New Poll–Biggest Disappointment Of The 2011-12 Season

What constitutes a disappointment when it comes to a TV series? It varies I suppose. Sometimes it’s as simple as a show being cancelled. Sometimes it’s that a series isn’t cancelled and maybe should have been…at least in your opinion. Sometimes it’s that the show isn’t as good as you thought it would be, and sometimes it’s that the show is good but somehow does something that rubs you the wrong way. Mostly though a show disappoints when it or its fate doesn’t live up to expectations. No one – except maybe the people responsible for it – would call the fate of How To Be A Gentleman a disappointment because no one thought it was going to do anything except get cancelled quickly. Thus there was no disappointment when it died a quick (and well-deserved) death.

So what I’m doing with this poll is to present a list of ten series that were somehow regarded as disappointments. Some of these shows came from the outrage of fans, as expressed on forums and comments pages for news stories. Some of them come from critics. And a few of them come from me. As always, feel free to justify your votes by offering comments here.

---

GCB
Why is it disappointing? It didn’t live up to the hype I suppose. GCB was basically being sold as the logical successor to Desperate Housewives. It was scheduled to follow Desperate Housewives presumably to build and transfer “brand loyalty” from the older series. I remember when Pan Am was facing collapsing ratings my ratings guru, Marc Berman, kept emphasising that GCB was going to replace Pan Am at the mid-season mark and would undoubtedly perform significantly better than Pan Am. In fact GCB was only marginally better than Pan Am in overall viewers (about 480,000 more viewers) and the share and ratings in the 18-49 demographic (Pan Am 2.4 rating 6 share; GCB 2.6 rating 7 share). So GCB can be labelled a disappointment because it was a show that people expected a lot of and which didn’t deliver.

Work It
Why is it disappointing? Because ABC bought it. Pretty much everyone could tell that How To Be A Gentleman was going to die quickly based on the clips and trailers that aired before the season started so it wasn’t a disappointment that it failed. In fact it would probably have been a disappointment if it had survived. Work It has to be regarded as a different case. Everyone could see that this show was going to die quickly based on the description. The show, about a couple of guys who dress up as women to get jobs as pharmaceutical reps, was part of ABC’s group of shows that were attempting to look at the “plight” of the American male in a world where(supposedly) women have the upper hand. That part of the premise was in itself somewhat offensive but the approach they took to it was even worse. They had the men dress as women which opened a whole can of worms with the transgender community who felt the series trivialized the barriers facing them. But that wasn’t even the key element in why the show failed. It lacked the charm that a show like Bosom Buddies had, and by the very nature of the main conceit – that women have it better than men in the current job market – trivialized a lot of issues. The disappointment here wasn’t that it ran just two episodes, but that given the network’s lead time and the failures they had with their other comedies in the “plight of the American male” genre a major American network actually put this steaming pile of you-know-what on the air at all.

NYC 22
Why is it disappointing? When you look at the people associated with this project I don’t think that anyone could have been blamed for expecting more and better. The show had Robert DeNiro, Jane Rosenthal and Robert Price as Executive producers. Price, whose long list of writing credits includes the The Wire, for which he won one Writers Guild Award and was nominated for another. With the talent attached to this project it would not seem unreasonable to expect something edgy and pushing the boundaries. What we got was a pedestrian and well worn show about rookie cops. Even that doesn’t have to be bad – you need only look at the parts of the first three seasons of Southland that dealt with Ben Sherman’s (Benjamin MacKenzie) time as a rookie to see what can be pulled form this sort of material. But they didn’t go that route. The result was that CBS had a show that was more like ABC’s summer series Rookie Blue but set in New York instead of “nameless city that is Toronto without actually saying its Toronto.” It should have been better.

Unforgettable
Why is it disappointing? It was cancelled. Judged purely by the storyline of the series that wouldn’t seem to be a huge loss. The show appears to  be a fairly run of the mill procedural, with the hook being that the lead character is a woman has hyperthymesia, a mental condition that will not let her forget anything that she consciously saw. Not only does this help her as a detective, it makes her hard to beat at Poker and Blackjack. In fact the only thing she can’t remember clearly is what happened on the day her sister was murdered. So as I say, it looks like a fairly run of the mill procedural. What really sets it apart is that it finished 24th in the ratings for the 2011-12 season and averaged 12.11 million viewers. Admittedly it did not perform as well in the 18-49 demographic, averaging a 2.5 rating and a 7 share finishing in 70th place in that area, but even so it outperformed CBS’s entire Friday night line-up in the demographic. The simple fact seems to be that Unforgettable was cancelled because it was on CBS. The network has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to programming. This actually becomes a problem because it keeps new shows from getting a chance to develop. Other networks would kill to have a problem like this; NBC would round up virgins to sacrifice to have a scripted show that did these sorts of ratings even with that rating in the demographic. There’s been some talk that the series might be picked up by a cable outlet in the US – both TNT and Lifetime are said to be interested – but it is a disappointment that it was cancelled in the first place when other, less worthy shows stay on broadcast TV.

