Home > Burns My Shorts, Isn't It Ironic?, Manifestoes > A Case of Egregious TV Criticism

A Case of Egregious TV Criticism

I sat down on my front porch this afternoon with a cup of coffee and the Philadelphia Inquirer and I was shocked beyond belief to find Jonathan Storm , the Inquirer’s tv critic, offering up a critique of not just one new fall tv show, but the entire new fall lineup of all three networks, based on nothing more than “clips and the networks’ hyperbole-heavy presentations to advertisers (all a critic has to go on at this early stage)”.
Well. This is an outrage! I am particularly hoping that Chris over at Mixing Memory will get on the horn ASAP and let Mr. Storm know just what he thinks of bullshit like this. How dare people go around offering opinions on tv shows when they have never even watched them yet? To quote Chris, it is clear that data is not Mr. Storm’s “cup of tea”. Go get ‘im, Chris!
Of course, Mr. Storm has offered a favorable review of The Big Bang Theory; he thinks it will be funny. So perhaps no one will be outraged by his comments. He describes the show as “the geeks square off Mondays on CBS’s Big Bang Theory – geniuses fumbling antics when a beauty moves in next door”. No stereotypes there, right? If you read that sentence and didn’t need any further information to understand that “geeks” and “geniuses” means guys, and “beauty” means a woman, then, my friend, you are responding to stereotypes.
But hey, I guess if Mr. Storm likes the show, we need not impugn his credentials; we need not tell him he’s spewing bullshit; we need not say anything negative to him at all.
He’s a tv critic, an authority, you see, and tv critics are supposed to tell us what to think about tv shows based on network hyperbole-heavy presentations and clips. Whereas, we mere mortals (especially us female ones), shown the hyperbole-heavy presentations, or the clips, are just supposed to swallow it and go “gosh gee whiz! I sure can’t wait to see that show!” But we are not, under any circumstances, to attempt to analyze and comment upon what we have been shown.
If this is not the case, and there is to be equal-opportunity chastisement, Mr. Storm can be reached at jstorm AT phillynews DOT com. Chris, let me know when you’ve fired off your righteous email telling him “I call bullshit” and “data isn’t your cup of tea” for his egregious evaluation of the entire fall lineup of shows without having seen a single one of them.

  1. Mecha
    June 4, 2007 at 12:13 pm

    To help the droves of people who are clearly chomping at the bit to mail, but lack data (if that’s their cup of tea), one can find Jonathan Storm’s fall TV lineup review online (at the moment anyway, who knows if they’ll move it) at:
    http://www.philly.com/inquirer/entertainment/20070603_Jonathan_Storm___Prepare_for_fall_awe_-_and_for_few_laughs.html
    And he’s a lot more critical of a bunch of other shows! Scandalous indeed. How do people get away with this stuff?!
    -Mecha

  2. CCPhysicist
    June 4, 2007 at 1:09 pm

    Sounds like CBS wants a follow-on to Numbers, but doesn’t realize what makes that program work. Actually, I’m rather amazed that Numbers has yet to fall victim to the usual stereotypes about math and science geeks that are held by the majority of the TV audience. Of course, it probably has some stereotypes of law enforcement that I don’t recognize.

  3. CCPhysicist
    June 4, 2007 at 1:09 pm

    Sounds like CBS wants a follow-on to Numbers, but doesn’t realize what makes that program work. Actually, I’m rather amazed that Numbers has yet to fall victim to the usual stereotypes about math and science geeks that are held by the majority of the TV audience. Of course, it probably has some stereotypes of law enforcement that I don’t recognize.

  4. August 8, 2007 at 2:55 am

    Wow Zuska, just saw this ’cause it popped up on my Technorati as being posted a week ago (only check once or twice a month). Niiiiice. Sure, I think Storm’s being an idiot if he’s judging the shows based on clips, sort of like I’d think he was an idiot if he were judging books by their cover art.
    But since I don’t read Philly papers, I hadn’t noticed it. Chalk it up to you being a woman, though, ’cause if you were a man, I’d definitely read Philly papers. It’s good that you can find fellow idiots writing for the popular press, though. Validation rocks.

  5. August 8, 2007 at 5:26 pm

    Well, a more apt comparison would be judging books by reading an excerpted chapter, not by their cover art. I think evaluating the fall t.v. lineup based on clips from shows and network presentations is, um, the job of a newspaper t.v. critic. Also, possibly, the job of a blogger critic. But what do I know, I’m an idiotic woman. It sure must be nice to be you. Though I can’t figure out why someone as brilliant and always-right as you are wastes his precious time reading this stupid trashy blog. Have a nice day.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: