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 new. 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 being an object of study, and how I intend to relate to the readers and viewers.

The first point I want to discuss is my goals for doing TV criticism which are very simple. I want to be able to have a voice—and 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 be, there is a new “critic” that pops up on a daily basis chanting and preaching his/her “new, improved and innovative” ideas. I don’t want that to be me. O’Donnell (2007) says that a criticism should be a deeper understanding of something. The critic should go beyond the face value to understand culture and society. This is exactly what I want to do (4). 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 those points when making a critique (6). 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).
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 to 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.
A heightened 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 television as an object of study. I think we, as the public, can acquire much information and explanations by studying television. To do so, 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 of television as an object of study is to look at television’s effect on society. This creates a lot of anxiety. The displacement of culture and the distortion of politics are two different kinds of anxiety we can get by viewing television. Television is sometimes looked at as dedemocratizing society. 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 reaching all types of people. I don’t try to be anything I’m not. I try to put myself in other people’s shoes and think about what kind of views or discourses they have.
Brunsdon (1993) mentions a way I can relate to my readers. It is called a transparent relationship. This means that critics and viewers are on the same “side” against some other side. It is writing about a shared experience or view. Once a reader feels more on my “side,” I can introduce new ideas and thoughts without the fear of losing an audience. When readers have a feeling of companionship with the critic, they will judge less and be more apt to take the critic’s side and defend the critic. I want to formulate this kind of relationship with my readers (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 an object of study. We need to realize that everyone who enjoys television is watching it through a different context. I will use others’ ideas to educate myself in order to relate to the viewers.

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.