2 Broke Girls
Why is it disappointing? I really enjoyed the first season of the show, particularly the relationship between Max (Kat Dennings) and Caroline (Beth Behrs). I liked that Caroline was portrayed less as a Paris Hilton style millionaire bubblehead and more as an Ivanka Trump type…with maybe a just a touch of Paris (Ivanka would know how to marry the ketchup). I was particularly impressed with Behrs whose biggest role up to this time was as a caroler in an episode of NCIS. However critics have been disappointed with the show because of the three – now four – main supporting characters, Earl (Garrett Morris), Han (Matthew Moy), Oleg (Jonathon Kite) and the most recent addition Sophie (Jennifer Coolidge). While the characters of Caroline and Max are well drawn, the supporting characters are regarded as stereotypes. Emily Nussbaum of The New Yorker wrote that the way the supporting characters are written is “so racist it is less offensive than baffling.” Another critic said that the show relies on “racial humor [that] consists entirely of having a stereotype show up, portraying it in the most obnoxious way possible, then having everybody make fun of it.” The portrayal that has been found particularly offensive by some is Han Lee, the manager of the diner. Andrew Ti in Grantland as “it's distressingly easy to imagine the writers sitting around and listing off every single ching-chong stereotype, ultimately deciding with some sorrow that a Fu Manchu mustache would be impractical for budget reasons.” And that doesn’t even mention the New Zealand critic who gave up on the show because of “those two rape jokes in the first three episodes.”

Ringer
Why is it disappointing? This series was supposed to be the triumphal return of Sarah Michelle Gellar to television, and on the successor to the network where she earned her primetime fame, The pilot for show was originally made for CBS but when that network passed on it they moved it to The CW (of which it is part owner). The show had an intriguing premise: Bridget, a stripper and recovering drug addict on the run from the mob assumes the identity of Siobhan, her wealthy married twin sister who has apparently committed suicide, only to discover that Siobhan had secrets of her own. The show received a lot of press and Internet buzz during the summer and reviews for the pilot were generally good, although with a few dissenters. The pilot received the highest ratings that a Tuesday night show on The CW has ever gotten. This didn’t translate into ongoing success as ratings dropped significantly, and the critics who initially loved the show came to dislike it, finding it convoluted and silly. Worst of all it didn’t seem to fit the  network. So in the end the disappointment here is that The CW didn’t take the momentum and anticipation that built up during the summer and translate it into a long term success, and that they didn’t produce a series that was worthy of the quality of people that starred in it. Or maybe it is just that he network was incapable of breaking the mould of the sort of shows that people expect from The CW.

The Secret Circle
Why is it disappointing? This show was cancelled, and as with Unforgettable it is a little perplexing. Maybe more perplexing than Unforgettable when you come right down to it. The Secret Circle was the third highest rated series on its network. Now admittedly the network was The CW which has rating that can most flatteringly described as anemic, but according to the traditional season ratings compiled by Nielsen it had a larger audience than several other shows on the network including Gossip Girl, 90210, Hart Of Dixie, and Supernatural, all of which were renewed for at least thirteen episodes. In fact the only shows on The CW that had higher average ratings than The Secret Circle were the show that preceded it on Thursday night, The Vampire Diaries (from the same producers as The Secret Circle and a book series from the same author) and cycle 17 of America’s Next Top Model – cycle 18 of that show had an average viewership that was less than The Secret Circle.

Missing
Why is it disappointing? For a long time I had The Finder in this spot. That was justified because a lot of people, including at least one critic who I think a lot of, said that on seeing FOX’s new line-up they increasingly thought that the network should have kept The Finder as a nice compliment to Bones. They tended to think that FOX mishandled The Finder for most of its run. As much as I enjoyed The Finder though I just can’t muster up that much disappointment that it was cancelled. As I said, I liked the show and its incredibly quirky nature. The problem is that I fully expected that it would be cancelled. Besides, I was far more disappointed about another show that was cancelled, and that is Missing. Missing starred Ashley Judd as Becca Winstone, a woman who was a CIA agent and whose son was kidnapped. The show had Judd’s character kicking ass throughout Europe. Locations for the show included Italy, Croatia, France, the Czech Republic, Austria and Turkey. All the while she is trying to unravel the conspiracy that took her son and remembering things that she did while she was a CIA agent, much of which she is not proud of. The cast included Keith Carradine, Cliff Curtis, Adriano Giannini, and Nick Eversam. Best of all it has the distinction of starting by killing Sean Bean and ending with him alive and well – the reverse of most of Sean Bean’s roles. And while it had an end that went full circle and delivered an satisfying resolution to the disappearance of Becca’s son the final minutes set things up so there could have been a second season. I was disappointed that it was cancelled.

