TV Critics and Popular Culture: A History of British Television Criticism 9780755698028, 9781848853195

Citation preview

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to dedicate this book to my new little daughter, Charlotte, who is my light and joy. I would also like to say a big thanks to her mother Mandy, who has stood by me throughout the fraught process of researching and writing this work. I would also like to thank my parents for their support, especially the present of a new laptop on which most of this book was written. Lastly, I would like to thank David for his calm and careful support and advice.

INTRODUCTION

Preamble: a personal view Every Saturday I have the same ritual. Once I return home from the newsagents, I locate the Guardian’s ‘Saturday Guide’ and, usually after a tug of war with my wife, I then proceed to read Charlie Brooker’s television column, ‘Screen Burn’. It must be said, this is one of the highlights of the week for me. While I sit and chuckle away, my wife gets frustrated as she is not party to the object of my amusement. Indeed, she gets even more annoyed as I read out extracts while trying to suppress my laughter. However, once she has got the ‘Guide’ from my grasp I can then hear her giggling at the same review. I will often then catch her eye and, for a moment, there is a sense of bonding, as we both enjoy the same joke. His column links us, even if we have not seen the programme or programmes Charlie Brooker is talking about. I’m not sure if everyone’s experience of reading reviews is the same as mine, though I do know that a good ice-breaker at a party is to ask if someone has read this week’s ‘Screen Burn’. Seemingly, the reading of such a television review column provides a kind of relationship, between you, the critic and the other readers. As I read the column I weigh up the comments of the reviewer with my impression of the programme. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes not, but in this way I enter into a dialogue with the critic. Likewise, when I talk to my wife or a friend about Charlie’s rumin-

2

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

ations, we talk through our views, comparing them to his, and try to come to some consensus. The review, for me, is a way of engaging with a public discourse around television. Not the only way, to be sure, but an important way. While such a form of writing is important, in the way it links the public together in a discourse about the popular medium of television, it appears to be a very under-researched area. If one searches for articles on television criticism or television reviewing, one does find hundreds. However, of these only a handful are about critics who review or write for the media, what have been called the ‘applied critics’; most are about television criticism as it is taught, researched and written about within universities, with their more arcane approaches. A TV critic, in such an institution, is most likely to be a learned professor with a research interest in television. If one does, however, analyse the vast tracts of academic work on television, one finds that most of it focuses on the television text, the audiences and the institutions, with a nod towards the wider economic, technological, social, cultural and political context. Few seem to be interested in the critical discourses found in the media about television. Possibly one of the reasons for this current lack of interest in the applied critic, and here I am focusing on those working for the print media, is that, at the end of the day, they are specialised journalists. While the object of their reviews and critiques is television, they work for the press. In view of this, some might argue that such an activity should fall within the concerns of Journalism Studies. However, the problem here is that TV critics are not ‘straightforward’ journalists; they might share some practices with the profession, but ultimately they are critics, using particular critical frameworks to write about television. Their work is read by the public and plays a part in the way we, the public, understand and frame television. The TV critic, in this way, plays an important role in the discourses that operate around television as an institution, a cultural

INTRODUCTION

3

form and one that is part of our lived culture. In many ways this is what the focus of this work is about. Developing an approach This work is one of the first attempts to explore, in any depth, the historical development of television criticism in the British press. I will endeavour to do this by exploring the different and changing ways in which TV critics have written about television; the style, form and underlying values of their work, and how these feed into the public perceptions and discourse around television. I begin this work in Chapter 1 by raising three main questions: Why study the TV critic? What is a TV critic? And how do you study TV critics and their criticism? In relation to the first of these, the TV critic plays an important role in shaping and guiding the public discourse around television. Such a discourse helps frame the way we understand and engage with television as a community. If we are to understand how and why television is so important to our community, and why it means what it does, we need to understand the particular role and importance of the television critic. The second question relates to defining the object of this work: what will I be looking at and what will I be excluding? As noted above, the focus of my work is on the applied critic, the critic working for the press. I am not interested in studying the discourse of academic television critics, though of course, I utilise such work to inform my approach. In terms of the actual criticism and writing I will be analysing in this work I will, like Poole (1984), collapse reviewing and criticism into one; for in many ways each form, in various ways, merges with the other and therefore they cannot easily be separated out. While I do touch on the criticism that explores television in a more contextual way, I have tended, mostly, to focus more on the dominant forms of reviewing and previewing programmes. I will, however, also include some work that, for some, might not be considered as criticism, or even reviewing,

4

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

which I call soft television criticism. This form of soft news, which touches on television, is mostly found in the tabloids, but not exclusively so. Such coverage should be included in this work as it plays a significant role in the way many understand and make sense of television; it might not look like criticism found in the quality and middlebrow papers, but it is an important factor in the public discourse around television. For the last question, of how to study the critic and their criticism, I begin by mapping out the concepts, theories and ideas which will guide my research. First of all, I position the critic within the model of the circuit of culture, indicating how we can understand the way the critic relates to a dynamic cultural process, one where the production and consumption of culture, and in this case television, are viewed as equally important. While most work in the area does not explicitly identify such a role, I will argue that the critics and their criticism do play an important part in the public discourse on television which engages with both the production and consumption processes. Such a discourse helps shape the way the community, including the producers and consumers, make sense of television, how they value it and how it connects to their lives. Critics are not all-important in this discourse, as other actors and voices do exist, but they are able to articulate their views, and values, through their regular media columns. I continue this line of thought, about how television criticism influences the way the public views television and its programmes, by utilising the concept of vertical intertextuality (Fiske 1994: 117–124). This means that our understanding of a programme, or primary text, is usually framed within and by secondary texts, other texts which inform our reading of the primary text. Television criticism, in this sense, operates as a secondary text, alongside others, helping to shape the way the reader understands and frames a programme or television as a medium. The critic will also, to varying degrees, pick up information from public discussions and gossip about television,

INTRODUCTION

5

the tertiary text, and this will feed back into their journalism. In this way the critic helps to link the three levels of intertextuality: the primary, secondary and tertiary. However, the critic is not just reflecting the views of the public, or applying some universal or god-given values. When they evaluate, review or talk about television and its programmes, they are applying and using particular socially and culturally defined values and value systems. Taking this idea on board I look at Bourdieu’s work on taste; to understand how a critic’s approach, style and underlying values stem from their cultural capital and position they take up within the critical cultural field. I will suggest that critics, depending on their cultural capital and cultural outlook, will tend to approach television by way of a serious, popular or subversive form of reviewing. However, this does not mean that all critics take up the form of reviewing that relates to their cultural capital. Some, with high amounts of such capital, might well end up producing a more popular form of criticism. Such forms of reviewing, as we shall see, have become associated with different media outlets, which are generally using such approaches and their associated values to attract different media users. In Chapter 2, before I start my analysis of television criticism, I will provide some context on where and when the modern critic appeared and how the dominant forms of reviewing developed. To help I begin by exploring the way the first media critics, in the eighteenth century, take on an important role within the emerging public discourse around culture. However, as the media commercialises there is a critical schism, with serious criticism relocating to the universities and popular criticism, mostly based around reviewing, staying in the press (McDonald 2007: 75–77). With little critical input from the university-based critics, the critics working for the press developed a popular form of reviewing, often impressionistic in style. As popular reviewing in the press came to cover film, radio and eventually television, it continued in the

6

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

same fashion, relying on literary and theatre approaches, with their focus on the text. Some have felt that, because of this bias, the form of reviewing that developed with regard to television was inappropriate (McArthur 1980; Poole 1984, 1994). Through the last five chapters of this work, I will explore and analyse historically the different styles and types of criticism that have appeared over some 60 years. In each chapter I locate a category contextually, in terms of the social, cultural and political context, and in relation to the developments and changes happening within the print and broadcast media. In Chapter 3 I explore how, as the popularity of television grew in the 1950s, newspapers began to turn their attention to covering the medium and started to appoint the first dedicated television critics. For the quality papers, television was not initially seen as a form that required the same coverage as other art forms. Those writing about television at this time, such as Peter Black, Philip Purser and Mary Crozier, therefore took on the role of helping to elevate the status of television. They achieved this by developing a means of writing and evaluating television that was similar to how other art forms were reviewed. Therefore, these critics borrowed from theatre and literary reviewing to create what they saw as a serious way of writing about television. As I show in Chapter 4, as broadcasting matured and as the press, at a time of increased competition, sought a more engaging journalistic style, a new type of television critic started to appear. By the 1970s, as newspapers increased their coverage of television, often now including previews and expanded listings information, a more popular form of writing about television developed. This was the period of the neo-critic; those who wrote in a more engaging and accessible style, but underwritten by remnants of the literary tradition utilised by the early serious critics. This was the time of critics like Alan Coren, Shaun Usher and the infamous Clive James. These were critics who, in many ways, wrote not just about tele-

INTRODUCTION

7

vision but also themselves. They were also very popular, with some such as Clive James being an important draw for the Observer. In Chapter 5 I turn my attention to a form of coverage I call soft television criticism, a form of soft news coverage. Soft news has been around, in one form or another, since the nineteenth century but has been refined over time by the popular press, which, by the 1970s, was dominated by the Sun and the Daily Mirror. Such soft criticism was used to cover television from the 1930s, but this coverage was extended from the 1960s onwards as television developed into the primary popular medium of the day. While this form is not often regarded as television criticism, it must still be viewed as important for the role it plays in providing a way for many people to engage in the public discourse around television (Poole 1984: 60). I follow this, in Chapter 6, by looking at how the revolution in television and the press during the 1980s impacted on TV criticism. This was a period during which, within a decade, the number of channels available to view rose from 4 to 40. Suddenly the cosy duopoly was no more, with new private commercial channels operating alongside the existing public service broadcasters (BBC, C4 and ITV). This was the period during which television went ‘niche’; increasingly channels and programmes were aimed at specific groups or micro-cultures, e.g. the youth-orientated MTV. The public, who were once used to all sitting down and watching, more or less, the same channels and programmes, now faced an abundance of channels. Concurrent to these developments, the print industry had begun to relocate away from Fleet Street. New technologies were being introduced, breaking the hold of the chapels, allowing reporters to enter stories directly onto networked computer systems. As the papers faced increased competition and falling readerships, they started to redefine themselves – offering not just news but lifestyle

8

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

coverage, through supplements and magazines. These were aimed at specific sought-after readers, especially a younger ABC1 demographic. As part of these changes the press began to reposition television as part of its entertainment and lifestyle offerings. Critics were no longer there to just review and evaluate last night’s programmes; they were there to provide opinionated reviews, subjective and personalised comment, to act as a global guide and to provide a postmodern commentary. As television and the press went niche, so too did the critics. Conclusion: end of the television critic? In the concluding chapter, I bring the historical overview up to date by focusing on the internet. For many, this new global network is capable of achieving all that the original concept of the public sphere failed to do. This virtual space offers the user the opportunity to interact and participate in public discourses in an unmediated way. Having access to vast amounts of (sometimes dubious) information, the user can enter into an informed discourse on equal standing with everyone else. Therefore, in terms of TV criticism, it would seem that the critic is no longer needed. Why rely on some critic you have never met to provide you with a review of a programme, when you have an equally important view; one which you can now put out there for the rest of the world to see? For some, the internet signals the death of the critic. However, as I try to show in this chapter, the possible demise of the critic is, as yet, overstated. The concept of the public sphere is not fully applicable to the internet, as we mostly do not have the same connections with people we ‘meet’ online as we have in the real world (Graham 1999: 129–136). The media-based critic supplies us with something which, in many ways, those writing on the internet cannot. They can still provide a connection to the community and the culture within which we live; as we read the reviews of the critic we act out our roles

INTRODUCTION

9

as citizens participating in a public discourse about television. The struggle I have every Saturday over the Guardian’s ‘Guide’ is part of the ritual of living in a national community. Even if such a community is segmented and fragmented for many, it is more real than what is on offer via the internet.

1 APPROACHES TO TV CRITICISM: DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK

Introduction The discourse of television critics, those who write popular reviews and criticism in the newspapers on a daily and weekly basis, is an under-researched area. Much of the academic work on television has tended to focus on programmes, audiences, institutions and the economic and political context. The work of the media-based critic is either viewed as a journalistic practice and therefore not really the focus of the television academic, or one that lacks critical rigour and therefore can add little to our understanding of the way television works as a cultural form. What I will be arguing in this work is that television criticism is an essential part of the discourse that operates around television, and one that plays an important role in how we as viewers and as a national community understand and share our views on television. In this work I will explore the form taken by such criticism, the way it has developed historically and the changing relationship it has with the journalistic and broadcast discourses and the wider social and cultural context. Before I can begin to explore the development, form and role taken by television criticism in Britain, I will need to develop some form of framework or approach and then to map

12

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

out the issues, concepts and ideas with which to make sense of such a large, disparate area. I will do this, throughout this first chapter, by, firstly, arguing that there is a need for such a study; namely, that some academic understanding of applied or public television criticism is important, both as a form of journalism worthy of study in its own right and because it tells us something about the changing public discourse around television and its programmes. Secondly, I will explore how the television critic and television criticism have commonly been defined and how these might be theoretically re-defined in the context of academic research on television and on the media more generally. Third, I will discuss how best to approach the study of television criticism. Here I will develop a theoretical and conceptual approach that views the production and consumption of culture as dynamic, where meanings are not fixed but open to a discursive struggle between competing discourses. While not the most important part of this discursive struggle, critics are able on a regular basis to articulate their views to the public. In this way they play an important role in shaping the public discourse around television. As television criticism is ‘an historically variable discourse’ (Poole 1984: 42), I will be locating my theoretical discussion within a diachronic approach, exploring how its role and form developed over time. I will therefore, in the remainder of this section, develop my historical approach to television criticism. Finally, I will look at developments in new media, which have started to allow television criticism to move from the space of the traditional media to that of the internet. This space is, of course, not dominated by media professionals; for some, this signals the creation of a new space in which the public can participate directly in discussions about television. I will now turn to the first of these points, to explore why television criticism and its critics require study.

APPROACHES TO TV CRITICISM

13

Why study TV critics? In this work I will not hold to the idea that what TV critics write determines what is popular, what is produced and what is watched. If they did, would there not already be reams of work published on them? Indeed, surveying academic work in the area shows a dearth of material on the television critic. The most cited article is that by Mike Poole, which appeared in the early 1980s, alongside a few others, such as John Caughie (1984) who focuses on academic criticism, that were spurred on by a BFI conference of the time. While this work explored the development and role of the television critic, it did so in a way that dismissed and criticised much of their work, arguing that it was very much a form in search of an object; a form dominated by a literary approach, often descriptive and reliant on humour, rather than one that took television seriously as television (Poole 1984). Over time other work has appeared which, while touching on the work of critics, has tended to use them to provide an historical context for understanding the public or critical reception of particular series or programmes, the main focus of their work, rather than to explore in depth the historically variable discourse of critics. For example, the insightful work by Thumim on early television culture makes numerous references to critics’ reviews, but mostly to illustrate the reception at particular historical moments of particular programmes. This helps, in her words, to ‘reveal much about the assumptions of the time’ (Thumim 2004: 2). What I wish to do in this work is to challenge this lack of interest, to argue that there is a need to understand the way this critical discourse has developed, the views it has presented and the role it has played in the way we understand television. While the critic is not all-powerful, he or she does play an important role in the way the public thinks and talks about television. How this interaction, between public and critic, has

14

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

developed over time tells us something about the changing way a society values its popular culture. Perhaps part of the problem has been an over-emphasis in much of the academic work in the area on the text, its form and influence, rather than on wider contextual discourses, such as those of the TV critics, that operate around and through the media (Hartley 2002: 27–28). Even where there have been moves away from studying the text, towards a more active view of the audience, the role of the critic, as one who recommends and frames the possible meaning of the programme, does not sit well. It is the viewers’ routines, discussions with friends and relatives and their social-cultural background that seemingly play a more important part in what is watched and what is thought of television and its output (for example: Morley 1986). The critics, unlike the public, are able, often on a daily basis, to write in the media about their views of television and its output. They are able, through their criticism or ‘reports’, as Jack Gould the American television critic called them (1996), to create frameworks for understanding particular programmes or genres; they highlight popular debates surrounding certain programmes, debates they nurture and engage with; they provide pleasure for the public in the reading of their reviews and criticisms, as well as presenting new ways of enjoying and engaging with the programmes themselves; they also engage with television at a variety of levels, as an art form, part of popular culture and as part of everyday life. Some critics or journalists also engage with the industry and policy makers over the direction of television’s development, over such questions as ownership, regulation and censorship – though these have been in a minority (Poole 1984: 58–59). For John Fiske, these journalistic debates about television can be conceptualised as operating along an axis. At one end of the axis are the broadcasters who, with the use of PR and marketing publicity, create a positive narrative image of their

APPROACHES TO TV CRITICISM

15

channel or programmes. At the other end are the independent critics – those who are able to provide the public with a more thoughtful and critical viewpoint. Between the two points sit the fan and cult magazines, those that are not completely under the control of the broadcasters and are keen to develop and present their views of the programmes but, at the same time, are often reliant on the producers and broadcasters for access to the stars, background information, images and industry gossip (Fiske 1994: 118–119). Although the idea of this axis is simplistic – there are, for example, many different types of critics, some with closer relationships to the television industry than others, and who are more reactionary than others – this axis does help illustrate the different positions that exist and the struggle that occurs between various actors in the media over the possible meaning of television and its programmes. However, critics are not neutral conduits. They are not just tapping into a set of universal values or simply reflecting public views, but rather they work within a particular social and cultural context structured by dominant values and views of what constitutes worthy culture, television’s place within this culture, and what, aesthetically, defines good television. Many critics through their work reinforce these dominant views and values in various ways, such as by creating and referring to a canon of work by which to judge new programmes, and helping to perpetuate key ideas about how television can be evaluated. Some critics have relied on a literary approach, focusing on television programmes as texts and highlighting the creative role of the director and writer. This approach has, over time, tended to support a particular hierarchy of television genre, with drama at the pinnacle and programmes such as soaps and quiz shows at the bottom – a hierarchy often reinforced by the broadcasters themselves (Poole 1984: 53, 50). Certain critics, therefore, through their discourse, help reinforce a dominant view of what is good or

16

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

bad about television. This discourse often aligns with more widely held cultural values and often overlooks or denigrates alternative ways of discussing television and its output; for example, in terms of its collective production or consumption, less as art and more as part of popular culture. At the other end of the cultural hierarchy are those who write about television in a soft news form. This is a form of writing that does not elevate television as an art form, but talks about it as part of popular culture, as part of the everyday (Poole 1984: 59). Such soft criticism focuses less on the text, the aesthetics and creative forces behind it, than the ‘real’ and ‘reel’ lives of the actors/stars, the behind-the-scenes gossip, fashion secrets, kiss and tell stories, etc. This coverage of celebrity has attracted increasing amounts of academic interest (for example: the reader by Redman and Holmes (eds) 2007). Such soft criticism often focuses on the television genres that are often dismissed by serious critics, such as soaps, situation comedies and reality programmes like Big Brother or X-Factor. It is a form of soft journalism, often associated with the feminine and the emotional, which focuses on aspects that are important to people’s lives; indeed, it plays an important role in how people relate to and make meaning from television (Allan 1999: 112–117). And, while this form of criticism might often be looked down on as a non-serious critical approach to television, it does deal with television in a way that closely relates to how many experience this medium and, should not, therefore, be quickly dismissed (Poole 1984: 59–60). While some critics might write in a way that supports the dominant ideological view of culture, or in a non-critical manner, helping to support a particular cultural hierarchy of what constitutes good and worthy television, others sometimes present more radical readings; new ways of understanding television and its output. These might include critics who dismiss much of the earlier critical work on television and the literary

APPROACHES TO TV CRITICISM

17

values which informed this work, and who might elevate parts of television once dismissed or forms not regularly held in esteem. One particular group of such critics (or a style of writing) I have identified elsewhere, are those I call the critics of the ‘carnivalesque’ (Rixon 2006: 154–157). Their work sometimes suggests different ways of understanding and valuing television, often turning more serious approaches and views on their head. Studying such work provides an understanding of how critics can help resist the dominant views and values, how new ways of thinking about television and television culture can appear and how, ultimately, these ideas are subsumed into the mainstream. Critics, while often focusing on particular programmes, are also important in the way they engage in wider debates about the nature of television. For example, Chris Dunkley (television critic of the Financial Times for many years) was concerned in the early 1980s that with the coming of satellite and cable British television schedules might become dominated by North American programmes. This idea was developed in Dunkley’s book Television today and tomorrow: Wall-toWall to Dallas? (1985). Another example is Peter Fiddick who, through his regular column, presented ‘informed coverage of the structural, institutional and industrial forces that lie behind the making both of individual programmes and of the policy decisions that ultimately regulate them’ (Poole 1984: 58). Critics, therefore, are not just evaluating and judging programmes, but also engaging in a public discussion about the direction of development, what programmes should be made, what support should be given to new talent and where the industry is failing the public. This can feed into policy discussions, for example about the future funding of the BBC or the way digital television should be developed. The work by such interested and concerned critics and journalists gives us some insight into the public discussions about the future of television, or at least the various positions taken in such a debate(s).

18

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Who are the TV critics and what is television criticism? To help understand the identity and the roles of the TV critic, it is useful first to explore the etymological roots of the words ‘critic’ and ‘criticism’. McDonald, in a useful book about the critic, notes that the act of criticism is defined as the act of passing judgement, but it also ‘implies explanation, commentary, summary, analysis, interpretation, de-coding and so on’ (2007: 42). Indeed, the word has its roots in the Greek word krit, which refers to a standard or test that might be applied to a work (Himmelstein 1981a: 21). McDonald points out that Kritos refers to ‘a judge’, one who might apply such a test, to evaluate a work of art against a certain standard (McDonald 2007: 41). Obviously, in various ways we all partake in this practice: we watch films and then comment on what we thought of them, often using our collective store of other films we have seen to judge or ‘test’ the current one against. In this way we pass critical comment. We are being critical, but this does not make us a public critic. The critic I am interested in works as part of the mediated public sphere; his or her critical insights are for an audience to read, watch or hear. As these critics have direct access to the media, they can be seen as public critics – those whose ideas can be read and judged by all. For Bruton Connors these are the ‘applied’ critics, those who take on the role of a ‘sort of public relations officer’ where they will provide the public with ‘its first acquaintance with the work of art via his critical review. After he reports the existence of the work, he may analyze and evaluate it’ (cited in Himmelstein 1981a: 21–22). Such a critic is usually viewed as an expert in the area, able to apply a shared cultural understanding built on knowledge and expertise in the area, its past history and related values. These critics are judging and interpreting, in some form, for the wider society, as much as a judge in a court interprets the law and passes sentence on a suspect on society’s behalf. In this work I am, therefore, most interested in those critics who

APPROACHES TO TV CRITICISM

19

write or communicate on behalf of the wider public, who take on the mantle of professional critics – which is mostly a title bestowed on them by the media which employs them. Though, as I touch on in the final chapter, with the appearance of the internet, members of the public are increasingly able to mediate their judgements and evaluations of television and its programmes. The critics who work for the press are not just there to offer serious critiques of television programmes, but also to entertain the readers, though these roles are not mutually exclusive; their object of critique or review might be television but they also work for the press. While they seek to write engaging copy they still employ particular ideas, values and critical frameworks, which are usually in accord with dominant views of what makes or does not make good television. What the critic has to do is to balance these different needs, at least at a stylistic level, which is usually influenced by the newspaper they work for and the imagined reader. Therefore there are differences between television critics and their forms of criticism. Some write what might be defined as serious criticism compared to others who might be viewed as providing a more entertaining and popular form. Such criticism sits within a cultural hierarchy, one shared by the journalists, media industry and the public at large. The media industry echoes this, such that some critics working for the ‘serious’ papers, those ‘quality’ newspapers such as the Telegraph, the Independent, the Guardian, or The Times, will approach and write about television programmes and institutions using the dominant cultural values. Their work is often perceived as more important culturally than the work of those writing for tabloids such as the Daily Mirror or the Sun, who tend to produce more popular and entertaining copy, mostly in the form of soft news – in a way echoing the different cultural standing of newspapers in the cultural hierarchy. Alongside the ‘serious’ critics sit the ‘intellectual’, those who

20

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

publicly express views on a wide range of subjects, often through different arenas, who might write less often but will provide longer critical pieces about television for the quality press – as Littlejohn suggests, there is a difference between the reviewer, who works to strict deadlines and only writes short pieces, and the intellectual who writes less often but longer, more reflective pieces about television for a magazine, newspaper or sometimes in essay form (Littlejohn cited in Himmelstein 1981a: 32). For example, Raymond Williams, who has written for many journal, newspapers and magazines, wrote as a TV critic for The Listener in the late 1960s, and, for many, would be classed not just as an academic but as an intellectual (see: Eagleton 1987: 108–115; O’Connor 1989). While there are many types of journalistic coverage of television, in this work I will focus on those working for the press, where such work is read and engaged with by the wider public. For this reason I will focus on the work of the designated TV critic, cultural intellectuals and columnists, who sometimes write about television, and other journalists who touch on television, often by way of fashion, news stories or gossip. All these writers contribute in their own way to the public discourse on television. Therefore I will not only be collecting and analysing TV reviews but also previews, general critiques of television and those offering behind-thescenes views: what might be thought of a mixture of hard and soft forms of news. I will also be looking at the current and future possibilities offered by the internet, where the public are now able to articulate their views on television quickly and cheaply to potentially millions of other people. For some, this new media form spells the death knell of the critic as we know it, while for others it is the birth of a new form of television criticism, in which the public critic still has a role.

APPROACHES TO TV CRITICISM

21

How do you study TV criticism? Television studies is, in many ways, a fairly new discipline and has, over time, come to include various approaches focusing on the text, audiences, institutional histories and the nature of production (Creeber 2006: 4–5). In many ways my work here continues this development by adding to our wider cultural understanding of television by exploring an under-researched television discourse. The problem, however, is that as one moves one’s centre of attention away from the programmes, audiences, institutions or production, the focus of the work becomes less one solely on television, and increasingly one that touches on a disparate range of discourses, which in the case of television criticism includes journalism, literary criticism and popular culture. Therefore, to stop the work spreading out too much, I will have to carefully delineate the way I will conceptualise television criticism, its relationship to television, to the public and to the discourses such as journalism and the wider social and cultural context in which it is produced and consumed. The ideas introduced here will help shape the structure of my work and will be explored in more depth in the following chapters. In the following section I will, firstly, develop a conceptual and theoretical approach to how television criticism works dynamically as part of the public discourse around television. Here I will argue that many of the existing models of the media fail to signal the existence or the role played by the critic in the way we value and make sense of our television culture. Secondly, I will delineate my historical approach, exploring how I will analyse the development of different types and forms of criticism in the British press over some 80 years. Television criticism: A theoretical view To begin to explore the importance of the TV critic within a public discourse about television we need to understand something about their relationship to such discourse, how

22

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

critics’ work relates to the production and consumption of culture, in what ways it helps in the maintenance of dominant values and ideologies and how the TV critic might, at times, help in allowing space for resistance and negotiation over meaning. Therefore, there is need for a dynamic conception of television, as part of the media and cultural industries, one where meaning is not fixed, but is more discursive. In this conception meaning can be conceptualised as developing out of an interplay between the users, the producers, and various discourses within a wider social and cultural context. One useful way of conceptualising the cultural process in this way is presented within the circuit of culture framework (Johnson 1996; du Gay et al. 1997). Such a model maps out the relationships that exist between producers and consumers in the production of cultural meaning and identity within society. Moving on from early one-way communication models that stressed the passivity of the audience, with meaning shaped by dominant commercial or ideological forces, a circular model presents a more balanced understanding in which the media, working within a particular context, produces certain forms of cultural representation that are actively engaged with by readers from within their lived experiences. This then feeds into the wider culture and, eventually, back into the context of production and consumption. This is a dynamic view in which producers and consumers are equally important in the production of meaning, though both are situated in a particular social, cultural and ideological context. Such a model would suggest that meaning is not set or fixed within the text; that the text is polysemic and that different meanings can be activated or produced by the reader, depending on their own social and cultural baggage. Therefore, ‘[a] work is potentially many texts, a text is a specific realization of that potential produced by the reader’ (Fiske 1994: 96). This does not mean that there might not be a preferred meaning, or a dominant ideology within the text, just that this

APPROACHES TO TV CRITICISM

23

might not be activated or read in the way supposed every time; or that some ‘voices’, at certain moments and in particular situations, are more able to articulate their world view than others. In this way there is a struggle over meaning; one where powerful groups and forces seek to maintain their view of the world. One way to think about this struggle over meaning is in terms of discourse. Discourse refers to the way terms, ideas and indeed things are spoken, written and organised publicly, which gives rise to ‘widespread perceptions and understandings’ (Lull 2000: 173). They are where the ephemeral concept of ideology starts to exist in a more material and researchable form. Over certain discursive terrain discourses will meet and the different ideologies articulated through them will lead to a struggle. This struggle is not always equal; those in a position of power are usually more able to argue, or to articulate, their viewpoints louder and through more outlets. Therefore, we can see in such a model how different discourses might exist around television, for example over the possible detrimental effects of television on society: a theme that is often taken up by certain newspapers and dominated by those of the right when criticising television organisations and their programmes. Another discourse, concerning television’s cultural importance, is one in which television critics play an important role. However, such a model, and similar ones utilised by those who study the media, culture or television, has as yet found little room for the television critic. They are either touched on fleetingly, or amalgamated into other discourses circulating around television and journalism, rather than being seen as important in their own right. I want to argue that there is a need to understand the role of the critic as a significant part of this process. Critics straddle both the production and consumption part of this model, engaging directly and indirectly with both television producers and audiences, helping to

24

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

create and maintain different frameworks for understanding television. Their work also offers a ‘material and readable’ form for exploring the discursive struggles by various groups with different ideological positions over culture and questions of value. Thus the work of critics allows a way for us to explore historically the manner in which public debate around culture and television has developed over time. Another way of thinking this through, of considering how these different discourses engage with readers as they make sense of television, including that of television criticism, is with the concept of intertextuality, operating both horizontally, across texts within the same media, such as between different television programmes, and vertically, with discourses articulated through different types of media which exist around television, such as newspapers or magazines (Fiske 1994: 109–124). Fiske suggests that while the text is a site of struggle, where meaning is made by the interplay of readers with the text, we must also consider the role of intertextuality. For this work I am particularly interested in vertical textuality and the role of television criticism as a form of secondary text. The secondary text includes those utterances beyond the primary text, the TV flow or programme, which frame the way the text is understood. For example, a viewer might read a review that highlights certain aspects of a television programme, perhaps those linked to a particular way of evaluating television. When watching the programme, or a similar programme, the viewers, consciously or not, might activate this framework, which informs the way they evaluate the programme. Therefore, the secondary text, advertising, publicity and television criticism must be understood as part of the process of creating meaning, a way of framing the shared and individual view of television and its output. The broadcasting industry will use its publicity to try to shape a certain view of the programme, a pre-image, to attract audiences, to create a success, while critics on the other hand are

APPROACHES TO TV CRITICISM

25

there to counteract this – to provide different positions or views on the programme (Fiske 1994: 118). The third level of intertextuality is that of the tertiary text, that of gossip between members of the public, letters sent in to the media, phone-ins and, now, discussions on the internet. These discussions might also come to help the public form particular view points, shared meanings about programmes, frameworks for evaluation, and points of reference. It could be argued that television critics can be seen as part of both the secondary and tertiary text. They might pick up from public discussions, gossip and letters about television and then reproduce or use this information in their writings on television. This is especially true for television journalists writing in a more soft news form who often pick up on public discussions, other media discussions and gossip on celebrities for their copy. Their public utterances, or journalism, can then feed back into tertiary discussions – into public gossip. This does, however, start to present a problem in determining where one text ends and another starts and, indeed, where a text ends and the reader starts – or even if this division is possible and useful. For John Hartley, this can be a bonus. He suggests that television and its readers are ‘dirty’; they are hard to define and have no clear boundaries. Where is the end of a text, when does the next one begin? Where does the primary text end and the secondary text start? It is in this ‘dirtiness’, this lack of identity and a clear boundary, that a productive interplay happens (Hartley 2002: 23). It is in this space that struggle and resistance can be located. What is interesting is the ‘way these boundaries are erected, transgressed and policed’ (Hartley 2002: 24). The fear of the upholders of the dominant culture, and its notion of the traditional text, is that if the ‘dirty’ boundaries break down, the populace, the readers, will be able to create uncontrolled or unregulated meaning, which might escape the elites’ hold on shaping the text. This could weaken the cultural hierarchy,

26

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

leading to resistance to the dominant cultural values. Television criticism enters into this discursive area both supporting an idea of boundary, trying to define and to reduce television to a text, but also, in some cases, by talking about its boundaries in a ‘dirtier’ way, helping to blur the programme and real life, for example with soft news coverage of television. From such a discussion it would seem that there is a need to take account of where a critic’s critical abilities, tastes and values come from. Taking up from Bourdieu’s work on class distinction and taste, I will argue that the cultural values of critics are not natural or god-given, but, as with all of us, are shaped by particular cultural dispositions, the result of education and upbringing and, by dint of this, class (Storey 2003: 43–44). Therefore, critics must be viewed as products of particular social, cultural and political contexts. Their evaluations and judgements on television are informed by particular class values, outlooks and tastes. Critics work within a discursive field that is structured in such a way that, at any given time, a particular hierarchy of value and taste is in dominance. The hierarchy confers a position of power on those equipped with a corresponding cultural knowledge, or cultural capital, which will usually equate to that held by the dominant class. The dominant class will use its power ‘to impose, by their very existence, a definition of excellence which [is] nothing other than their own way of existing’ (Bourdieu cited in Storey 2003: 45). However, this hierarchy is not stable. Other culturally aware groups will struggle for new ways of valuing and understanding culture; ways which will, in the future, increase the value of their cultural capital. This point is underlined by Garnham and Williams, who argue that ‘all societies are characterised by a struggle between groups and/or classes and class fractions to maximise their interests in order to insure their reproduction’ (Garnham and Williams 1980: 215). Such a concept would suggest that critics will usually take up positions in the critical cultural field in relation to their

