TV Is Not More Than Mindless Entertainment. Right?

Everyone is a critic. So what makes my criticism relevant? Hopefully I will engage people who follow my blog and make my perspectives on shows clear. With each blog post I want to make my opinions relatable to the readers. You will come to understand how I am situated in the world of criticism by understanding my goals in writing TV criticism, my view of TV as an object of study and how I intend to relate to people following my blog.

Why write TV criticism? O’Donnell (2007) describes that the goal of criticism should be to gain a fuller understanding than just what is presented in a show and relate the meaning to culture (7). Gronbeck and Sillars (2001) explain that the steps to writing criticism are to: describe (way you see the text), interpret (make meaning of the text), and evaluate (provide judgment) (7). Similarly, O’Donnell’s steps include understanding, analyzing, interpreting, and communicating (15). I think the goal of criticism should be to help readers to understand the hidden messages and relate meanings to culture, so I will focus on this idea. An example that comes to mind is when taking a film studies class, we watched Taxi Driver. I did not really like the movie because all I saw was violence, but once we discussed it in class, I gained a new appreciation. The line between right and wrong is blurred because Travis (Robert Deniro) wants to do the right thing by saving Iris (a young prostitute), but he uses a lot of violence. In society doing what is right is not always clear. When the messages in a text are understood, it becomes easier to see its relevance.

We have heard over and over that TV is a waste of time and makes us dumb. If this is the case, why should we spend time criticizing television? Corner (1999) describes that people are concerned with television’s influence on the public. He argues that television creates a substitute for people so they do not have to directly participate in democracy (like going to speeches) (4). I believe this is true in a way, because certain politicians can afford more air- time, or are favored by particular news channels. Corner later argues that a distortion of politics has already happened with other mediators (newspapers, and so on) (6). This leads me to believe that a distortion of politics is not only television’s problem, but also a problem with any text. Corner also argues a displacement of culture arises because spending time watching TV is a waste and it makes people less intelligent (5). I completely disagree. Television may not give the intelligence we value most, but we do gain something each time we watch. Lazily watching a show about wildlife in Spain gives the viewer some knowledge about different kinds of birds like Corner argues. Corner also explains that TV is involved in culture in many ways. People tend to focus on the negative influence of TV (violence for example), but it also impacts the way in which people understand society (6). For example, music and fashion are influenced. In The Real Housewives (of any city), all the women are caddy even in their forties. Female high school viewers with similar experiences may come to understand how unimportant some of their seemingly large problems are by watching these women. Butler’s (2002) idea of polysemy allows viewers to find what is important to them, even if not at the top of the hierarchy of meanings (7). The discourses (previous experiences) viewers bring when watching, engage them in the program (11). I agree with this because we can come to better understanding of our lives by identifying with a show.

I intend to create a deeper understanding of culture and a realization that studying TV is important by relating to readers of my blog. There are three ways according to Brunsdon (1993) that a critic and an ordinary viewer develop a relationship. The first way is a hegemonic relationship, in which the viewer and the critic are kept separate (313). The viewer cannot relate because the material is only relevant to those who have a deep prior knowledge of the scholarly works referenced and the jargon used. When reading Charlotte Brunsdon’s article about feminist television criticism, I did not understand and want to read it because I had no prior knowledge of the articles she mentioned (and did not describe). I also could not understand the terminology she used. A second way that the viewer and the author can establish a relationship is a fragmented relationship (314). In this case the viewer and the author do not need to establish a relationship. I believe readers will not return to this author if there is no connection. In my opinion the best relationship is a transparent relationship. This happens when both the critic and the viewer are on the same side (312). If the criticism is clear and relatable, it will be most effective. An article about a show I am familiar with, that uses vocabulary I can understand, will have more meaning. I plan on relating to people who follow my blog by being careful to sustain a transparent relationship, and encouraging feedback if something is not clear.

TV obviously is more than mindless entertainment. Its impact on culture makes it relevant for everyone. Through my description of my position in the world of criticism, I hope it was made clear that TV has meaning for all.

References

Brunsdon, C. (1993). Identity in feminist television criticism. Media, Culture and Society, 15: 309-320.

Butler, J. (2002). Television: Critical Methods and Applications (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Corner, J. (1999). Critical Ideas in Television Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.

O’Donnell, V. (2007). Television Criticism. New York: Sage.

Sillars, M. O. and Gronbeck, B. E. (2001). Communication Criticism: Rhetoric, Social Codes,

Cultural Studies. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.