Terra Nova
Why is it disappointing? This show had so much potential, but it was potential that was never realised. The idea of a dystopian future society attempting to save itself by colonizing the prehistoric age of the dinosaurs is full of potential. Unfortunately this Steven Spielberg produced series managed to ignore the storylines with real potential and turned the show into a rather uninteresting juvenile series. The focus of most of the episodes was on the children of the main adult characters having adventures and managing to save the day. Or screwing up and being forgiven. Or wanting to keep a pet dinosaur. In general it seemed as if the kids were, if not smarter than the adults then at least the ones that the most interesting things happened to. The adult characters were, for the most part boring. Worse, the overriding mytharc was both confusing and not particularly interesting. At times it seemed as if they were making it up as they went along. The show was tremendously expensive and delivered neither value for the money nor the quality expected from the producers. The show that replaced it, Alcatraz, was (in my opinion anyway) more interesting and more exciting than Terra Nova. At the time that the series appeared, when I was attempting to write a review of Terra Nova, my opinion was that sometime in the future Terra Nova could be remade into the series it should have been rather than the series that it was.

The X-Factor
Why is it disappointing? This isn’t my assessment but the disappointment here lies in the show’s ratings. Before the show debuted it was claimed that if the series drew “anything less than 20 million viewers” it would be a flop. Those words came from the series’ producer and star Simon Cowell. He felt that anything less than the sort of ratings American Idol had received the season before would represent failure. Others took up the cry; I remember listening to Marc Berman’s podcasts and in every episode he claimed that The X-Factor would be a giant-killer, a success of immeasurable proportions. In the event, the show finished in 19th place in the ratings with 12.67 million viewers, although it did well in the 18-49 demographic (4.4 rating and a 12 share for the performance episodes). For comparison, the performance episodes of American Idol – on the same day and time as The X-Factor performance episodes – averaged 19.81 million viewers and a 16.2 rating and 17 share in the demographic. NBC’s comparable series The Voice (which Cowell recently suggested was the place were X-Factor rejects should try out) finished 9th in the ratings (15.77 million) and did a 6.1 rating and a 16 share. This put it in 3rd place in the 18-49 group, just behind American Idol and seven places ahead of The X-Factor, which finished 10th with the 18-49 crowd. By Cowell`s own expectations and what people where hyped into believing this make The X-Factor at least a disappointment of not an actual flop.

Five For Fighting

Usually it's a good thing when people say that something isn't as bad as they expected... but not always. Case in point, the new NBC show The Marriage Ref which was previewed on NBC on Sunday night after the Closing Ceremonies of the Winter Olympics. And it wasn't as bad as I had expected. The problem was that I was expected an utter and total train wreck. Marriage Ref was not in fact a total and complete train wreck. Does that mean it was good though? Hell NO! It was bad if sometimes funny, and I'm convince that it will be even worse when it is expanded – or rather inflated – into its full hour long format to replace the prime time Jay Leno Show on Thursday night. It just wasn't as bad as I had expected it to be.

In part I blame Marc Berman's podcast for my extremely low expectations for this show. For the past two weeks Marc has been talking about the Olympics and about how NBC has been on an extreme high in terms of rating because of the Olympics – although not so great a high that they've were able to beat American Idol during the Games – but that the network had nothing to follow up their success with. Which is, of course, totally true. If I were in charge of the network I'd have a nearly completely new line-up in place after the Olympics. NBC has a couple of new shows, one of which is The Marriage Ref. And The Marriage Ref attracted much of Marc's scorn. He didn't like the concept of the show, he didn't like that it was created by Jerry Seinfeld, and he most assuredly didn't like the fact that Alec Baldwin, whose split from Kim Bassinger was one of the dirtiest and messiest divorces in recent Hollywood history, was doing a show that was "saving people's marriages." In short a train wreck that would be the equivalent of the 20^th Century Limited smashing into the Super Chief and then getting T-boned by the City of New Orleans. The problem is that, having seen the show, I have to acknowledge that it isn't quite that bad for a lot of reasons.

The big thing is that no one but no one is taking this thing seriously. The "Marriage Ref" is Tom Pappa, a stand-up comedian rather than a "relationship expert," who just happens to be a close friend of producer Jerry Seinfeld's and has been the opener for Seinfeld's stand-up act for years. On a set that looks as though it was borrowed from a late, late late talk show (like Carson Daily's maybe) he is joined by "experts" which in the show's definition is anyone who is married, has been married or has ever thought of getting married. This is why you can get Seinfeld (married), Kelly Ripa (famously married to her former All My Children co-star and on-screen husband Mark Consuelos), and of course Alec Baldwin as marriage experts. Also in the cast was Natlaie Morales of the Today Show as the "fact checker" – apparently this will be another "celebrity" role – and announcer Marv Albert who seemed embarrassed to be there rather than in Vancouver (and to my eyes at least didn't look particularly well; that may be because I haven't seen him in a while).

And the "problems" that Pappa and the celebrities had to resolve are scarcely the stuff of Dr. Phil or even Jerry Springer. The first episode featured two couples with stupid/funny problems. The first couple was from an obviously affluent part of Long Island. The cause of stress in their marriage was his dog Fonzie. Or rather his late dog Fonzie. Fonzie, a Boston Bull Terrier, was pining for the fiords – or in his case probably pining for the bleachers at Fenway – and the husband decided to have the dog stuffed by a taxidermist and located in a place of honour, a shrine if you will, in the family living room. The wife, who didn't like the dog when it was alive (because as the celebrity fact checker informed us, it bit her more than once and had a habit of peeing on guests) certainly didn't want it in the house dead. The panel, in a session filled with quips and funny comments that included questioning what the husband might do with his wife when she died if he was willing to stuff his dog, decided that the whole idea of keeping the stuffed dog around, particularly in the designated "shrine area" was utterly creepy and he shouldn't do it. Pappa then rendered his decision to the couple, who were shown "live" in their home in front of the "shrine" with the stuffed dog enshrined (and looking worse than the first time we saw it in the video presentation of the family problem). Pappa said that the man could keep his dog but had to put it in the "open air attic," where part of the episode was shot.