APPROACHES TO TV CRITICISM

27

class and associated cultural capital. Those critics with the most cultural capital, usually belonging to the elite classes, will be in a dominant position. They will align their views of what constitutes good or bad television and their approach to evaluating television with the dominant cultural hierarchy and its views on mass and popular culture. Therefore their approach and its underlying values will allow them to be accepted and defined as ‘serious’ critics, and they will be employed by prestigious media outlets. Others, perhaps those from subordinate classes will, utilising their particular cultural values, write about television in different ways, which will be viewed and valued, culturally, as inferior to the ‘serious’ critics. These critics might, therefore, work for the middlebrow or popular newspapers, producing what is seen by society as an entertaining and less culturally edifying form of criticism. There might also be critics who refuse to take up their allotted positions in the cultural field, who might try to subvert the existing cultural hierarchy by presenting different views and ways of understanding and valuing television. As these groups struggle over the meaning and acceptance of television, those in dominant positions in the field might label these subversives as being inferior in an attempt to discredit their views. In turn, the more radical critics might be critical of the approaches taken by the dominant critics, seeing them as reactionary, upholding elitist views of popular culture and television. The critics engage in a public discourse, through their various media outlets, articulating particular cultural, economic and political views in relation to television, either providing particular views of television that reinforce the dominant cultural hierarchy, or offering alternative, subversive or ‘dirty’ views. As explored above, cultural processes such as television involve a complex interplay of various discourses between various groups, classes and institutions which struggle over its meaning. The newspaper television critics enter into this in

28

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

various ways: they are part of television’s secondary and tertiary text, where they use their access to the media to help shape and direct the public discourse around television and its programmes. They are part of a wider institutional, critical and social discourse that includes input from other journalists, producers, politicians and the public, relating to culture, critical values, the role of the media and the like. They also, because of their social and cultural backgrounds, take up different positions within the cultural hierarchy which informs their approach to television. Therefore, to understand the role of critics requires a dynamic and complex understanding of culture, not as a simple one-way process where meaning is inscribed in the text but one where the wider context can play an important role. In this way texts need to be understood as being discursive, where a struggle occurs over meaning (Fiske 1994: 94–95). While the discourse of critics is not the most important voice, it is a loud one, published most days in newspapers and magazines as well as being aired on radio, television and now found online. Analysing the work of critics can tell us something about the public discourse about television; the way in which different groups view television’s position as part of our popular culture. Their work can tell us something about the struggle between the public, broadcasters and the critics over the policing, control and changes to the eventual meaning of the text and television as a popular form of culture. TV criticism: an historical approach Any historical engagement is complicated by what Corner calls ‘the multifarious nature of “television” as an object of critical and sociological study’ (2003: 275). Indeed, as I will argue, my object of study is additionally complex because, while critics write about television, they do so from within a journalistic discourse – they work and write for the print media. Therefore I am faced by the problem of whether I am explor-

APPROACHES TO TV CRITICISM

29

ing the television or print media. However, I will, for now, suggest that it is a discursive practice that is touched on by both journalistic and television discourses: the critic works for the media but writes about television. The critic is, therefore, connected to two different media histories, one of which is television while the other is the press. For many television historians there are five identifiable aspects of television: television as an institution; television as production; television as a form of representation and form; television as a socio-cultural phenomenon; and finally television as technology (Wheatley 2007: 7; Corner 2003: 275). While all historical approaches will include a range of these within their remits, it is very hard to confine one’s interest to just one or two of them. While to do so might simplify the process it will not allow the complexity that is required when researching television historically. Taking this on board I will be touching, in different ways on all five forms. I will also, alongside this, explore the journalistic discourse, especially in relation to notions of hard and soft news and their association with different newspapers, and how these have changed over time. Finally, I will analyse historically how critical debates about culture and popular culture have framed, engaged with and determined the form taken by different forms of public criticism, including literary, art, radio, theatre and, lastly, television criticism. Approaching the historical study of such a multifarious creature as television raises many questions and problems. One of the hardest for many working in the area has been the lack of material to analyse, often causing what O’Sullivan calls blind spots (2007: 168). Few programmes from the 1940 to the 1960s were recorded, and only the BBC holds anything like a complete archive of internal and external communications and memos. This raises the question of whether such a limited amount of data provides an adequate in-depth understanding of television. However, sometimes it is the

30

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

sheer amount of material that causes problems, as this requires some form of selection to narrow the field. For example, since the 1970s vast numbers of programmes have been produced and recorded. This is almost impossible for one person to view and analyse. Therefore, particular periods will often be focused on, but this also raises certain objections. As Corner asks, how can one determine the start and finish of a period and which periods should be looked at? (2003: 277). Even at the simple level of gathering material together there are problems when researching TV criticism: while one can gain access to different examples of television criticism and journalistic reports from newspaper archives, such as Colindale, with 80 years worth of material, with many different national papers and magazines, there is too much for one researcher, or even many, to handle. Therefore, for this work, I will be focusing on particular moments of television criticism, moments when particular forms and styles were dominant. Through my research I will dig down in depth at these moments to explore this form of criticism, but I will also extrapolate out, to explore its development over time and its connection to other forms and styles of criticism. This does, however, raise a question about the historical narrative that needs to be constructed to link these different moments together. Helping to guide this research, the ‘reading’ and ‘telling’ (Corner 2003: 273–274), has been the imperative not to create a ‘“lop sided” history of television in the United Kingdom’ (O’Sullivan 2007: 168–169). There is a requirement to use and explore a good range of different historical resources providing as complex view as possible, to provide a kind of historical triangulation. There is a need not only to look at the development of the form of criticism, but also to contextualise it, to understand its relationship to the wider debates going on about television, journalism, cultural criticism and popular culture; to look at these other inter-

APPROACHES TO TV CRITICISM

31

secting discourses. There is a need to accept that television is, as John Corner has put it, ‘a multi-faceted object of study, connected as it is to a whole set of contested issues of value’ (cited in O’Sullivan 2007: 168). Therefore the aim is not just to reproduce an accepted view of television history, or in this case television criticism, but possibly to throw up contradictions, problems and unanswered questions and, as noted above, to explore the contested issues of value. Therefore, the main research element of my historical approach focuses on the critical and institutional discourses about television and its programmes as found in the press, written by critics, journalists, intellectuals and, in some cases, the public. I have focused on the selective output found in newspapers (tabloid, middlebrow and broadsheet), listings magazines and magazines. I supplemented this with a range of relevant autobiographies, such as those by Wiggin (1968) and Purser (1992), and collected works by those such as Worsley (1970), Brooker (2002, 2007), Enright (1990), Lewis-Smith (1996b) and James (1981, 1982, 1983). However, as noted above, as there was too much to be handled by one, or even several researchers, I focused on particular categories of criticism that came to predominate in certain periods, and certain types of publications. This required a consideration, however, of which categories and publications to focus on, and to make sure that the sample was large enough to provide the in-depth study required of the form coming to dominance at a particular time, while also allowing a broader understanding of how the area has changed over time. This I undertook, after some initial forays into the archive, by identifying the different types or categories of criticism, based on their underlying values, style, critical framework and form, which dominated various publications at particular moments. I then selected a range of critics and publications associated within these categories to analyse in more depth. Therefore, for example, I explored, through the work of critics such T.C. Worsley,

32

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Peter Black and Philip Purser, a form of criticism that has tended to view television as a form of art or as a serious form of culture (Rixon 2006: 140–143). Other categories included those critics who approached television more as a form of popular culture, whom I have called neo-critics, an approach associated with critics such as Clive James and Alan Coren; and those such as Charlie Brooker and Jim Shelly who have tended to write about television in a carnivalesque way, a form I have called elsewhere ‘surreal criticism’. However, some forms are less amenable to this form of approach; for example, what I will call soft television criticism. This form, which has been around since the beginning of television, is linked less to the work of particular journalists than to particular types of newspapers. And, therefore, it will be explored by way of the newspapers in which this form is mostly found. In a similar way, where I explore the work appearing on the internet, I will focus on the different spaces, websites, discussion pages, blogs, etc., where discussion occurs about television, rather than exploring the work of particular writers. While the main focus of my work will be on the discourse of critics, I will also be utilising and re-visiting existing historical work to provide a wider cultural, social, technological and institutional context for my own historical analysis. This will include work that covers the cultural and social developments in Britain (Sinfield, 2004; Turnock, 2007), institutional histories, such as those by Briggs (1961, 1965, 1970, 1979, 1995; Vol. I–V) and Sendall (1982, 1983), programme, production and genre histories, such as those by Cooke (2003) and Nelson (2007) and those that touch on technological developments, such as Winston (2000) and Williams (1979); work that focuses on the development of the press in Britain, such as Conby (2008), Williams (2010a, 2010b), Curran and Seaton (1997) and Allan (1999). Also, as my work touches on discourses about culture, criticism and value, I will include work that explores the development of critical approaches to cul-

APPROACHES TO TV CRITICISM

33

ture, including work on literature and theatre (Eagleton 1987; McDonald 2007; LeMahieu 1988; Hoggart 1965) and some recent work on the questions of how critics, here meaning scholarly critics, are starting to approach questions of quality in relation to television (McCabe and Akass 2007; Geraghty 2003). Such an historical approach, focusing on the writing of television critics, will allow me to explore the way, over time and across media outlets, the form taken by criticism, its underlying values and the way it has written about television, has developed and changed. It will also allow me to analyse the changing relationships of critics to their social and cultural background and the wider context within which they work. Such a multidimensional historical approach will help provide a complex and dynamic understanding of British television critics and their output. The internet, television criticism and the public With the appearance, development and spread of the internet (which for this work I will conflate with the World Wide Web), there is now the potential to create spaces where all can engage more fully in a virtual public sphere(s) (Rheingold 1993). No longer is the public constrained to engage only with a mediated public sphere(s), one more or less structured by the media. Now they can also take an active role in public discussions on the internet. The public can use the internet to gain access to vast amounts of information and knowledge, of varying quality, which potentially allows them to engage with others on an equal standing. In terms of television criticism they no longer just have to read reviews and criticism but can create their own. For some this potentially means the end of the monopoly held by the media critic. Now the public also has access to a medium that can disseminate their views and opinions.

34

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Indeed, in recent years a number of American newspapers have been reducing the number of TV critics they employ, on the grounds that this service is now being supplied online and there is no need or reason to compete (Rayner 2008: 4). Others, such as McDonald, have argued that this death of the critic is linked to a systemic problem with criticism, not just the rise of the bloggers on the internet (2007: 146). Others see such developments less in terms of the death of the critic but as a move of television criticism to the new creative outlet of the internet, either in terms of new critics establishing themselves or old ones using the internet to supplement their work in the ‘old’ media (Siegel 2008: 25–27). ‘It is less a question of the death of the critic and criticism than its rebirth, I don’t think critics are under threat, but things change and people get a bit out of touch’ (Allsop 2008: 6). Or, as Michael Billington argues, even in such a new media world there is still a need for professional critics: [T]here is a crying need for someone who brings to the subject a lifelong professional commitment: more than ever, I’d argue, in an age of spin and hype. You can attack particular critics – and it has been known to happen – as being out-of-touch or past their sell-by date. But I came away from the Stratford conference convinced that we still need critics, not least because they provide, in the excellent words of Shakespeare professor Carol Chillington Rutter, ‘a hedge against amnesia for the next generation’ (2009: 21). One concept used to understand such developments, as noted above, has been that of the public sphere. This refers to a space where anyone can freely enter and partake in rational discourse, including discussions concerning television. However, as with the original concept applied to the coffee houses of the eighteenth century some people, such as women and

APPROACHES TO TV CRITICISM

35

the poor, were often excluded (Dahlgren 1995: 10). Also, as some have argued, it is possibly not just a case of one sphere but many (Dahlgren 1995: 18). Like others I would like to argue here that, in many ways, the concept, while useful, is not completely applicable to developments on the internet (see also: Bignell 2001: 199–201). Instead, what is needed is a more dynamic understanding that can take account of the way spaces and lines of interaction on the internet are being constantly redefined and remade. It is not so much a question of one delineated virtual space(s), awaiting people to freely enter, but more one where people’s interactions define and shape the different spaces or areas of discussion. Perhaps one way of thinking through the way the public interacts on the internet, the way it continually redefines the virtual space with dynamically changing links and connections, is in terms of rhizome, mesh and nodes (CrannyFrancis 2005: 126–128; Lister et al. 2003: 26–27). The internet, in this model, is not ordered in a linear sense: there are many potential connection points or hyperlinks that users can follow, alongside their own searches using a browser. The internet is therefore like a rhizome in character: its structure is complex and random. At the same time, as certain areas of the internet attract more traffic, so they become nodes in the complex mesh of the internet; gravity points that pull in more users. At these points, individuals from many different nations, regions and cities can come together, whether it is to shop, read, discuss, create, protest or simply lurk. These nodes or nodal points are virtual places of interaction and participation. However, while the idealised form of a public sphere might connect with the citizen, and civil society, and provide a space for rationale discourse, the interactions on the internet do not necessarily have these affiliations or types of interactions. Many of the virtual communities that appear do not have the same underlying features as a political, social or cultural community; the discussions are not always part of a

36

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

rational discourse; and the need for a shared identity is not necessary. Therefore, rather than thinking of a public sphere(s) operating on the internet, with its suggestion of areas where many types of discussion will occur between those of equal standing, where it might map with a geographic place, such as the nation, with a linkage to particular social, cultural and political structures, one should think of it in terms of a dynamic mesh, linking individuals, groups and publics dynamically, with little to tie users together. The internet is a space where many different types of people will interact, often focused on particular topics or activities, including television, which might have little connection to the culture and social existence of a nation or similar community. However, these virtual discussions can at times touch on the physical world, on existing public sphere(s) and debates. Therefore they can play an important role in national debates about television, engaging with existing public discourses around television. It is the impact of the internet on current television criticism, and how it is changing, that I will focus on in this work. This idea of mesh and nodes will be developed further in Chapter 7, where I will spend more time reflecting on examples of criticism that are found on the internet. Conclusion In this chapter I have explored the reasons for studying an under-researched area of British television criticism. As I noted the number of scholarly articles, books and chapter dedicated to the public or ‘applied’ television critic, can almost be counted on one hand, the most cited article being that of Mike Poole (1984). In most scholarly work over the years, where references to newspaper television critics has appeared, it is usually to contextualise our understanding of the debates or views of a particular time or period. For example, Briggs uses examples from various newspapers to look at the

APPROACHES TO TV CRITICISM

37

way ITV was criticised for relying on American programmes (1995: 13). Part of the disdain for or lack of interest in the work of such critics relates to their deficient theoretical rigour and their overall impressionistic approach (Poole 1984). However, while academic work has for a long time ignored the work of the critics (a stance not helped by their status as journalists), with the development of Television Studies there is renewed interest in trying to understand the wider discourses appearing around television, including those of TV critics (Turnock 2007: 44–47; Thumim 2004: 40–42; Wickham 2007: 81–83). Also, there has been some interest in exploring more evaluative approaches to television – partly helped by the appearance of a form of quality television which has gained critical praise, including series such as The Sopranos, The Wire and Dr Who (McCabe and Akass 2007). Indeed, some scholars have recently been asking their own questions about how and whether those working in Cultural Studies and Television Studies should engage more with, and indeed make, evaluative judgements (Geraghty 2003). Others, echoing Poole, have also come to argue more generally for some rapprochement between the two types of criticism: academic and journalistic criticism; a closing of the schism (McDonald 2007: 146–149). I have argued in this first chapter that the development and role of British television criticism needs to be reevaluated. That, in many ways, it is a forgotten part of our television culture. Such criticism needs to be understood as playing an important role the struggle between various discourses on the meaning of television and its programmes. As part of this struggle television critics develop and feed into a secondary text around television, using particular critical approaches informed by their social and cultural position, but they also pick up and represent the discussions and concerns of the public, of the tertiary, reaffirming or at least debating the wider collective views on television. Such writing, at this

38

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

point where critical and evaluative approaches meets popular viewpoints, helps create a shared framework for thinking about television. TV criticism must, therefore, be studied as part of the process by which we, the public, come to make sense of television, and the way we share and develop this understanding collectively. However, television criticism can also be explored as a form in its own right, one which brings pleasure to those who read it. As such it is an activity that not only tells us something about the industry it reviews, but the media in which it is found, its practices, needs and development. As such it can be explored as a particular form of journalistic discourse or practice, a primary text in its own right, and not just as a secondary text related to television and its output. In this work I have decided to focus on the critic and journalist writing about television in national newspapers and magazines. While such work also appears on radio and television it is more ephemeral. Once broadcast it has virtually disappeared and is therefore hard to collect and analyse, especially in terms of coverage from decades past. Also, I would argue that the discourse found within the printed media closely parallels and represents the general critical discourse found on the broadcast media. I have also decided to define television criticism as being made up of reviews, previews and other critical writing about television, taking from Poole’s suggestion that there is little point in dividing the study of television criticism into component parts, as these tend to blend into each other anyway (1984: 42). My approach will also include looking at soft news coverage as this is a form which, while not cast in the usual critical language found elsewhere, plays an important role in the public discourse about television. It can also offer a more contested view, one from the ‘dirty’ margins, where cultural control breaks down, allowing a form of possible resistance (Hartley 2002: 23–24).

APPROACHES TO TV CRITICISM

39

In the following chapters I will give an historical account of the different types and categories of television criticism which have been dominant at particular moments and in certain newspapers. I will explore the style and form taken by such criticism, the underlying values, and the linkages to the wider social and cultural context and to the journalistic and broadcasting discourses. Through such analysis I will explore the important role television critics and their criticism have played in the public discussions about television. I will end by looking at how, with the rise of the internet, this role is threatened or at least redefined. I will seek to understand what future there might be for the television critics and for television criticism and for the national public discourse on television.

2 THE RISE OF THE MEDIA CRITIC

Introduction With the development of the press, critics started to appear who took on an important and active role in the public discourse around culture. They wrote widely about different aspects of culture, society and politics. However, as the media became more commercialised they faced pressure to satisfy the needs of editors and their readers by producing copy that would entertain. Therefore, as we shall see, there was a split, with those advocating a more critical form of criticism going to work in the universities, the last bastion of the public sphere outside of commercial and political control, and those left working in the media, who continued producing popular copy. It is against this backdrop that television criticism appeared in the press. Unable to engage with or utilise suitable approaches developed within the universities, TV critics looked towards existing forms of reviewing and criticism, forms heavily reliant on a literary tradition and often impressionistic in style. Taking this on board I will, in the first section of this chapter, explore in more detail the rise of the bourgeoisie critic in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a time when Britain moved from a feudal to a mercantilist and then capitalist society. Such critics, working for the new print media, took on an important role in the developing public sphere –

42

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

helping to produce and maintain a cultural consensus that was to become important for the nascent middle class. However, as the tensions between upholding and protecting the cultural consensus and the need to produce popular copy increased, at the end of the nineteenth century criticism split in twain, with the more critical approaches moving into the universities, where cultural standards could be maintained, while more popular reviewing and criticism stayed in the press. In the second section I continue this exploration by, firstly, looking at how English Literature, the foremost area of criticism, developed in the universities and then, secondly, exploring how the more popular coverage, based mostly on reviewing, developed in the print media. For many, after the schism at the end of the nineteenth century, the cultural role of critics working in the media went into decline while those working in the universities became increasingly isolated from the public discourse. This led to a lack of engagement between the two, with evaluation mostly being left to the media critics, while those working in the universities found it hard to accommodate. In the third section, I will end by providing a broad survey of the different categories or types of television criticism that have appeared over the past 80 years. These categories of television criticism, with little input from the universities, have relied mostly on types of textual analysis or reviewing developed in relation to other forms, such as theatre and literature. The aim, in this final section, is not to provide an in-depth analysis of criticism at this stage, but rather to identify and locate historically the different categories of criticism which will be explored further in the following chapters. The critic and the public sphere As the feudal society in England gave way, initially to a period of mercantilism and then nascent capitalism, society changed and a new class began to form, one which was going to be the

THE RISE OF THE MEDIA CRITIC

43

petit bourgeois and later the middle class (Eagleton 1987: 9–27). The elites, in England at least, put up little opposition to the formation of this group, which started to become aware of itself and to agitate for political power. However, in a very English way, this was done without destabilising the existing power structures. At the heart of these developments was the public sphere in which the critic, working for the print media, took on a role in creating and sustaining a cultural consensus. For some, ‘[w]hat will help to unify the English ruling bloc, in short, is culture, and the critic is the chief bearer of this historic task’ (Eagleton 1987: 12). As Eagleton argues, the modern form of criticism developed at this time in the space between the civil society and the state, in what Habermas calls the public sphere (Eagleton 1987: 9). The critic, working for the media, did not initially focus on literature; indeed, the novel was very much a late Victorian invention. Instead, they were writing about ‘general ethical humanism, indissociable from moral, cultural and religious reflection’ (Eagleton 1987: 18). Indeed, some of the early critics have been described as men of letters. Writing in periodicals, such as The Tatler, Spectator and Rambler, the critic would reflect on all aspects of culture, society and, in some places, literary text. This was a space where the new form of mediated public discourse could develop. Working in the form of essays, these writers, for example Addison and Steele, were important in circulating the ideas of civilised or polite society, helping to define the concept of the gentleman. As the new bourgeoisie with its economic wealth began to partake in different forms of cultural activity, to which the market responded, so the critic was increasingly involved in writing about, reviewing and judging these activities, whether theatre, literature or arts. They were arbiters of taste, helping to create and shape the nascent middle class’s culture, its values and cultural outlook (McDonald 2007: 54). Indeed, it could be argued that they were seen as a way of spreading and reinforcing the

44

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

correct, civilised views of art and culture – those of the new, aspiring middle classes. The critics of the period were ciphers for deep cultural questions about the value, the proper function, and the correct techniques and forms of art and literature. These questions were, it was invariably assumed, universal: the standards of taste were the same everywhere and at all times (McDonald 2007: 55). However, while for a period of time the bourgeois public sphere held together around a cultural consensus, a counter sphere(s) was developing. A working class was developing through the nineteenth century which was demanding, and slowly gaining, political power. The mass media industries, such as the press, were starting to respond to the demands of this new class, helping to create a mass-produced culture, which also attracted the developing lower middle classes. As the ‘consensus’ became increasingly defensive some, such as Matthew Arnold, argued that there was a need to defend the status quo, that there was actually a need to bring in these outsiders; a form of incorporation was required. If the middle classes ‘cannot win their sympathy or give them their direction, society is in danger of falling into anarchy’ (Arnold cited in Eagleton 1987: 63). Arnold initially argued for state intervention, a way of supporting these cultural values; however, he then began to look for a place, beyond the troubled public sphere, where criticism could safeguard its integrity. We thus see, at the end of the nineteenth century, a schism occurring in critical debates with the more critical elements and proponents disappearing into the universities where they could continue and develop, albeit by ‘committing political suicide’ (Arnold cited in Eagleton 1987: 65). Such criticism survived by marginalising itself. It was a schism which weakened both parts of cultural criticism. Those in the university missed out

THE RISE OF THE MEDIA CRITIC

45

on the engagement with the public, while the criticism developing in the media now lacked theoretical rigour. I now wish to look, in more detail, at how these different forms of criticism developed in their particular environments and the lack of fruitful engagement between them, which has been to the detriment of both. Academia and the critic At the end of the nineteenth century it was hoped that in the universities, away from the commercial and popular pressures of the media and the wider problems faced by the public sphere and middle class culture, cultural acolytes would be able to establish and maintain standards that would allow high or elite culture to be maintained (LeMahieu 1988: 132–133). This was, however, done at a price, for such critics and ideas were mostly sidelined from the main public discourse (McDonald 2007: 80). They also had to contend with intense criticism from other university disciplines, which led them to jettison the idea of evaluation, and its hint of subjectivism (McDonald 2007: 88–89). Literary criticism, the foremost form of criticism at the time, was not welcomed by many within these old universities. Those already working in such institutions saw their own disciplines as being founded on a scientific rationale. Many allied areas, such as philosophy and classics, with their use of the archives, old scripts and the re-readings of known texts, looked down on this usurper. What would it be looking at, how and why? Would it just focus on reading novels and, in some way, deciding on which ones were better than others? For many it seemed to be a soft subject, with no underlying methodology or scientific approach (LeMahieu 1988: 133). To overcome this, English took on a philological emphasis, one where the focus was not on critical analysis of modern text but on the historical exploration of old English and the history of the language (McDonald 2007: 88), where it could

46

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

show that a form of research akin to that in other disciplines, such as visiting archives, occurred. However, for some, to allow this shift of focus, to study the history of English, meant the discipline had sacrificed its critical and evaluative function. However, by the early twentieth century a form of criticism started to develop that managed to throw off the shackles of philology, allowing the focus to be drawn back to the text: a focus and approach that, in one form or another, dominated literary criticism for the next 50 years (LeMahieu 1988: 133–137). I.A. Richards, in many ways, was seen as the father of this new form of literary criticism. Through his work he provided English or literary criticism with a scientific basis, taking ideas from psychology to understand how the experience of reading or viewing a text is behavioural. One looks at art through one’s eyes, and this stimulates the brain to provide a response; whether joy, sadness or some form of insight (McDonald 2007: 90–94). Therefore, if one can understand how we view a text we can understand the response. Therefore the critic needed to look closely at the text, to understand how it was understood and read. In this way, Richards helped in the move towards close textual analysis, what was to develop in America as New Criticism and in Britain as Practical Criticism (McDonald 2007: 94–98). His work allowed literary criticism to begin to take on the characteristics of other disciplines, while still being able to look at the text, rather than just exploring its historical context of production. Following on from I.A. Richards two other academics, F.R. and Q.D. Leavis, while turning away from his more psychological approach, continued to develop the idea of close reading. For LeMahieu their approach had two distinct parts: firstly the close readings of text and, secondly, a related general cultural analysis. Through polemical essays they would focus on literary works, and often the personality behind them, presenting a form of satire that often ‘shocked and outraged

THE RISE OF THE MEDIA CRITIC

47

opponents’ (LeMahieu 1988: 296). They saw themselves as protecting a culture under attack from commercial media forms, including those from America. They, and their coterie, were there to uphold standards; to protect civilisation. For some critics, who often fell out with the Leavises, it was hard to ascertain what these standards were. For example Rene Wellek famously challenged F.R. Leavis to make it clear what his standards were, but he never received an adequate response (ibid.). However, this aside, the Leavises were to have a substantial impact on literary criticism, as well as other critical approaches to art and popular culture; partly as their acolytes helped spread and utilise their ideas in public life and also because their approach was much in accord with dominant middle-class views and values. Over time this focus on the text, the wish to uphold cultural stands and the creation of canons of work, embedded itself in many forms of critical practice. At the centre of this approach was evaluation, brought back in from the cold after the period when Literary Criticism was developed as part of Philology (McDonald 2007: 105–106). The Leavises’ work in the inter-war period helped elevate the status of culture and the role of the critic. Their ideas, with a focus on analysing the text, were influential with many critics, both those working in the universities and the media (LeMahieu 1988: 294). By the late 1960s new radical forms of thought started to develop in universities which attacked traditional approaches to cultural criticism. These were much more theory-laden forms of academic criticism than before. Increasingly, taking up the ideas of structuralism, post-structuralism and discourse theory, those working in such disciplines as English, Sociology and later Cultural Studies, came to proclaim the author as dead (Eagleton 1987: 137–138; Newbold et al. 2002: 248– 250). What was increasingly important for those holding these new views was the operation of language, the way meaning

48

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

relates to underlying structures rather than to some form of ‘reality’. Meaning was increasingly seen as a relative term, made out of binary opposites. There is no reality as such. Instead it is defined by and within culture. Increasingly the whole position and role of art was viewed more in terms of ideology and a form of cultural relativity than as offering some transcendental insight. The role of criticism was no longer to present evaluative judgements on literature or art; this approach was seen as one supporting the ideological system and its associated value systems. A critical approach should, instead, expose the workings of ideology; it should be employed to deconstruct the text to show the interplay of power. While the university-based critics were somewhat cut off from their counterparts working for the media, this did not mean that some ideas or interchange did not occur over this period. The critics working for the quality papers who sought to develop a more serious approach often used the ideas and values associated with Practical Criticism and the approach taken by Leavis. In many ways such critics were utilising and engaging with dominant cultural values, associated with the elites and middle classes, which the likes of Leavis were protecting and trying to maintain. Media critics and reviewers, often versed in such values from school or university days, therefore found it expedient to use such an approach to correlate with the dominant values shared by their readers, even when applying them to forms popular culture with different histories and practices than English Literature. When the radical theories of structuralism and post-structuralism appeared in the late 1960s, this had little impact on the approaches taken by the public or the applied critic. Indeed, if anything, they reinforced the schism between critics working in academia and the media. While the new academic critics looked down on any form of evaluation or judgement, those working in the media held on to this aspect, still harking back to a

THE RISE OF THE MEDIA CRITIC

49

literary form of criticism of another age. I now want to move on to look more closely at how popular criticism developed in the media. Journalism and popular criticism By the late nineteenth century Britain was going through dramatic social changes, which included the appearance of a new lower middle class. Between 1871 and 1911 the number of male white-collar employees grew from 262,000 to 918, 000, while the total number of salaried workers grew from 1.7 million in 1901 to 3.8 million in 1938 (LeMahieu 1988: 8). Newspapers such as the Daily Mail and Daily Express prospered as they targeted this new social class, helping to provide them with cultural and social guidance and information, which included providing reviews of the latest books, plays, films and gossip on the stars and celebrities. Indeed, by the 1920s the press was one of the major British industries, overtaking shipbuilding and chemicals in size (LeMahieu 1988: 12). Closely linked to the rise in these new classes was the development and expansion of the commercial media, including the popular press, film and radio. For some, these developments signalled the end of the old British way of life and the start of a consumerist society, one often equated with an Americanisation of British culture (Hoggart 1965). Newspapers, keen to sell more copies and to attract larger readerships, including these new classes, encouraged the development of a more popular form of journalism, often utilising practices imported from America (Conboy 2008: 166– 167). These forms spoke to this new audience; one made up of different classes, diverse education levels, political persuasions and gender, in more accessible ways. Some newspaper proprietors even began to take more notice of women readers, often looking to the success of women’s magazines and journals. For example, Lord Northcliffe started magazines aimed specifically at women, experimented with a newspaper

50

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

run by and for women, the Daily Mirror, and encouraged all his editors to include columns dedicated to them (LeMahieu 1988: 39). Many newspapers, aware they had to connect with the readership, employed journalists, often with minimum education, who had similar backgrounds to the reader. These were writers who understood their audience, who were culturally close to them (LeMahieu 1988: 20). These were papers that could be dipped into quickly, that could be read on the move, by contrast with the more serious Victorian papers that almost required a life of leisure to read and engage with (Ornebring and Jonsson 2008: 28). Throughout this period popular newspapers experimented with their form, the layout, the use of pictures, their language and stories covered. For example, from the 1880s humaninterest stories increasingly appeared in daily national newspapers. These were stories about problems faced by everyday people, not political or economic stories that often meant little to them. These were stories most people could relate to, told in a way that made them relevant (LeMahieu 1988: 22– 23). Indeed, the gossip columns – once dominated by goingson of the rich and powerful – were increasingly taken over by stories about the new film stars. Such columns would give information about up and coming releases, what was happening in the life of a star and, in more fashion-orientated sections, what clothes the stars were wearing (LeMahieu 1988: 43–55). Part of the role of these popular papers was to reflect on popular culture, to write about people’s interests and leisure time; in other words to cover what they were reading, buying, watching, listening to and doing. They were encouraged by the media industries, film, publishing and soon radio, which needed to persuade people to go to the cinema, to buy the book or to tune in to the station. Some critics, those working in universities or those writing for serious journals or newspapers, were critical about this new popular culture. They

THE RISE OF THE MEDIA CRITIC

51

provided little coverage of it, and when they did it was often damning. Those working for the popular press were much more positive, however (LeMahieu 1988: 105–106, 115). Increasingly, readers of popular papers could read about new book releases, films, plays, the lives of the stars and similar topics. Newspapers, magazines and journals had, since their creation, provided popular reviews and pieces of criticism of various cultural forms for their readers. For example, by the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries criticism of theatre and reviews of plays were appearing on a regular basis in many publications including The Tatler and The Spectator, by writers such as Joseph Addison and Sir Richard Steele. Over time some of these discussions came to focus on the aesthetic of the form, while in other publications more behind-the-scenes gossip was provided (Elsom 1992: 247). Overall the form of criticism that came to dominance was not theory-laden, and tended towards the impressionistic. One of the main proponents of this form was William Hazlitt, who wrote for periodicals like the Examiner and the Edinburgh Review (McDonald, 2007: 66). He developed a form of criticism called impressionism, where he would communicate his feelings about the work he reviewed. He was particularly gifted at describing the novels and artwork he reviewed and was able to both praise and hold to account, often in relation to the same work (McDonald 2007: 66–67). In his writing we can see a critic who is less a judge and more a partisan or persuader, trying to win over his middle-class readership (McDonald 2007: 66). In many ways this form of writing carried on into the twentieth century. By the interwar period theatre critics like James Agate, working for the Sunday Times, and W.A. Darlington, with the Daily Telegraph, relied on their own sensibilities and humour to communicate with their readers, often using a form of ‘touchstone’ criticism, where they would

52

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

compare a performance or artist to one of the great performances (Elsom 1992: 250). Press reviews and critical pieces on literature were going through similar changes by the early twentieth century. By the 1920s thousands of books were being published. Indeed, the expansion of the market can be seen by the number of those working in the profession. Six thousand authors, editors and journalists are recorded on the census in 1881, but this number had increased to 20,000 by the 1920s (LeMahieu 1988: 130). To help guide readers in such a market, newspapers had started to include many book reviews. For some, many of these reviews lacked a critical edge, however. ‘Formal mechanisms of evaluations, such as book reviews, lost their credibility in some circles as the number of reviewers increased and critical standards declined’ (ibid.). Virginia Woolf argued that while the nineteenth-century critic helped improve the work of writers, in the twentieth century they ‘merely flattered egos, settled personal scores and generally cancelled each other out because of their vast number’ (Woolf 1967: 207). In many ways these views emphasise a perceived division of criticism, between those providing a serious form of criticism, either found in learned journals or quality newspapers, and others who seek to provide a more accessible, more impressionistic form, often found in the popular newspapers, where the critic talked about their personal likes and dislikes. Unlike some of the new mediums, such as radio and later television, film was quickly accepted by many as a popular art form. By the early 1920s, popular and quality newspapers had begun to appoint film critics. As LeMahieu notes, in the 1920s the Manchester Guardian appointed C.A. Lejeune, Macer Write was taken on by the Westminster Gazette, Ivor Montagu wrote for the Sunday Times and Iris Barry wrote for The Spectator and Daily Mail (LeMahieu 1988: 115). However, again, many of these early critics used a literary or theatrical approach, concentrating on the text, performances and the

THE RISE OF THE MEDIA CRITIC

53

story. Interestingly, at this time Barry argued that film criticism had to break away from theatre criticism to develop its own form of evaluation: ‘Film was not theatre … [it was not] drama with the word left out’ (Barry cited in LeMahieu 1988: 116). A similar argument has been made by Poole in relation to television criticism having to break away from dominant literary approaches to create its own approach (Poole 1984: 43). As the popularity of radio grew from the 1920s, so the popular papers began to cover this new medium, often with a degree of criticism about the BBC’s monopoly (LeMahieu 1988: 229, 274). Initially, the coverage by the press of radio was by journalists writing about it in terms of news stories though, as radio critics were appointed, columns appeared that focused exclusively on broadcasting. Some of the first critics writing about radio in the British press included Ernest Newman, writing for the Sunday Times, C. Henry Warren, writing for The Spectator, Collie Knox, writing for the Daily Mail and Sydney Moseley, writing for the Daily Herald (LeMahieu 1988: 180, 275–276, 280). In many ways, such criticism and its associated values developed from the work of critics writing on theatre, film and literature, with a focus on the text, often evaluating the performance, the script and form. However, these radio critics also produced some more contextual pieces which discussed such issues as the role of the BBC as the nation’s only broadcaster. While the critic as reviewer became an important journalistic role, producing often very popular copy, it was a role that was very much looked down on by many cultural critics – especially those working in the universities. For some the role was too much in awe of popular culture, and the industry that created it. For one thing, the object of the review – massproduced culture – was, for some, beyond redemption (Rixon 2006: 10–11). Also the language used by such media critics often lacked critical rigour. It had little in the way of an

54

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

underlying aesthetic framework or standards and was, in many ways, impressionistic. The reviewer was often thought to be in league with the media he worked for and the ones he was reviewing (Poole 1984: 50). There were therefore doubts about the objectivity of the reviewer. Categorising television criticism In this section, following on from the discussion above, where I explored the historical development and role of criticism, and how it divided into popular and critical forms located respectively in the media and universities, I will begin to delineate the different types of writing about television that have appeared about television in the press since the 1930s. Such a survey approach is useful, as it helps identity the appearance of different forms of television criticism or news coverage and links this with some of the wider contextual developments. However, as with any cultural developments it is hard to decide when a form, such as television criticism, actually began. Therefore, I will begin by looking at the coverage given to the early development of television, which predates the employment of full-time television critics. While I will seek to identify different categories of criticism, these are not mutually exclusive. Some critics and newspapers, alike, use and mix different forms of criticism; there are no clear lines of division. One can equally find serious and popular articles and styles within the same paper, if not by the same writer. My exploration here is not to suggest that certain forms of criticism are more important than others, but rather to sketch out when, where and how different forms of criticism appear and their basic form. These categories will then inform the following chapters, where I will explore in more depth the different ways in which television has been written about and valued by critics. I will now, in a more or less chronological form, explore the different forms of criticism that have appeared in the British press over the past 80 years.

