Monday, October 30, 2006

Something worth pondering ...

... Yesterday, Inquirer TV critic Jonathan Storm had this piece on the Arts & Entertainment section front: Mindless over matter. He was commenting on this: "The most ambitious new TV shows of the season have slumped in the ratings, while viewers tune in the simpler stuff."

My question: Does this not suggest that the only people left watching network TV are those who aren't interested in the ambitious new shows, but prefer the simpler? Or, to put it another way, that people in search of more sophisticated entertainment don't look for it on TV. Or, to put this even more simply, why do newspapers continue to review television as if it were 1955?

Just asking.

2 comments:

  1. I read the article to which you link last night but couldn't think of anything to say --- seems to me the article is just listing some popular or attempted-popular shows, not writing about "serious" TV (news analysis or classical drama for example).

    I suppose I think that the whole industry is changing so much, powered by the advertising. It probably won't be all that long before the concept of a big TV station is outmoded, and all the programmes will be available on the internet for subscription (and the advertising will be personally targeted to those viewers of individual shows).

    Then viewers can choose what they want. I don't watch live TV, but I'm quite interested in some series I read about, eg 24 or Desperate Housewives. But what I prefer to do is to record each episode or wait till it is out on DVD and discounted, and buy/rent it, so I can watch it at my own time and pace, rather than being dictated to by the schedulers.

    Maybe these changes are what is being described in the article?

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's an interesting point, Maxine - the actual manner of watching the shows has changed profoundly. I watch very little TV myself - and I grew up on it. I have a hard time suspending my disbelief. Jack Bauer doesn't look like a government agent to me - though I admit he's more plausible than a lot of others who just look like young actors posing in nice clothes.

    ReplyDelete