The second problem was a man from Atlanta who wanted to put a stripper pole in the family bedroom for his wife to "work" on. His wife, who wasn't exactly stripper material in the weight department (a little heavy thanks to giving birth to at least two kids) told him that there was no way in Hell that that was going to be in her bedroom. In the course of the presentation and analysis of the problem by the panel, we learned that the man had bought his wife something like 60 thongs, and that working a stripper pole can burn about 200 calories, and is considered good exercise. In fact the husband in this case went from saying that they could put the pole in the garage and tell people that it was a fishing pole (what kind of fish does this guy go out for!) to saying that it wasn't a stripper pole, it was an exercise pole. Alec Baldwin pointed out that even if they did put the pole in the bedroom, she'd never be happy using it and that who wanted to be danced for by an angry resentful and disinterested stripper. Kelly thought that it was just plain creepy, but Jerry Seinfeld thought it was a great idea. When Pappa rendered his decision he told the man that he couldn't have his stripper pole.

The Marriage Ref is a rather obvious satire of the pretentious nature of a lot of afternoon talk shows, in particular Dr. Phil's show. Viewed in that way I think that it works well enough, but I can think of better ways to work something like that. I don't think that the show was entirely without merit. There were some very funny moments, but several of those came from the "civilians" rather than the celebrity panellists. Selection of "problems" for this series has to be key. It stops being valid if there is even a hint that the problems are really big enough to cause these people to come anywhere close to divorce or any real emotional distress. Fighting over whether or not to put up a stripper pole hardly qualifies. That said, I think that the premise is rather thin and the longer you string it out, either in episode length or in the number of episodes in an order the more threadbare it's going to appear. I think that the premise would work brilliantly as an entirely scripted regular segment on a show like Saturday Night Live. As it was presented on Sunday night, with two problems in one half hour it works adequately. One couple in a half hour episode would have spent too much time on either of the problems that these people had. Basically the problems should have been "no-brainers" for anyone anyway. My opinion is that taking this show to an hour format, whether they look at four problems or even three problems is stretching things to the breaking point, though I can see people getting bored with it at that length. If they are foolish enough to try to do just two problems in an hour, well they'll soon discover that some things just won't stretch that far. NBC should keep this show at a half hour, find something else to fill the other half of the old Leno slot on Thursday nights and hope and pray that it gets an audience. I just don't think that an hour of this is going to fly; a half-hour was testing my patience.

Short Takes – November 4, 2008

As a lot of you might know, in the past I used to do a regular series of posts called Short Takes in which I wrote about TV related news and gave my opinion on stuff. I sort of gave up on it, primarily because I got behind in grabbing stuff for the column and it got to be a bit of a hassle, and mostly because, by the time I had the column written it was usually old news. I can't say that I really miss writing those pieces but there is a bit of a hole, so I've decided to try to revive the idea. Well sort of. This is an experiment undertaken largely because I want to write about someone that I don't know much about who is in a situation that I don't know much about, but what I know about him, mostly his writing, I basically like and what has happened to him I basically don't like.

Another TV Critic Fired: Eric Kohanik, one time president of the TV Critics Association has been fired as editor and TV critic for the TV Times booklet that appears in most of the CanWest newspapers, including my local rag, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix. According to Bill Brioux, former TV columnist for the Toronto Sun who currently does a weekly column for the Canadian Press (a column that is not seen locally) and produces the blog TV Feeds My Family the fault isn't with Kohanik's work but the general malaise that has infected newspapers in general: "TVTimes, one of the more handsome weekend TV supplements, has been deemed dispensable in this age of high newsprint costs, declining ad revenues and on-screen TV listings. At one time it appeared in 33 newspapers across the country as part of the Southam and later CanWest chains. Like the print edition of TV Guide in Canada, it is being phased out of circulation, reduced to mere listings without editorial content."

Making this about me for a moment, this leaves me without a TV critic that I can read in the local paper, as the local rag basically depends on the syndicate for most of its entertainment content. Now admittedly, even when the StarPhoenix was part of a two paper family owned chain as often as not they farmed out TV criticism to outside sources. For a long time in the 1960s they had a local critic – a man named Ned Powers, whose brother-in-law I bowl with, and who sometimes bowled with my mother – but he usually wrote about once or twice a week and I don't remember much of what he wrote. After all it was nearly 40 years ago. In the 1970s and early 1980s the paper had a column written by Gary Deeb of one of the Chicago newspapers. I think it was the Tribune but I'm not sure. Deeb used to infuriate me when he criticised shows I liked but that's part of being a TV critic. Deeb's column vanished rather suddenly as I recall, and I don't really recall anything replacing him. Eventually, along came Kohanik but I confess I wasn't really aware of when he started being a big part of the TV Times experience for me.

