I found it interesting to think of television criticism as something that was not reviewed on an episode-to-episode basis. I have always witnessed television criticism being handled in this manner, because, in my lifetime, that has been the preferred method. I feel that so much would have to be overlooked in a "restaurant critic" style approach, brushing over the series as a whole and not delving into the specific moments that do or do not work. It is interesting to me to learn about the people, in any discipline, that find new ways of doing things, that then become the norm. I would agree that the style that Sepinwall helped to create is rooted less in objectivity, but in a creative form, such as this, fixed in subjective analysis, I'm not sure that objectivity is, or even should be, an attainable goal.
One hyperlink I clicked on was "Dawson's Wrap" simply because I had no idea what it meant. I came to find out that Dawson's Wrap is a place to find well-written, smarmy episode recaps. It seems to be ideal for shows that readers watch as guilty pleasures, since most of the entertainment comes from poking fun at aspects of the show. This style is interesting to me as I respond strongly to sarcasm and smart-ass remarks.
The second hyperlink I chose was "New York Times ethics policy." I chose this link because I was interested how strict and how immense this policy was. In this thirteen part policy complete with introductions and clause after clause of do-nots (that I skimmed at best) I was reminded why I would never work in a strictly journalistic writing medium. Mainly because I am not a robot.
No comments:
Post a Comment