Options
TV Reviews Dead?
gkmacca
Posts: 9,386 Forum Member
✭
Anyone see this in The Guardian today?
'Jaci Stephen, the ebullient and highly readable television critic, has been dropped by the Mail on Sunday.
Her last column will appear on Sunday, December 23. Stephen said today that the paper's editor, Peter Wright, has decided to follow the path of Associated Newspapers' sister title the Daily Mail, which dropped its TV review column last year.
Stephen was told of the decision earlier this month. The paper is in the process of revamping its review section and has decided that in the multichannel age people no longer watch a narrow range of programmes.
She added that, while she still feels a strong loyalty to the paper, the decision is wrong. "I think television still needs reviewing. it is still the most important medium in the arts," Stephen said.
"But I think television reviewing needs reinventing. Newspapers haven't changed their approach: they need to keep up with the times. However people are still talking about the main shows, whether they are The X Factor, Strictly Come Dancing, Spooks or Cranford."
Wright said: "I've worked with Jaci Stephen for 20 years. She is a brilliant TV reviewer, but TV has changed and in a multichannel age I'm afraid I just don't think reviews have the appeal they had in the past."
Stephen will continue to write her column on the soaps for the Saturday edition of the Daily Mail. She is also in demand as a features writer, recently contributing a heartwarming piece about reaching the age of 50 for Femail.
She has worked under contract for Associated Newspapers' titles since 1988, and is one of the most high profile of its stable of writers.
The Daily Mail dropped its TV review column in August last year, when the paper's long serving TV critic, Peter Paterson, retired after 20 years in the job.'
Now, taking Jaci Stephen out of the equation - who has always struck me as an embarrassment - what on earth are newspaper editors up to? We're still living in an age when most people don't watch 100 channels every day. We're still drawn to the likes of Life on Mars, Sopranos, the Saturday night shows, etc etc as a mainstream audience. And, anyway, what is wrong with critics selecting good TV to discuss? More books are published today than ever before, but no one questions the book reviews. It strikes me as bizarre to consign TV criticism to the past on the grounds that not all of us might be watching the four terrestrial channels.
'Jaci Stephen, the ebullient and highly readable television critic, has been dropped by the Mail on Sunday.
Her last column will appear on Sunday, December 23. Stephen said today that the paper's editor, Peter Wright, has decided to follow the path of Associated Newspapers' sister title the Daily Mail, which dropped its TV review column last year.
Stephen was told of the decision earlier this month. The paper is in the process of revamping its review section and has decided that in the multichannel age people no longer watch a narrow range of programmes.
She added that, while she still feels a strong loyalty to the paper, the decision is wrong. "I think television still needs reviewing. it is still the most important medium in the arts," Stephen said.
"But I think television reviewing needs reinventing. Newspapers haven't changed their approach: they need to keep up with the times. However people are still talking about the main shows, whether they are The X Factor, Strictly Come Dancing, Spooks or Cranford."
Wright said: "I've worked with Jaci Stephen for 20 years. She is a brilliant TV reviewer, but TV has changed and in a multichannel age I'm afraid I just don't think reviews have the appeal they had in the past."
Stephen will continue to write her column on the soaps for the Saturday edition of the Daily Mail. She is also in demand as a features writer, recently contributing a heartwarming piece about reaching the age of 50 for Femail.
She has worked under contract for Associated Newspapers' titles since 1988, and is one of the most high profile of its stable of writers.
The Daily Mail dropped its TV review column in August last year, when the paper's long serving TV critic, Peter Paterson, retired after 20 years in the job.'
Now, taking Jaci Stephen out of the equation - who has always struck me as an embarrassment - what on earth are newspaper editors up to? We're still living in an age when most people don't watch 100 channels every day. We're still drawn to the likes of Life on Mars, Sopranos, the Saturday night shows, etc etc as a mainstream audience. And, anyway, what is wrong with critics selecting good TV to discuss? More books are published today than ever before, but no one questions the book reviews. It strikes me as bizarre to consign TV criticism to the past on the grounds that not all of us might be watching the four terrestrial channels.
0
Comments
Now I think there's so much on, I'll choose whatever I fancy, and to be honest there is less time to read about it, if the box is on. If you don't like a programme you can choose another asap.
I never read Kevin Sullivan, Ally Ross, Ian Hyland, Grace Dent, Nancy Banks Smith, Garry Bushell etc etc anymore. The only reviewer I read is Brooker, which is nice and succinct once a week.
I'm a very selective viewer, so I wouldn't watch hardly anything without reviews or prior knowledge. Although this event is no great loss.
I find Charlie Brooker has a fairly similar taste to me (although I hope he only watches reality TV because he's paid to). So I use his recommendations along with those of other internet places. I think there's an argument that print reviews are outdated.
i remember the first film critic for 'TV Quick' gave 5 stars to a Japanese film made in 1936 in black & white with subtitles
i can only say that 'I' would have hated it - so the review was worthless to 'me'
this same critic gave blockbuster 'E.T.' TV premiere 3 stars - what a sap
It was at this point when I realised it was a worthless opinion and the only worthwhile method of review would be include a list of their top ten favourite films
This way you can see whether 'they' have the same taste as 'yourself' in films - only then making their review pertinent to yourself
.
K
There's no need to embrace relativism. We can agree on something being a well-made programme without needing to agree we all liked it. Someone might not like soaps but could still evaluate the standard of acting and writing. This idea that all reviews are merely 'worthless opinions' is just a confusion.
There is
Nobody, but nobody wants to know how 'well-made' a film is (except another critic) - they want to know if it is 'good' (will they like ito 'Watch it')
No they can't - This comes straight from the critics (film/music/art) formula that:
Hard to make (this was shot underwater on a camel) = Good
It doesn't!
they are
and the idea that anybody is remotely interested in how 'well-made' a piece of art is, as opposed to whether it's good - is truly absurd
what does not suprise me - living in a world where Reebok could skin-wrap dog turds and sell them for $50 peice is - some people clearly don't have an opinion at all and 'need' someone else to tell 'them' what 'they' like - which is equally even more absurd
.
Yup. Stephen was a dreadful old hag who seemed to spend her reviews swooning over the leading men:yawn: There is definetly still a place for Ally Ross & Brooker, who offer an often hilarious pastiche of the recent TV schedules.
You speak for everyone. Badly. Not very relativistic. IMHO. (Funny, though, how you relativists are the most authoritarian in your assertions!)
Who might be vaguely interested in how well a film (peice of art) is made (an objective view) and at the same time not interested whether it's good/bad to see - apart from another critic
nobody!
which probably answers the question why 'TV Reviews Dead?'