The death by inches of the TV Times and paper TV listings in general is something else that bothers me considerably. To be sure I have issues with the TV Times. For one thing it doesn't carry listings of the full spectrum of cable channels available to me while carrying listings for other channels that I have no way of getting, but I truly like having a full week listing even if it is a listing of majority of the channels rather than everything. Sure, my digital cable has a guide function, and there's a listings channel on the analog part of the cable, but the analog listings channel only covers the next hour or so, and the digital guide at most lets me see a day or two into the future. Beyond that I have to schlep off to the computer to check Zap2It. Sure it doesn't sound that arduous – and it isn't really – but so much easier just to have it in a magazine beside my watching position.

Of course, more important to me than the listings is to have someone who can give me their opinion of a shows, and just to write about them, and that's going, moving to the Internet. Maybe that's a good thing. If you read Ed Bark's blog you'll eventually discover that he has more independence now than when he was working for the Dallas Morning News which was owned by Belo Corporation, which also owned one of the Dallas stations. Bark wasn't allowed to critique local TV news stations even as the newspaper was moving its national TV coverage to wire service copy. I'm not going to speculate that Eric Kohanik had to deal with similar problems while working for the newspapers owned by Canada's third network (newspapers which conspicuously don't take ads from either CTV or CBC, and probably not from Rogers in areas where Rogers' CITY-TV stations are operating). He's always seemed pretty fair and balanced to me, calling crap crap regardless of the station on which it aired. What I am more than willing to say though is that having this sort of thing in my local newspaper is useful to me. And my local newspaper is giving me short shrift when it comes to TV coverage. The daily primetime listings were discontinued to give readers a full page of comics (up from the previous half page – the local rag doesn't like comics – takes away from ad revenue). TV get short wire service news squibs in the Entertainment pages...sometimes. On the Saturday there are a couple of columns that tells us the highlights of TV on Saturday and Sunday (no Sunday papers in the CanWest chain). But TV criticism? They spend more column inches on a snarky gossip columnist, and he doesn't get that much space in a week. Sure, TV criticism on the Internet is fine and may even be where it all ends up, but for me, I like being able to immerse myself in it in a way that I can't while sitting in front of a computer screen and can while reading my newspaper. I guess I'm going to have to buy the Globe & Mail more often.

Network Cancellations: Five so far this year. Do Not Disturb went first, in September. Next, ABC dumped the Ashton Kutcher created game show Opportunity Knocks on October 16^th after three episodes. Then CBS dropped The Ex-List on October 27^th after four episodes. Finally Media Rights Capital, which was programming Sunday nights from The CW has dropped two of their series, Valentine and Easy Money, although they will apparently burn off the remaining episodes produced of both series. The cancellation of The Ex-List comes as sweet vindication for those of us who came to love Moonlight. On the other hand I am one of those who is still mystified by the CBS decision to cancel the relatively successful Close To Home to create a hole for Moonlight.

I did review Do Not Disturb – found it dreadful – but missed the other four. Actually I had no earthly intention of writing anything about Opportunity Knocks which sounded like one of the worst ideas ever. I had no real desire to write or even view either Valentine or The Ex-List, so the decisions by their respective networks saved me the trouble

Network Renewals: NBC has given back nines to Knight Rider and Kath & Kim. They`re both mysteries to me but Kath & Kim is probably the bigger one – I just don`t get it. CBS's The Mentalist also received a full season order, not surprisingly given that it seems to be the only true success so far this season. They've also increased the order – although not yet to a full back nine – of their Thursday night drama The Eleventh Hour. The CW has given a back nine to their highly publicized 90210 although not to the show that follows it, Privileged. I mention Privileged because while the show loses audience out of 90210 its audience seems to consistently increase by 20-30% when the DVR "Live +7" audience is factored in.

Network Movements: NBC has announced that they will be bringing the original Law & Order back on Wednesday nights in the third hour. The show was originally intended to air on Sunday nights once Football ends but will instead replace the underperforming Lipstick Jungle. That show in turn will move to the third hour of Friday night, unseating the sophomore cop show Life which moves to the second hour of Wednesday night, reducing Deal Or No Deal to one episode a week. With the first hour of Wednesday being Knight Rider, the result is a new Wednesday block of shows labelled "Crime Night" by NBC.

Olbermania: Okay, I confess that since I've been able to get MSNBC for "free" (thanks to Shaw Cable which made it part of the Digital Basic package – though personally I'd rather they'd done that with BBC World instead) I've become a huge fan of Keith Olberman, who for better or for worse has been a huge part of this election cycle. Oh I don't really watch Olberman for his political views, though I largely agree with them, but because the guy is hugely entertaining. The guy's an okay interviewer but I don't watch him for that. I watch for his opinions – and he is opinionated – for his "Worst Person in the World!!!" bits and for those times when he goes on one of those famous rants of his. I mean if I want calm rationality I'll watch Rachel Maddow (I'm in love with Rachel, albeit a mostly platonic love that acknowledges her Lesbianism). I watch Olberman for the crazy. And as the election campaign has gone on the crazy has been infinitely entertaining. Thus it was probably inevitable that Saturday Night Live would turn its satirical light on Olberman. All that was needed was someone who could "do" justice to Olberman. Enter Ben Affleck...

