning News. I read the movies, but not the television reviews. I take my movies seriously. And am much pickier. If I see ads for a TV series and theres a hot guy in the episode or gay character, I’ll watch it. Any bright shiny object.
I am fortunate to have Mo Ryan as my local critic. I read her avidly, and count on her for viewing tips, both local and nationally. I also read Tim Goodman, Alan Sepinwall, and of course, EW (both print and online). I think TV critics are vital, particularly at the beginning of the season (as such) to help separate the wheat from the chaff. I don’t want to waste my time watching garbage, and I find that I can rely on the general consensus without much difficulty.
As someone who has aspirations to be a TV or movie critic I feel these jobs are vitally important, not just to serve my own needs, but because if not for critics, the world would be filled with nothing but Pirates of the Carribean sequels and American Idol marathons and there would be no real need to make movies like No Country for Old Men and shows like Arrested Development that exist basically for the critic’s (and the occasional discerning viewer’s) pleasure.
This will sound harsh, but–the vast majority of critics are mediocre and no one cares what they have to say. The handful of truly valuable TV critics are worth fighting for, but the rest deserve their descent into obscurity. People will only pay for services they find valuable.
I don’t read my local TV critic’s column because she basically doesn’t have an opinion on anything.
That’s why I read critics from EW (specifically Gillian Flynn, she just seems cool), TV Guide’s Matt Roush (he’s like TV’s Roger Ebert), Time’s James Poniewozik, SF Chronicle’s Tim Goodman, and Salon’s Heather Havrilesky.
I can’t believe there is actually a person who confessed to aspiring to be a critic. You don’t aspire to be a critic. It’s what you’re left with after you fail as an artist.
And as to the topic at hand, you have to realize, Susman, that it is not that criticism is going way — it is simply being “democratized”, where the handful of paid voices that are set up as the arbiters of culture, have lost their power to one’s friends or correspondents in the so-called infosphere. Critics in this model are not part of the artistic endeavor as you seem to so romantically insist; in this sense, they are more like music labels, whose power and influence has been subverted if not overthrown by the explosion of easily published, easily available opinion. Granted, most people are not as “trained to appreciate” as professional appreciators; but that is not to me a bad thing.
I’m currently mad at our local TV critic. He said Futurama had no memorable characters. I don’t exactly think he should get fired for that idiocy, but these are tough times. Critics are certainly not crucial to the newspaper. I’d rather they get fired than any (good) reporters. We need to know what’s happening in our communities. But if I watch a bad TV movie b/c I wasn’t warned ahead of time, so be it.