Clever Critiques?

As a critic in this day and age, I will admit to having a biased opinion on how I evaluate television. I am by no means one interested in high cultured television (smart or educational TV as I like to call it). I pride myself on the amount of reality garbage, celebrity news, and soap opera junk I take in weekly. That being said, I do enjoy analyzing and interpreting what is television, and how we compare it to our everyday lives. In attempts to decipher why the producer chose those words, or characters, I will convey my ideas. My goal is to persuade you that, although what I watch may semi-mindless, I appreciate and hope to deliver good criticism. Hopefully by the end of this piece you will know whether to go to E! or TMZ for “who’s who” this week in Hollywood.

Though I do think my way indeed is the “highway,” I know this is not the case. As a critic I expect my readers to know I look at television through a different looking glass. I will relay my messages through persuasion; I know criticism is extremely subjective. As O’Donnell (2007) states, we bring our life experiences, our beliefs, attitudes and values [to the show]. Both the critic and the audience bring pieces of themselves into the piece. For example, I know The O.C. is not the best show: not the best acting or staging. However, I fell in love with the main character Seth Cohen, and the overly dramatic scenarios. I watched all of the four seasons, and will probably watch them again once my obsession begins to subside. I would support the show for other reasons than some may thing reasons for a show being worthwhile. Everything is put on the television for a reason. As a critic it is our job to determine why, and pick out the good and bad that is revealed.

Polysemy is another aspect of television that can help open up a critic and audience’s stance on a specific show. A viewer may initially judge a television program as inappropriate or demeaning based upon its title. As a critic it is my job to pull out the good (or bad) of the show and illustrate why not to judge it just because of one view. “A segment of the televisual flow, whether it be an individual program, a commercial, a newscast, or an entire evening’s viewing, ma be thought of as a televisual text – offering a multiplicity of meanings or polysemy” Butler, J. (2002).

Due to the types of television I watch, I will have to focus hard on creating my critical argument, which is a statement with the reasoning that justifies thinking that the statement is true, Sillars, M. O. and Gronbeck, B. E. (2001). I could ramble on for days as to why CSI: New York is the best of all the CSI’s, but without a “because clause” my thoughts will come off just as any other random opinion. This brings out why it is so important to pick apart and study the differences in television shows. I will create as much justification toward my clause that is necessary in order to prove to the audience that my review is credible. CSI: Las Vegas is good because it is the original, BUT CSI: New York attracts a different and larger audience as touches on more current and realistic issues.

As I am still trying to find and distinguish myself as a critic, I accept any and all feedback. I am still attempting to decipher many of the views I touched on myself, so other clarity on the topics would be great. I do spend majority of my television time watching non-educational brain wasters (besides Shark Week on Discovery). I would though like to hear about some interesting “thinker” shows. I know and understand how it is extremely easy to disagree with the views I have on television, so don’t hold back!
References
Butler, J. (2002). Television: Critical Methods and Applications (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.