The PTC And The “Disappearing” TV Critic

A couple of weeks ago the PTC's TV Trends column began looking at the "disappearing" TV critic. I don't agree with much of what they say in these articles and not because I regard myself as true TV critic. I am not. What I am is a consumer both of television and television criticism.

It never surprises me when the PTC observes a trend and not only puts its own spin on it but does so in such a way that is not just totally illogical but is based on no actual facts beyond what the writer of the piece decides is "the truth." Take for instance this week's TV Trends Column (which is actually the first part of a two parter). I won't give you the title just yet, because it needs some set-up from the original source material. That was a cover article in Broadcast & Cable called The Disappearing TV Critic. Specifically it looks into the recent drop in the number of TV critics including critics from major newspapers. As the article points out, "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 proffered by bean-counting corporate bosses." The article then goes on to look at the reasons for this trend. They specifically focus on money, and the profitability of media companies and newspapers. As the article points out, arts staffs in major media companies like Tribune, McClatchy, and Gannett arts staffs are deemed expendable if by getting rid of them the corporate bottom line gets fatter. Critics and arts staff can be replaced by wire service copy and features. People around here are well aware of this sort of thing. Few can forget what happened a few days after the dailies in Saskatoon and Regina were sold to Conrad Black; something like 200 employees of the newspapers including some highly respected names in the local arts reporting were told that their services were no longer required. The bottom line – and the amount of debt that Black, and later CanWest went into to buy newspapers – mandated cost cutting measures and the easiest costs to cut are often people. The Broadcast & Cable article discusses the symbiotic relationship between the expanding television industry and critics who are used to build awareness of programs. Critics of course have used the "bully pulpit" of newspapers to promote projects and producers that they regard as being "worthy." With the decline in the number of newspaper critics, bloggers (like me, but in most cases better if only because they have at least a veneer of professionalism) have risen. But, as an unnamed network executive told Broadcast & Cable "There's no accountability. That's the difference between some, not all, bloggers and a seasoned journalist. The blogging community has no rules." The Broadcast & Cable article points out that, "Criticism by community – or the 'triumph of the amateurs,' as one TV critic describes the proliferation of online user reviews – is a function of both the technology that allows anyone to get in on the critic act and a medium where quick bites of information are favored. The popularity of criticism in the form of the episode recap, where brevity and attitude are highly prized, only underscores the trend away from criticism as intellectual deconstruction. And why give an expert assessment when a simple 'A' grade will do?" While I don't think that I'm guilty of "criticism in the form of the episode recap" I readily admit to the rest. The technology makes this blog possible, and it allows this amateur – for I have never claimed to be anything but an enthusiastic amateur (it even says so in the masthead of this blog) – to write about the medium which I enjoy and which alternately fascinates me and infuriates me.

Okay, that's the long preamble to the PTC's TV Trends article, the title of which is Public Tuning Out TV Critics which ran in two parts. They acknowledge the entire point of the Broadcast & Cable in one sentence and then proceeds to throw it out. According to the PTC, "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." In other words, according to the TV Trends writer, TV critics are being let go because by recommending shows that the public finds "repugnant" their influence is reduced. Now before I go further into this, let me just say that I've never heard of anyone who has stopped subscribing to a newspaper because they didn't like the TV critic, and that is the only way that what a TV critic writes might have "value to their employers."

The writer of the article then actually cites one of his own columns which claimed that there is an "overwhelming demand for family-friendly TV programming safe for children." Of course this is an overwhelming demand that was not sufficient to support a family friendly show – Life Is Wild on The CW – which didn't even draw as many viewers in the recently completed season as the PTC claims to have members. Yet according to the TV Trends writer, "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." Of course he offers no proof of his assertion that this supposed "identical mind-set" doesn't agree with people in the local area.

The TV Trends writer artfully pulls quotes made by critics for the Broadcast & Cable article – often out of context – and then turns them back on the writer. Dave Walker, critic for the New Orleans Times-Picayune who told the Broadcast & Cable writer, "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]." The TV Trends writer responds that, "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." Again, there's no proof of the statement in parentheses. Taking part of a quote from Dianne Werts of Newsday, TelevisionWithoutPity.com and TVWorthWatching.com (the part that the PTC cut out is in square parentheses): "[Just as the television medium mushrooms, newspapers are dispensing with a trained-eye filter to] 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." He then states, "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." In other words critics who don't agree with the PTC's position – which the PTC seems to be claiming is all of them – don't offer a local perspective but are part of some sinister hive mind determined to undermine America's families in service of their Hollywood masters.

As a topping for this mass of opinions is the claim that critics are elitist: "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." And I'm sure that he'll support this with material from the same source that back up his claim that TV critics are being let go not because of an economic quest for savings (and profits) but because they are detached from the sense and sensibilities of their readers. Start with the assertion that the public is abandoning TV critics because critics fail to reflect the sensibilities of the public. There's no proof offered. Then there's the statement that critics subject advocates of family fare to "endless calumny" while claiming that the same critics "rather than responding to the obvious wishes and desires of their readers, persist in celebrating only the most disturbing programs on TV."