THE RISE OF THE MEDIA CRITIC

55

Early television coverage Much of the early coverage of television in the national press, as is common with any new media, concentrated on explaining the technology, how it works, what it does and how it might develop. Indeed, for Philip Purser, J. Stubbs Walker, the Daily Mail ’s science correspondent, was the first television critic: ‘[who] enthused about signal strength and picture hold and even looked the part of a cranky boffin, with a red beard and glasses and a slide-rule in his pocket’ (Purser 1992: 5). Much of this coverage initially tended to focus on the technological aspects of television rather than its output; only after time, as television became more popular, did a more aesthetic response develop (Black 1973: 12). At this stage newspapers relied on their business, science and general staff journalists or existing radio journalists to provide TV coverage. Few papers had dedicated television critics until after the war. One paper that allowed its radio critic to write about television was the Daily Mail. It employed a famous radio critic, Collie Knox, who wrote generally about the activities of the BBC in both sound and vision. Therefore, the criticism and written coverage of television in this early period was limited. In some ways it was waiting for the medium to mature and develop, for its popularity to increase, for newspapers to find it worthwhile to cover and for some form of critical acceptance. Until the early 1950s, coverage was mostly provided by critics already assigned to write about radio, journalists writing more generally about television, those covering technological developments and, as we shall see, those writing about it in a form of soft news coverage. Only as television ownership spread, as it became a popular medium, as newspapers saw a competitive advantage in providing coverage and as programmes appeared that were deemed worthy of critical praise, did television critics begin to be employed by newspapers.

56

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

The early TV critics: TV as art Television criticism started to develop in earnest after television was re-launched after the war, as Mary Crozier noted: ‘[p]ress criticism of television, since it started again after the war, has become much more regular and vigorous than radio criticism ever was … [m]ost newspapers now have a daily note about the programmes of the night before’ (Crozier 1958: 202). Throughout the 1950s, as the number of sets owned or accessible by the public increased, television became one of the main popular mediums. By 1959 the number of combined television and radio licences had overtaken the number of radio licences (Seymour-Ure 1993: 76–77). Newspapers began to take notice of the increasing popularity of the medium and in the 1950s and 1960s they increased their coverage, in terms of schedule information, background debates about the nature of television, and, importantly in terms of this work, in reviewing and writing about programmes and television personalities. The television criticism that appeared in the 1950s in the middlebrow and quality papers was both critical of television, for example highlighting the possible impact of television on the British way of life, and its potential effects on families and children, while also trying to develop a way of critically engaging with this new medium. Many of the first critics saw their role as helping to elevate television culturally; to get it accepted as a cultural form with which they, the critics, could engage. To do this, to give some credibility to their work and that of television, they borrowed from and utilised forms of criticism already employed by literary and theatre critics; bringing about a transference of cultural values. Using such frameworks they could highlight where television was making a cultural contribution, and where it was going wrong. Indeed, a number of the early television critics had previous careers as theatre critics, for example Philip Purser, T.C. Worsley and Peter Black. As Worsley wrote in his 1970 collection of his

THE RISE OF THE MEDIA CRITIC

57

reviews, ‘I came to the medium as an experienced dramatic critic and that is about all, and that bias remains in these articles’ (Worsley 1970: 12). These earliest critics writing on television in Britain set out to provide a type of criticism that would help get television accepted as a serious cultural form (Poole 1984: 45). While they argued that they needed to come to terms with television as a new medium, and had to develop a new critical approach, they were informed by dominant views on culture and associated forms of cultural criticism. It was very much a valueladen form of criticism, which looked down on Americanstyled programmes and imports, while supporting more innovative programming, mostly drama, and the general rationale behind the public service ethic (Thumim 2002: 208). This influenced the way they approached television: programmes were there to be judged, to be criticised; the best had to be highlighted and the worse attacked or forgotten. The focus of the critic was very much on individual programmes and their form, rather than their function and the pleasures they gave. Television matures: the rise of the neo-critics As television began to develop its own forms, often adapted from other cultural mediums, such as radio, music hall, film and stage; as it became part of the everyday lives of British people, and those of the critics; as it matured as a medium, so a new form of television criticism appeared – what I have called elsewhere neo-criticism. In other words, the way television was evaluated and written about changed with the medium (Rixon 2006: 143–150). Indeed, it could be argued that, at a more general level, the journalistic discourse around and about popular culture was changing from the 1960s. New critics came to prominence, or existing critics changed their way of writing to embrace a more popular style, one where humour was often mixed with limited textual analysis. This was a mixture that some traditional critics did not like. One writer

58

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

noted about one of the new breed of television critics: ‘the least good thing about Clive James was the troop of jokers – or wankers, as Dennis Potter classifies them less politely – who followed him’ (Purser 1992: 161). These critics accepted that while they were perhaps more knowledgeable about television than the public, they needed to write about it from the same position as the viewer (James 1981: 16). They had to understand and approach television as a popular medium watched and enjoyed at home; if they failed to do this their newspapers might look for a critic who could. This new form of criticism was more accepting. It was not just an attempt to utilise, in a manner that was too literary, a critical approach borrowed from another medium; to look at television through the critical eye of the literary or theatre critic. Nor, however, was it an attempt merely to praise and accept all the programmes produced. It was an attempt to create a form of journalistic criticism more in tune with television as a popular medium. To quote Clive James: there is not much to choose between the dumb critic who likes everything and the smart one who likes nothing. The first is tube-struck, in the way that some theatre critics are stage-struck. The second is the purist in the way that some neurotic parents try to keep their precious child free of germs, only to see it die of a cut finger ( James 1983: 20). Somehow a balance had to be struck, between liking and enjoying television and also being discerning; between the critic as critic, and the critic as viewer. The neo-critic would often use a style of criticism that mixed humour with watered-down critical analysis, which has tried to view the programmes from the position of the viewer. This approach tried, in some ways, to treat television as television, rather than as literature or theatre. Such an approach

THE RISE OF THE MEDIA CRITIC

59

did, in varying ways, allow a fuller, more open public debate about television to emerge. It managed to do this by firstly accepting the popular status of television, using references and a language that the television-watching public understood and could engage with, while, secondly, maintaining the critics’ credentials by continuing to focus, as most media critics did, on the text. Hence, these critics would often focus on the author behind the programme, the verisimilitude of the script and the performances of the actors. The reason for the appearance of this form of reviewing and criticism is linked to the maturing of television and the needs of the journalistic discourse to cater more for the desires of the reading public. The readers wanted to read about the programmes they were watching, and not just those deemed by the critic to be important. Soft television criticism Soft news coverage, with its association with a feminised form of news, often dominated by female critics and journalists, seemed well suited for a medium that many saw as frivolous, and therefore not related to the hard news values associated with masculinity (Allan 1999: 148–149). Such coverage, what I call soft television criticism, is more subjective, emotive and involved than that of hard news that takes the stance of disinterested, objective coverage (Allan 1999: 130–156). This form of writing about television, it could be argued, is usually very popular and connects more to the life of the average reader, male or female, than forms of coverage that critique the cultural form in question. Soft television coverage, whether as a popular review, synopsis, or general coverage tends to argue less about the critical merits of a programme, or to offer alternative readings or to explore its form, than to provide a commonsense view of an already popular programme. This does not mean that such writers do not inform the readers about new up and coming programmes, or provide some way of

60

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

helping readers negotiate an understanding of the programme but, when they do this, they are informed by their experience of what, they believe, will fit with the popular sentiments of their readers and their understanding of the wider popular culture. The critics are often influenced, in their turn, by the marketing and publicity that surrounds new programmes (Poole 1984: 49–50). This form of journalism quickly found television, as it grew in popularity, to be a productive area. For example, Kenneth Baily was offering TV industry gossip and stories in his regular column, ‘TV News’, back in the mid-1950s, for example ‘Sally’s not so pally in the alley’ (1954). It can now be found most days in all modern newspapers, either in specific television sections or pages or in other places where there are stories or features on stars, TV personalities or fashion. Often, in such pieces, the journalist will mix the fictional and real worlds of the character and actor; the ‘reel’ and ‘real’ worlds. The idea is to add to the pleasure and enjoyment of the readers as they imagine what was happening between the actors when the programme was filmed. The readers are as likely to gossip about these actors and celebrities as they are about people they know. Increasingly, television has become part of the tertiary text of the readers; part of their lived culture. This form of popular discourse, or soft criticism, found within the news media, does not obviously subvert or undermine the existing dominant cultural hierarchy, in terms of the news values or critical cultural values. It accepts that it is talking about television in a less serious way than other forms of journalism. However, it does open up a popular discourse around television, and particular television programmes. It allows readers to engage actively with the text in a way they understand, and it provides them with new forms of pleasure and enjoyment. This is a form of television writing that, on one level, reaffirms, by maintaining the polar opposite, the

THE RISE OF THE MEDIA CRITIC

61

hierarchical relationships of elite and mass, of high and low culture, of frivolous and serious. The critics, newspapers and readers are aware that this is non-serious criticism; if you want the serious criticism you have to buy another kind of paper. Though, as I will highlight in Chapter 5, there are moments when such criticism plays a role in exposing the ‘dirty’ nature of television boundaries, helping to raise questions about the dominant cultural hierarchy (Hartley 2002: 23–25). Multichannel television: the critic goes niche At the start of the 1980s the British broadcasting environment was on the verge of a revolution. Soon the three national channels would be joined by another, Channel 4 and, by the end of the decade they would be joined a multitude of satellite and cable channels and then, in the late 1990s by another off-air channel, Channel 5 (Williams 1998: 171–192). By the 1990s the average viewer, if willing to subscribe, could have access to hundreds of channels (Rixon 2006: 170). Alongside these developments new domestic technologies, such as VHS, and later, DVD, hard disc players and the internet, increased the number of different ways a viewer could access television services and programmes. It was no longer a top-down broadcast-driven service but one that was increasing propelled by what some might call viewer demand. Indeed, the demise of broadcast television seemed to be happening more quickly than many would have thought. In 2009 Neil Beckett, of Virgin Media, was reported to have said that ‘television viewers are watching more programmes through video-on-demand services than via some traditional channels’ (cited in Sweney 2009: 28). As television changed, as it was increasingly defined by channel abundance, as some channels went niche, newspapers began to expand their television coverage. The amount of coverage of television increased dramatically over the 1990s, such that most newspapers now offered full weekly listings,

62

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

usually on a Saturday, of all the most important off-air, cable and satellite channels. With the increased use of VHS and later DVDs by those marketing programmes, the preview sections of newspapers increased. The Daily Mail even replaced its daily review section with previews in 2006 (Ellis 2008: 244). Tabloids increased their soft news coverage of television, with more stories starting to make it on to the front pages, while it even expanded in the quality papers, appearing mostly in their supplement pages. Increasing, across all newspapers different types of television criticism were evident, from the serious to the comic, even to the completely surreal. As television went niche, and newspapers followed, both trying to produce a cultural product aimed at niche audience groups, so the critics followed in their wake. No single form of reviewing or critical style dominated in this period. With the appearance of a ‘must see’ form of television programmes, so a serious form of criticism found a new lease of life (Rixon 2006: 147–148). For some, programmes were being made and shown that could be treated almost like literary texts. This was a new golden age for these ‘serious’ television critics. Alongside this form of coverage, other critics continued the type of criticism first developed in the 1970s, offering a personalised, subjective and often impressionistic approach to reviewing combined with a large slice of humour. While they would often make some limited critical point about the programme, these points were sometimes hard to spot. Other critics appeared who seemed to offer more innovative forms of reviewing, some of which seemed very surreal – often turning the dominant approaches on their head. They were reviewing for knowledgeable readers, writing about a huge range of programmes using an almost fan-like understanding of television. Alongside these developments the newspapers began to position their coverage to act as a global guide to the confusing world of channel abundance; to

THE RISE OF THE MEDIA CRITIC

63

position themselves as the place to go to find out about what was on. It would seem that as television went niche, so too did the television critics. Rather than trying to serve huge swathes of the population they were seeking to serve very specific readerships. The new public critic: the internet critic Alongside the massive increase in programme availability, the internet now offers a new space and means for public discourse about television and its programmes. Traditionally the public’s access to mediated public debates about television, apart from sending letters to newspapers or phoning up radio shows, has been limited. They are also often positioned as non-experts in any debate. This exclusion, technological and cultural, is changing with the rise of the internet and the huge array of websites dedicated to television and television criticism. A new form of public criticism is appearing, one that mixes the public and critic’s role, allowing anyone with internet access a means to participate in a public debate about television, or to engage online with media journalists often through a newspaper’s website or associated blog sites, e.g. www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog. These television websites, and closely related ones, provide detailed information about the television industry, what has been and is being produced, gossip about the stars and television personalities, space for discussions – often including interactive chat pages, and the ability to allow television reviews to be posted and read. Some users are also more creative, actually making their own spoof episodes or making available their personal scripts of the series. For some this is a sign of fans taking over the ownership of the favourite programmes, including the discussions around them (Jenkins 1992). For some these developments are positive; they open up a public discussion space about one of the most important popular mediums. It allows everyone a voice. It allows new

64

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

critics to appear outside of the cloistered media system with its own inherent biases. However, for others, these changes are more negative, signalling the ‘death of the critic’ (see: Rayner 2008). They erode the idea of standards, allowing everyone’s voice equal value and undermining the idea that some programmes are better or more worthy, aesthetically, culturally or morally, than others. It suggests that all values are relative, that we can no longer, as a society, evaluate our culture. The critic plays an important role in the national discussion about critical values, standards and moral worth; if there were no critics these would no longer be upheld. Conclusion In this chapter I have argued that to understand the development of television criticism, it is useful first to investigate the way the role of the critic has changed over time. Therefore, I started by exploring the role taken on by the first media critics in the emerging public sphere in helping to create a cultural consensus around particular class-based values (Eagleton 1987). This role of critics, as mediators of a public discourse about culture, has been continued on into television criticism. TV critics working for the national media continue to help facilitate a public discussion about an important popular cultural form: television. They have mostly done this, until recently, by using a common form of criticism, one relying on a literary approach with a focus on the text. I then looked at how, at the end of the nineteenth century, as the media became more commercial and popular, criticism split, with the more theoretical and critical approach going into universities and the more popular forms of evaluation and reviewing staying in the press (McDonald 2007: 75–77). While some of the approaches, ideas and values developed and maintained in academia were important in the way reviewing and criticism developed in the press, these were mostly limited to a traditional literary approach. For some,

THE RISE OF THE MEDIA CRITIC

65

such as McArthur, this has meant an ill-suited form of television criticism developing in the press, one taken up with the close analysis of the text, rather than one that could treat television as television (1980). By the late 1960s, as the new, more radical, post-structuralist theories developed, with their disregard of evaluation and judgement, the gap between the forms of criticism found in the universities and the press grew wider. Any potential fruitful engagement between the two, which could have helped in the creation of a more encompassing approach to television, was not to be. As Television Studies developed in the 1980s and 1990s, it initially found little common ground with the more evaluative approaches taken in the print media, though some are now trying to change this. In the last section I presented a short survey of the development of television criticism since the 1930s, identifying particular types or categories of criticism that developed in the national press. I highlighted a ‘serious’ form of criticism, which sought to elevate television as a cultural form, a type of neo-criticism that covered television as a popular medium, more surreal forms that tended to provide a more ironic view of television, soft news forms of coverage, which are found across the whole array of newspapers, but mostly associated with the tabloids and, finally, the rise of the public as internet critic, which for some signals the death of the media critic.

3 THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC: TV AS ART

Introduction For some of the early critics television had the potential to be an eighth art. But to help it be accepted as such, they had to first create a critical approach and framework by which to write about it, and then to use this to help elevate television’s cultural status and to guide its development. For this they looked to borrow from other established forms of criticism and reviewing, such as those for theatre, film and literature. These were approaches they understood and so did their readers. They were, in some ways, helped in this endeavour as many of them were originally theatre critics, including Philip Purser, T.C. Worsley and Peter Black (Rixon 2006: 140). These critics, writing for the middlebrow and quality newspapers in the 1950s and 1960s came to dominant and define the early form of applied television criticism. Though, as we shall see, other forms were developing alongside and soon surpassed it as the dominant approach. However, as with many mediums, those first writing about them often focus on the newness, the spectacle and the underlying technologies. Therefore, in the following sections I will, firstly, focus on the antecedents of these early television

68

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

critics, those reporters and writers who wrote about television’s technical aspects and covered it more generally as a news story. Secondly, I will explore how, as television as an industry and form developed, it became, by the end of the 1950s, a popular medium. Thirdly, I will examine how the press began to extend its coverage, allowing new forms of television journalism to appear. In the last section I will focus in more detail on analysing the new form of critical coverage of television that appeared at this time; what many saw as a serious form of journalistic television criticism. I will do this by initially exploring the thoughts and reminiscences of the critics about television, popular culture and their role as critics, e.g. Worsley (1970) and Purser (1992). I will utilise the concept of cultural capital to explore the relationship between social class and the way such critics positioned themselves within a dominant value system in relation to television and popular culture. Once I have done this I will examine the form and style of their work, including the language and references used. I will also look at where this work appeared in the middlebrow and quality press, its length, the programmes focused on and the intended or imagined reader. The aim is to provide a thorough exploration of this type of television journalism and the way various discourses, journalism – broadcast and cultural – have come, in many ways, to over-determine its form. Early forms of television coverage As with most forms of cultural endeavour, it takes time for the public and the critics to get a real measure of a new form of communication medium. This means that it also takes time for critical perspectives to develop and for critics to develop a method of talking about them. For example, with film many writers were, initially, amazed at the spectacle of moving pictures and therefore focused on this aspect. Film’s narrative form took a few years to appear and then mature and there-

THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC

69

fore the development of film criticism, focusing on a complex narrative form, had to wait (Turner 1992: 26). This was similar to what happened with television. As John Logie Baird and Marconi-EMI experimented in Britain in the 1920s and 1930s with their particular mechanical and electrical systems, as public demonstrations occurred, so the press began to write about the technical aspects and the sheer spectacle of television. Indeed, much of the early coverage of television was not written by ‘television critics’, who were mostly appointed as television became a popular medium in the 1950s, but by the engineering and science correspondents of the newspapers. For example, the Daily Mail ’ s Technician wrote an engaging little piece in 1938 on the ‘H.M.V. Model 901 Television’. He noted that ‘[t]he erection of the di-pole aerial, done by E.M.I engineers, is not difficult, nor expensive, nor unsightly’, and continued in an excited vein: ‘And it is so easy to work! All I normally do is to snap on the mains switch, wait half a minute for the values to warm up, and then slowly turn up the brightness controls until the picture appears’ (Technician 1938: 17). And, as Philip Purser points out, for him at least, the first Daily Mail television critic was J. Stubbs Walker, later the science correspondent, who would mostly talk about ‘signal strength and picture hold’ (Purser 1992: 5). Television, seemingly, was a spectacle: a technology to marvel at in its own right. For example, in a piece about the Ideal Home Show, F.G. Prince-White wrote about the television studio that would be working there, of which he notes, ‘[o]ne day we shall all be watching the world go by on a little screen at home … At Olympia we can get a thrilling glimpse of television in action – see in a studio walled with glass exactly what happens in the performance of this mystery’ (PrinceWhite 1938: 13–14). In a similar way, The Times had more technical pieces on television, such as ‘Interference with Television’ (22 April 1938: 17), where it was reported that electrical devices were interfering with television reception. Over

70

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

time, however, this type of initial coverage changed, as Peter Black commented, ‘[p]eople soon accept and digest the wonder of a technological advance and bring to it whatever aesthetic and intellectual judgment they applied to the old’ (1973: 12). Some of the initial non-technical coverage of television and its programmes came from radio critics, employed by most newspapers by the early 1930s (LeMahieu 1988: 274). These included those such as Collie Knox, who wrote a column for the Daily Mail, ‘Collie Knox Calling’, and Jonah Barrington writing for the Daily Express. Such critics provided a public discussion about broadcasting, often concentrating their columns on the BBC, the monopoly provider of broadcast services in Britain until 1955. For example, Collie Knox, using internal sources, wrote in his column on 20 April 1938: The B.B.C. would have been only too glad to have gone out on such a [talent] scheme. But the high-ups either did not care or were not interested and held the view that the wondrous and mighty organisation of British broadcasting which gave them fat jobs was not meant to be utilised to find entertainment talent. Only to keep everything on a high moral tone and a lot of other such bunkum (Knox 1938a: 14). In many ways these critics and journalists saw television as a natural addition to radio, and as they wrote about the BBC in relation to radio, it was obvious that they should also write about its extension into the area of television. However, the coverage of television by these radio critics was in many ways limited. While television was mentioned, it was mostly by way of a few lines at the end of articles rather than as its full focus. For example, in Jonah Barrington’s article ‘Wife Lands Sweep A Job – On Radio’ there is one sen-

THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC

71

tence at the end that deals with the beginning of television on Sunday afternoon (1938a: 19). Such an extension of television transmission time in later decades would usually be considered a major event, but not here. When programmes were specifically mentioned, coverage was also rather scanty: ‘Halfhour programme in the afternoon, starting at three (history of the Boat-race from 1829 to 1938 televised from “somewhere” in Chiswick): At night, a ninety-minute programme, including a cartoon and Clemence Dane’s “Will Shakespeare”’ (Barrington 1938a: 19). However, occasionally more reflective accounts might appear about a programme, though often with little detailed analysis. For example Jonah Barrington, within his usual column on broadcasting, mentions the excellent coverage by BBC TV of England versus Scotland at Wembley (1938b: 19). One of the main reasons for the lack of critical coverage was that few people had access to television. Journalists and critics were employed to write about what concerned or interested people and, at this time, the popular media were film and radio, not television (of which there were only 20,000 sets in and around London by 1939 (Goldie 1977: 34)). Also many newspapers were wary about this new broadcast form which might, if developed commercially, reduced their readership and advertising revenue (Briggs 1965: 587). It must also be noted that some of this early coverage of television was provided by the news journalists. As Philip Purser observed in his autobiography, many of the early writers on television were reporters assigned to cover broadcasting rather than critics employed to assess the form, who spent their time seeking anything worth reporting: ‘The stories we drummed up were certainly trivial. Petty rows about the renewal or non-renewal of contracts were reliable favourites’ (Purser 1992: 16–17). In many ways this was a rather haphazard way of covering television. As Purser noted, ‘if the other papers, from The Times upwards, took any notice of television programmes at all, it would seldom amount to

72

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

more than a few paragraphs chipped in by a pensioner or some member of the staff off sick’ (Purser 1992: 10). It must be noted, however, that one journal, The Listener, owned by the BBC, did include reviews and some analysis of early television programmes on a regular basis. It began publishing in 1929 with its main focus on radio and was developed as an off-shoot of the Radio Times, aiming at ‘the serious student’ (Briggs 1965: 286). While the Radio Times kept the listings and background articles on programmes, The Listener was developed to ‘back up the then dubious authority of the spoken word with the written word’ (ibid.). While there was much debate about its role, often from competitors trying to limit its coverage or even to strangle it at birth, it was soon able to establish a good reputation for its high-quality reviews (Briggs 1965: 287–290). Television was covered from the start with Lambert’s editorial on television called ‘Looking-In?’, with Gorham developing this coverage of television further throughout the 1930s (Briggs 1965: 286, 290). Other input was provided by Grace Wyndham Goldie, who started as a radio critic and then moved into covering television, who provided ‘[t]he most sustained and elegant elaboration of pre-war television aesthetics … written in the late 1930s’ (Jacobs 2000: 31) and with Peter Purbeck with his regular ‘Television’ column (ibid.). From the 1950s onwards, as television became more popular, all newspapers came to appoint television critics, with The Times being the last in 1966 (Ellis 2008: 246). However, for some the first television critic was Leonard Marsland Gander, who had been the Daily Telegraph ’s television correspondent since 1935, ‘before a television service existed’ (Purser 1992: 15). Poole comments, however, that ‘despite [Gander’s] fondness for styling himself as “the world’s first television critic”, he has always been quick to acknowledge that “the chief emphasis in my job had to be coverage of news about television”’ (Poole 1984: 43). Therefore, for most, the first real

THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC

73

television critic of a national paper was Peter Black who was appointed by the Daily Mail in 1952 and soon gained a regular review column called ‘Teleview’ (1972: 147). I now want to explore the relationship between these early critics and the medium they reviewed: television. Television: the object of criticism The BBC monopoly over television was soon confirmed following the Selsdon Committee’s report in 1935. However, radio continued to be treated and viewed for some time, by those working at the BBC, as the premier service (Jacobs 2000: 20–21). Therefore, initially, little investment went into television and, for many of the staff assigned to work on television at Alexandra Palace it was viewed as a backwater; a feeling reinforced by the small take-up of television sets by the general public. This does not mean, however, that the technical or creative television personnel were not pushing the boundaries of the new medium before the war; though they were helped when the competition between two competing technical systems was ended in December 1936 and television production was standardised according to one system (Jacobs 2000: 41; Goldie 1977: 33). However, at the very moment television seemed to be taking off, it was closed down for the duration of the war (Black 1972: 151). After the war the BBC began transmitting again in 1946. However, it seemed for some that television’s development was still being stifled by the BBC’s emphasis on radio and, for some, by distrust of television on the part of William Haley (the BBC Director General) (Goldie 1977: 46–47). Therefore a debate was soon opened about breaking the BBC’s monopoly, and allowing a new provider of television to appear. And, while the BBC’s coverage of the Coronation of 1952 attracted vast viewing audiences at home and abroad, and for some was seen as the point of take-off for television (Seymour-Ure 1993: 9), the debate over the need for a new broadcaster

74

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

continued. In the mid-1950s, under immense pressure from various lobbies, the BBC’s monopoly was finally ended. A new network, Independent Television (ITV), began transmitting in 1955 (Curran and Seaton 1997: 161–165). This occurred at the moment post-war austerity was coming to an end, as incomes rose and as the cost of television sets became more affordable. From the mid-1950s onwards television ownership increased and it started to become one of the most popular mediums in Britain (Turnock 2007: 19–20; Curran and Seaton 1997: 174). For many, the coming of ITV was seen as a watershed in British television, when competition woke up the BBC to change. At the time it appeared as if the BBC’s audience was in decline – a view still held by many. However, research now shows that the BBC’s audience held up well to the new competitor, ITV (Turnock 2007: 27–29). Such work argues that the BBC was already changing throughout the 1950s, and was in a strong position when ITV started broadcasting. Indeed, the 1962 Pilkington Report lambasted not the BBC but ITV for its drop in quality, its reliance on American imports and more commercial forms of programming (Williams 1998: 165–167). And it was in light of this that, with the Independent Television Authority keeping an eye on ITV, any real rivalry between the two organisations was reduced, with most competition through the 1960s and 1970s occurring mostly over programme quality and acclaim; indeed, for this reasons their relationship was often referred to as a ‘cosy duopoly’. For some, this competition over programmes led to a golden era of British television; one where television matured as a form (Williams 1998: 198; Seymour-Ure 1993: 140). By the mid-1960s television had become the popular medium par excellence. Indeed, by 1965 some 13 million joint radio and television licences were being issued compared to just under 3 million solely for radio (Seymour-Ure 1993: 76). Programmes were now being watched in millions of homes; for

THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC

75

example, for most of 1965 Coronation Street was watched in eight to nine million homes (Harbord and Wright 1992: 132). Increasingly, television was the most popular medium, and the one people wanted to read about in the press. TV criticism: a journalistic discourse As the popularity of television grew, so newspapers began to appoint television critics. This was not for philanthropic reasons or because of some newfound love for the new medium, but because it benefited the publications. Such benefits included attracting readers who, as television began to become a popular medium from the late 1950s, wanted to read about what was on, what was worth watching and what was happening in the lives of television celebrities, though, as Thumim argues, serious coverage was still limited (Thumim 2004: 40–42). As newspapers faced increased competition from each other and from new media such as television, they were keen to gain and keep readers, and therefore provided more coverage of this popular pastime (Conboy 2008: 201). Therefore, if one compares the coverage of television in the early 1950s to that in the 1960s, one can see the appearance of more detailed listings, often with a pick-of-the-day, reviews and even previews of programmes, alongside general television news and more soft news coverage, such as gossip, depending on the paper. Television reviews also began to find a fixed place with the papers, often in regular columns. Some newspapers began to cover television more after the ITV franchises were allocated, partly because of their links to the new broadcasters and partly because of the increased diffusion of television across society. For example, as Philip Purser notes, the Daily Mail expanded its coverage at this time to encourage the awareness of television as it had links to Associated Rediffusion: ‘As for the Daily Mail, not only did it make it plain that its television criticism would remain impartial, it decreed that henceforth there should be two

76

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Televiews, one for each channel’ – though they soon collapsed back into one (Purser 1992: 31). Lastly, while in the early 1950s there was still paper rationing, which meant there was little room to devote many column inches to this new medium, when this ended in 1956 papers were able to expand their coverage of television (Black 1973: 37; Williams 2010b: 176–177, 180–181). Newspapers, each with their own particular orientations and values, came to employ critics who would cater for their readers’ needs. The more serious broadsheets, like The Times or Daily Telegraph, as we will see, came to provide a form of reviewing that was similar to that provided for the other art forms. For the popular press – papers such as the Daily Mirror and the People – coverage was more populist, using language more suited for covering entertainment and leisure activities. One journal amongst others, including World Film News and Television Progress, which did provide in-depth reviews of programmes from the start was The Listener, a BBC journal. Here, every week, ‘independent’ critics would write about television, alongside others writing about and reviewing radio. By the 1950s its television coverage was divided into drama and documentary sections. Such work, as we shall see, highlights an attempt to subject ‘television and radio … to truly critical examination … the same criteria that we apply to the arts and literature’ (Scott 1975: 360). By the 1960s editors had realised that television coverage was important, that it attracted readers who would frequently turn to and read the television page, which often had high page traffic: ‘On any newspaper, from the top of the market to the bottom, television columns always score amongst the highest page-traffic counts’ (Dunkley 1982: 18). Therefore they began to locate such coverage on set pages where it could be found easily, often with a column heading. So, for example, the Daily Mail gave Peter Black the ‘Teleview’ section in the early 1950s, often appearing on page six. By the

THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC

77

1960s the People had ‘TV News’ by Kenneth Baily, often appearing on or near page four, while the Daily Express ’s Robert Cannell had ‘TViewpoint’, appearing on page five. Over time all newspapers began to offer daily reviews and, some, previews. I will now move on to explore, in more detail, the work of these early television critics. Television as the Eighth Art For many of these early TV critics, television should not just be viewed as a disposable form of popular culture, a cultural form pandering to the lowest common denominator, as some would have us believe. Instead, as a growing discourse of the time seemed to suggest, television had the potential to become the ‘eighth art’ (Shayon 1962; Hazard 1966). However, for it to gain this accolade, for it to be accepted as such, it needed to develop both its form and its cultural standing. For while television critics would argue for the importance of television, many other critics have, over the years, pointed to its ephemeral and trivial nature and lambasted it as a form of entertainment, often of the lowest order (Briggs 1995: 147– 148). The early supporters of television saw their role as helping to develop the form of television, to highlight for audiences and producers alike what it does best and what it should do; indeed, to nurture a critical discourse about television. To help in this they tried to establish an accepted way of evaluating television, a way of talking about it critically. Rather than creating a form from scratch, one more able to treat television as a popular medium, they sought, instead, to borrow from existing critical approaches to the arts, such as theatre or literature. This was partly because they understood these forms, which accorded with their views and values, and partly because they offered a possible framework for developing a recognisable and acceptable way to critically analyse and write about television texts.

