http://storify.com/Memles/critics-and-the-newsroom

I’m very interested in this discourse, given my own interest in—and practice of—television criticism, so thanks again to Amanda for starting us off and to all of those who have commented for their contributions.

You raise several important points in this essay as do several of the comments. Yet, it seems there some parallels between your reaction to critical evaluations of Newsroom and critical reactions to Newsroom. Based on my reading of the reviews you cite and several chosen at random from those listed by MetaCritic, it seems many critics feel that Aaron Sorkin is talking down to them through the show. Is this not the exact problem you have with the negative critical evaluations?
As such, I’m not sure the traditional dichotomy between critics as elite and fans as dupes is at work here.

Thanks for the post.

Mike

–Yes, Craig, yes. http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m83uk2tugy1ql23va.gif

And Amanda, I love this post so much. Thanks for writing!

I think you bring up a really interesting point about the “imagined fan,” but I’m not sure that I agree with you because I don’t think it’s a necessary point of conversation here. My argument is that (most of) the critical reviews I read of this particular show were so focused on (as you point out in your own post on The Newsroom, actually) aligning with a certain camp that they largely ignore the aspects of the show that they liked or did not like. I don’t think the critic’s job is to say “it’s good” or “it’s bad.” I think the critics job is to tell us enough about the show (with value judgements linked into the specific elements up for discussion) so that we can make our own decisions about whether or not to watch it. I’m arguing here that we shouldn’t be asked to make those decisions based on a perception of social shame. In my opinion, it’s unnecessary and, frankly, it’s bad argumentation.

To tease out what you’re proposing, though, we all know that things we post online hang around for a long, long time. Even if those fans are hypothetical when the review is written, you’ve gotta know that there are eventually going to be fans. What is the utility of including language that dismisses their viewpoints — especially when those viewpoints are outside of the text (or “work”)? And, in my opinion, if you want to talk about those viewpoints, maybe you ask the (actual, not hypothetical) fans rather than just assuming what they might think and why. Obviously, it’s because that kind of discussion is beyond the scope of this type of criticism — and these reviews are evidence of why it *should* be.

Finally, I hadn’t happened upon your review of The Newsroom, but I looked it up on Cultural Learnings and felt it was more than fair. Wish I had seen it before — I would have given you a link-cite!

It makes absolutely no difference that these reviews were pre-air reviews. Who is reading the reviews? Real people. Real people who might have been interested in The Newsroom until they were shamed for even considering it. To even bring up this “imagined audience” is simply a way to distract from the real argument here. The real argument here is about the role of critics.

The above comment states that pre-air reviews aim to “steer viewers away from a series critics feel is bad.” What a condescending, pretentious approach to criticism — to believe that the poor, stupid viewer needs the critic to save them from themselves. A critic’s job is to evaluate a show’s merits and flaws. A critic’s job is to provide arguments and evidence for why a show works or why it doesn’t work. A critic’s job is to give the viewer enough information to make her own decision about how she wants to spend her time.

It is a poor excuse for a critic that cannot critique a show without insulting the audience – real or imagined.

I think the point Amanda is trying to make is less about The Newsroom and more about criticism and its purpose. Criticism is only elitist when a critic thinks he or she is better, smarter, and more educated than his or her audience.

I think TV criticism is incredibly valuable (and elitist, but I have no complaints about that), but when reviewers make a fan feel as though their own reaction to a scene or an exchange or even a song choice is “wrong,” or that their appreciation of something is unfounded, it’s totally unfair.

Talk all you want about narrative progression, character development, and story structure, but please don’t make me feel like an idiot for enjoying the Don-Maggie-Jim love triangle; and don’t make me feel ashamed for tearing up during the “Fix You” montage.

I don’t care whether or not critics know that their words stand in judgment of those watching a show. If a reviewer makes me feel like a less-educated citizen of our great nation, I do what Maureen Ryan says and I turn the channel. Or, in this case, I leave the website.

**Also: Miles, I’m a big fan. I think your ‘Awkward’ recaps are incredibly insightful and mature. So, thanks for that!

However, I have some questions about characterizing pre-air reviews—written before any viewers have seen the show—as a dismissal of fan communities when they don’t exist yet. The rhetorical strategy you’re responding to is the construction of an imagined audience, using patterns in media consumption—like the elitist “I never watch TV, but this show is excellent,” which I’d argue is endemic within discourse around premium cable programming, and which I think you’re unfairly characterizing as a suggestion ignorance is necessary to enjoy the show—as a way of framing the series for potential viewers. But can we take this construction as a judgment on those who watch The Newsroom differently when it’s a prediction of how they might watch it?

I’m not suggesting that this criticism isn’t elitist, because I think there is an inherent elitism in almost all forms of criticism that is especially highlighted here by the discourses of elitism surrounding the program (where critics are allegedly being elitist in decrying a show’s elitism, trapping us in a loop from which we may never escape). However, I don’t know if pre-air reviews aiming to steer viewers away from a series critics feel is bad—which is part of their job description—stands in perpetual judgment of the people who do choose to watch it. The use of an imagined audience to contextualize and frame their criticism makes this reading possible, but I do think we need to draw a distinction between reviews which characterize the imagined audience in limiting ways and those which actively attempt to devalue real viewers and their opinions of a program over the course of its run.