The second part of the article tries to prove the elitist nature of the professional newspaper critic while at the same time dealing with Broadcast & Cable's assertion that "Many old-school journalists seem to lack the snark gene that has propelled Gawker-level bloggers to high-gloss infamy," which is part of the reason for the disappearance of the newspaper critic. Absurd says the PTC: "Hilariously, the entertainment industry trade publication Broadcasting & Cable claims that TV critics are at a disadvantage when faced with the attitude-laden writing of the Internet's amateur bloggers.... [The above quote from the B&C article is inserted here.] One can only conclude that the author of the B&C article is unfamiliar with the constant sneering arrogance with which family-friendly programs have invariably been described by the nation's TV critics."

They then set out to "prove" this by offering quotes from reviews of Three Wishes. Three Wishes, which was hosted by Christian singer Amy Grant (and which the PTC mistakenly claims ran from "September 2005 to January 2007"; in fact it ran for ten episodes between September 2005 and December 2005), visited a town and granted three wishes. It might be a new baseball field for a town, or it might be a reward (in the form of a new truck) for the adoptive father of a young boy. According to the PTC, "Most Americans applauded so well-meaning a show [this is questionable but typical of the PTC; the show had 8.7 million viewers in its first episode, and usually won its time slot before NBC cancelled it as being "too expensive" – still 8.7 million is scarcely "most Americans"], and enjoyed its heartwarming premise. But America's critics unleashed an unparalleled tidal wave of vitriol against the sweet program; and notably, most condemned not the program's production methods or even the star, but attacked the very premise of the show itself." They then proceed to offer a number of quotes – out of context of course – from various critics. Just as an example of pulling quotes without context, here's what the PTC says that Boston Globe critic Matthew Gilbert said about the show: "Condescension, fraudulence, and manipulation…every single scene is ruthlessly choreographed to put a lump in our throats." And here is the full sentence that Gilbert wrote (courtesy of Metacritic): "It's hard to quibble with such a philanthropic series, even while its motives are, of course, Nielsen-based. But it's easy to quibble with the condescension, fraudulence, and manipulation of ''Three Wishes," as every single scene is ruthlessly choreographed to put a lump in our throats." To my mind at least that isn't the sneering arrogance that one sees from Internet based reviewers. But an even worse example is the quote the pull from Gillian Flynn of Entertainment Weekly. Flynn's example of "constant sneering arrogance" is this: "Will leave your heartstrings over-fondled." Except that this was classified by Metacritic as a generally positive review. So I decided to see what Ms. Flynn actually said. The Entertainment Weekly review is available online for free (which is more than can be said for two other reviews they cite, from the Chicago Tribune and the Miami Herald). Here's the full closing paragraph of Gillian Flynn's review, with the words that the PTC pulled in bold: So, yeah, Three Wishes will leave your heartstrings feeling over-fondled. But if you can get past that (and there are worse crimes), it's also one of the most interactive TV shows around. Maybe I'm going soft, but when's the last time you found yourself bawling and beaming about the basic goodness of humankind? And now I must go help an old lady cross the street." Quite a difference huh.

Then, to prove how out of touch the mainstream professional critics are, they cited Dexter and Nip/Tuck. The writer suggests that his readers might think that the reaction to Three Wishes was simply a dislike of all new programs. If he really thought that of course it would be an example of him treating his readership as children, but I have to say that is not always out of character for a writer from the PTC. This is when he brings up Dexter: "For contrast, consider the critical response to Dexter, a program with a ruthless, psychotic serial killer as its hero. This program featured graphic dismemberment, blood, and torture and showed a brutal murderer evading the law, yet painted that killer as charming and even likeable. Originally shown on premium cable, Dexter was shown in prime time by CBS. Given the vicious verbal flogging they granted the wholesome Three Wishes, one would think that surely the critics – with their allegedly superior sensibilities – would condemn a program which graphically glorified serial murder!" But of course the evil elitist critics liked – even loved – this evil program. As the writer puts it, "Instead, the nation's so-called 'critics' sang unquestioning hosannas to the deranged drama. Apparently thinking identical thoughts, sometimes even using nearly identical wording, the critics united in praising Dexter. I won't go into the details of the quotes that the PTC pulls from the critics they cite. I will however point out that they're not as right as they think. The critics were not as "united in praising Dexter" as the PTC would like. Admittedly, of twenty-seven critics mentioned by Metacritic on their page for the show, twenty-four were rated as positive reviews, there were also quotes from critics who disliked the show or even hated it: "Dexter is too chilly to be chilling, too affected to be affecting." (Robert Abele; LA Weekly); "If brilliant, psychotic lunatics are your bag, by all means, climb aboard." (Brian Lowry; Variety); "The grotesqueries of Dexter are not something that can easily be dismissed with the old 'you don't have to watch' line. We don't have to watch. We do have to live among the viewers who will be desensitized, or aroused, by this show." (Nancy DeWolf Smith; Wall Street Journal).