78

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

What I now wish to do is to first explore the underlying philosophy of these new critics, their views on their role and their social and cultural background. I will begin by exploring the way such critics viewed and valued television and how they developed their particular approach to evaluating and critiquing it. Taking up the concept of cultural capital I will explore how their upbringing and education might have informed the development of their approach. After exploring their philosophies, values and backgrounds, I will move on to analyse examples of their work, in terms of the content, form and the underlying values. I will focus, in the main, on those critics working for the middlebrow and quality newspapers, those who were at the forefront of an attempt to cover television seriously from the 1950s to the late 1960s. Of course, this does not mean that this kind of criticism has now disappeared; indeed, its influence can still be found today in work by critics such as Mark Lawson, but it was in this period that it was at its most dominant in the quality national press. The critics: philosophy, values and background Television, as with other mediums such as film and radio, took time to gain critical acceptance; indeed, some might argue television found it especially hard because it was a form that, seemingly, gave little room to individual creativity, with its dependence on large technical crews, limitations of live studio-based production and the necessity to produce many hours to fill a daily schedule. It also quickly became dominated by genres thought of as having little critical value, e.g. the sitcom and quiz show. As Grace Wyndham Goldie observed early on, ‘[t]elevision could be brushed aside; it was not a medium to be taken seriously; pantomime horses and chorus girls were its natural ingredients; it was not suitable for news or current affairs’ (Goldie 1977: 19). Against these views the early critics, writing after the war, wanted to find a way to accommodate television, to have it

THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC

79

accepted and, at the same time, to raise their own status; though this would take time to accomplish. As T.C. Worsley notes, writing at the end of the 1960s: ‘an adequate critical approach to [television] … will have to be found’ (Worsley 1970: 11). He goes on to suggest that it ‘must be taken seriously’, and that more in-depth reviewing is required, as provided for its ‘equivalent in the theatre or cinema’ (ibid.). Mary Crozier, radio and then television critic of the Guardian from the late 1920s to the early 1960s, reflected that The theatre, the ballet, music and the cinema all have their canons of criticism, but they are long established. The critics writing regularly about them have a solid ground and a perspective from which to eye a new performance … Radio and television critics have found several things peculiar to their work … and therefore some standards of criticism had to be evolved (Crozier 1958: 200–201). For Maurice Wiggin, television critic for the Sunday Times, it was something he took seriously: [it is] a great big ever-growing mirror and ray-lamp of life … I surely work at being a television critic. I never write a paragraph or even a sentence without searching the old soul and I am never satisfied with how it comes out (Wiggin 1968: 210). The lack of respect of the medium often reflected onto the critics, as Philip Purser notes: ‘[t]elevision was … still rated low in professional esteem; on The Critics [a radio programmes in the 1950s] … The broadcasting critic always had a gruff northern accent and was snubbed by the others’ (Purser 1992: 32). This suggests that television was, for some, associated with the uncultured, ‘gruff’ working classes, and by dint of

80

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

this was part of the mass culture rather than accepted as an art form. The way these critics began to develop an approach to television, one that could help its status and theirs, was to use the values and approaches they were already used to and aware of, and which also happened to fit with the dominant cultural values. This was a time when a literary culture still held sway and, therefore, to help a form of television criticism to appear and be accepted, it was useful if this was somehow accommodated – even if many would never countenance television in the same light as literature. Most critics, coming from middle-class or lower middle-class backgrounds, were au fait with these concerns, values and approaches that emphasised a close analysis of the text. Many of these critics, with no real expertise in the area, had to rely on their ingrained social and cultural values and, for some, their experiences of reviewing other cultural forms. Few of these early television critics had started out with the intention of having such a role, and some had not even watched much television when offered the position. For example, when Peter Black was asked to become the Daily Mail ’s television critic he had not, until then, watched much television (Black 1972: 147). Maurice Wiggin was a sports writer and columnist before he became the critic at the Sunday Times. In his own words, ‘by nature I am far more a reporter, an observer, a narrator, than an analytical critic … Up till then I had seen nothing on television but the boxing (Wiggin 1968: 200–1, 207–8). For Philip Purser, ‘it wasn’t so much that television failed to interest me as that it had never had the opportunity’ (Purser 1992: 3). It was by accident, rather than design, that he started to work as Peter Black’s assistant in 1955. T.C. Worsley recounts that he became the television critic at the Financial Times when ‘[a]n illness plunged me overnight from the theatre critic (of which I had some twenty years’ experi-

THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC

81

ence) into the television world (of which I had precisely none)’ (Worsley 1970: 11–12). Few television critics came directly to the role, though many had some experience reviewing theatre, literature or the arts. For example, as noted above, T.C. Worsley had been the theatre critic of the Financial Times for some twenty years; Peter Black had prior experience as the theatre critic and writer on the arts at the Brighton Evening Argus (Purser 1992: 10); Philip Purser had experience as a theatre critic in Edinburgh for the Scottish Daily Mail (Purser 1992: 31–32); Maurice Richardson was a book reviewer before turning his hand to reviewing television (Symons cited in Richardson 1979: 9–12); Maurice Wiggin had experience of being the Literary Editor at the Evening Despatch before he became the television critic of the Sunday Times in 1951 (Wiggin 1968:146–147). Indeed, as Mike Poole points out, “[t]elevision criticism in Britain has always displayed a strongly inbuilt ‘literary’ bias”. This bias is increased if we include ‘a sub-group of writers from a literarytheatrical background such as T.C. Worsley … Dennis Potter … and another former stage critic, Herbert Kretzmer’ (Poole 1984: 53). Many of these critics shared a similar social and cultural background, some having gone to grammar or private schools and then on to university, and were thus educated in the critical values and approaches associated with the dominant culture. For example, T.C. Worsley went to Llandaff Cathedral School and later to Marlborough. He then went up to St John’s College, Cambridge University, to read classics. Maurice Wiggin went to grammar school and then up to Oxford (Wiggin 1968: 70–71, 103). This pattern continues with some later critics who could be associated with this form of criticism. D.J. Enright went to Leamington College and then studied at Downing College; Mark Lawson went to St Columba’s College in St Albans and later attended University College London, gaining an English degree. Others, including

82

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Peter Black and Philip Purser, while not following in a similar education pathway, entered journalism early on and were introduced to the dominant reviewing styles and values. Almost all these critics were white, male and middleclass. They had similar educational and cultural backgrounds, often studying English or the humanities at university, and were to develop similar approaches to television. Most, by the time they came to reviewing television, had utilised comparable frameworks for reviewing other areas, such as the theatre or literature. While they believed that television was an important part of popular culture, which could, on occasions, produce worthy material, they worked within a literary-dominated culture; one which focused on the text, the creative author and the script, and highlighted questions of truth and insight (McArthur 1980: 59–60). For McArthur the approach that evolved, with its particular literary bias, weakened the development of a more rounded and aware form, one that as well as discussing particular programmes, [should have] interrogated television institutions, practices and genres, reviewed books and periodicals on television matters, mediated research and theoretical discussion to a wider readership, discussed the repercussions in the wider culture of discourses originating in television, and a meta-criticism of television reviewing practices (McArthur 1980: 59). Over time, however, those critics providing a more ‘serious’ view of television have also included some critical analysis of the broadcasting institutions and the wider context, for example Peter Fiddick and Chris Dunkely (Hearst 1982: 15). Some of these critics, however, were open to the idea of a more televisual approach, one that could both uphold the idea of value, of quality, of creating something worthwhile, while also accepting that television was democratic, producing pro-

THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC

83

grammes for a large numbers of people to see; that there was a need to ‘consider it on its own merits’ (Thumim 2004: 41). Peter Black, in The Mirror in the Corner (1973), reflected on this problematic nature of television in a nuanced way. He noted that when he returned to writing about television in the 1960s, after a hiatus, he came ‘to modify … [his] convictions about its duty and importance’ (Black 1973: 10). Increasingly he saw television as a form of media that is enjoyed by the public in different ways, that in a free society television will do what people want it to do and that there is no way of proving that the aesthetic experience of enjoying Coronation Street is any weaker or less valuable to the person who is having it than a more sensitive and susceptible observer will get from War and Peace (ibid.). Black realised that an elitist view of television was problematic, but, as the early critics have shown, it is hard to approach television from outside the literary or dramatic paradigm, and if they had done so television and associated forms of criticism and reviewing might not have been accepted or developed as quickly as they were. I will now move on to explore in some detail the work of these critics, their criticisms and reviews. I will focus on the content of the reviews, the underlying values, programme selection, and the references and language utilised before moving on to analyse the form of the criticism, the layout, length and location in the newspaper. Old values, new texts Initially much of the early criticism, reflecting the wider journalistic discourse, was written in the third person, usually without a by-line for the author. Many of these early pieces were mostly descriptive, telling the reader about the television

84

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

play, the writer, the actors and when it was on. It was only as critics gained longer and more regular reviews, as they developed and applied a more literary approach, that the coverage became more critical. Throughout the 1950s into the 1960s, as the critics came to be identified with by-lines, they began to write in the first person; allowing a different type of relationship to develop between reviewer and reader. The critic could now develop his view or take on television, which the reader could identity as belonging to him. Much of this serious coverage, unlike the soft news copy, was made up of programme reviews, where the critic would evaluate and review the programme. In such reviews there was little attempt to understand the programmes as part of the televisual flow. Indeed, the aim seemed to be to extract them out of the television context within which they were experienced, and to treat them as individual texts (McArthur 1980: 60). However, there were some from the early days of television who did contextualise television and its output, who wrote about regulation, the institutions and scheduling, to a greater extent perhaps than Poole (1984) or McArthur (1980) seem to suggest in their articles. For example Collie Knox, from the pre-war period, in his regular ‘Week Ending’ column for the Daily Mail, and later Tom Harrison with his ‘Looking at TV’ column in the Observer, explored wider debates and issues related to broadcasting and television; in a similar way L. Marsland Gander, who Poole suggests tended to write about ‘news about television’ (Poole 1984: 43), was by the 1960s writing sizeable pieces in his column called ‘TV and Radio Topics’, which one might consider to provide a kind of contextual critical analysis of television. Others, writing in the 1970s, who Poole does recognise, were Peter Fiddick and Chris Dunkley, who were beginning to critically explore the nature of television, the industry and the creative processes, and to develop new ways of talking about television. There-

THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC

85

fore, alongside the programme review coverage, others were also developing a more contextual approach. However, for most critics the critical analysis of television, as noted above, came from an engagement with the text rather than with the wider context. This was partly because of the traditional way the newspapers had treated the arts, providing reviews after the event (Ellis 2008: 249). Readers were accustomed to the textual form of reviewing used for the arts, and readily accepted this form of coverage by TV critics. Television criticism not only borrowed from the format of these other forms of reviewing but also copied their style, often using a very similar impressionistic style; for example, ‘Even Angela Baddeley could not make me believe in the snobbish Gorgon who tried to goad her family up the social ladder but instead nearly drove them down’ (Gander 1954c: 8). This piece is written from the personal point of view, telling us about the impression the programme made on the critic, with little analysis to back up the claims. It is therefore hard for the reader to judge the assertions being made, as they are subjective. Something has to be said about why the critic thought that Angela Baddeley was so unbelievable. Against this impressionistic example, others tried to present more critically aware forms of analysis. For example Peter Black, writer in the Daily Mail, wrote of the serial Gravelhanger : It was impossible to believe that Mr Gielgud, a writer of considerable repute, had put himself to any great trouble over it … the action slowed down to a virtual standstill: for dialogue which sounded as though the actors were reading it off their cuffs … [a] serial episode in which the heroine does not appear? A character drawing a gun for no other purpose than to give the audience a start … and then, having plodded to the climax, took four seconds to fade out? (Black 1954a: 6).

86

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Here, while the critic presents a view of the series, which seemingly does not come up to the high standard of the writer, he gives reasons for his opinion. He notes that the dialogue, motives and even technical aspects have weaknesses. While this is not the critical analysis one would find being offered by an academic-based critic, it is equivalent to the kind of critical reviews on literature and theatre found in the quality and middlebrow newspapers. It is accessible, understandable and engaging while providing some critical reflection or evaluation Another example, taken from the mid-1960s, is from T.C. Worsley’s collection of reviews: Mr. Garnett and Mr. Loach had earlier had a striking success with the new technique they were developing in Up The Junction, but once again it was the subject matter, not the daring new methods, which absorbed attention. The wonderful vivid picture they produced of life in Clapham was too raw for the mealy-mouthed … [f]or what these pioneers were doing was exploring the rich territory where fiction and the modern documentary meet (Worsley 1970: 63). Worsley, in this example, is again not just providing a subjective view about whether he liked the programme; instead he explores what the programme does to get his acclaim. He touches on both how the content and form add to the picture they paint of Clapham, how the author and director are creating and developing a new form of television drama. The critics discussed here were attempting through their writings to elevate the status of both television and their own profession. They were doing this at a time when literary criticism was the dominant cultural paradigm and, to help the acceptance of television as a serious form, they took on a form of criticism that equated, in many ways, with this dominance.

THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC

87

They did this using techniques more associated with theatre and literary reviewing; some used a rather subjective impressionistic approach, while others applied a more critical approach, exploring the text in some depth. These forms of criticism, found mostly in the middlebrow and most quality newspapers, persist to the current day. For example, one could argue that Mark Lawson, who works for the Guardian and BBC, often focuses on the text, the performances, script and direction. I will now move on to look at the programmes selected for review by these critics and what values are at work. Programmes for review These early critics were highly selective in what they reviewed; in the programmes chosen for critique. Such a selection tells us something about the values at work, in terms of which programmes these critics felt worth spending time writing about, and holding up as a possible direction for television’s development, and equally which programmes, or genres, they hardly touched on at all. The programmes which these critics mostly reviewed were of the drama or documentary genre (Thumim 2004: 40). For example, in the month of April 1954 the Daily Telegraph ’s critics, Leonard M. Gander and R.P.M.G., wrote reviews of three teleplays: The Martin’s Nest (Gander 1954c: 8), Pirandello’s Six Characters in Search of an Author (Gander 1954b: 8) and Caesar’s Friend (R.P.M.G. 1954: 7) as well as on a documentary, You are there (Gander 1954a: 8). The Guardian, for a similar period, offered comparable coverage by various reporters including its radio critic: on 10 March 1954 there is a piece on a documentary about America, Americans at Home (Radio critic 1954a: 5), while in April there were reviews on Pirandello’s Six Characters in Search of an Author (Guardian 1954: 4) and one on The Grove Family, the first of the BBC’s attempts at a soap (Radio critic 1954b: 5). Peter Black selected similar programmes, writing in April 1954 about: Pirandello’s

88

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Six Characters in Search of An Author (Black 1954d: 6) and Caesar’s Friend (Black 1954c: 6), the drama series Gravelhanger (Black 1954b: 6) and a documentary The World is Ours (Black 1954a: 6). In The Times, while there were few reviews in April 1954, what appears on television mostly concerns the political debates around the new service, ‘Rules for New Television. Safe Guarding “Good Taste”’ (The Times 1954a: 3). The one article that does focus on a televised programme notes that the French film, Edouard et Caroline, was the first foreign film run with subtitles for some two years (The Times 1954b: 6) – which tells us something about the values at work at The Times during this period. Likewise, if one looks at the work of similar critics in the 1960s the focus is still mainly on drama and documentary. For example, in one week Maurice Richardson, in his column for the Observer, reviews a documentary called Einstein, touches on This Week, a current affairs programme, and its coverage of gambling, writes a paragraph or two on the end of Z-Cars, a police series, and finishes by looking at the BBC drama series The Wednesday Play, and its production of ‘The Good Shoemaker and the Poor Fish-peddler’ (Richardson 1965c: 24); on 25 April he reviews the arts programme Monitor, a documentary, A Camera in China, the historical drama The War of the Roses, and writes some short, derogatory remarks about two comedy programmes, … And So To Ted and I Object (Richardson 1965d: 25). The Guardian critic Mary Crozier reviews a reconstruction of the Gallipoli campaign, called Goodbye Johnnie (Crozier 1965e: 9), The War of the Roses (Crozier 1965d: 1), Monitor and European Journal (Crozier 1965c: 7) and, in a similar way to Richardson, writes a scathing piece on the comedy show … And So To Ted (Crozier 1965b: 5). In the Daily Telegraph, beyond the more contextual pieces on the broadcasting industry such as ‘BBC Needs a Licence to Go Ahead’ by L. Marsland Gander (1965: 19), Peter Knight reviews The Tale of Two Cities on 12 April 1965

THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC

89

(Knight 1965a: 18) and then, on the 14 April, lambastes a new comedy series called The Bed-Sit Girl (Knight 1965b: 19). On the 23 April there is a review of the War of the Roses, this time by Lyn Lockwood (Lockwood 1965: 21), a programme that Peter Black also reviews for the Daily Mail (Black 1965d: 3). It would seem that the values informing the critics about the types of programmes that are worthy of analysis and review are so similar that, for the same period, more or less the same programmes are being reviewed. This is not to say that these critics did not also write about other forms of television: the sitcoms, films, series and serials, some examples of which are noted above, but that their main focus was on evaluating and exploring drama and documentary, which they saw as part of television’s claim to be worthy, to be an eighth art, and when they covered these ‘other’ programmes, it was often by way of a scathing, critical and derogatory remark. As Thumim writes: Where criticism did exist, it responded in the main to the emergent genres of news and current affairs or to ‘quality’ drama, references to popular drama and light entertainment being mostly in rather negative asides betraying the assumption that such things were not worth any column space (Thumim 2004: 40). For example, while the majority of Maurice Richardson’s reviews are of documentaries and dramas he does, occasionally, touch on other genres, such as the sitcom: ‘The sinister thing about “And So to Ted”, featuring a harmless comedian in a show with the pep of a castrated boy scout, is that it’s the first of a series … this was unendurable’ (Richardson 1965d: 25). For Mary Crozier it is a show that ‘touches just about the lowest common denominator in futile and facetious humour’ (Crozier 1965b: 5). Peter Knight, as noted above, also touches on The Bed-Sit Girl, a new series which for him ‘sledge

90

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

hammered its way on to the screen with all the subtlety of a circus clown gone mad’ (Knight 1965b: 19). For Peter Black this was a show which ‘fell dismally short of what one hoped’ (1965b: 3). These critics tended to ignore these sorts of programmes, but when they did appear, few were given good reviews or useful constructive criticism. The critics appeared to show a disdain for this type of genre. An insight into the cultural tastes of such critics is provided by T.C. Worsley who, when reflecting on his role as a critic in the late 1960s, suggests that [m]y main interest is in watching and analysing the attempts by the medium to discover and develop its own forms. These are already wide enough. In fiction they comprise the so-called … play, the series, the serial; and with the last two the problem is really why they need remain so bad and trivial as they mostly are. Then there is the wide field of documentary to which television has given a home and the chance for much development and experiment (Worsley 1970:12). Not only does Worsley acclaim the documentary form, but he also places the single authored play over series and serials, in which we assume he includes the two important television genres of the soap and sitcom, which he also criticises elsewhere. For Worsley, as with other early critics, with his theatre background, his focus is on the exploration of form, and its creative potentials, not merely on covering what is popular. It would seem that the values underlying the approaches of these early critics were also at work in the selection of programmes for review. Such values, as noted above, were not only held by these early television critics, but also by the readers of these papers. They were the dominant cultural values which, for these critics, determined what could be considered an important cultural work. Such values were also held by the

THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC

91

broadcasters, who, as Chris Dunkley notes, tended to offer similar sorts of programmes at the pre-screening, reinforcing the dominance of such programmes in the work of many critics for the 1950s and into the 1960s: ‘Single plays, drama series, prestige documentaries and anything that had been coproduced tend to take precedence over more “popular” forms of programming such as light entertainment, sit-com, soap opera and the more journalistic documentaries’ (Dunkley cited in Poole 1984: 50). It was only in the 1970s, as the dominant cultural values were challenged, or at least came under pressure, that we started to see a more varied range of programmes being reviewed regularly in the middlebrow and broadsheet newspapers. I now want to move on to explore the changing length and location of reviews within the newspaper at this time and how these also relate to the underlying values of the newspapers and critics. Positioning the review The earliest mentions of television programmes in the main national newspapers, from the 1930s, were initially rare occurrences, limited in size and number. They were often information snippets telling readers about what television programmes were about, rather than providing critical comment. Part of the reason for this was that television was not, at this time, a popular medium. Few had access to it, and therefore newspapers limited their coverage. Therefore, if we look at the prewar coverage, apart from the few exceptionally long articles on television and its development, there are mostly only small news stories about television. Often it was only mentioned in longer articles dominated by the concerns of radio. For example, Collie Knox, writing on the BBC on 27 April 1938 in a long article of some 1,500 words, only touches on television for a couple of hundred words, mostly in relation to its appearance at the Ideal Home Exhibition (Knox 1938b: 21).

92

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

It was not until the mid-1950s that regular reviews appeared focusing solely on television. These were still short but longer than the snippets from the pre- and early post-war coverage; indeed all the papers had television coverage almost every week. In relation to the more ‘serious’ critics, working for the Daily Telegraph, Guardian and Daily Mail, reviews ranged from Peter Black’s regular ‘Teleview’ column of around 500– 750 words, to coverage in the Guardian, by its radio critic, of around a similar length (Radio critic 1954b: 5), to slightly shorter programme reviews in the Daily Telegraph by Leonard M. Gander of around 250 words (Gander 1954c: 8). One journal that allowed long regular weekly reviews of programmes was The Listener. In this period it divided its television coverage into two: drama and documentary. Both reviews appeared next to the radio reviews and were usually around 1,000 words long. By the mid-1960s the length of reviews in the quality newspapers had stabilised around the length of those on offer for the arts, theatre and music, lying around the 300–700 word mark. It seems that from the 1950s the length had increased little, but that more papers were now offering regular reviews of television. For example, programme reviews by Mary Crozier in the Guardian were around 300 words (Crozier 1965e: 9), The Times, with its ‘Notes on Broadcasting’, on Saturdays only, provided 1,000-word pieces on television and radio (Special Correspondent 1965: 12), while its coverage in the week was less, with reviews of around 200–300 words (Special Correspondent 1965: 17). The Observer (a Sunday paper), The Listener and the Financial Times offered some of the longest reviews, on a weekly basis, running to over 1,500 words; space for the critic to really develop their arguments in some depth, or, in most cases, to cover more programmes. By the 1960s television had been accepted by most editors of quality papers and journals as a medium that required and received similar types of coverage of reviews to those of film

THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC

93

and theatre. For example, Maurice Richardson’s review in the Observer on 4 April 1965 is placed alongside Kenneth Tynan’s film review (‘Collapse of two one-man-bands’), above Alexander Bland writing about ballet (‘Dancing Allsorts’) and Paul Ferris’s article on sound (‘A God in Glass’). Richardson’s piece is the longest at over 1,000 words, being slightly longer than Tynan’s, at 900 words (Richardson 1965a: 24). The Guardian, likewise, had established television on its arts review page. For example, on 13 April 1965 Mary Crozier’s review ‘Thick as Old Timber’ (380 words) is placed between two similar sized reviews of ‘Il Trittico at Convent Garden’ (420 words) by Philip Hope-Wallace (above) and ‘Karel Lek Exhibition at the Donald Pass Gallery, Chester’ (320 words), by Robert Waterhouse (below) (Crozier 1965a: 9). Interestingly Philip Hope-Wallace was also one of the regular television drama reviewers for The Listener in the mid-1950s. The reviews and television coverage for the Daily Express and Daily Mail at this time were positioned either amongst the general news, or alongside the listings information. It would seem that these middlebrow papers were starting the trend of putting television coverage on their own entertainment pages. Most of these more serious reviews focus either on one or a limited number of programmes, with a few having pictures. Often they have a subtitle, inferring or indicating the programme being reviewed. For example, Maurice Richardson’s review on 25 April 1965 entitled ‘The Invisible Dubliners’, starts with a review of a Monitor special on James Joyce (Richardson 1965d: 25); these reviews were mostly laid out in a similar way as the other arts reviews and news items throughout the paper or journal, in columns and paragraphs, helping to support, through the form on the page, the equal standing of the television reviews in relation to those of the arts. As the popularity of television increased so this was echoed by a change in the coverage by the newspapers. The

94

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

reviews became longer, appearing more regularly on established pages and under named columns. As more people owned and regularly watched television the more they wished to read reviews about the programmes they had seen or missed. The newspapers, happy to attract readers, complied with these wishes. Also, the increased space allotted for television coverage began to allow programmes to be critically explored in slightly more depth than before. As T.C. Worsley argued, if a serious approach to television was to develop, as it had with theatre and cinema, it needed ‘full-length treatment … whether the resulting notice is good, bad or mixed’ (Worsley 1970: 11). In some cases, though, in longer reviews the tendency was to cover more programmes, rather than to explore a few in greater detail. Language and cultural references Critics are aware of their readers, or at least they have an image of them in mind, and therefore write using particular forms of language and cultural references which they know will be understood and valued by them; likewise readers seek out particular critics, to make sure their cultural preferences will be catered for. The critics know that if they fail to live up to expectations they might lose readers and, eventually, their position (Dunkley 1982: 18). The language used by critics, therefore, obviously differs between newspapers, and between the different types of journalistic discourse they employ. For example, the Sun uses short words in fairly concise ‘direct’ sentences which can easily be understood (Allan 1999: 115). By contrast a paper such as The Times, to define itself as different from the tabloids and to keep itself aligned with the cultural background of its readers, will rely on and use more obscure words and complex sentences (Allan 1999: 90). Critics, working for these different papers, will therefore develop and use a range of critical styles to write about, review and analyse television.

THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC

95

The language used by these ‘serious’ critics, especially those writing from the 1950s to the 1960s, tends to be constituted of longer words than their more popular competitors. They also often use less well-known words and complex sentences, and include obscure cultural references. For example, in his Listener review of the BBC’s production of Pygmalion Philip Hope-Wallace remarked at one stage: ‘[t]here seemed not half enough starch or bumptiousness in this ruthless phonetician, but as things got worse elsewhere, so he improved and he was quite convincing in the last act when the specialist’s eyes are partially opened’ (Hope-Wallace 1956: 117). This quote shows his use of a fairly long sentence in which he uses, on average, longer words than found in the popular newspapers, words such as ‘bumptiousness’, as well as words that might not be well known to the reader of a popular paper, including ‘phonetician’. The language used is that of the cultured middle classes, employing a wide range of words within complex sentences, which can be understood and appreciated mostly by an educated class. Compare that to a sentence from a review of The Martin’s Nest in the Daily Express by Leonard Mosley: ‘The Martins are not only snobbish but idiotically stupid. I refuse to believe that the average white-collar family would in 1954 cherish such outmoded illusions’ (Mosley 1954: 3). The sentences throughout the article are shorter, the words easier to understand and the argument simpler. Many of these serious critics used references to works, authors, writers and other cultural products and artefacts that were known to educated readers; those with the equivalent cultural capital. In this way the critic provided and made intertextual and cultural connections with other texts, whether through classical or literary or dramatic references, connecting television and its analysis to other art forms. For example:

96

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE [i]n a famous short story Anatole France depicted Pontius Pilate as remembering in old age absolutely nothing about the trial of Christ, it had made so little impression. Campbell Dixon and Dermot Morrah, authors of ‘Caesar’s Friend’, televised last night, would not subscribe to this view (R.P.M.G. 1954: 7).

This highlights a short story that only certain people will have heard of, by an author only a few will have read. The critic, writing for the Daily Telegraph, assumes that his readers have a certain level of education and culture, allowing him to utilise this to develop a certain framework for thinking about television drama, not as something that might have just been enjoyable to watch, but something that is also contextualised and enjoyed by a sense of knowing, of understanding certain sets of cultural references that open the text to a more nuanced reading. Underlying this is the view that to understand a text one requires certain critical tools and skills. This type of review is similar to what Fiske has called a ‘writerly’ text; by this he means a text that requires readers to use their critical skills to actively produce its meaning. At the same time, such reviews are implicitly suggesting that the best programmes are those that should be considered in the same way, as writerly text, requiring television viewers ‘to participate in the production of meaning’ (Fiske 1994: 95). Conclusion A form of television criticism appeared after the war that utilised critical approaches already established in relation to theatre, literature and, to a certain degree, radio. The critics who developed this form of ‘serious’ criticism often had previous experience of reviewing these other forms, and also shared the dominant cultural values of the time, formed and imbibed from their education and class status. However, it was not just a question of critics deciding on what constitutes good tele-

THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC

97

vision for, in their own way, the broadcasters, often with similar backgrounds, shared similar values, which fed into the public discourse about television. For many of those working in broadcasting, home-grown television drama, both serious and popular, current affairs and documentaries were seen as the more serious and cutting-edge side of television, partly signalled by the dominance of these areas in preview screenings (Dunkley cited in Poole 1984: 50). It was these types of programmes that broadcasters invested their money in, and also where they sought and gained critical acclaim. The critics fed into and out of this discourse, which also links to the wider cultural values and discourse about what constituted worthy culture at this time. However, the critic is not only beholden to television or wider cultural discourses, but works for the press and, by dint of this, is part of a journalistic discourse. The critic is, in this way, a specialised journalist; they earn their money by writing for the public. After the Second World War all newspapers increased their coverage of television, appointing critics and reviewers because, while it was a competitor, they saw it as a popular medium that their readers wanted to read about. The newspapers employed critics who could provide a form of coverage that fitted with the particular cultural profile of the readers who made up their market. Therefore, ‘serious’ newspapers, those that uphold dominant cultural values, as reflected throughout the newspaper but especially in the way it covered art, literature, film and other similar activities, would at this time only include television if it too could fit within this value system. Therefore coverage of television by the quality newspapers only really developed as the television industry developed its programme forms, as television’s popularity increased and as critics developed a way of discussing television that elevated its status. However, middlebrow papers, such as the Daily Mail, viewed television as a popular medium and

98

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

therefore quickly located their television reviews alongside other entertainment fare. As I argued above, the coverage that did develop was similar to that found in the other reviews appearing on the arts and cultural pages. The same values were being explored in relation to television as in theatre or literature, though, to varying degrees, honed for this popular medium. Such coverage tended to focus mostly on those forms of television seen as exhibiting these values, and those that seemed nearest to other forms of high culture or art. Those elements and genres of television seen as less worthy of study were forgotten or derided. So the sitcom, quiz show or variety show received little coverage in the serious broadsheet and middlebrow newspapers, and when they were covered they were often criticised for not upholding the kinds of values exhibited in drama or documentary. They were viewed as formulaic, often without an identifiable author or creative hand behind them; they lacked a dramatic element and were often treated solely as a form of entertainment, offering little real insight into life. Some were also associated with the influx of American culture that was taking place at the time. However, the role of the early critics should not be dismissed, as Poole and other writers seem to suggest. While they might not have developed a more televisual approach to television, nor one that engaged much with any academic work, they did manage to elevate television as an area worthy of similar coverage to theatre and film. They managed to help start and to feed into a discourse about the programmes and, in a more limited way, the wider concerns, about the licence fee, government regulation, mismanagement by the BBC and the like. These early critics did not have the tools to hand to create a fully formed critical way of writing about television and, instead, they had to look to other pre-existing approaches. Also, unlike academics, they had to create popular journalistic copy for their readers. These critics therefore

THE RISE OF THE TELEVISION CRITIC

99

came to develop a written discourse about television, as found in newspapers and magazines, which the public read and, in a limited way, talked about; the start of a public discourse around television. These critics, in their way, laid down the beginnings of applied television criticism in Britain. Obviously this is not the end of the way British television criticism has developed. As we shall see in the next chapter, as television matured as a medium, so a new, more popular, form of criticism started to develop. This new form of criticism, growing out of the ‘serious’ approach, sought to treat television less as an art form than as popular culture. This is not to say that the ‘serious’ form, explored in this chapter, disappeared completely, but that it made greater efforts to accommodate the popularity of television than the previous reviewing style. I now want to move on to explore what I have called neo-criticism: a form of television criticism that began to dominate in the 1970s.

