Why My Opinion is Better than Yours

This is my first blog post as an up and coming television critic. My perspective and knowledge on the subject of television criticism is very young. Some people may look at television criticism as being opinion only; however, there are three key points that I want to discuss when talking about television criticism: my goals for doing television criticism, my view on television as being an object of study, and how I intend to relate to the readers and viewers.

The first point I want to discuss are my goals for doing TV criticism. My goals for doing TV criticism are very simple. I want to be able to have a voice. Not one of those annoying voices that claims outrageous ideas and opinions just because they think they know what they’re talking about or they want to create controversy, but a voice that is educated and persuasive. I want people to look to me for advice on certain subjects and to not to be led astray by what others are thinking. However simple this goal may by, there is a new “critic” that pops up ever single day chanting and preaching his or her “new, improved and innovative” ideas. I don’t want that to be me. Being able to describe, interpret, and evaluate is also very important (Sillars and Gronbeck 7). Similarly, Gronbeck and Sillars (2001) talk about the “because-clause”, significance, relevance, and coherency all playing a part in criticism and my goal is to use all of those points when making a critique (6).
New perceptions. That’s something that I want to achieve. Butler (2002) mentions polysemy, meaning television carries a lot of different meanings (6). This was something of interest at me. As an uneducated viewer I tried to look at the different views a certain type of television show was trying to create. It’s hard to put other views into perspective. Butler (2002) talks about how segments of televisional flow can be thought of as a text that weaves together multiple meanings (7). This statement rings very true to me. I want to be able to understand how one show can mean so many different things to so many different people and still be popular.
A heighten sense of knowledge is also one of my goals for television criticism. Just the fact that I will begin to get more out of something is so exciting and new. I do, however, need to understand and acknowledge that texts are always open to multiple interpretations (O’Donnell 6).

The second point I want to address is my view of television as an object of study. I think we, as the public, can acquire much needed information and explanations by studying television. Now what I mean by that statement is that to look at why society is the way it is, we need to research television. Television plays a huge role in determining people’s thoughts and beliefs. I want to be able to analyze a television program in order to understand how it works, which is a very big goal of criticism (O’Donnell 9).
Another way to look at the relationship between television as an object of study is to look at televisions affect on society. Television dedemocratizes society. There is a split between high culture and low culture. TV puts out new meanings onto things. We know that it has an impact on society, but we just don‘t know what that impact is (Corner 5).
On the other hand, Butler (2002) searches for the controversy towards television and time instead of meaning (8). Both authors do, however, agree that television is controversial which makes it an object worth studying.

Thirdly, I want to discuss how I intend to relate to my readers. First, and foremost, is relevance (Sillars and Gronbeck 11). Why should a certain reader read my blog? The main thing I have going for me in this category is that I think I’m good at being on the same level as people. I don’t try to be anything I’m not, meaning I’m not going to feed anybody bull to make myself sound better and more educated than I actually am. I feel as if this is a very good way to be (in my opinion). To relate to someone you have to know how they look into certain situations. You have to put yourself in their shoes and think about what kind of views or discourses they are viewing the same thing. As O’Donnell (2007) says, the goal of criticism should be to advance you from fundamental sensations (laughter, relief, fight, shock, tension, or relaxation) and move you to a more critical awareness which will enable you to illuminate production practices and enhance your understanding of culture, human nature, and interpretation (3). . Gronbeck and Sillars (2001) state that what I say should matter and be worthwhile. It should have significance. My criticism should also be coherent (19).
Brunsdon (1993) points out that there are three categories of relationships between the critic and the viewer. First is transparent, which means that critics and viewers are on the same “side” against some other side. Second is hegemonic, which is when critics and viewers are separate and distant. The third is fragmented and that is when there is not necessary relationship between the critic and the viewer. Now I obviously want to work on my transparent part of the relationship (312).

In conclusion my goals for TV criticism can be summed up with the word knowledge. I use the word knowledge because as soon as I gain the knowledge of criticism, everything else will start falling into place. I feel as if we need knowledge to understand television as being an object of study. We need to realize that everyone who enjoys television is watching it through another context. I will use others ideas to educate myself in order to relate to the viewers.

References

Brunsdon, C. (1993). Identity in feminist television criticism. Media, Culture and Society, 15: 309-320.

Butler, J. (2002). Television: Critical Methods and Applications (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Corner, J. (1999). Critical Ideas in Television Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.

O’Donnell, V. (2007). Television Criticism. New York: Sage.

Sillars, M. O. and Gronbeck, B. E. (2001). Communication Criticism: Rhetoric, Social Codes, Cultural Studies. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.