But naturally there is more why critics like a show like Dexter than what a bunch of quotes culled and edited by a PTC writer wants his readers to know. The professional critics are willing to offer reasons why they like a show, reasons that are more complex than the "it's about a serial killer therefore it is evil and should not be seen" rote that the PTC trots out. Take for instance the reasons why Tim Goodman of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote "What makes the series work so well is twofold. Hall is magnificent; it's another sterling performance from him. But instead of being pent up yet emotionally explosive, like his David Fisher on "Six Feet Under," he's cool and calculated and entirely without compassion as Dexter. That makes him alluring, in a strange way.... The second element is humor. As Dexter's voice narrates the series, his inner world is revealed. He's dryly funny. He has a spot-on representation of himself – he knows he's "a monster." But he clings to Dad's teachings – his retribution killings are the only good way to handle his need for blood." Or this from Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune: "What is a human being? Is it someone who feels a deep need to right wrongs? Dexter does that, often more effectively than the police officers around him or the overwhelmed court system, the failings of which he sees every day. There's plenty of irony in the idea that a serial killer feels more visceral anger in the face of brutal crime than most of the cops around him, who range from competent to infuriatingly self-serving." And maybe this, from Rob Owen of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Hall's performance is remarkable for its controlled nature. As Dexter, he erases memories of his last role – "Six Feet Under's" uptight, gay mortician, David Fisher – playing a character who believes he's so emotionally detached that he must fake all pleasant human interaction. It's a challenging, almost double role, requiring Hall to play to viewers who know Dexter's secret and those around him on screen who do not. Hall handles it with the necessarily subtle aplomb." In short the critics have reasons for liking the show – the irony, the performance of Michael C Hall in the lead role, and so on – that go beyond the simplistic "it makes a hero of a serial killer therefore it is an outrage that it is even on the air let alone on broadcast TV" position that the PTC takes.

And maybe that's the source of the PTC's problems with TV critics – they don't always like the stuff that the PTC likes and don't always hate the stuff the PTC hates. Certainly the PTC is not above quoting a TV critic...when that TV critic says something that they agree with. They quoted Tom Shales of the Washington Post when they were castigating My Name Is Earl. Shales didn't review Dexter, but his colleague at the post who did review the show (John Maynard) liked it. About Three Wishes, Shales wrote, "Each week a trio of do-gooders (a bit too braggy about the good they do) storms an American town and grants three wishes to folk in need.... It's shamelessly crammed with hugs and tears, even in the opening credits, but at least there aren't any monsters in it – unless you count Amy Grant, the sanctimonious singing host." (Yeah, I did some PTC style editing; here's what I left out: "On the premiere, that includes surgery for a little girl injured in a car accident, a new Ford (generously plugged) for a deputy sheriff and a new football field for the local high school.") Needless to say he probably wouldn't have made the PTC's cut for this.

Bizarrely, the second part of the PTC's indictment of newspaper TV critics ends with a quote from the late Jack Valenti on his retirement from the leadership of the Motion Picture Association of America. Valenti wrote: "This small band of Constant Whiners talk to each other, write for each other, opine with each other, and view with lacerating contempt the rubes who live Out There, west of Manhattan and east of the San Andreas Fault…Shouldn't everyone in the country glory in four-letter words ending in "k"? And why not? Since the C[onstant] W[hiner]s know what is right and real, then it is from them that the simpletons in Middle America should take their cues and their culture. In their zeal to brandish the notion that they are the custodians of creative rightness, they commit intellectual nihilism, the smashing of truth and reason, exalting a smallish and relentlessly ill-humored prism through which they all see the same lunacies." I find this to be bizarre because Valenti's statement has nothing at all to do with critics either of TV or the movies. Valenti was speaking about opponents of censorship, particularly those object to the MPAA's ratings system which forces cuts in movies like Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut lest they be branded with the NC-17 rating which can have a deadly effect in terms of theatrical bookings. There is very little similarity between what Valenti railed against (wrongly in my view but that's another argument) and what the PTC claims that TV critics are supporting. In the latter case I am convinced that the PTC overestimates its support in the United States as a whole.

Even if I am wrong about what the public wants in terms of TV shows, that doesn't make the views articulated by professional TV critics invalid. I am reminded of Edmund Burke's speech to the electors of Bristol: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." A critic owes his reader his or her judgement and opinion, to attempt to widen the reader-viewer's tastes not to march in lock step to reflect them. Of course the PTC in its own way, by condemning shows which it does not approve of, is trying to do exactly the same thing. And in my opinion their position is probably just as elitist as the PTC claims that critics are; the PTC knows what's good for you even if you don't appreciate it. The difference between the TV critics and the PTC is that the critics are consistently able to articulate the reasons why they like or don't like a show in terms that go beyond "it has a serial killer as a hero so it's a bad show." Criticism needs to be more than "this is good" or "this is bad." There has to be a reason and that reason has to be more than "because we say so" or "because of the subject matter it depicts and the language the characters use." That's why I trust TV critics far more than I do anyone at the PTC.