4 NEO-CRITICISM: TELEVISION AS TELEVISION

Introduction By the end of the 1960s all national newspapers had appointed identifiable critics and most papers had extended their coverage to include regular reviews, fuller television listings and occasional previews. However, these changes were not just confined to the level of coverage; there was also a change in the style of reviewing. For Mike Poole, a more frivolous form of critic started to appear, ‘critics whose criteria are mostly of the visceral variety’ (Poole 1984: 57). While, for Poole, there was a change in style the underlying values which had informed the earlier more serious critics still dominated, leading to an approach that still failed fully to take account of television as television (Poole 1994: 12). In light of these comments by Poole, I will refer to this group of critics, as I have done elsewhere, as neo-critics (Rixon 2006). This underlines that, while they wrote in a new style, they were still connected to the previous critics, sharing some similar values. To help understand the reasons for their appearance and this change in style, I will begin this chapter by locating the emergence of the neo-critics contextually. I will do this by, firstly, exploring the social and cultural changes happening from the late 1960s which, for some, displaced or weakened

102

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

the dominant elitist view of culture, allowing, at least in certain arenas, the development of a new cultural discourse more accepting of popular culture in general and of television in particular. Secondly, I will look at how the newspaper industry and associated journalistic discourse had to change at this time. In particular I will explore how, with the decline of newspaper readership and the rise in importance of advertising, newspapers sought to create a more accessible style to attract and keep their readers. Thirdly, I will explore the way broadcasting in the UK had, for some, entered a golden era where the duopoly of the BBC and ITV, experiencing little competition over finance or audiences, concentrated on developing the television form. Initially they were happy to receive coverage from the press, with little active attempt by the television industry to market or publicise its programmes outside of their listings magazines. However, by the end of the 1970s, with increased economic constraints combined with a desire for critical acclaim, the TV industry became more active in public debates about television and their programmes. It did this by adding to traditional ways of engaging with the public, using trailers and listing magazines, by arranging more regular pre-screenings and publicity packs for critics and, at the end of the decade, by sending out VHS preview tapes. I will follow this more contextual section by focusing on the neo-critics and their work. As in the previous chapter I will initially explore the critic’s cultural and social backgrounds, their position within the cultural field and their relationship to the changing journalistic discourse about television. Building on this I will then move on to analyse, in some detail, the criticism they produced. I will look at the underlying values, style, its length, coverage, format and location. Throughout I will try to identify elements of the older approaches to television reviewing and what, in my eyes, constitutes something new.

NEO-CRITICISM

103

Social and cultural changes While for many the 1960s was a period of revolution, when traditional values, hierarchies and cultural mores were indelibly changed, for others this was something of a myth; the result of looking back through rose-tinted glasses (Sinfeld 2004: 312; Marwick 1991: 67). Hobsbawm believes that changes in political and economic fields were rather muted at this time, but he does perceive a form of social and cultural revolution occurring, though it started before the Second World War and continuing after the 1960s into the early 1990s (Hobsbawm 1994). However, this notion of revolution aside, the 1960s saw many social, cultural, political and economic changes. For example, between 1950 and 1965 the places where people lived and worked changed, thanks to mass construction of council flats, new towns, the redevelopment of town centres and the creation of business parks; alongside this the railways were radically cut back but the ownership of cars rose from two and half to nine million (Turnock 2007: 110); consumer spending increased from £1,004 million in 1957 to £1,465 million by 1960; and between 1955 and 1969 average earnings for industrial workers rose by 130% (Marwick 1991: 69). Even sexual attitudes were starting to change: for example, in 1951 51 per cent of women believed that sex is important in marriage compared to 67 per cent in 1969 (ibid.). The 1960s saw increasing debates about the existing cultural order. In Britain, the prevailing literary values and critical approaches, often associated with Leavis, while still dominant throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s, were under increasing attack (Marwick 1991: 67). The dominant critical approach, which focused on the text as object and the author as the creative actor, with what some saw as an unhealthy wish to categorise and place work into canons, was, in some quarters, being displaced with an interest in popular culture, everyday lived experience and the idea of different class viewpoints

104

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

(Hoggart 1965). Indeed, by the late 1960s, some theorists were actually arguing that the author was dead. They argued that the text was not produced by an author but by the wider power structures within which they worked (Sinfield 2004: 329–334); though, it must be noted, much of this more theoretical debate stayed within academic institutions. However, the dominant view of the elite culture being superior to popular or mass culture, while still in evidence, was weakening, there was an increased interest in popular culture and less of an automatic dismissal. ‘Art’ (if that was the right word) was seen to come from the soil rather than from exceptional flowers growing out of it. Moreover, as the populism shared by both the market and anti-elitist radicalism held, the important thing about it was not to distinguish between good and bad, elaborate and simple, but at most between what appealed to more and fewer people. This did not leave much space for the old-fashioned concepts of the arts (Hobsbawm 1994: 514). No longer was there an interest only in more artistic cultural forms but, across the board, critics began to take more notice of popular media and popular genres, including the media that were consumed by audiences in their domestic environment. Throughout and after the 1960s popular culture, whether novels, films, television programmes, music and art, displaced, in many ways, the older forms of classical or modern art and music, to become the main focus of public and critical debate. From the 1960s and into the 1970s the public critical discourse was as likely to be dominated by debates over popular culture – the programmes everyone watched, the new James Bond film or the new album by The Beatles – as the latest work by some highbrow author (Sinfield 2004: 325). How-

NEO-CRITICISM

105

ever, this did not mean that the cultural hierarchy withered and died; it still had its advocates and in the final instance many still accepted it as the natural order (Sinfield 2004: 329). Indeed, as cultural critics paid increasing attention to popular culture they often relied on traditional values, techniques and practices for their analysis. Tabloid wars By the late 1960s the newspaper industry was entering a period of dramatic developments. The mid-market papers were slowly being squeezed, thanks to the pressure of advertisers on papers to focus either on large audiences, or small sought-after ones. As Williams notes, ‘[w]ithin the national press there has been a polarisation between the popular and quality press with the disappearance of the middle-market, middlebrow newspaper’ (Williams 1998: 213). In many ways the 1970s was the period of the tabloids; a period where the Sun and the Daily Mirror fought it out to be the most popular and most read newspaper (Williams 2010b: 197–204). The tabloids and those remaining middlebrow papers, in this period of intense competition, began to adjust their style, layout, journalism, and the balance of soft to hard news. Increasingly, tabloids were finding they had to ‘devote less space to political and industrial coverage and more to human interest stories, photographs and strip cartoons’ (Curran and Seaton 2010: 85). Such developments also affected the broadsheets, as they sought to find a way to present their format – which was dominated by hard news – in a more popular style. While the amount of ‘political coverage in the broadsheet newspapers remained steady or rose slightly’ in the mid1970s, they were also expanding their offerings with new ‘supplements and sections … [with a focus] on comment and opinion’ (Williams 2010b: 194). Throughout this time the layout and content of all newspapers changed to become more welcoming and accessible.

106

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

One aspect of this was, in the 1960s, to allow by-lines to appear; to name the journalist writing the story. Over time this led to more journalists becoming personalities, attracting readers to their columns, or, as we shall see in a later chapter, with the employment of more personalities as columnists. Indeed, the development of this more welcoming form of journalism, whether by including colour pictures, supplements, advertising special offers or with a redefined balance of soft and hard news, continued into the following decades (Poole 1984: 46). As the news discourse changed, as newspaper reorientated themselves towards serving up a more open, democratic culture in which popular culture was more prominent, so the style of television coverage, including TV reviewing, began to change. For example, as the names of TV critics became known so their reviews moved from being the faceless views of the newspaper staff, to those of a personality, a known critic (Petley 1997: 251–272; Conboy 2008: 180). This encouraged and allowed a more welcoming and, for some, subjective style to appear. Television, as a news object, was both predictable (ibid.) and attractive for readers, and therefore was increasingly given more regular space, with critics given their own columns with a regular place or page – located either on the arts page or, in the case of the Daily Mail, on the television pages (Poole 1984: 44–45; Ellis 2008: 245). Indeed, the growing importance given to the TV critic can be seen by the estimate that Clive James added some 10,000 readers to the circulation of the Observer in the 1970s (Poole 1984: 55). As the newspaper industry changed, so too did its coverage of television. The cosy duopoly Through the 1960s and into the 1970s as television became more populist and, in certain ways, more competitive, and as newspapers came to increase their coverage of television,

NEO-CRITICISM

107

broadcasters started to become more proactive in their engagement with the public discourse around their activities (Poole 1984: 50–51). This process included engaging, or at least taking note of, the critic who played an important role in the meditated debates about television. As Poole notes, the relationship between television criticism and the media industry, and by this he means both the newspaper and broadcast industries, is symbiotic (Poole 1984: 49): Television criticism is located in the press, and is part of the journalistic discourse, so the critic has to work within that rubric; however, as they write about the television industry and its programmes it is also part of the broadcasting discourse. In this way, as Poole notes, the TV critic has to submit, somewhat, to ‘television’s own agenda-setting priorities, determined by needs that are often exceedingly remote from individual programmes’ (Poole 1984: 50). During the 1960s there was little financial competition between the BBC and ITV; one had advertising and the other licence fee income. They were both more or less happy with a 50 per cent share of the audience. As there was little choice of channels for the public to watch, the broadcasters were happy to limit the promotion of their channels and programmes through trailers and their in-house listing magazines (Rixon 2008: 131–133; Ellis 2000: 39–73). Limited amounts of publicity material were also sent out to critics and some pre-view screenings were organised (Rixon 2008: 156–160). However, by the 1970s as broadcasting entered an ‘era of rising costs and co-production … it became increasingly crucial for both the BBC and ITV companies to be able to control the profile a programme assumed’ (Poole 1984: 50–51). Both broadcasters began to look at and develop how they could publicise their programmes and channels, both by using the traditional means of trailers and their listing magazines, Radio Times and the TV Times, but also by engaging more with the critics.

108

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Broadcasters increasingly used previews as a way of trying to control and shape the discourse of the critics. Until the widespread use of VHS tape from the late 1970s, critics either watched the programme at time of broadcast or, in some cases, if the programme was on film or videotape, they were invited to a screening, though these were initially very much down to the whim of the broadcasters (Purser 1992: 140–141; Ellis 2008: 249–250). However, after a lot of argument in the early 1970s one critic, Elkan Allan, managed to convince the broadcasters to put on regular screenings, so called ‘Elkan’s days’ (Poole 1984: 52). On these occasions the broadcasters would select a number of programmes for the critics to preview. Some critics would use this access to quickly write up previews, while others would use it to spend longer over their reviews (Poole 1984: 46). In many ways, this development highlights the symbiotic relationship between the broadcaster and critic, as the broadcasters used such opportunities to showcase the more prestigious and often expensive programmes, including domestic, co-produced and some imports, which were mostly of a certain genre, i.e. drama and documentary (Poole 1984: 50). Indeed, two different tendencies can be suggested from such a practice. Firstly, there was a reinforcing of the focus of criticism on programmes as individual texts and, secondly, such programmes were placed within a particular flow or order at the screening and were not, therefore, experienced in the way viewers would watch them at home (ibid.). With the development and spread of use of domestic VHS machines from the late 1970s, one might think that this would offer more autonomy for critics, at least in terms of when and how they could watch programmes. They were, however, still restricted by which, if any, programmes the broadcasters decided to make available (Ellis 2008: 250). Again, sending out tapes of individual programmes, or series of programmes, puts the emphasis on the text as the object –

NEO-CRITICISM

109

something the broadcasters found preferable to themselves as organisations being placed under the public microscope (Poole 1984: 61). Also, the critics would watch the programme out of the television context or flow and therefore would not experience it in the same way as a viewer (Poole 1994: 12). VHS tapes would always be accompanied by promotional material, from the broadcasters or producers, trying to frame the programme for the critic in a certain way. If a critic did provided a bad review it might happen that, next time, the broadcaster would refuse to send them a copy of a programme, in the hope of limiting any future bad press coverage (Ellis 2008: 250). Broadcasters have also been known to use contracts and their relationship with producers to try to control what information and gossip the critics can get their hands on. If a producer is too critical she might find she does not get another commission from a particular broadcaster (Poole 1984: 51). This period, from the late 1960s to the 1980s, was one when television established itself as the popular medium par excellence; it was a period when there was no competition over funding, or even really over audiences, but mostly over programme acclaim. For some this was a period of restrained competition leading to a rather stale form of television; for others it was the ‘golden’ era of British television (Williams 2010a: 159–160). To foster and shape the reception of programmes broadcasters came, throughout the 1970s, to hone their use of various publicity and marketing approaches. Critics were no longer seen as incidental, they were there to be engaged with, to help in the construction of the pre-image of the programme and, in some ways, to deflect the public discourse away from any failings of broadcasting organisations. Therefore, as newspapers provided more coverage and as television became a more popular part of people’s lives, the public discourse around television and its programmes became more important and visible. I now want to turn to look

110

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

at the critics and the new style of television reviewing that developed in the midst of the changing press and broadcasting discourses of this time. Neo-critics The new critics, these neo-critics, who began to create a new style of writing were not that different from the more traditional ‘serious’ critics. They were mostly male, white and middle class. Their educational and social backgrounds were often very similar. Many were highly educated, often having studied English or Humanities at university. For example, Clive James went to Pembroke College, Cambridge to read English literature; Alan Coren went to Wadham College, Oxford where he got a first in English; Simon Hoggart went to King’s College, Cambridge; and John Naughton studied engineering at University College Cork and Emmanuel College, Cambridge. Such critics were well acquainted with the dominant values and the literary tradition that informed most types of newspaper-based reviewing. However, while they were aware of the strictures that affected the original television critics, the world had moved on. Newspapers no longer wanted television reviewers to produce staid and lifeless reviews. They wanted an engaging form that would attract readers. Newspapers in search of new ways to attract readers began to hire television critics not for their expertise, or even their standing as journalists, but for their public profiles. Increasingly, they would hire writers that the public knew, often those with a background in theatre or literature. For example, writers Julian Barnes, William Boyd and Martin Amis at various times wrote television reviews. These writers provided columns that were often opinionated and entertaining writing; what might be called good copy. A number of these hyphenated critics – hyphenated in the sense that they were combining roles or areas of interest – might be viewed somewhat as cultural intellectuals, often writing about a whole array of

NEO-CRITICISM

111

cultural activities, such as food, wine, theatre, television, film and art. For example, the critic-academic D.J. Enright, who wrote on television, literature and language, was described by Malcolm Bradbury as ‘a master of the long essay-review’ (cited in Enright 1990); while Alan Coren was a satirist, having been the literary editor and then deputy editor of Punch before also taking on the role of TV critic for The Times in 1971. Others, however, quickly came and went, more jobbing journalist than critic, taking on the role for a period of time, but with no real background or interest in television reviewing (Poole 1994: 12). These neo-critics, while offering more popular and opinionated reviews of television, still carried on the accepted practice of focusing on television programmes, mostly providing little debate about the wider issues of television. While it was not always that obvious, their work still tended to utilise and reinforce the literary tradition of seeing ‘each art object separate and autonomous’, though it could be argued that these critics did view television more as a form of popular culture rather than as a serious art form in the making (McArthur 1980: 59). While reviewing they would, at certain moments, utilise these more traditional values to help them evaluate programmes against accepted ideas of creativity, aesthetic and societal morals and the insights on offer. This they did by focusing on the script, direction and performances. As Purser points out in relation to one of Clive James’s reviews, ‘he attacks mostly on the literary shortcomings of the show [QB VII] – the inept script, the unspeakable lines, the guff that Abraham Cady talks about the progression of writing’ (Purser 1992: 158). It must be noted, however, that some of this new generation, such as Peter Fiddick of the Guardian and Chris Dunkley of the Financial Times, tended to expand the debate towards policy and industrial questions on many occasions (Eicklet 1981: 16). In this way they attempted to move

112

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

away from the more traditional focus on the programme as text. These new critics were more open to and aware of popular culture, or at least they were more willing to write about the full range of programmes that the public watched and experienced. As I will show later on they would not just review documentaries and drama, looking for serious intent, but they would also write about sitcoms, American imports or even the Eurovision Song Contest, writing about what they felt, from the gut, about these programmes rather than working within a tightly focused critical framework. They were mostly writing about what the majority of people were watching and what they felt most people wanted to read about. Their style, as we shall see, was more informal; it was less the language of some learned critic, telling the readers what to think, from the top down, than a critic as viewer, writing colloquially about a programme they had watched. However, this did not mean that they necessarily praised and liked all the popular serials, series, action series, quiz shows, comedies and American imports. Indeed, as Lealand pointed out in the early 1980s, they could often be seen as taking a rather derogatory view of many television programmes, for example, ‘a survey across the British press soon reveals an anti-American bias in television reviews’ (Lealand 1984: 69); which, as Lealand goes on to note, was actually out of step with what was popular with the general public (Lealand 1984: 69–70). These critics’ reviews were often written in such an entertaining way that their columns became the talking point rather than the programmes. Indeed, on occasions the public discourse that they engendered led to viewers gaining a different pre-image of the programme than the broadcasters or programme maker had tried to inculcate. For example, many viewed Clive James’s coverage of Dallas as a comic parody, leading some viewers to watch the show for

NEO-CRITICISM

113

amusement, rather than being wrapped up in its more soaplike mini-dramas: It is even possible that Miss Ellie shot him, since she has been showing increasing signs of madness, singing her dialogue instead of saying it. Don’t be surprised if the sheriff turns up with a wornt for her arrest. There could be a tornt of wornts (James 1983: 92). However, this neo-criticism, as I am describing it, must not be understood as homogenous category. There were and are many different variants and styles. It is possibly more useful as a category to help illustrate the more general shift occurring in television criticism away from the drier, more serious style to one more accepting of television as a form of popular culture. Perhaps one could think of this as a moment when most critics began to accept television more as a ‘producerly’ text (Fiske 1994: 95–99). By this I mean that they begin to view television as popular and accessible, but also a medium where there is room for some form of critical interpretation. The idea was that TV should not be thought of or compared to an open or ‘writerly’ text, aimed at an elite, that requires certain skills and competencies to understand, nor as a closed text, one where meaning is fixed and there is no room for interpretation (ibid.). As Fiske argues, television programmes have, for a long time, been ‘producerly’ texts, having a certain openness to them that allows different interpretations which attract different audiences; only by being so structured will they attract a large number of viewers. These new critics now accepted the popularity of the programme but not at the expense of defining the text as closed; the critic is there to help open the text up to different types of engagement. They can provide a different way of framing and understanding the programme than the way offered by the broadcaster. I now want to move on to look, in more detail, at the form and

114

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

content of this new form of television criticism that started to appear from the 1960s onwards. Neo-criticism In this section I will move from discussing the background, attitude and values of these critics to start to analyse the reviews and coverage they were producing in the 1970s. To do this I will explore a selection of reviews from both quality and middlebrow newspapers in terms of their underlying values, style, range of programmes covered, length and location on the page and in the newspaper. As I do this I will attempt to identify how this new form of criticism differed from what came before, in terms of content, form and style. Underlying values As with television reviews of the early 1960s, those appearing in the 1970s still focused on programmes rather than on processes and institutions (McArthur 1980: 59). Some believed that the broadcast and newspaper industries helped to encourage this tendency; for example, by the broadcasters tending to market programmes as texts, and the newspaper industry appointing critics to review programmes, upholding the approach of the literary tradition with its focus on texts (Poole 1994: 12). However, while similar values continued to underpin this new form of reviewing, the newspaper industry in the 1970s encouraged the development of more popular forms of writing about television, often helped by employing non-experts and columnists writing in more opinionated and often entertaining ways. Increasingly, the editor sought TV critics able to balance up the needs for both some form of critical evaluation and also good copy (Giddings 1994: 16). This new form of criticism downplays the serious reviewers attempt to judge or evaluate a programme in terms of some objective criteria, looking at how successfully it provides a new insight about life, how it probes the human condition

NEO-CRITICISM

115

or reflects on the morals of society. Instead, these new critics were evaluating programmes, in most cases, in terms of how well made and enjoyable they were, whether as reviewers, or viewers as they often purport to be, they felt the programme worked as part of its genre, as part of television. As John Naughton noted, ‘the critic’s job is to say what he thinks – to give his impressions, however, prejudiced, informed, wrongheaded or otherwise they may be’ (Naughton 1994: 16). They were, in many ways, trying to evaluate the programme as part of popular culture, rather than as another high art. The problem they faced was that there was no obvious appropriate critical framework for them to use, apart from a literary one. This therefore created a tension between their wish to provide a more inclusive approach to television, and the literary bias towards the text and questions of creativity. Therefore, what developed was a much more intuitive form of criticism, what some call ‘criticism of the gut’. Heavy on personal insight and experience, some saw this style as similar to Hazlitt’s form of journalism, ‘explicitly drawing upon the self and its experiences’ (Cook 2004: 21). As Poole explained: [I]f television lacks ‘seriousness’ … then [the critics] make a virtue out of this lack precisely by adopting a stance which deprecates ‘seriousness’ tout court. An instrument of sorts was to hand in the English essay writing tradition of Lamb, Hazlitt and De Quincey, with its characteristically self-deprecating tone (Poole 1984: 54). Therefore these critics downplayed any use of an objective critical framework by which to judge a programme, making it seem that they were evaluating them more against their own personal values, of whether the programme worked for them, whether it made them laugh, cry or annoyed them. However, the more we look at their work, the more we can see that

116

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

these personal values were and are informed by a literary tradition, though presented in a more popular style. Therefore, at certain moments, in a similar way to the earlier critics, the neo-critics came to focus on and analyse the creative force behind the programme, the performances, the script and the insight to life provided; and, at these moments, a tension sometimes arose between the attempt to critique the programme and to make fun of it. For some, this form of analysis when undertaken by the neo-critic was often limited and failed to contextualise the debates. As Purser notes in relation to Clive James, though he judged and evaluated television programmes, often by way of a literary approach, he failed to explore the programme in depth (Purser 1992: 37). And, because of this, ‘even the best joker critics can be found wanting when things got serious’ (Purser 1992: 158–159). Such critics used a style of popular critique which they applied to a wide variety of genres, often finding some worth in all types of programmes. So, for example, Nancy Banks-Smith, in a review of a popular legal series, Six Days of Justice, commented that: I am slightly sorry for the actors. The few with speaking parts have to remember lengthy dollops of jog-trot script. Not always with success. The rest have nothing in particular to do and do it with dedication ... The director, Keith Hopper and the cameraman Keith Hopper of Look, Stranger (BBC2), fell on this liquescent quality like a couple of panting harts (BanksSmith 1975e: 12). Like a reviewer of theatre or film, she focuses here on the performance, the role of the director and cameraman; they are highlighted as important creative elements and, along with the script, are indicators of the success or failure of the programme. Though, in many ways, her criticisms seem rather

NEO-CRITICISM

117

superficial. However, it is written with humour, which makes the experience of reading the review pleasurable, it is identifiably written by Nancy Banks-Smith and is very much a personal view of the programme. You do not feel she is demanding that you agree with her. If anything, it is informative, she is telling you, in her own way, about what happens in the programme. Likewise, Clive James uses performances, direction and the script, as a way of evaluating a programme. Often, though, such critical points are made in a humorous and entertaining way. In this example, James is commenting critically on the performance of an actor playing Henry Castleton in The Main Chance: At this point Henry Castleton abandoned his impersonation of the Albert Memorial, moved a few steps forward, resumed his impersonation of the Albert Memorial, and informed David that although as a friend he, Henry might feel such-and-such, as a professional colleague he, still Henry, could only feel such-and-such (James 1975a: 33). One could argue that, while this is funny to read, with the actor being compared to the Albert memorial, and therefore pleasurable for the reader, it does also make a critical observation about the performance, and possibly the script of this programme. Perhaps this works better than just saying the performance was not very good. There are, however, moments when the reviews appear to be less about the cultural worth of the programme per se, than a way of commenting politically, culturally or socially on the wider world. For example, in this quote, where Alan Coren talks less about the operations of the programme (Look, Stranger), as a text or product of the BBC, than the event that it televises:

118

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE All year, it transpired, the good citizens of Bridgwater chuck themselves into carnival preparations with a gusto, a dedication, an inventiveness, a community spirit, and a competitiveness which, turned to some more prosaic end, would have this country back on its industrial feet before you could say Len Murray (Coren 1975a: 9).

Coren, here, seems to be more interested in talking about the events in this British town, this microcosm of the nation, than talking specifically about the way the programme televised the events. In this way television reviewing is used, by some critics, for their own means, to raise wider political, social or cultural questions, than just to evaluate the programme itself. Indeed, for Poole, such critics, at times, were ‘using some hapless piece of programming as the springboard for an elaborate display of their own over egged wit’ (Poole 1994:12). The underlying values of these critics, and their work, are often similar to those employed by the earlier serious critics, with their focus on the text and the creative forces behind the work, but they use these with a desire to write in a more entertaining way, to comment as if a viewer, to talk about the programmes on a more personal level. The neo-critic, through such criticism, writes very much about whether they liked the programme, performance or script. This often means that the reviews are rather impressionistic; more about the impression the script or performance made on the critic, but on occasions, with little supporting evidence or analysis. One underlying change in comparison with the earlier, more serious, critic is that the neo-critic is no longer arguing for the elevation of television into an art form to allow it to be reviewed. Its place as an object of review is now assured, though, for some, these critics fail to treat it seriously like another art form (Poole 1984: 57; Hearst 1981: 15). Instead, these critics concentrate on treating it as a popular form, one

NEO-CRITICISM

119

different from the arts; one that must be written about in a more accessible and popular way. Though, where they do attempt to draw out serious points, they often full back on the traditional ways of reviewing. In some ways, these critics have also accepted and come to terms with the changes in television, popular culture and the journalistic discourse. The newspapers want reviews that will attract and entertain their readers, and this increasingly needs an accessible and popular style of writing. Changes in style It is perhaps in the style of the reviews that the biggest difference between the more serious critics and these new critics becomes obvious. The neo-critics, with their by-lines, column headings and, sometimes, small pictures, were much more happy to personalise their reviews. They were no longer neutral, faceless reviewers talking about programmes in the third person. Increasingly all reviewers, broadsheets and middlebrow papers included, wrote in the first person. Indeed, at times, they gave the impression that the focus of the review was not so much on the programme, but on themselves and their lives. Such reviews were often about how they watched and engaged with television and its output. For example, Nancy Banks-Smith often personalised her feelings in her reviews, ‘I don’t care too much for it myself. If I didn’t actually fall asleep, it was only because I keeled over and hit my head on something’ (Banks-Smith 1975e: 12). Rather than attempting an objective disinterested review of the programme, she wrote about herself and her reactions to the programme; it was about the impression the programme made on her. In a similar way Shaun Usher, of the Daily Mail, also used the first person when reviewing: ‘By one of those happy chances which befall prose-junkies, I happened to be taking another ramble around Thackeray’s Book of Snobs just before the start of Edward The Seventh ’ (Usher 1975b: 25).

120

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

By the 1970s television reviews were increasingly using a more colloquial than elitist style of writing. They used examples and references from the everyday, which provided for more lively and engaging copy than the previous serious and, often, drier reviews. However, there were still differences in language and culture references between the quality newspapers and the middlebrow or popular newspapers. For example, Clive James, at the Observer, was more likely to assume his readers had quite a large grasp of wider cultural references and the English language. This therefore allowed him to create playful reviews, which moved along quickly with little explanation, often using complex sentences where meanings abounded. For example, when James reviewed a programme about the North Sea oil boom (Prepare to Meet Thy Boom, BBC2): Thorough leg-work yielded some interesting interviews and on-site film, but the music was apparently selected form the producer’s exiguous record collection and the writing lacked point, not to mention grammar. ‘Credence’ – was confused with ‘credibility’ – a much worse lapse than ‘Nationwide’s’ habit of mixing up ‘disinterested ‘ and ‘uninteresting.’ It’s high time the BBC put out a handbook to all departments ( James 1975b: 26). Here James uses words such as ‘exiguous’ and debates points of grammar that require certain competences; he writes with some comprehension of his readers and what they will understand. The Sun’s reviews are much easier to understand, they are mostly straightforward and play less with meaning and use plainer English to express the critic’s views. For example, Margaret Forwood in a more general piece about television writes, ‘John Thaw has demonstrated that he is equally at home playing a small time crook in Thick As Thieves as he is

NEO-CRITICISM

121

as a big-time copper in The Sweeney’ (Forwood 1975: 15). Forwood is stating her views very clearly. There is no clever play on words here. The language is direct and easy to understand. This new style of review, often comic in tone, was, for some, a pleasure to read. As Philip Purser notes, ‘Sheridan Morley said [about Clive James’s work] … he made the programmes more enjoyable to read about than they could ever have been to watch’ (Purser 1992: 147). It was not just about intellectual stimulation, or an attempt to write about television as another form of high art. These critics were starting to use and develop a more informal, sometimes more comic approach, echoing back, as I noted earlier, to some of the critics writing in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, including those such as Hazlitt (Cook 2004: 15–37). As Philip Purser notes, ‘[h]umour is part of any competent critic’s kit, along with irony, invective, rage, scorn and all the rest’ (Purser 1992: 145–146). This is not to say that these reviews were just about humour for, beyond this, the critic was still commenting on the programme and its meaning. For example, when Alan Coren, in a rather ironic way, reviewed the American series The Waltons: [H]ere, in flowing multi-coloured nostalgia, is the truth about economic collapse, its fun, its warmth, its thrills and spills, nights of laughter and song around the barbecued hedgehog, while mom and pop and grandpaw and grandmaw hug anything that moves and tell one another that money isn’t everything (Coren 1975c: 9). Such a review, while or because it is humorous, helps provide a different view of the programme than might first appear to the viewer. Yes, it is about the Depression, but was it really so much fun? Indeed, considering the economic problems of the mid-1970s one wonders whether Coren was using this review

122

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

to reflect on the modern era as well. Likewise Clive James, often seen as the doyen of the group, used humour throughout his work: ‘Watch out for a deadly import called The Little House on the Prairie (BBC1), lit like a Babycham commercial and full of child actresses with names like Melissa Sue Anderson and Lindsay Sidney Green Bush. It’s a fungus sandwich’ (James 1975a: 33). But as he poked fun he also made what could be thought of as a critical observation, that The Little House on the Prairie had the feel of a commercial and that the actresses all sounded like southern belles, which opens up a different way of thinking about the programme than might be promoted by the broadcasters. To some, this style, with its reliance on humour, devalued the role of criticism. As Poole argues, these critics were very ready to present reviewing ‘as nothing more than a bit of fun, something not to be taken seriously’ (Poole 1994: 12). This point was taken up by the former arts editor of The Times, Richard Morrison, who argued that, ‘[television] critics did not actually have to know anything about the medium being reviewed, as long as they were “being witty”’, a situation for which ‘Terry Eagleton coined the phrase “the critic as clown”’ (Morrison 1994: 32). In a similar fashion, Robert Giddings argues that ‘TV is not given much credit in terms of our culture, most reviewers set out to amuse, and because of this television programmes are seen in isolation: not as part of television’s own culture or in a historical context’ (Giddings 1994: 16). However, Giddings does accept that part of the reason for this lies with the needs of the news industry and its encouragement of good copy; writing that can attract and keep readers. Giddings feels that this has helped the development of much of ‘TV reviewing in the tradition of personality journalism – the tradition of H.L. Mencken, Dorothy Parker, and Alexander Woolcott’ (ibid.). John Naughton, a TV critic of this time, in his reply to Mike Poole’s criticism of this form of reviewing, argued that television critics have to attract

NEO-CRITICISM

123

readers, and humour is one way of doing this; the critic is paid to give their impressions, it is a popular medium, not an intellectual ghetto (Naughton 1994: 16). Indeed, ‘even a cursory inspection of James’s collected Observer pieces reveals an acute, sympathetic and perceptive critic as well as a very funny writer’ (ibid.). Length, range and format of reviews By the 1970s most television reviews in the quality papers were appearing alongside other reviews on the arts page. One reasons for this was, as John Ellis suggests, ‘in copy terms they were essentially the same as theatre or concert reviews, being watched live and then the review being ‘phoned in between 11pm and midnight’ (Ellis 2008: 249). So, for example, Guardian television reviews, which had started to appear on the arts pages in the 1960s, were still appearing there in the mid-1970s. If one looks at a typical Guardian review page from the 1970s, one can see how television was being treated in a similar fashion to other cultural reviews: Nancy Banks-Smith’s review appears to the left of a review of a ‘Heritage Exhibition in Manchester’, by Robert Waterhouse, and above one of ‘Heartbreak House’ by Merete Bates (Guardian 1975: 12). It was the same for the Observer and The Times, where their television reviews, as they had been in the 1960s, were still placed alongside theatre reviews, music reviews and art reviews. So, for example, in April 1975, one would find on The Times’ review page reviews of the previous night’s TV next to those of The Royal Ballet, RPO/Kemp and Judecca (The Times 1975: 13). For the middlebrow and popular newspapers, such as the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Daily Mirror and the Sun, the 1970s saw the television reviews continuing to appear on entertainment or television pages or to establish themselves there, usually alongside television listings and, often, near to television-related soft news stories. For example, the Daily

124

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Mail reviews were now established on one of a two-page entertainment spread, almost all of which related to the TV listings, reviews and stories about television. It would seem that, for this newspaper and its editor, television was considered as entertainment – or at least separable from other forms of cultural reviewing. Therefore, Shaun Usher’s TV reviews lie next to Tim Ewbank’s previews, with TV and radio listings appearing at the bottom on both pages. Shaun Usher is important enough to have a small picture, where he sports a small moustache and glasses looking every inch like a cultural intellectual. His name is boxed in and shaded black with a subheading ‘The Mail TV Critic’ (Usher 1975d: 19). While the location of the reviews changed little between the 1960s and 1970s, for the quality papers appearing on the arts pages and for the middlebrow and popular newspapers on entertainment pages, the range of programmes being reviewed and general television coverage expanded. The Times ’ reviews, in the 1960s, tended to focus overwhelmingly on drama and documentaries. These reviews, dealing with one programme at a time, were around 350–400 words long. By 1975, while the length of the reviews was the same, and they still focused on one programme at a time, there were, on occasions, two such reviews per edition thus doubling the space given over to reviewing. For example, on 25 April 1975 Michael Ratcliffe’s review of Man Alive sat close to Derek Parker’s review of Play for Today (The Times 1975: 13). If one looks at the range of programmes covered by these reviews over a month it is now quite substantive. For example, in The Times in April 1975, Alan Coren reviewed a comedy, Love Thy Neighbour, an American series, The Waltons, and a documentary, Look, Stranger (Coren 1975a/b/c: 9, 11, 9); Stanley Reynolds wrote about a drama-thriller, Thriller (Reynolds 1975: 9), Derek Parker provided coverage of the drama series, Play for Today, and a comedy, Are you being Served? (Parker 1975a/b: 13, 13); and Michael Ratcliffe covered a current

NEO-CRITICISM

125

affairs programme, Man Alive (Ratcliffe 1975: 13); together, over this period, they covered most types of television genre. Compared to this the Observer, at the same time, employed one main reviewer, Clive James. In James’s long column, of around 1,500 words, he covered a large range of programmes each week. The length and range of coverage was partly linked to his writing for a Sunday paper because, unlike a daily paper, there was more of an expectation that he would provide a roundup of the week’s viewing. Therefore, if one looks at a regular Clive James review in 1975, we find he reviews between eight and ten different programmes. This is more than the five programmes Maurice Richardson was reviewing in a similar length review column in the Observer in the 1960s. James’s review includes a whole array of different programme types and genres. For example, on 27 April 1975 he reviewed The Main Chance (drama), Sadie it’s Cold Outside (comedy), The Good Life (comedy), Churchill’s People (drama), World in Action (current affairs), Edward The Seventh (drama – historical), The Italian Way (documentary) and The Little House on the Prairie (US series) (James 1975a: 33). At the Guardian Mary Crozier, the dominant reviewer for some 20 years, had by the 1970s been replaced by Nancy Banks-Smith and Peter Fiddick. Of the two Nancy BanksSmith tended only to review programmes, while Peter Fiddick moved between programme reviews and more contextual industrial and policy pieces. For example on 14 April 1975, he wrote about an ongoing debate about the role of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA), and its new chairman, Lady Plowden, in directing the development and use of television in British society (Fiddick 1975a: 10). Their programme reviews, in a similar way to those in The Times, only focused on one programme at a time and tended to be shorter, around the 150–200 word mark, the same as Crozier was providing in the 1960s. The programmes they reviewed in April 1975 ranged from comedies such as Further Up Pompeii! (Fiddick

126

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

1975b: 10), to drama, with Edward VII (Banks-Smith 1975a: 8) and Six Days of Justice (Banks-Smith 1975e: 12), documentaries, such as The Long Long Walkabout and current affairs, This Week (Banks-Smith 1975b/d: 10, 10). The length of the reviews was the same, but the spread of coverage had opened up, with more genres being touched on over the month than had been the case in the Guardian in the 1960s. At the Daily Mail, by the mid-1970s Peter Black had been replaced by a new critic, Shaun Usher, with his holiday replacement being Martin Jackson; interestingly there was now also a preview slot, ‘Pick of the day’, by Tim Ewbank. For the main TV review section, which had the heading ‘Entertainment’, Shaun Usher focused on a handful of programmes, between two and three each week. These reviews were around 700–800 words, slightly longer than Peter Black’s review column in the mid-1960s. Over different days in April 1975 this column took in a range of popular programme genres, such as documentary (The Fight Against Slavery), children’s programmes, (Baldmoney, Sneezewort, Dodder and Cloudberry) (Jackson 1975a: 19), drama (Second City Firsts), and comedy (Are you being Served?) (Usher 1975c: 27). The range of programmes reviewed included a wider selection of genres than was being covered in the Daily Mail in the 1960s, even under Peter Black. Also, throughout the 1960s, other forms of television coverage had started to appear in the Daily Mail such that, by the 1970s, the coverage of television had expanded to cover two pages. For example, on Saturday 19 April 1975, Usher’s review was joined by a more contextual piece by Martin Jackson about why ITV was halting its attempt to gain access to the upcoming Olympics (Jackson 1975b: 17). The TV listings had grown and were now more substantive, with two or three sentences for each primetime programme. And, in one of the most interesting developments, as noted earlier, a regular preview slot had appeared. Here the regular previewer, Tim Ewbank, suggested every day some three to five programmes

NEO-CRITICISM

127

to watch. These ranged from documentaries, such as Midweek, drama, light entertainment programmes, Century Fox Presents, to comedy, with The Good Life (Ewbank 1975a/b: 25, 27). Generally, it can be observed that the range of programme genre and the number of individual programmes reviewed in the national press increased during the 1970s; also, in some papers there was a slight increase in the length of reviews. The television reviews came of age between the 1960s and 1970s, TV critics had been appointed, they were being named, the columns had increased slightly in length, and listing information, previews and other television-related stories had started to appear (Ellis 2008: 245). Overall, most reviewers now tended to touch on most television genres, though the more popular and prestigious programmes often received the most coverage. Interestingly, though, while the analysis of coverage in the 1960s, in the previous chapter, showed critics often reviewing the same programmes, this happened less in this period. Reasons for this include the expansion from two to three channels, the decline of prestigious live plays which had attracted critical attention and, lastly, that critics were more willing to write about the whole range of programmes and not focus solely on certain quality productions, specifically single plays, drama and documentaries. Television reviews were now accepted as an important part of the newspapers’ coverage; they were either positioned, as in the quality newspapers, in the art and review sections, alongside theatre and art reviews, or in the middlebrow or populist papers alongside the TV listing pages as part of the entertainment provision. In a sense it could be argued that the attempt by ‘serious’ critics to win acceptance for their practice, and for the standing of television, had succeeded, through where the reviews appeared, and how they were treated by the newspaper, depended on how it was positioned in the market.

128

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Conclusion After the Second World War Britain, and other western societies, seemed to experience what some have called a cultural and social revolution (Hobsbawm 1994: 287–343; Marwick 1991: 67–72). While the revolutionary aspect of this might be problematic, and for many it is debatable how much people’s lives changed in this period, it is generally accepted that many social, political, economic and technological developments were happening at this time. For some, the old order was under increasing attack: politically, with students rioting on the streets; socially, with the supposed demise of the working class and the youth talking about free love and free sex; and culturally, as the art world started to fixate on popular culture. Cultural values that had been dominant for so long were being challenged, in universities, in the media, on the streets and by the public at large. Popular culture was becoming increasingly more dominant, accessible and acceptable. Television, at this time was becoming dominant as a popular medium in its own right. Indeed, some observers believed that television was helping to spur on some of the social and cultural developments (Curran and Seaton 2010: 164). Increasingly, it was no longer judged in terms of other cultural forms, for example as a conduit for theatre plays or a form of naturalism derived from the theatre (Cooke 2003: 64–66). It now garnered critical acclaim for its own productions (Sinfield 2004: 323; O’Malley 2003: 87; Wheatley 2003: 81). Those working in television, helped by new forms of technology, such as video recorders and lightweight cameras, were beginning to experiment and innovate, across a whole range of programme genres (Crisell 1997: 90). As good quality, well-produced television began to attract huge audiences, often tens of millions strong, television in Britain seemed to have entered a golden age (Williams 2010a: 160). As television entered this golden age it seemed as if the newspaper industry’s demise, which began in the 1950s, was

NEO-CRITICISM

129

continuing (Tunstall 1983: 78–81). From the 1960s on newspapers went through a period of great change with readerships and income in decline. The situation was not helped by the increasing popularity of television, especially commercial television whose success was starting to erode newspapers’ advertising base and the new leisure habits of the young (Tunstall 1983: 80; Williams 2010a: 203–205); though this did not hit all newspapers equally. Newspapers responded by redesigning and re-orientating themselves for a new era, one where the classified-dominated front of The Times sat uneasily. The popular papers began to move over to the tabloid format, echoing the form taken by the Daily Mirror in the 1930s. The Sun appeared, from the ashes of the Daily Herald, in this format in 1964. The aim was, ‘to appear “bright and breezy” and easy on the eye with large headlines, wide columns and lots of pictures’; by 1977 all the popular newspapers had become tabloids (Williams 2010a: 210). Increasingly, with pressure from advertisers, the middlebrow papers found themselves being squeezed out by those papers aiming for the elite or large readerships (Williams 2010a: 206–208). As papers sought to survive they turned their attention to increasing their coverage of popular areas such as television, that could attract or keep readers; though it should be noted that television was also seen as a competitor and, for the advertisingsupported newspapers, was not a source of much revenue (Ellis 2008: 247). Television critics were increasingly viewed as being able to attract readers. Newspapers therefore no longer saw the television critic role as a place to park journalists who were sick or nearing retirement, as they had in the 1950s, but one that could help the bottom line of the paper. What the newspaper wanted was a critic who could write for the demographic desired by the paper, and do so in an entertaining and popular way that would attract readers. The late 1960s and into the 1970s therefore saw the rise of a new type of critic, what I have called the neo-critic; one who

130

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

reviewed television in a more popular and accessible way. These critics would often write from the position of a viewer, personalising their reviews in a humorous style. The television critic, working where the discourses of art, culture, journalism and television intersect, found herself having to react to changes in these areas. While this led to a change in the style of the dominant form of criticism, it was not, necessarily, a complete break from earlier forms of criticism. With no other critical framework available or credible, many of the older underlying values which had dominated approaches to theatre, literary and ‘serious’ forms of TV reviewing, continued to inform their work. I now wish to move on to look at the soft news coverage of television. While not strictly a form of television reviewing or criticism, it is an important part of the mediated public discourse that exists in newspapers.

5 SOFT TELEVISION CRITICISM

Introduction While it took a number of decades for all newspapers to appoint TV critics and to allow reviews of television programmes to appear on the arts or television pages, a form of soft news coverage, what I will call soft television criticism, has been appearing, mostly in the popular newspapers, for some time. This form includes more descriptive and less analytical reviews of television programmes, news stories and gossip about television celebrities and linked pieces on fashion and lifestyles. Many of these tend to appear in what are signposted as the leisure, fashion and entertainment pages, sections and supplements of newspapers, which have, over the past few decades, increased in size and number in all papers (Brett and Holmes 2008: 198–205). The coverage appearing on these soft news pages, while not strictly television criticism, still operates as part of a journalistic discourse around television, presenting different ways of understanding, framing and connecting with television and its programmes. This soft criticism is sometimes written by dedicated television columnists, critics or reporters, but is also penned by other journalists who write more generally about such areas as celebrity or fashion. It is as if television criticism, in its ‘serious’ form with a textual focus, is unable to fully contain or cover television; that there is an ‘excess’ that requires other

132

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

questions to be asked or other forms of engagement (Rixon 2006: 150–154). Soft television criticism, therefore, provides another form of television coverage, one that is accessible and entertaining to read, but one that also opens up the public discourse on television. This form of writing about television, focusing on stories and gossip about programmes and TV celebrities has, as Mary Crozier notes, been around since the start of television (Crozier 1958: 200). While it is often associated with tabloids it can also be found, in varying forms and amounts, throughout all newspapers. It is a form of television coverage that has, along with soft news, been viewed as somewhat frivolous, being associated with women writers and readers, echoing their subservient position in the journalistic hierarchy and of women’s in society at large (Allen 1999:112–117; Poole 1984: 59). While soft news might be seen as supportive of the dominant values and ideology, with its emphasis on the ‘dirty’ and ambiguous boundaries between the reader and text, it does also allow forms of resistance to occur (Hartley 2002: 23–28). In this chapter I will analyse this form of writing about television, the language used, where it is located in the publications and how it is positioned in relation to debates about popular culture. I will also explore how we might think about this form of criticism or writing in relation to the more dominant, popular and subversive forms, and what new viewpoints it provides on television. However, I will begin by first looking at its development as a form of journalistic discourse, one that has a long lineage. Historical development of soft journalism At the end of the nineteenth century, as the press industrialised, competition increased and advertising became the most important part of the revenue stream, for most papers, a new form of journalism appeared. This new, more popular form took some elements and practices from the American yellow

SOFT TELEVISION CRITICISM

133

press, from the more sensational and popular forms that had already appeared over the previous hundred years or so and from the burgeoning women’s magazines that had exploded onto the scene. For some, in many ways, it led to a ‘feminisation of the new mass-circulation press, brought about by its desire for a broad appeal’ (Holland 1998: 18). For Engel these new influences and developments led to the emergence of a new form of British popular journalism with the launch of the Daily Mail in 1896 (Engel 1997: 16). This was the first of the halfpenny papers, those aimed at a larger mass audience than the Daily Telegraph or The Times. Indeed, it was targeting the ‘emerging lower middle classes – clerks, shopkeepers and skilled artisans who … [with] the introduction of schooling for all and the growth of economy in the late Victorian period, had established themselves as part of the British social scene’ (Williams 1998: 57). The launch of the Daily Mail was soon followed by other newspapers that followed a similar populist approach, such as the Daily Express (1900) and the Daily Mirror (1903) (Williams 1998: 55–56). The form of journalism developing in these papers encouraged innovation in writing and layout, different ways of attracting and engaging the readership, some old and some new; it was a new form of news discourse that allowed the journalist not just to record the facts but to be a story teller (Matheson 2000: 570). The Daily Mail started to include new sections to attract women readers and its sister paper, the Daily Mirror, launched in 1903, was edited and staffed by women, as it sought to target a female readership – though, with falling reader numbers, they were soon replaced by a male staff (Holland 1998: 21). While these papers were often derided by the elites as being culturally inferior, partly on account of their association with female news characteristics, they prospered. As William Arnold noted:

134

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE We have had opportunities of observing a new journalism which a clever and energetic man has lately invented. It has much to recommend it; it is full of ability, novelty, variety, sensation, sympathy, generous instincts; its one great fault is that it is feather-brained (Arnold cited in Conboy: 2008: 169).

With a more open and entertaining form, and sold at a lower price, these papers were soon selling millions. Indeed, the Daily Mail was the first daily newspaper to hit the millioncirculation mark in the early twentieth century (Engel 1997: 64). The competitive and experimental nature of the industry continued into the period after the First World War as, in the 1930s, the Daily Mirror and Daily Express battled it out to be the most popular and innovative paper. The editor at the Daily Mirror, Guy Bartholomew, thought that ‘people preferred to look at rather than read newspapers’ (Williams 1998: 221), and therefore experimented with the layout, looking to find an eye-catching form. Both of these popular newspapers sought to attract readers by simplifying news, Bartholomew even insisting that stories should be no longer than 100 words (Williams 1998: 221). While Arthur Christiansen, at the Daily Express, drew increasingly on the visual aspects developed in periodicals, which, for some was leading to a feminisation of popular newspapers (Conboy 2008: 143). Both of these papers relied on a mixture of ‘sensation, scandal, human interest and readily accessible and well-presented popular journalism’ (Williams 1998: 221). Such papers mixed hard news with soft news. The soft news was made up of columns about gossip, reviews, fashion and news about celebrities, including film and the new radio stars, often written in an intimate and conversational tone (LeMahieu 1988: 17–26). Sometimes this soft news content was separated out from the main body of the news, at other times they were merged, helping to blur

SOFT TELEVISION CRITICISM

135

hard and soft news, a tendency which has occurred in all forms of newspapers over time (Conboy 2008: 148). After the Second World War, during which any competition had been limited by the government, the newspaper industry again became competitive; however, this was no longer just with each other but, increasingly, with the new medium of television. Newspapers now had to work even harder to differentiate themselves, to attract and keep their specific readerships and advertisers (Williams 2010a: 203– 206). This was a period in which quality or serious newspapers, what we sometimes also refer to as broadsheets, continued to associate themselves with serious or hard news, researched and written by professional news reporters imbued with and following accepted professional codes and practices to report objectively. The popular papers for their part continued to vary their blend to provide a mix of news, comment and entertainment, often with an emphasis on the sensational and soft news elements, to provide an entertaining and eye catch form, to attract readers (Allan 1999: 112–117). Between the two, the middlebrow papers were increasingly squeezed, leading to some being forced out of business and others into a wholesale change of direction (Tunstall 1983: 81–83; Williams 1998: 213). However, this is not to say that soft news, and its various associated parts, is not to be found across the whole range of papers. Over time all newspapers have come under increased pressure to attract and keep readers, to change and adapt their style of reporting and layout. Researching, writing news stories, printing and distributing papers costs money, and, with the reliance on advertising revenue, there is a need to sell newspapers to either large or small but attractive readership groups. This is one reason why all papers have increasingly included detailed television and radio schedules, as well as fashion spreads, women’s section, lifestyle magazines (usually provided at weekends), cartoons, different types of gossip

136

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

sections and some information about the ongoing activities of stars and celebrities, if at times disguised as a story about another newspaper’s coverage. In line with these shifts all newspapers, ‘especially broadsheets, have moved commercially to include more of interest to increasingly affluent and socially engaged professional women readers’ (Conboy 2008: 146). Some observers believe that these moves, across the whole journalistic field, are leading to the tabloidisation of all papers (Allan 1999: 183–192). Increasingly, what differentiates newspapers is not whether they include soft news or not, or if they have a dedicated women’s section or provide a weekly magazine, but on whether their content and form is perceived by the readership as being dominated by hard or soft news; whether their primary purpose is to entertain or inform. Most readers would presumably agree with the Audit Bureau of Circulation’s categorisation of the newspapers into national quality newspapers: the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, The Times and the Independent, whose content is dominated by serious news; the midmarket papers the Daily Express and Daily Mail, with more of a mix of news, comment and sensationalism; and the popular papers, or red tops, which include the Daily Mirror and the Sun, presenting a more soft news dominated view of the world (Franklin 2008a: 6). Indeed, some of the tabloids, such as the Sun, are viewed as almost completed dominated by soft news coverage (Pursehouse 2008: 291), so much so that some now question whether such papers should be considered less as newspapers and more as ‘entertainment sheets’ (Williams 1998: 224). If one, however, looks through these papers, it is obvious that many of the soft news features found in tabloids are present in broadsheets, and that tabloids still occasionally undertake some important news collecting and reporting activities. For example, the Sun exposed Starbucks’ policy of leaving the taps in their coffee shops constantly running, leading to a public outcry that forced the company to change

SOFT TELEVISION CRITICISM

137

its policy (Lorraine and Fly 2008). As such, most tabloids provide ‘to varying degrees of depth – “straight” news coverage of public affairs’ (Allan 1999: 115). It can, therefore, be questioned if an approach that divides news rigidly into hard and soft news forms, often associated with male and female characteristics, or even ‘popular’ versus ‘quality’ is, as Gripsrud argues, able to ‘really grasps the complexities of actual journalistic practice’ (Gripsrud 2008: 34). Where does a ‘hard’ news story, about celebrities and drug taking, for example, become part of soft news, and where does some gossip about the antics of public-funded TV celebrities become the domain of hard news? The division of news into hard and soft, into objective and subjective, important and frivolous, is ideological, and stems from wider power relations to do with class and gender (Allan 1999: 83–106). Soft news coverage, while not always focused on reviewing and critiquing programmes, does act as part of the public discourse around television. Those writing in this form express views on television and its programmes, they provide gossip about stars and celebrities and coverage of fashions found in television. While these elements are not found in the usual types of critical reviews, what we might call the ‘hard news’ form of television coverage, these represent another way in which the public discusses and thinks about the nature, form and value of television and its programmes; it is another way readers make sense of and understand how television connects to their lives. I will now move on to look, in some detail, at how the pre-TV media forms, such as film and radio, came to be covered by soft news, and how the soft news coverage of television developed out of this. Soft criticism of film and radio Television was not the first activity or medium to be covered in a form of soft news by newspapers; other media and leisure forms, such as music hall, theatre, film and radio had been

138

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

covered in this way for some time (Ponce de Leon 2002). And, therefore, as television emerged as a popular medium its coverage in the press developed out of existing forms. As I explore, in this second section, how soft news coverage develops in the press, I will identify some of the keys actors, associated discourses and their needs, which shape how and why this coverage developed as it did. Throughout the nineteenth century new leisure and entertainment forms appeared or increased in popularity, whether the novel, music hall, theatre and, in the early twentieth century, film and radio. These popular media and leisure forms were ripe for coverage by the new journalism of the popular newspapers. Newspapers soon established themselves as a place for readers to find out about what was on, what was coming out, which books were worth reading and plays worth seeing. An important part of this coverage included writing about the activities of the stars and celebrities of the music halls, and later of film and radio (Ponce de Leon 2002). Increasingly the public wanted to read about the lives of the people they saw on stage or on the silver screen. In turn the media and cultural industries, through publicity and marketing, developed stars to help market their productions. As readers became more interested in these stars, the newspapers also became keen to cover them. In this way the media and newspaper industries worked symbiotically, helping each other, one to publicise, the other to gain readers. Gossip and stories about the new stars, the new aristocracy, of the music hall and then films, was what people wanted to read about, and what they were increasingly offered (Ponce de Leon 2002; Holmes 2008: 165). People wanted to read about the ‘reel’ and ‘real’ life of these new stars, what they were doing, where they lived and what they were wearing. Such coverage, focusing on material goods, indicates that consumption was playing an important role in the way stars and celebrities were written about (Dyer 1990: 39–49).

SOFT TELEVISION CRITICISM

139

Such a focus and interest was helped by the rising importance of the advertising industry. As mass production and consumption took off in the nineteenth century, as incomes rose and goods became increasingly affordable, as new forms of shopping outlets appeared, such as the department store, a nascent advertising industry appeared (Eyre and Walrave 2002: 320–326). Those working in this new industry began to refine the practice of placing adverts next to content in the media that targeted specific demographics (Meech 2008: 237). In this way newspapers, as they became increasingly reliant on advertising income, reacted by developing a style of content that attracted sought-after readers and advertisers. This led, over time, to a blurring or merging of the news and the surrounding adverts. As James Curran argues, ‘advertising as a concealed subsidy system has shaped the mass media … [such that] the media have adapted to the marketing needs of advertisers in order to compete for these subsidies’ (Curran 1996: 711). So, for example, one might often find content in newspapers written and placed in such a way as to attract advertisers. Likewise, newspapers would work with advertisers to place their adverts near agreeable content. So, for example, next to a story about the dress worn by a film star, adverts might be placed for similar clothes or women’s accessories. This would, it was hoped, encourage the reader who is interested in the star, their lifestyles and clothes, to purchase some of these items. Soft news was the most attractive form of coverage for this symbiotic relationship, as it could easily be shaped to the needs of the advertisers, and focused on lifestyles and fashion. Also, as this form was not linked to breaking news events it could be written and shown to advertisers long before publication. Therefore, this type of coverage was particular useful for popular newspapers as they sought to attract and keep readers and advertisers. Sometimes, a blurring would occur between the star and the fashion coverage, such as where a fashion piece of Chanel had Gloria

140

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Swanson modelling the clothes (Photoplay January 1922 in Dyer 1990: 40–41). This coverage was especially useful for popular newspapers as they sought to attract more female readers, an important market for the advertisers, who, over the nineteenth century had often been better served by magazines and journals (Conboy 2008: 142–143). While a popular journalistic discourse developed, utilising a form of soft news coverage, that could cover and develop popular stories about the media, including film, radio and television, so the media and leisure industries became more adept at shaping and directing their publicity and marketing. One of the first media industries active in promoting its products on a large scale was film. As they began to produce hundreds of films for the expanding cinema chains, the studios required a way to differentiate their product; indeed, to provide some understanding for the public of what the films would be about, and therefore to minimise their risk (Hesmondhalgh 2002: 21). One way to do this was to develop the star as a vehicle to attract cinemagoers, to help in the creation of a pre-knowledge of the film. Cinemagoers would, for example, go to see a Clark Gable or Deanna Durbin film (Dyer 1990: 10–19). The star is, as Dyer points out, a construct, the result of the studio, the actor, the publicity and marketing machine and the media interacting with each other to shape a public discourse around an actor’s identity (ibid.). The film industry saw newspapers and other similar outlets as one way to publicise and market their films, to help in the creation and perpetuation of a star’s persona that the studios would use to provide a draw to the film. Likewise, on a secondary level, such stars could be used to help sell other products, such as cars, clothing and cigarettes, either by directly endorsing them or indirectly by appearing near related adverts. For example, one can see this happening in a 1938 news story by Seton Margrave writing in the Daily Mail about various films coming out in April 1938, including a long piece on

SOFT TELEVISION CRITICISM

141

Claudette Colbert and Gary Cooper. This piece is juxtaposed, on the same page, with a shoe advert for Propert’s shoes (Margrave 1938: 8). One cannot help but see the two, lying next to each other, as being linked. In this way the stars and their lifestyles and clothes become, in a small way, associated, thanks to the proximity of the story with the adverts. As television first started to appear in the 1930s, it was soon being written about in a soft news form, especially in the popular and middlebrow newspapers, such as the Daily Express, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror and the Sunday papers such as the People. One writer who provided some limited coverage of television at this time was Collie Knox. He mostly wrote about radio in his regular Daily Mail radio column but, as television began to develop, he included this within his brief. In this extract, Collie Knox is complaining about commentators interrupting and describing the events shown on television: If I cannot see a cricket match or a lawn tennis tournament, either in person or by television, I would rather read about the play next day described by people who know about the sport and who know about the power of description (Knox 1938b: 38). Here Knox talks informally about his personal feelings about the tennis commentary in a way that connects with how the reader might or might not also feel. In his column, where he often discusses problems with radio, he comes to comment increasingly on television, pulling it into the public discourse. The soft news coverage of television developed out of similar coverage of other media forms, such as film and radio. It was written in a similar way, began to appear on the same or similar pages and fulfilled a similar role. It was there to attract a mass readership, especially women, and, of course, advertisers. While popular newspapers already had a mix of

142

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

soft and hard news throughout, with a number of columns, pages dedicated to focusing on film and radio, before the Second World War the upmarket papers, with more of a focus on hard news, found it harder to find a place for television, beyond news stories, within their pages. When they did, after the war, it was initially in the form of television reviews, which were placed alongside other arts reviews. It was only as they developed supplements and as competition increased, that their soft news coverage, which included television, appeared and spread. I now want to go on to analyse soft television criticism as it developed after the war. Soft television criticism To understand the way readers make sense of television, how it becomes part of their lives, how they are informed about what’s going on in a programme or on television generally, about what is happening behind the scenes or in the story line, we must take account not just of more serious television critics and what they write, but also the way television is written about in popular reviews, gossip, fashion and the like. We have to understand that the public discourse around television is made up of many different types of debates, actors and discussions, not all recognisably serious or critical in the traditional sense. Soft television criticism tends less to critique a programme from the position of an independent critic, than to provide a view as if from the public, providing common sense comments on popular programmes. Much of what is covered is perceived as being, or potentially being, popular. This does not mean that these journalists do not write about new up and coming programmes, but when they do they rely on their experience of what they believe will fit with the popular sentiments of their readers. In this they are often influenced by the marketing and publicity that surrounds new programmes and the needs of their own media organisations.

SOFT TELEVISION CRITICISM

143

This form of popular discourse, this ‘soft’ criticism, found within newspapers of almost every type, does not overtly subvert or undermine the existing dominant cultural hierarchy. In some ways it reaffirms the cultural hierarchy, by constituting itself as the polar opposite of serious coverage, reinforcing the hierarchical relationships of elite and mass, of high and low culture, of serious and frivolous. This type of coverage would seem to support the dominant ideological view of the world. Indeed, as soft news coverage tends to personalise its accounts of the world, it makes it hard for readers to ‘identify means of articulating their resistance to these power relations’ (Allan 1999: 112). The writers speak as if they are the public, as if it is some shared truth, often appealing to direct personal experience (Sparks 1992: 39–40). However, it could also be argued that the reader knows that this is not serious criticism, and if they want that type of coverage they could buy another kind of paper. As Fiske notes, while hard news is accepted as producing an objective view point, ‘[t]he last thing that tabloid journalism produces is a believing subject … [it] offers the pleasures of disbelief, the pleasures of not being taken in’ (Fiske 1992: 49). Fiske goes on to argue that such work, as it deals with pleasure, is hard to control ideologically. It provides a space that at times is hard to police and control. Therefore, soft news allows other voices, positions and meanings to appear in the discourse about television (Fiske 1992: 52–53); this is similar to Hartley’s idea of the ‘dirty’ text, one that allows ambiguous boundaries to appear, that are hard to police and control; from which new relationships and meanings can spring (Hartley 2002: 23–29). What this coverage does do is to open up a popular discourse around television, and particular television programmes, for the readers; it opens television up, at certain moments, for the viewers to actively engage with the text in a way they understand; it helps them find new forms of pleasure and enjoyment. It acts, in a way, as part of an alternative

144

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

public sphere, bringing in those often excluded from the dominant area of public discussion and debate (Ornebring and Jonsson 2008: 27–31). I will now, under a number of headings, explore the way television has been written about in this form: the programmes chosen, the underlying values at work and the way the television coverage relates to other media and cultural forms including advertising. I will, as I do this, highlight the particular forms of articulation found in such coverage, the potential pleasures at work and possible forms of resistance, and will relate this coverage to that found in more ‘serious’ critical coverage. While this form of writing might not necessarily appear to be as critical and evaluative as more ‘serious’ reviews, it does, as noted above, play an important role, a ritualistic role, in the way we think about, make sense of, engage with and understand this popular medium. Soft television criticism and reviews Most British popular newspapers, since the Second World War, have come to include sections or pages that focus on television in a soft news form. Within some of this coverage, especially in what we now call tabloids, one can also find more popular styled reviews and previews than the more serious styled critical reviews, mostly found in the quality papers. These reviews, like those found in the quality papers, focus on the programme as text, but they discuss them in a more colloquial way. Such reviews are often written in an intimate, direct style using shorter sentences with any references being those in everyday circulation. The reviews fall into two different categories. There are the more sycophantic ones, which are generally less evaluative or judgemental than informative, telling us about what is happening in the programme or to the actors; and those that are very opinionated, often written by what might be called columnists, such as Gary Bushell (Wickham 2007: 82).

SOFT TELEVISION CRITICISM

145

For example, as Fiona Morrow writes in the Sun about the series of the medical drama ER: Hospital drama ER is famous for its dramatic scenes, and you won’t be disappointed when the new series starts. It kicks off with two episodes back-to-back during which everyone is thrown into the fray as a multiple car crash has Chicago County General’s ER overflowing with serious casualties (Morrow 2004: 15). Here, rather than saying ‘the series starts with…’, she uses the colloquial, ‘[I]t kicks off…’. She writes here very much in an intimate way, talking to ‘you’ the reader. She does not critique the programme, but instead tells the readers that they will not be let down and provides a basic outline of what happens in this episode. Interspersed throughout her piece is an interview with one of the actors, Abby, who is asked why she thinks ER succeeds: ‘She believes ER is such a success because it mixes personal stories with heart-stopping action’ (ibid.). In this type of review there is little analysis or critical reflection about the form or content of ER; it is seemingly not up to the writer to say what they think. It also mixes forms. Is it a preview or an interview? It is written in a way that corresponds to how the average viewer might think about and discuss a programme with someone else. Such reviewing touches on a range of programmes, though they will always be ones that are in the public eye and the reviewer believes the public wants to know more about. This might be due to a programme’s popularity or some controversy. For example, most tabloids provide reviews and previews of popular soaps such as EastEnders and Coronation Street, they might cover programmes that are topical, such as Jamie Oliver’s School Dinners and the questions it raised around children’s eat habits, and programmes around which there is

146

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

controversy, such as reality programme Big Brother and questions of race that one series raised. This tendency, to target potentially popular programmes can be seen in this preview for Desperate Housewives from the Sun: One of the stars of new TV series Desperate Housewives is no stranger to stripping for the cameras – as this snap shows… Marcia Cross, 44, right, is seen baring her boobs in a raunchy 1996 movie called Female Perversions. The exposure clearly helped her telly role in a show dubbed the naughtiest to come out of the U.S. since Sex and the City (Sun 2005: 27). Here the Sun starts to frame the programme in terms of sexual allure, linking it with an already successful programme, Sex and the City. The reviewer is attempting to build up a story, to build up a public debate around the programme, to create a new popular sensation that will help sell newspapers, in a similar way to how the paper might create a sensationalist news story. This they do, not by pointing out the quality of the acting or the script, but by focusing on the sexual, behind the scenes gossip or the actors’ indiscretions. Popular television reviews differ from those found in the arts sections of quality newspapers, by tending to focus on popular programmes, often in uncritical ways, in an intimate form, often mixing the review or preview format using snippets of gossip or interviews. In this way, such reviews tend to affirm the more obvious meaning of the programmes, often those marketed by the producers or television channels, partly because they rely on the controlled access to the creative staff and actors behind a programme. One can use the axis suggested by Fiske here to understand what is happening. At one end of the axis sit the marketing and PR firms, looking after the interest of producers and employers. At the other end are

SOFT TELEVISION CRITICISM

147

the ‘independent’ critics, there to help critically question the texts and the industry that produces them. Tabloids could be viewed as lying between the two; presenting, on one hand, the face of independent journalism while, on the other, relying heavily on PR releases and information from the industry (Fiske 1994: 118). For Poole, ‘[i]t is not entirely accidental that vast tracts of what passes for television criticism in Britain actually reads like promo’ (Poole 1984: 51). Such reporting tends to be less critical and less interested in the cultural value or artistic worth of the programme. Indeed, ‘those working for the most popular end of the popular press are quite clearly part of the showbiz treadmill and of no relevance’ (Eichler 1981: 16). This trend might be getting worse as media conglomerates, such as News Corp., have come to use the newspaper parts of their empire to market their television stations and satellite packages (Niblock 2008: 52). However, this is not to say that alternative views or meaning cannot appear or develop from this form of journalism. Popular debates and discussions, and indeed meanings, are not easily policed. If a programme that is not rated highly by those working on a paper, suddenly, by word of mouth, becomes a hit of some form, the newspaper will most likely cover it; likewise, such a popular newspaper can promote a particular programme but, if the public debate turns against the programme, its coverage might be toned down or changed. For example, the programme Bad Girls received damning reviews from most newspapers, including the Daily Mirror, when it first aired in 1999 (Purnell 1999: 24). However, by 2001 as it gained a popular following, and often was one of the highest viewed programmes of the week, it was suddenly being recommended in the Daily Mirror in a section of ‘Best Drama’ (Lamacraft 2001: 3). The pleasure the public receives from reading about programmes, is not easily controlled; there is an excess that can lead to the public discourse moving in unforeseen ways (Fiske

148

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

2001: 49–102). Such reviews must, therefore, be viewed as an area of potential struggle, where dominant views of a programme might be replicated, but are not always followed; they are, in their way, an important part of the public discourse that develops around a programme, but not the only one. I will now move on to look at soft television coverage and celebrity. Soft television criticism and celebrity The soft television coverage of television’s stars and celebrities, as noted above, developed out of existing approaches to music hall, radio and film. This was partly also because the same actors and celebrities were often being employed by the BBC, and later ITV (Williams 2010b: 180–181). Some of this crossover, even existed between the press and television, as illustrated by a Daily Express report in 1938 about its gardening expert making a disguised appearance on a BBC cabaret (1938: 23). This focus on home-grown stars was reinforced by the fact that they were accessible, had a high profile appearing across many different mediums and were often part of British life, while American Hollywood stars were less visible due to their distance from Britain, though this has changed over time, somewhat, with the ease of travel. From the 1950s the popular newspapers, keen to attract and keep readers, started to increase their news coverage of celebrities, including television celebrities, writing about what they were doing, what they were wearing, who they were marrying, etc. (Williams 2010b: 175). They were very much helped and encouraged by the nascent PR, marketing and publicity industries, which dramatically increased in size after the 1960s (Miller cited in Hesmondhalgh 2002: 163; Biressi and Nunn 2008: 135). The coverage of celebrities can be divided into two main forms: officially sanctioned stories or photographs based on publicity releases, and unofficial ones, often dredged up by the investigative reporter (Biressi and

SOFT TELEVISION CRITICISM

149

Nunn 2008: 136). While it is often hard to determine the source of such stories when reading them, it is usually evident whether the story is positive, and most likely official, or derogatory, and unofficial. Initially, while much of the coverage of television celebrities was in short items that often just mentioned the celebrity in question and some aspect of their lives or a new series they were staring in, by the 1960s, as television established itself as the dominant popular medium, the coverage expanded into longer items, often taking up one or two pages, usually based on an interview with the celebrity in question. These were often linked to the screenings of new television programmes and therefore, most likely, were arranged by the production company, the celebrity’s agent or the TV channel in question. For example, on 15 April 1965 the Daily Mail had a short piece on Britt Ekland. Underneath the picture the reader is told, ‘Swedish-Born actress Britt Ekland, wife of Peter Sellers and international film star, is to appear in her first TV play. She was rehearsing with Ian Hendry and Roy Dotrice at Teddington Studios yesterday’ (Macrae 1965: 3) The accompanying text reinforces the publicity feel of the piece as it comments in some length on the upcoming TV play while the photograph looks very much staged. Reading it in this way, it would seem that this piece was arranged by a PR or marketing person or company on behalf of the production company or the broadcaster, using Britt Ekland’s star persona to attract interest in their production. Indeed, the subtitle of the piece, ‘Viewers will see her go swimming’, suggest a certain attempt to use her allure to draw in viewers, as alluded to in the article, ‘[i]n one scene, Miss Ekland will disport herself happily in the pool – a triumph for the publicity man and the fellow who counts the viewing figures’ (ibid.). Another longer example of such coverage, is of Mary Tyler Moore when she was best known for appearing as Laura Petrie in The Dick Van Dyke Show. The piece is entitled

150

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

‘That Dick Van Dyke Show Girl…’ (Davis 1965: 10). In this item, which is accompanied by what seems to be a publicity styled photograph of Mary Tyler Moore, the reporter provides a rather sycophantic interview with the star, ‘[t]he slender, freckle nosed beauty in snug slacks and a cool, cream blouse shrugged her shoulders and said: “I want to be a big movie star”’ (emphasis in original). The article talks a lot about her sexiness and youth, as well as painting for the reader a picture of her lifestyle, what she wears and where she lives: ‘She sat barefoot and cross legged on the deep grey at her new rambling ranch-style house just outside Hollywood where she lives with her husband’. Interestingly, juxtaposed right next to this piece is a dress advert for the ‘Uncrushable Tricel Jersey’, perhaps suggesting that this is the kind of clothing Laura Petrie might wear. This illustrates once again how soft news is closely connected to the surrounding commercial messages; messages that help fund such newspapers. Another example from around the same period can be found in the Daily Express on 27 April 1965, with an article on Benny Hill by Anne Leslie. Playing with Hill’s saucy persona, the piece is entitled ‘The Other Man in Her Life’. As explained in the introduction, ‘[h]e’s there in the house when her husband is away (but to be fair he’s there when her husband’s present too … he is an intruder … the invader via the “box”’ (Leslie 1965: 6). Under a range of subheadings Ann Leslie explores the ‘reel’ and ‘real’ lives of Benny Hill. These include: ‘Saucy’, ‘Money’, ‘Style’, ‘Escape’, ‘Dreamy’, ‘Travel’ and ‘Regret’. Anne Leslie talks to, and about, Benny Hill the ‘star’ and person: ‘He has a touch of the vulgar postcards about him, but is never too blue to warrant sending the children to bed’; here she merges the person she is talking to with the one on the screen. Throughout she talks about Benny, or Mr Hill, and his sauciness (it is never clear which part of his persona she is talking of), saying that he ‘talks a great detail about the “ladies”’. Also, throughout the piece, we get some insight into

SOFT TELEVISION CRITICISM

151

the lifestyle of Benny Hill, the home he lives in, the food he likes and what he spends his time doing. There is a similar focus to the interview as in the one with Mary Tyler Moore we looked at earlier. Ann Leslie explores the celebrity that, seemingly, women love. She focuses on things the female reader would traditionally want to read about, issues to do with Hill’s bachelor status, his income, his sex appeal: ‘[s]ince he is no Rock Hudson and his appeal partly lies in his jolly, generous poundage, it seems a pity that he should … [try] to get rid of it’. Again, around the piece adverts have been placed. Here it is two large cigarette adverts, perhaps playing with the implied sexuality and masculinity of Benny Hill, and the phallic and sensual nature of cigarettes, illustrating again the close linkage of soft news and advertising. Television celebrities fit well with the soft forms of popular journalism, especially in the way it personalises a story. It presents the world in a way that means something to the readers. They want to read about how the celebrities live, what they do, what they are like and what type of life they lead (Turner et al. 2008: 144). The readers of popular newspapers do not wish to read analytical pieces focusing on serious television programmes they do not watch, or pieces that critically dissect or dismiss programmes they like. This is also a discourse the television industry wishes to promote; it is something they believe they can control, and ‘control, of course, is exactly what the celebrity industry aims to achieve’ (Turner et al. 2008: 141). The television industry aimed to promote programmes through the star or celebrity, while PR and publicity agencies, increasingly employed by talent, saw it as a way of increasingly the marketability of their clients. Indeed, it is interesting to note that as ‘talent’ has become more important and better organised, and as PR as an industry has developed, this type of coverage in the media, of stars and celebrities, has increased (Biressi and Nunn 2008: 135). Advertisers also like soft news coverage of celebrities and

152

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

their lifestyles, as it created aspirations for the products the advertisers are trying to sell. However, as we shall see in the next section on gossip, the discourse that develops around a television ‘star’ or celebrity is not always controllable. Soft television criticism and gossip Much of the soft television criticism coverage of television and its celebrities came to use and, in some ways, create gossip and stories about what was going on behind the scenes, in terms of programmes, key personnel and the lives of the stars and celebrities. In some ways this coverage helps flesh out their supposed existence off-screen, providing the readership with answers to what the actor/character likes doing, where she lives, who she is marrying or is married to. In this way gossip, ‘binds together characters and narrative strands … it binds viewers to each other as they gossip about the show, and establishes an active relationship between viewer and program [sic]’ (Fiske 1994: 77). While Fiske here is mostly referring to gossip between members of the public, gossip also appears in the public forum by way of newspaper coverage. Such coverage helps fuel gossip between members of the public, while also working as a form of public gossip. Gossip therefore plays an important role in how we ‘construct, modify and negotiate our individual and collective identities’ (Turner et al. 2008: 146). The public, through such coverage, are seeking some insight into the ‘authentic’, to see the star as they really are (Holmes 2008: 165). Gossip is therefore a site of struggle, between the PR, marketing and publicity industries, who might be seeking to keep a star in the public gaze or to limit such coverage, and journalists and newspapers seeking to provide entertaining copy, to create a discourse that can be sold to the public. For example, there has been ongoing coverage of Jennifer Aniston, best known for her part in Friends, Brad Pitt, her exhusband, and Angeline Jolie, which for some has been crea-

SOFT TELEVISION CRITICISM

153

tivity produced and nurtured by a number of well-known celebrity magazines (Burkeman 2009: 6). Through such a form journalists come to mix the fictional world, the ‘reel’ (fictional) world, with the ‘real’ world, the different worlds of the character and actor, adding to the pleasure and enjoyment of the readers as they imagine what an actor might be doing at home or what might have been happening between actors when the programme was filmed (Fiske 1992: 124–126). For example, Jenny Eden, writing in the Sun on 9 April 2005, explores the developing relationship between James Denton, who plays Mike Delfino, and Terri Hatcher, who plays Susan, in Desperate Housewives. Their relationship is strained when he is implicated in a murder: The game could be up for Desperate Housewives’ mystery man Mike Delfino. His true identity is at risk of being revealed when Mike is arrested for Mrs Huber’s murder … Ironically, Susan … ends up being Mike’s alibi. The night of Mrs Huber’s death was the first time they had sex. James comments that ‘snogging co-star Terri is one of the perks of the job’ (Eden 2005: 20). Such coverage allows the world of the Desperate Housewives to take on a new dimension, where the lives of actors and characters merge; where the viewer/reader can follow both aspects and how they interact. Sometimes the gossip appears to be harmless, focusing on who a celebrity might be seeing or not, but sometimes it does seem malicious, often backed with intrusive photos. For example, it might be about a celebrity having an affair, suffering a breakdown or going into rehab or, in the case of Lisa Jeynes (a Big Brother house mate), suggesting that she ‘had a sex-swap operation’ (Daily Record 2003: 15). Popular newspapers, while sometimes being supportive of programmes or certain stars, often seem to turn on others, metaphorically looking through

154

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

their dirt publicly – sometimes literally. Concerns have been directed not just at the coverage of television celebrities by these papers but the way they are intruding into the lives of any well-known person. While this sort of gossip, often accompanied by paparazzi photos, has appeared in popular papers for some time, it has become more intrusive since the 1990s (Conboy 2008: 183). This gossip, often written in a way that we talk to others about our ‘friends’, seems fairly intimate, even mundane and everyday. It helps play on our feeling that we know these people who appear in our intimate space, our homes, every week. This relationship seems to give us a right to know more about them, more than we would like to be known about us. It helps ‘activate and circulate meaning of the text that resonates with the cultural needs of that particular … talk community’ (Fiske 1994: 78). For example, for fans of the programme the marriage of the Coronation Street actor Eileen Derbyshire in 1965 was an important event, something they would have wanted to know about. The Daily Express dutifully ran a piece with the title ‘Coronation Street’s Miss Nugent Marries in secret – almost’ (2 April 1965: 11). The piece refers to her, in the title and the first paragraph, in terms of her character, Miss Nugent; ‘The shy spinster of Coronation Street was a shy, beat-the-tax bride yesterday.’ The marriage was meant to be secret but the press, including the Daily Express, turned up so that she faced ‘a battery of cameras’. Gossip and more intimate pieces about the lives of the actors, and characters, appearing on television, taps into a form of soft journalism that has been around since the start of news-sheets and newspapers. People have always been interested in the lives of the famous and powerful. People are interested in the lives of those people who they read about, who appear in positions of power or appear in the public eye on stage, screen or TV; they want to know more about these people, what they do, where they go and who they are sleep-

SOFT TELEVISION CRITICISM

155

ing with. Indeed, the reader wants, ‘to get behind or to see through the manufactured nature of the star or celebrity image’ (Holmes and Redman 2006: 4). This form of journalism provides a form of pleasure, a voyeuristic pleasure for the public of looking into other people’s lives, people that one thinks one knows, but one will never meet or really know. Over time the focus of these pieces has changed, moving from the court and the powerful elites, towards stars and celebrities of the new media, films for example, and then on to radio, television and music; it has become more ‘democratic’ as the media industries have developed (Holmes 2008: 165). Gossip plays an important part in shaping people’s understanding of, and the pleasure they find in, television, in terms of the characters/actors who appear on the screen. Gossip helps connect them to people’s lives, making them seem more real and authentic than if their existence stopped at the edge of the screen or the end of the programme. Soft television criticism and fashion Soft television criticism has, as touched on earlier, merged with coverage of other forms, such as fashion, a form that includes clothes but could also include accessories, such as shoes and jewellery and even, on a wider level, lifestyles, celebrities’ homes and cars. Again, this kind of writing has been around for a long time, providing an insight into what the rich and famous were wearing and how they lived. Prior to the twentieth century, however, it was often beyond the means of most people to buy into the fashions or lifestyle being written about. However, by the early twentieth century, as incomes rose and mass production brought costs down, so the public got caught up in a form of conspicuous consumption which the media helped fuel (Storey 1999: 36). For example, in the early part of the twentieth century with the new media of film, we start to see direct linkages between fashion on sale in shops and the film industry (Dyer 1990: 39–49). Film stars

156

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

would often appear in clothes that could then, usually in a cheaper form, be purchased from a department store. While the quality papers slowly came to cover television through limited reviews and news stories, the middlebrow and popular newspapers would sometimes, early on, cover fashion aspects of television, whether in terms of a programme, actors or celebrities. This type of coverage allows, encourages and creates a blend or merging of journalistic discourses, where writing about the television programme merges with writings about fashion or lifestyles; where journalism meets marketing. Again, it underlines the close symbiotic relationship that exists between the media and advertising within the wider context of the consumer culture. It emphasises the important role some media play in helping to bring new fashions and styles to people’s attention and indicates that readers of these papers do not divide the media into separate boxes; they are able and willing to mix their reading of television, advertising and fashion coverage. They are prepared to accept the intertextuality of this coverage, with the slippage of celebrities and television writing onto fashion pages, and vice versa. Whether this leads people to buy these products or clothes is, of course, another question. Some programmes, because of their content or the public profile of the actors involved, are more prone to this kind of coverage For example, those writing about fashion have been attracted to write about Sex and the City, an American sitcom that focuses on a number of independent women living in New York looking for love and sex. The series, throughout, touches on questions of style, fashion, clothes, cosmetics, jewellery and shoes. Hence, fashion reviewers have felt at home in writing about the stars of the series and their relationship to fashion:

SOFT TELEVISION CRITICISM

157

ES [Evening Standard] Fashion Stalker pays homage to Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte and their wardrobes. CARRIE How to sum up Carrie Bradshaw’s dress sense? Eclectic. The New York clotheshorse has pioneered more styles over the past six series than Coco Chanel. Carrie has singlehandedly brought us such classics as the corsage, the name necklace and the flat cap, plus dangerously high heels and a cornucopia of designer dresses. We’ve laughed, we’ve cooed, we’ve copied; and all the while we’ve admired Carrie for having such continual fashion fun. Favourite designers: Matthew Williamson, Christian Dior, Donna Karan, Marni, Anna Molinari, Vivienne Westwood, Manolo Blahnik, Jimmy Choo and vintage. (Evening Standard 2000) Here, as we can see, there is little discussion of the narrative of the programme or its form. The story’s main focus is on the clothes being worn. It is discussed in terms of fashion references, different designers and different clothes and accessories. The centre of attention here is on style, on the connections between the programme, the stars and the clothes industry, which have been, in some ways, knowingly placed within the programme. Another, earlier, example, which also illustrates the close linkage between television and fashion, and the wider consumer culture, can be seen in an article in the Daily Express on Cathy McGowan, of Ready Steady Go fame, who launched her own clothes collection in 1965. Using her renown as one of

158

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

the hostesses on the ‘in’ pop programme of the day, and its obvious appeal to style-conscious teenagers, we both see and read about the presenter’s new clothes range, aimed at the eight- to fifteen-year-olds. We read about how she has ‘never worn conventional clothes … [and] never set out to be a trendsetter’ (Marshall 1965: 11). Underneath the title is a picture of Cathy with a number of junior teenage models. The piece appears alongside other news, rather than on the entertainment or fashion pages. Such an article illustrates the multilayered nature of television, of the complex way it is treated by the journalistic discourse. It is not just a question of focusing on the programme as a text, the narrative or meaning it seeks to create, but that television, like all media, spills out into many discourses, activities and processes. It has an excess, one that cannot be handled within or by any single form of journalistic writing. Mostly this type of writing appears in the soft news sections of popular newspapers. However, one can also find fashion pieces touching on television, its programmes and celebrities, also appearing in quality papers, both in the main sections and in the supplements; such as when Hadley Freeman of the Guardian wrote about various programmes setting the fashion agenda (Freeman 2001: 8). Also, at times, the soft news coverage will appear in the news sections of the paper, possibly even on the front pages. For example, the coverage of the Oscar ceremony always spills into the news sections, often with a discussion about the clothes worn by the stars. Television, as one of the most popular mediums of its day, with well-known stars and celebrities who are now part and parcel of most people’s lives, attracts many different discourses; it is written about by different journalists in myriad ways. Fashion writing is but one of these. Viewers and readers make sense of television, its programmes and celebrities, not just in terms of the programmes and the characters, but in

SOFT TELEVISION CRITICISM

159

terms of other symbolic indicators; indicators, such as fashion, which we use in the wider culture for engaging with and understanding other people. Therefore we make sense of television not just through critical analysis of the text, but through its relationship to secondary text, which includes the fashion discourse around television. Conclusion: Soft criticism and the television discourse The coverage of television by this form of journalism is a mixture of information about the upcoming episodes, background stories, previews and reviews, mixed with interviews with the actors, gossip and fashion tips. This form helps to create and nurture a popular discourse about television, its programmes and celebrities. Indeed, those programmes that offer more scandal, more sexual escapades, that contain good looking actors, often gain more coverage. They are able to spread out from the more distinct television columns into the surrounding leisure and fashion pages and, often, on to the ‘news’ pages. Often much of their content connects with the dominant ideology of consumption, where youth and narcissism rule. There is an excess in such programmes that the television critic, and the usual form of television criticism, cannot handle on its own; the discourse is larger than the programme itself. This form of journalism has a long lineage, one that is linked to the needs of the newspaper and advertising industry to attract readers, to the needs of the broadcasters and talent to gain and shape their publicity, and also to the needs of the readership to be entertained and informed. This public discourse provides a space for the readers and viewers to make sense of television, one of the most important mediums, and the world around them. It provides a connection between the medium, television, which people watch and enjoy and their own lives; it provides a way of integrating the world as seen on television to that in which people live. In a way, it operates

160

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

as part of an alternative public sphere, operating outside of the dominant public sphere(s). This alternative sphere is more open for many to engage with than the more elite-dominated sphere(s), though, obviously, still open to the same problems of commercial and political control (Ornebring and Jonsson 2008: 25–26). Through gossip, fashion spreads and interview pieces, the reader creates a particular relationship with the people and celebrities that come into their lives, in a similar way that we make sense of the people who live down the road or opposite. As much as we discuss what someone has bought, who has married or died, we can do the same with those we watch on television. While television has allowed us to witness events in a way other media has never allowed us to do before (Ellis 2002: 10), it has allowed the same to happen with stars, celebrities and actors appearing on screen. We witness them in lifelike relationships and situations. Alongside this newspapers provide the detail, the behind-the-scenes information, a way to frame and understand what we are seeing. Soft news coverage provides an accessible and popular way to understand the way television ‘witnesses’ the world for us. For some such coverage operates ideologically, presenting a dominant view of the world, one that supports the status quo. Indeed, the way it personalises news, writing in an intimate way, as if it is reporting on some form of shared truth, closes down the possibility of any form of oppositional reading (Allan 1999: 112; Sparks 1992: 39–40). Likewise, this is reinforced by a discourse which supports the idea of the text with a fixed boundary, where meaning is clearly defined, where there is little room for negotiation or struggle over meaning. However, others have argued that the way soft television criticism writes about television, where it touches on other forms and other texts, works against the idea of a fixed and bordered text. It is here at these ‘dirty’ margins that the attempts to control the text, meaning and ideology, break down (Hartley 2002: 23–29). This soft criticism, in a way,

SOFT TELEVISION CRITICISM

161

allows resistance to occur so that new meanings can appear. This form of writing about television should not be dismissed too quickly as frivolous and distracting, for, at times, it can allow a struggle over meaning, for the public discourse to take on a life of its own. It also plays an important part in the secondary text around television; it creates new ways of framing and understanding television. I will now move on to explore how, as television has moved to a multichannel environment, and as newspapers faced increased competition, the types of television critics and forms of criticism they produce have diversified, becoming more niche-like, serving more specific audiences with more specific needs.

6 MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

Introduction The early 1980s to the late 1990s was a time when both the newspaper and television industries experienced huge upheavals. This was a period when channel scarcity ended as TV channels became abundant, when ‘narrowcasting’ channels started to appear and programmes were increasingly shaped for specific demographic groups rather than for family audiences. It was a time when newspapers began to move physically and mentally away from Fleet Street, moving to other parts of London and changing the old ways of doing things. As unions lost the battle with proprietors so new technologies were introduced that allowed reporters to typeset their work straight onto shared computer networks. All media found, in this period, that they had to reorientate themselves to their markets, to their media users. If they did not, with increased competition, they could go under. As the media went through this sea change so television critics, in their own way, had to adapt; to target their audiences more than before and to develop new ways of engaging with television. As in previous chapters, I will begin by exploring the wider social, cultural, technological and ideological changes that were occurring at this time. I will then move on to focus

164

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

on how firstly the broadcasting industry and then the newspaper industry have reacted to and been impacted by these developments. I will follow this by exploring, in detail, how these changes have affected the nature and form of television criticism. In particular I will focus on the changing role and style of critics, which has seen some continuing to write about television in a way similar to the neo-critics, using a subjective style laced with humour; others being employed as columnists to write about television in more opinionated ways; the reemergence of a ‘serious’ form of TV critic with the appearance of ‘must see’ television; critics who have developed a surreal form of reviewing, often aimed at a niche audience; and a more general move by newspapers to position themselves as global television guides at a time of channel abundance. The times they are a-changing For many the 1970s was a decade of economic, social and political problems and tensions. With the oil price rises in the 1970s the western world descended into an economic depression. This signalled the start of an unstable period where the old economic management ideas of Keynesianism were replaced in America, Britain, and later in some other western countries, by monetarist approaches. Ideologically the shift was from the state as the main actor in the economy to the market. For some this signalled a ‘rolling back [of] the state’ (Thompson 1984: 274–298; Hobsbawm 1994: 403–432). Many of the radical economic ideas that were appearing became linked to the neo-conservatives and their vision of how society, if it even existed, should operate. Alongside this economic and ideological shift there was, for Eric Hobsbawm (1994), an ongoing social and cultural revolution: class was on the decline, family ties were weakening, sexual freedoms were increasing and a transnational youth culture was developing. It would seem that a more individual-focused culture was

MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

165

triumphing over a more collective form of society (Weymouth and Lamizet 1996: 13–17). Increasingly, society was viewed as segmented; divided in many different ways, often across national borders. In a similar way, huge technological changes were taking place. If the 1950s and 1960s was the period of solid state electronics, of the resistor, transistor, mainframe computer and large computing organisations such as IBM, the late 1970s and early 1980s were to see the birth of the personal computer (PC), of computers being bought for home use, the development of new energetic computer companies, such as Atari and Apple, and software firms like Microsoft; this was the start of the era of the microchip and digital technologies (Winston 2000: 227–240). By the 1990s the shift was away from highly controlled networks and computers sited in centralised places, towards more open dispersed systems, of machines at home and on the desk. The Public Telephone Telegraph organisation’s (PTT) attempts to create and control these centralised data networks, built around proposed Integrated Services Digital Networks (ISDN), where the intelligence of the system was to lie in the system, were ultimately to fail (Noam 1987: 30–48). The system that eventually rose to dominance allowed intelligence to lie in the machines in people’s homes, though linked through a global network. This was a new form of network that was built and worked in a way that probably could not have been planned; it was to become the internet (Wise 2000: 21–22; Winston 2000: 321– 336). As micro-processors and associated technologies developed and miniaturised, as costs came down exponentially, they came to be used in all sorts of hardware, from cameras, TVs, radios and cars to white goods. As these processors were built into more hardware so the digital language became more prevalent for controlling such devices. Increasingly this meant that a whole range of media and communication tech-

166

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

nologies used the same language and could therefore be communicated with and controlled by the use of a computer. Digitalisation allowed, almost overnight, industries once based around different analogue communication forms to talk to one another; digitalisation meant they shared the same language (Wise 2000: 43–58). So, for example, over time computers had increasingly become the hub of telephone exchanges, films and television programmes could be digitalised and then edited on computers, while at newspapers, reporters could typeset their stories directly onto shared computer systems without the need for dedicated typesetters. New technologies were allowing information or data to be digitalised, divided up and sent efficiently as packets over the old telephone wires as well as through new optic cables, being reassembled at the other end. Increasingly computers could be used to control, edited, oversee and communicate with all sorts of media and communication devices (Lister et al. 2003: 13–23). Such developments also led to advancements in satellite technology. The 1970s saw the introduction of Master Antennae TV, a system where a large satellite dish picks up signals from satellites and then retransmits or distributes the signal, usually through a cable system, to people’s homes (e.g. Home Box Office and Turner Television (Wise 2000: 68; Winston 2000: 300)). Within a decade a small affordable dish was developed, which allowed a form of Direct to Home (DTH) or Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service to be launched, as it was in Britain in the late 1980s (Hilmes 2003: 13–17). Some observers believed that this information revolution was causing society to go through a metamorphosis; changing the way we worked, lived, played and communicated (Negroponte 1996). Some refute this, arguing that there are still many linkages and continuations that suggest the idea of a dramatic revolution is a little far-fetched (Webster 1995: 6–29; Lister et al. 2003: 37–41). However, whether one accepts that

MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

167

these developments signal a rupture or a continuation, it is obvious that some activities, processes and elements of society have gone though dramatic changes. Whether these changes can be put at the door of technological change is more problematic, however. Two of the main media industries that have experienced great changes in this period, partly linked to technological developments, have been broadcasting and the print media, which I will now turn my attention to. Channel abundance Up to the 1970s British broadcasting was a public service system dominated by two broadcasters offering three main national channels. However, within a few years a broadcasting revolution was to occur. The reasons for this can be divided and explored by way of four main developments. Firstly, with the election of the Conservative government in 1979, there was a move towards a more market-driven philosophy or ideology in which the catchwords were ‘consumer choice’ (Steemers and Wise 2000: 93–96). No longer was public service broadcasting seen as the only way to deliver broadcasting services. Indeed, those of the right, such as Veljanovski and Bishop, criticised the existing system as stifling consumer choice and the workings of the market (Veljanovski and Bishop 1983). The Conservative government, influenced by such work and various reports, such as the study of cable produced by the Information Technology Advisory Panel (1982) and the Hunt Report (1982), accepted the need to develop a technologically advanced infrastructure to help the economy of the nation. Therefore, in different ways they supported the opening up of the established broadcasting industry along with the development of cable and satellite services (Steemers and Wise 2000: 101–103). The government, with an antipathy towards any expansion of the state, thought that this national resource could be developed best with private investment rather than public

168

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

money. However, while investors were attracted by the possibility of offering entertainment services over such networks, they were worried about operating in a system that was too heavily regulated (Steemers and Wise 2000: 97–99). They therefore lobbied the government vigorously for a weakening of the regulatory regime in which they would invest. In response the government created a dual regulatory system, with existing services continuing to be regulated as before, while the plethora of new private commercial channels operated in a less regulated environment. Secondly, technological developments brought an end to airwave scarcity – though it has been argued that such a scarcity was partly the result of policy decisions rather than just a technological barrier. In the early 1980s it was apparent that cable and a form of Direct to Home (DTH) satellite broadcasting could become a new backbone of a high-tech communication superhighway, linking the home, media companies and businesses. Initially the development of such an infrastructure could be encouraged and supported through the provision of entertainment services, including television, which could later be expanded to deliver new interactive services (Wise 2000: 101–102). These developments led to analogue satellite and cable services coming on stream in the 1980s offering 30 to 40 new channels. The government also managed, after a decade of discussion, to allow the launch of a fourth terrestrial station in 1982, known as Channel 4 (C4), followed in 1997 by Channel 5 (C5) (Fanthome 2003). However, with the spread of digital technologies from the computer industries into telecommunications and the media sectors, new forms of digital terrestrial, cable and satellite distribution were soon starting to appear; forms that could carry hundreds of channels. Indeed, these technologies could also offer interactive services, such as allowing the user to select which programme or film they wished to watch from a central digital library, or even allowing the user to shop or

MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

169

bank from home through the television set (Ellis 2008: 169– 171). It was the onset of this digital era that, for many, signalled the start of a revolutionary period for television, one where not only are there more channels on offer, but the whole nature of broadcasting is being redefined (Nelson 2007: 7). Thirdly, as noted earlier, since the 1960s European nations had been going through huge social and cultural changes or, as Hobsbawm suggested, a revolution (1994). On the social level class was on the decline, family ties were weakening, sexual freedoms were increasing and a transnational youth culture was developing. Increasingly, it would seem that a more individual-focused culture was triumphing over a more collective form of society (Weymouth and Lamizet 1996: 13–17). Broadcasters were slowly waking up to these seismic changes, and coming to the realisation the mass national audience, for which services had in the past been produced and aimed, was in fact segmented (Nelson 2007: 19). The UK had a heterogeneous culture, one made up of different ethnic groups, family types, nationalities, ages and classes, all of which wanted to be served. However, the demand from these different social and cultural groups could no longer be met adequately through the existing form of broadcasting based on a limited number of channels dominated by familyorientated programming. For Michael Tracey, public service broadcasting was in crisis, for ‘if “the nation” and “the public” are dissolved – assuming they ever existed – then what is there left to serve?’ (Tracey 1998: 279). Television producers and television executives, as they created new channels and commissioned new programmes, now had to think about how they could target and engage with very specific groups, or micro-cultures, leading to a number of ‘narrowcasting’ channels appearing, such as MTV (music) and Discovery (documentary), and more programmes being produced

170

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

aimed at specific audiences, some of which might be spread out in a number of national markets (Nelson 2007: 17, 19). Fourthly, the government recognised the economic importance of the media, seeing it as spearheading the development of a new high-tech economy. With the huge amounts of investment required, and the size of the encroaching foreign competition, there was an accepted need for media and communication mergers to allow the creation of larger national companies; companies that could then act as flag wavers abroad (Steemers 2004: 61–64). Therefore, over time, the regulations limiting mergers of media and television companies in Britain were slowly weakened. Indeed, with the 2003 Communication Act the way was open for the merger of the English ITV franchises into one company, which was finalised in February 2004 (, accessed 10 April 2005). Such developments have led to a huge increase in channels being offered to British audiences, though these channels are still owned by a small number of companies. While in the early 1980 there were only four analogue national terrestrial channels: BBC1, BBC2, ITV and C4 (and its Welsh equivalent S4C), by the 1990s these had been joined by C5 and around 40 to 50 cable and satellite channels. However, with the coming of digital television the number of channels on offer increased three- to fourfold. For example, the current Sky and Virgin digital packages now include over 250 channels, as well as offering Video on Demand (VoD), Near Video On Demand (NVOD) and view again systems as well as an array of radio stations; terrestrial digital channels, initially provided under the Ondigital and ITVdigital banners, but now operated by Freeview, offer around 50 free channels along with an additional pay top-up option of some 10 extra channels. These digital services not only offer television services but also interactive services, including games, shopping, email and internet browsing. By 2010 nearly 24 million homes had some

MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

171

form of multichannel access; this was over 90 percent of homes in Britain (, accessed 17 March 2010). In 2009 the older analogue broadcasts began to be cut off, region by region, in what is called the ‘digital switch over’. For example, the West Country was switched over in August 2009 ( , accessed 15 December 2009). It was anticipated that before long all households with television would have a minimum access to 50 free off-air digital stations (, accessed 17 March 2010). The old British broadcasting landscape, characterised by scarcity, public service obligations and the comfortable duopoly of the BBC and ITV, is truly no more. It is, as Ellis suggests, the start of a new era in broadcasting: one of channel abundance (Ellis 2002: 162–178). All change on Fleet Street By the end of the 1970s the costs and inefficiencies of Fleet Street were leading to tensions between unions and newspaper proprietors. Over the previous decades various practices had developed that led to high wages for certain employees who were organised into close-knit chapels, which would defend their rights by strike action (Williams 2010a: 220). This meant that in the 1970s when new technologies came along that would permit more efficient ways of working and therefore allow for a reduction in the workforce, they were fiercely resisted. Taking advantage of changed union laws, brought in by the Conservatives in the early 1980s, Rupert Murdoch, the owner of a number of papers including the Sun and The Times, took on the unions and moved his papers, overnight, to a new site and new printing presses in Wapping (Williams 2010a: 220–221). Murdoch’s move signalled the start of huge shifts in the industry. Soon all newspapers were introducing new working practices, moving

172

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

premises and cutting back their workforce, and therefore costs (ibid.; Williams 2010b: 215–217; Curran and Seaton 2010: 91–95). However, one of the biggest problems facing newspapers by the end of the twentieth century was not declining advertising revenue or rising costs, but a fall in readership. It should be noted, however, that while readership numbers declined for most papers, and while advertising spend shifted to other areas, such as the new satellite channels and the internet, it did not immediately dent most papers’ profits (Williams 2010a: 232). Also, as Sparks pointed out, the decline in reader numbers was quite slow, and ‘talk of the imminent collapse of the press is much exaggerated’ (Sparks 1999: 55). However, almost all papers, apart from the Daily Mail, have found their sales dropping in recent years. In many ways this decline is linked to different reading habits among the young, as the British Social Attitudes report points out: ‘[i]n 2006, 42 per cent of 18- to 27-year-olds read a daily paper at least three days a week, compared with 72 per cent in 1986’ (Williams 2010b: 224). Over time, as competition for readers’ time has increased, newspapers have had to adapt. While television and radio can offer up-to-date, if not live coverage, as shown with the appearance of 24-hour rolling news programmes, what newspapers could offer was comment, analysis or niche content aimed at that particular group of readers (Franklin 2008a: 3). The situation has, however, become even more complicated with the rise in popularity of the internet (Williams 2010a: 269–271; Curran and Seaton 2010: 95–96). Newspapers, if they wished to prosper, had to respond; to redesign and reshape their papers and innovate their journalism. One way they have done this is by finding new ways to engage with and cover some old and new forms of popular leisure interests and activities (Williams 2010b: 239–241). Part of this engagement, taken on by both tabloids and broadsheets alike, has included the use of more appealing

MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

173

texts and layout. During the early part of the twenty-first century most papers relaunched themselves with new designs. Indeed, one of the biggest changes was the move by the broadsheets towards the compact size, started by the Independent in 2003 and then followed by The Times and later by the Guardian, with its ‘Berliner’ format (Cole 2008: 183–189; Williams 2010b: 227–228). All newspapers have, since the 1990s, increased in pagination, added additional sections and supplements, and added colour printing to the mix, helped by their investment in new printing plants and technologies in the wake of the Wapping dispute (Williams, 2010b: 230–231). There has also been a substantial shift in the substance of content, with more soft news, increased use of columnists and colour photographs, and the development of specialised content, such supplements or sections on car, fashion, sport, food and money. Overall this has led to either a decrease in the amount of hard or more serious news, such as political news, for the tabloids, or, in the case of the quality press, an increase in the absolute amount soft news provision (Curran and Seaton 2010: 88–91); though some would argue that the new compact quality papers have sought to uphold the standard of their journalism (Cole 2008: 189–191). Part of this trend, to change content to attract specific readers, was spurred on by the successes of certain magazines like The Face, a style magazine which was highly influential with ‘broadsheet newspapers as they sought to develop a model for magazine supplements in the 1990s which could guarantee an appeal to a readership younger than the traditional profiles of the serious press’ (Conboy 2008: 162). So, for example, as Cole points out, the Independent, Guardian and The Times ‘now run daily pull-out sections … [which] are targeted at a younger readership’ (Cole 2008: 190). Indeed, the Daily Mail tried going the other way, launching its Sunday You magazine as a weekly magazine in March 2006, though it was soon with-

174

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

drawn because of the lack of sales (Brett and Holmes 2008: 202). With this increased reliance on more leisure or soft news content, the coverage of popular culture has increased. Music, television, cooking, style, design and car reviews are now likely to be covered in some form by all newspapers at least once a week, often on Saturday. Indeed, the Saturday newspapers are beginning to look more and more like Sunday papers (Brett and Holmes 2008: 199). Newspapers have accepted that readers are no longer, if they ever were, just looking for hard, serious news. The supplement is one strategy by which newspapers are trying to target niche social categories, ones often identified by advertisers as particularly sought after (Holmes 2008: 199–200). While the popular newspapers have used soft news such as human interest stories for hundreds of years, quality papers, where it has traditionally played a minor role, are now expanding this type of coverage. For some, it is a creeping tabloidisation or, as Franklin refers to it, the growth of the ‘broadloid’ (Franklin 2008b: 15). As Petley argues: ‘[as] the vast majority of people regard television as their prime and most reliable source of news … [there is] an accelerating metamorphosis of newspapers – tabloid and broadsheet alike – into primarily entertainment-led media’ (Petley 1997: 253–254). Indeed, as Williams notes, by the late 1990s many were convinced that the differences between popular papers and broadsheets were disappearing (Williams 2010b: 231). Cole, however, believes that the quality sector has tended to offer this coverage in their own way, ‘while still dealing with thoughtful criticism, comment and opinions, with political issues as well as squabbles, with mass culture as well as high culture’ (Cole 2008: 189). One particular publication that helped establish the credentials of popular culture for critical serious coverage was Modern Review, published between 1991 and 1995 (McDonald 2007: 19).

MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

175

With such developments the coverage in all newspapers of television and radio has increased during this period. As more channels appeared, as the broadcasting universe became more complicated, newspapers saw a new role for their coverage of television, not just in terms of reviewing programmes but also as important providers of detailed information, indeed guides, about what is on. Increasingly the amount of coverage, whether in terms of reviews, previews, features, listings information and the like have increased for all newspapers. Some continue to employ well-respected critics; others, as we shall see, have brought in columnists, hoping that they would attract more readers. Television, in many ways, is now viewed as an integral component of the makeup of the national newspaper. However, as we shall see, this does not mean that the critic, in the traditional form of a critical reviewer, is necessarily viewed as part of this (Ellis 2008: 244–245). While the newspaper industry has gone through many changes since the Second World War, by the 1980s these had become more rapid and fundamental. Indeed, this period began to see a convergence between different mediums, partly helped by weaker regulations, competitive pressures and technological developments, to the extent that newspapers are now increasingly part of large media conglomerates, often which own television channels. This has led to some organisations cross-publicising their TV channels in their newspapers, if they have any, and, likewise, using their TV interests to advertise their papers and to supply popular copy (Niblock 2008: 52). As they have sought to maintain readership levels, or to target particular demographics, newspapers have increased their coverage of television as part of the general move to reposition themselves not only as news providers but also as lifestyle publications. As television coverage has changed, so the role and style of television reviewing and criticism has also metamorphosed. While some older forms and styles still exist, new and more niche-driven forms have de-

176

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

veloped, echoing the wider changes happening in the broadcasting and journalistic discourses and practices. TV critics for the multichannel age As the television and newspaper industries have changed, so too has the role, use and style of their television coverage. In this section I will explore how television criticism and reviewing has transformed, often in conjunction with wider changes in the television and newspaper industries. I will argue that as TV moved from a broadcast form with a limited number of channels, to one where there was abundance and new forms such as ‘narrowcasting’, TV critics have had to take on new roles for the reader, acting more as global guides about what is on, what is worth watching and what is coming up. Indeed, in some cases they now write more previews than reviews. Likewise, as newspapers started to offer more lifestyle and leisure coverage, as they employed more columnists to provide comment and opinions, targeting particular niche groups of readers, TV reviewing followed suit. As the journalistic and broadcasting discourses have changed, so too have television critics, developing forms and styles that fitted with the new era. I will begin by looking at those critics who write more as viewers, writing subjectively about their experience of television, often dwelling more on their daily life and their concerns and problems than exploring the programme in question. Often these critics are journalists who took on the critic role with little experience of reviewing, and tend to use little or no obvious critical framework. In many ways they are the next step on from the neo-critics; those who started using a more subjective style in the 1970s, though they mostly focused on the text and still employed some semblance of a critical approach. I will then look at the rise of the columnists as TV reviewers, charting their spread throughout the modern press. Such writers are often employed less for their expertise

MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

177

on television than for the opinionated pieces they produce and their attraction to readers. At times they seem to spend the review venting their anger on issues not linked to the programme. I will then look at the re-emergence of serious television criticism, which has come to prominence again with the rise of so-called ‘must see’ or quality programmes. These programmes, identified and categorised as such by these critics, have increasingly appeared as television targets particular niche groups, which often includes demographics to which the critic belongs. I will follow this by focusing on the rise of what I have called elsewhere the surreal or carnivalesque critic, those that write about television in a way that turns accepted ideas and views on their head. Lastly, I will look at how newspapers are positioning themselves, their coverage and journalists, as a kind of global guide in a world of channel abundance. Writing from the personal Throughout the 1980s the critics writing about television from the personal perspective increased in number, echoing the way other leisure activities, appearing in more soft news orientated parts of the paper, were being covered. These television critics tend to write about the programmes they review from a subjective, everyday kind of viewpoint. In some ways the style is similar, and is linked, to those I have classed as neo-critics writing in the 1970s, in that they accept television as a popular domestic medium that can be written about in a subjective and reflective way. For example: [s]o the final run of Frasier began this week, for those who could stay up that late … Given that so many of Frasier’s viewers are – like me – thirtysomethings with kids, this was an idiotic way to treat an old and loyal friend. Counting Frasier together with its parent, Cheers, then the exploits of the baldy shrink have

178

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE been on Channel 4 throughout most of its existence. Dr Crane would doubtless diagnose something to do with an unhappy childhood or a favourite cuddly bunny among the channel's schedulers. I diagnose stupidity (Courtauld 2004).

In such a review the critic appears to be more interested in his relationship to the programme, how it has become part of his life, than with deconstructing the programme. For this critic, who we learn has children, Frasier ’s late slot is inconvenient to stay up and watch. He goes on to suggest that this programme is part of his life: it is ‘an old friend’. It is a programme that he has followed from the start, and even earlier, by watching Cheers, the programme it was spun off from. He is not so much critically reviewing this programme as reflecting on it as a popular cultural form that is part of his life. He writes about it as part of his television-watching experience. In this form of criticism television programmes are written about using knowledge that the critic often expects the reader to share; knowledge about the main characters and the basic storyline of a programme; knowledge about British programmes, and often American programmes, in general and the various genres in particular. The critic will bring all these different television references into play as he produces a particular review of a programme. Old series might be compared to new ones, drama to sitcoms, characters to well-known people in the public eye; American references might be used to explore British programmes, and British references used to explore American ones. This is especially true for certain genres of programme, and for younger readers, for whom an informed understanding of television is important. As a review from the Observer illustrates in relation to Six Feet Under: Nate Fisher remains under anaesthesia while he has his head examined – a potentially fatal medical drama

MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

179

which, as an end-of-season cliff hanger, saw the normally deliciously dysfunctional Fisher family suddenly morph into the Waltons. No matter how dark the show, even an HBO show, you can usually count on US drama delivering a little damp hankie moment just when you don’t really need one (Flett 2003: 20). On one level this extract presents a quick synopsis of one episode of Six Feet Under. Nate, one of the main characters, has a medical problem and his family are being supportive. On another level it uses a series of reference points to expand this synopsis into a limited form of analysis. While Six Feet Under is usually centred on the ‘deliciously dysfunctional Fisher family’, it suggests in this episode they have been reduced to the Waltons, an American feel-good television show about a family of the same name, from the 1970s. While Six Feet Under is usually a dark show, and HBO a maker of innovative programmes, here it lets the viewer down with ‘a little damp hankie moment’, as other American programmes seemingly often do. The reviewer is contextualising the programme by making connections and using references that the viewer will know about, such as The Waltons and the HBO brand. This review tells the reader what the reviewer felt about the programme, why it stands out, and highlights what its weakness are. It does this in a manner that accepts and frames the programmes in a way the reader would understand and make connections with. It does this very much through a personal perspective; this is criticism that is personal and subjective. It could be argued that a form of personal criticism has appeared, or at least come to dominance, since the 1980s; one that offers a style of criticism that is subjective and often employs humour when exploring the experience of the critic of television and its programmes. It is written in a popular way, and brings the reviewer into the review in such as a way

180

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

that it gives pleasure to the readers, who might share a similar lifestyle and background. Perhaps it could be thought of as more of a form of soft television criticism, but mixed with cultural resonances that link it to the readers of middlebrow or quality papers. In a similar way to the earlier neo-critics, this type of reviewing manages to do this by not only accepting the popular status of television, but by writing about the programmes using references and a language that the television-watching public understand and can relate to. When compared with the work of the neo-critics, however, there is more humour and more focus on the personal whims of the reviewer and less attempt at analysis. It is less a review by a critic as expert, in the traditional sense, than by someone similar to you. The columnist as TV critic As noted earlier, newspapers have increasingly turned to using more columnists as one way of competing with each other and the broadcast media, using comment and opinion from well-known journalists or media figures to attract readers (Franklin 2008b: 17). This form has also expanded into television criticism and reviewing. As Poole noted in 1994, ‘most publications still prefer their TV critics to be generalists not specialists, bankable columnists or jobbing journalists who it is assumed can turn their hands to anything’ (Poole 1994: 12). A critic such as Gary Bushell, writing for the Sun and then the Sunday People, might be categorised as such a columnist, being employed less for his expertise on television and more for his ability to write prose and comment that attracts readers. Indeed, for Phil Wickham, ‘[s]ome of his arguments about the contempt of the TV industry for ordinary people may well be valid but there is also a feeling that many of them arise primarily from his political position rather than any considered judgment of the text’ (Wickham 2007: 82).

MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

181

Other critics, who might be thought of as columnists, brought in less for their specific understanding or expertise on television than for their name and ability to write about wider cultural and political questions, include Will Self, writing for the Observer and then the Independent on Sunday, David Aaronovitch, who, in his regular column for The Times sometime writes about television, and A.A. Gill, who writes a number of different columns for the Sunday Times. Such critics not only write on television, but also contribute to other columns on other subjects, review books and, in A.A. Gill’s case, act as one of the Sunday Times restaurant critics. Some observers believe that this shift towards a more entertainment-driven newspaper form has led to the domination of the ‘pundit’, the star columnist writing more generally about society, culture and, often, their personal lives, rather than offering a more politically engaged form of journalism. For Julian Petley this signals a lowering of standards, a shift to the generalist, the star writer; a move towards a more entertainment market led form. These writers are personalities, writing about their everyday experiences, rather than journalists playing an important role in the public discourse about society. For some, such columnists often reduce their copy to telling us ‘what happened to them on the way to Sainsburys, what their children did at school, how they enjoyed their holidays’ (Sampson cited in Franklin 2008b: 17). As Petley comments about the TV critic Clive James, who he defines as such a columnist, writing in the 1970s and early 1980s, ‘[t]he real subject of the column was not television but James himself, who was employed primarily to be funny and chose to be funny about television’ (Petley 1997: 255–257). For Petley this form of journalism should be derided: ‘it doesn’t attempt to inform or educate the public – rather, it tells them what it thinks they want to hear and simply stokes the fires of popular prejudices and mythologies’ (Petley 1997: 271).

182

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Return of the serious critic From the 1980s, as the television industry started to change, some critics began to write about a number of programmes they deemed to be ‘must see’ television, a form of quality television. These were programmes which, they argued, stand out of the ordinary. For some, these programmes signalled the appearance of a new form of quality programme, a second ‘golden age’; one that harked back to the live television dramas of the 1950s – the so-called first ‘golden age’ (Wilk 1999; Thompson 1996). Six Feet under, Nip/Tuck, NYPD Blue, CSI, CSI Miami, Law and Order, The Handler, Without a Trace, 24 – the number of superlative American drama series on our screens at the moment is getting ridiculous … It’s almost becoming too much; like gorging on caviar (Shelly 2004b). Some of these series, while receiving critical acclaim, were only watched by small niche audiences and critics, a situation that was not helped by the fact that they were sometimes shown on minor channels or late at night. For example, The Wire was initially shown on a subscription channel, FX, and then in a late-night BBC2 slot. Many of the programmes focused on by these critics are American. British programmes such as Shameless, Dr Who or The Street are also written about, but are often seen as part of a different heritage of producing good quality programmes (McCabe and Akass 2007: 22). These American and British programmes have garnered critical and audience approval, helping to nurture and keep alive the idea of television as a serious cultural form, one that can still produce thought-provoking programmes and that, therefore, justifies the serious attention given by these critics working for the press.

MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

183

The reviews and criticisms developing around these mustsee or pivotal programmes, while engaging and open to all genres, tend to focus on text, divorced from the televisual flow. They explore the acting, scripts, direction and, in less specific terms, the overall quality of the productions. For example, Pete Clark (2002), writing in the Evening Standard, talks about the ‘brilliance of The Sopranos’, the ‘deceptive precision of the writing, which frequently appears to freewheel when, in fact, the gears are being engaged with consummate skill’. He notes how ‘[n]othing in this script is wasted … [the] verbal efficiency is matched by a mastery of tone’. He ends by remarking that ‘[t]hought and intelligence is packed into every shot’. A discourse has appeared concerning certain programmes which has argued that they can be viewed as offering quality forms of drama; indeed, that some of them should be accepted as worthy and important examples of television (Nelson 2007: 161–188). Such programmes help underwrite the need for a form of serious television criticism, something that is in some ways lacking. The argument is that television is creating works of ‘art’ which can, like other art forms, be evaluated and judged using accepted critical frameworks. However, these frameworks tend to accord with those used by the earlier ‘serious’ critics, often informed by a still-dominant literary tradition. For example, on certain occasions, these ‘neo-serious’ critics locate and understand programmes in terms of the authorial hand behind the programme. This is obviously more easily done with genres such as drama, which has a script, narrative and actors, than a talk show. This suggests a falling back onto a traditional notion of culture, one where supposedly there needs to be a single creative genius behind any creative form. While this is often the writer or director, the creative force behind some American programmes has been viewed as the producer, for example, Chris Carter, David Kelly and Joss Whedon – some of whom also contribute to the writing of

184

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

various episodes – who are often presented as signifiers of the quality of the series, a little in the way stars are by Hollywood (Pearson 2005: 11). In a similar way, some corporate bodies, MTM and HBO for example, have also managed to elevate themselves to some extent to be the creative organisations behind their programmes (McCabe and Akass 2007: xviii). Often, in place of the producer, the writer and director will be specially mentioned, possibly with the focus on their skill, or lack of it, in crafting that particular episode. For example, Mark Lawson (2001) writing in the Guardian on a drama, Swallow, identifies the programme by way of the writer, who is seen as the creative force and the author of the work: ‘Tony Marchant’s new three-part drama about drugs…’ (Lawson 2001: 13). He then goes on to mention the role of the director, Adrian Shergold, in the way he helps televise the work, how he provides a perspective in which ‘the viewer gets to peer down from a teetering height onto an urban street’ (ibid.). In another example, Marshall highlights writers as the creative force behind an American series: The Wire, a tour de force that dissects America’s selfdestructive and increasingly asinine war on drugs … Simon and Burns always set out to write something that would have the subtlety, moral ambiguity and grimly panoramic vision of the modern American novel and they are clearly proud of what they have achieved. The Wire is indeed novelistic but it is also chillingly realistic (Marshall 2005). Such critics highlight the quality of the script, the verisimilitude of the dialogue, its tightness, rapid delivery and cleverness. A literary tradition is evident here in how they focus on and evaluate the ideas, writing, direction and dialogue in a television production; how they come to focus on a bounded, and in some ways unproblematic, view of the text.

MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

185

In this section, I have argued that due to changes in the US and British television industry, producers and channels are increasingly commissioning and producing programmes aimed at specific niche audiences, including demographics that include the critics; leading to some, such as Caughie, making the observation that these are programmes of the middle classes (cited in Cardwell 2007: 23). Critics, using dominant critical values and approaches associated with older forms of television reviewing and other forms of criticism, have ‘rediscovered’ in these new programmes what they deem to be a serious, quality form of television. Some critics have made great claims about some of these programmes, on occasion positioning them as being as good if not better than cinema (Rixon 2006: 146). It is not so much that the critics have changed their view of television, to see more value in the range of programmes on offer, than that new forms of programmes have been produced that accord more with their tastes. Such programmes seem to offer a cultural distinctiveness often hard to find among the majority of the popular programmes. As American and British broadcasters seek to attract ABC1 audiences with upmarket programmes, so programmes appear that fit the cultural values of the middle-class critic. Surreal critics While some developments in television criticism seem to suggest a turning back to more traditional values, where the critic acts as a public expert, or with the rise of critic as columnist, willing to provide opinion but often with little critical analysis, there is a form of writing within British newspapers which subverts the accepted approaches, turning the dominant cultural hierarchy on its head. On one hand this form is often comic, if not surreal, tinged with a hint of black humour. On the other hand, it is fastidious and knowledgeable. Often, because of its humour and the style of writing, it attracts

186

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

youngish readers who share similar views. In many ways the writer is a fan of television, like those who read these columns. As Jim Shelley wrote, under the pseudonym Tapehead, about his early enthusiasm for television: At the start, Tapehead was positively evangelical, unlike even the most successful TV critics who, to this day, seem to write as if writing about television is a drag and something that stops them enjoying the fresh air or writing books. Tapehead couldn’t watch enough of it (Shelley 2001: viii–ix). Such work appears across different types of British newspapers, often in small, hidden-away columns. It is a form of cult criticism that is not aiming to be, or to reflect, the popular; instead, it thrives on and likes its exclusiveness. Nor is it offering a form of detached critical analysis. This is left to the more serious critics. This form of criticism is there to look at programmes in new, less reverential ways, without the framework often employed by other critics. Two writers much associated with this form are Jim Shelley and Charlie Brooker. For example, Charlie Brooker of the Guardian has, for a number of years, been writing a column called ‘Screen Burn’ for the Guardian’s ‘Saturday Guide’ (NB: he wrote his last review for his column in October 2010). In his somewhat surreal exposition of programmes shown in the week, he picks on many different types of programme. For example, in 2002, he reviewed 24 over a number of weeks. Rather than outlining the story, writing about the behind-the-scenes gossip, or undertaking some form of critical analysis of the programme, week by week he explored the flaws, mistakes, indeed the illogic of the programme, often helped by readers who would send in their comments. He offered another way of understanding the programme, another way of enjoying it. On 30 March 2002 he wrote:

MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

187

Anyway, back to the insanely addictive 24 … For some reason, the Noble Senator seems to think he’ll be able to function on the most important day of his political career without enjoying a moment’s shut-eye the night before. Didn’t he see Touch the Truck? Assassination will be the least of his worries once sleep deprivation kicks in and he starts swatting invisible demons in the middle of a pre-election press conference (reprinted in Brooker 2005: 162). The fact that the critic likes watching the programme does not stop him being critical of it. However, this criticism has an ironic edge to it. He is not just criticising the programme in the usual way, trying to uncover or highlight the intent of the author or the dominant meaning of the programme but, instead, he helps the reader/viewer to look at the inconsistencies, to laugh at them, to enjoy the programme, to gain new and different pleasures. In a way, the criticism is not just about the programmes but also about television, and the way it operates. The quote above points out that the Senator, on the eve of his election for the position of President, is staying up without any sleep. Why? The next day, the most important in his political life, he would not be able, in a normal world, to function fully. To extend this point further, Brooker then links this observation to an earlier satirical piece he wrote on the British programme, Touch the Truck, where contestants must keep touching a truck, without sleep, until only one is left. For Brooker both programmes are as ludicrous and entertaining as each other. This is the excess that some television provides, and meaning cannot be understood or contained, through normal critical analysis. New pleasures are found in this excess. In a similar way, other critics, such as Nancy Banks-Smith and Victor Lewis-Smith, sometimes provide surreal views of programmes, presenting a new and often unusual way of

188

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

thinking about and enjoying a programme. On one level these are often programmes that most critics, using a more literary, informed approach, would not find much of interest to write about. However, Banks-Smith and Lewis-Smith, using heavy irony, often critique the programmes and present them in a new light. In this example Lewis-Smith reviews Menus and Music (BBC2): [the presenter] Brian Turner [is] a man with no personality to speak of who’s nevertheless built a reputation through playing the role of man ‘o’ ‘t’ North …Yet another Yorkshireman … who loves his county so much that he’s chosen to live in London. …The concept of the series is so simple it’s inane, with Brian ‘exploring the food and music of European cities’ (without seemingly ever leaving the studio kitchen), cooking local dishes and listening to local melodies, all in 13 minutes (Lewis-Smith 1996: 31). After reading this it is hard to watch Menus and Music in the way the producers would want; however serious the presenter tries to be, the more earnest he looks, the more one thinks of his accent and the ludicrous concept of the programme. Victor Lewis-Smith here has opened up the excess of the programme, and of the television cooking genre, to new viewing pleasures. However, while such writers present surreal reviews of programmes, they also show, and tap into, a wider understanding of television, its genre, writers and historical developments. For example, Charlie Brooker, when writing about a BBC science fiction documentary, The Martians and US, refers to seminal science fiction television series such as Quatermass, Threads and Day of the Triffids. He mentions writers such as Nigel Kneale, Dennis Potter and Jack Rosenthal. He goes on to note that, ‘[y]ou may think “dark” crime serials like Cracker

MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

189

or Prime Suspect tell you a lot about the sinister side of the human psyche, but they’re nothing compared to the likes of Quatermass or Threads ’ (Brooker 2007: 239). In such reviews Charlie Brooker shows that he is informed and knowledgeable about the sci-fi genre and the history of television. Brooker’s work is also aware of the wider context within which programmes are made and viewed. There are wider questions that must be considered when reviewing a programme, what subjects should be prohibited from being televised, what about the right of reply, who should regulate television and why certain programmes are made in certain ways. An example of this appeared in December 2006 when Brooker wrote about Baby Mind Reader: If I walked into a single mother’s house and said I could read her baby’s mind, then started shouting four-letter words, claiming I was simply voicing her offspring’s thoughts, I would expect to be arrested the moment I stepped outside … [a]nd if I allowed a TV crew to broadcast what I was doing, I’d expect to be attacked by a mob … In fact the outcry would be muted at best and Ofcom would turn a blind eye – as it did last week (reprinted in Brooker 2007: 224–225). Above we can see how Brooker, in his usual zany and surreal fashion, raises a question about why a programme on baby mind reading has made it to the screens, and, indeed, why there has been no outcry about this or moves by the regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), to stop this series. Therefore, in terms of a wider discourse about television programmes, of how they should or might be understood, such a form of criticism, while mostly aimed at particular niche readers, presents new ways of understanding television. Any accepted way of critically analysing a programme is, more

190

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

or less, ignored. This is ‘carnivalesque’ criticism, for a moment turning the dominant standards, values and hierarchy on their head. It opens up the television text so that different pleasures can be accessed and explored (Rixon 2006: 154– 157; Fiske, 1992: 94–95). However, such criticism tends to engage only with a minority, usually the knowing, knowledgeable viewer or fan. It is also open to the question of whether, while it might ignore more popular or critical approaches, those who enjoy this form of criticism and writing also accept and read other forms of television criticism and reviews. If this is the case, viewers might therefore hold on to a number of different ways of understanding and valuing programmes, accepting some form of critical hierarchy, dependent on context. The global guide As the television universe has expanded, as the number of channels or means of watching programmes has multiplied, so the need for an omnipresent guide for the viewer has become more imperative. No longer is the critic there to just comment critically on a programme that the reader is assumed to have watched, or at least knows about. Instead, the critic must act as an all-knowing and -seeing global guide. The critic’s work must be there, alongside other television coverage, to inform the reader about programmes that might be worth watching, to review a series or programme that the viewer can catch again, or dip into in the following week, or to help connect the reader to debates, discussions and cultural happenings they would not otherwise have time, energy or access to engage with. In this way the critic offers surveillance, working on behalf of the public and the reader to keep them informed about television. This might be in terms of critics acting as a general guide to what is out there, or as a niche guide for particular readers. In this connection it is interesting to note that the Daily Mail has, since the retirement of

MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

191

Peter Paterson in 2006, put the emphasis on previews rather than reviews. Seemingly the editor feels that the Daily Mail reader would prefer more information about what was on, of programmes they might still be able to watch, than on what they have missed; that perhaps the traditional way of reviewing cultural forms is no longer applicable to the ephemeral medium of television (Ellis 2008: 244). As part of this global guide role, newspapers have provided more space for television listings or even guides, which might include not just schedules, or minuscule descriptions, but larger previews, reviews and highlights (Ellis 2008: 244– 245). Indeed, with the loosening of the BBC and ITV’s hold on television schedule information in 1991, most national papers began to offer weekly television guides (Ellis 2008: 249). For example, the Guardian publishes a guide on Saturday which includes TV listings for the week, reviews of various programmes and films being shown, recommendations, ‘Screen Burn’ (Charlie Brooker’s column) and often longer pieces on various series, serials, actors or general developments in television. With so many channels now available it is impossible for a newspaper to provide comprehensive information without filling up the whole paper with TV schedules. This obviously raises a question of which ones they should concentrate on, and why. As Ellis suggests, what the paper covers – what it selects to highlight – tells us something about the paper and its views, and its connections to the wider developments in society or broadcasting. In other words, ‘TV pages now editorialise silently as well as explicitly about television’, but at the same time they seek to offer the reader a service (Ellis 2008: 251). Ellis observes that the Daily Mail was one of the first dailies to offer listings for Freeview channels, as it saw ‘its core readership as one that is taking the middle way towards digital television and is wary of BSkyB’ (Ellis 2008: 250). One can see other examples of this ‘silent editorialising’

192

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

by newspapers, with BSkyB programmes being blatantly promoted in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. papers, such as the Sun, The Times and Sunday Times. While The Times previews BBC4, an upmarket channel that its readers might want to watch, the News of the World, with a more downmarket readership, ignores it (Ellis 2008: 250–251). However, there is a limit to how much coverage the daily papers can or want to provide, or the reader wants to read. Therefore, the role of the listings, the picks of the weeks, the highlights, previews and reviews are increasingly important. They are there to help inform, to guide, to engage with the reader about what is worth watching, what they have missed, what they might like to record, rather than to provide a complete overview of what is on. However, this does raise the question: what shapes this limited coverage? Is it the values held by the critic, the needs of the readers, or those of the newspaper, which often has connections with particular television channels or organisations, e.g. the Sun with Sky. Conclusion Since the 1980s the media has undergone huge changes, and this is especially true of the newspapers and broadcasting industries. The broadcasting sector has seen new forms of distribution appearing, cable and satellite, a move towards digital transmission, changes in government regulation and the realisation that the audience is more segmented than once thought. Where once there were a handful of channels, all operating under a public service remit, now there are hundreds with only a limited number having a public service obligation. This is a new television landscape, one where the viewing public rarely sits down in large numbers to watch the same channels or programmes. However, this is not to say that instances do not happen, as they used to in the early days of broadcasting, when a programme might still gain a large audience – for example, X Factor Results broadcast on the 28

MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

193

November 2009 on ITV got just over 14 million viewers (, accessed 17 March 2010). Over this period all of the large terrestrial channels have seen their shares drop as a plethora of channels have come onstream, with these new satellite, cable and terrestrial-only digital channels now having a combined share of 41 per cent (though this includes channels related to the terrestrial channels such as BBC3, BBC4 and ITV2). These channels do, however, have what is called a ‘long tail’, i.e. some have very few regular viewers (, accessed 17 March 2010; Williams 2010a: 257–258). The national newspaper industry has also gone through a number of major changes since the 1980s. A period of industrial strife in the mid-1980s destroyed Fleet Street in its traditional form. Papers are based in less exotic and more mundane landscapes. The Times, the Sun and News of the World are in Wapping, the Daily Mirror is in Canary Wharf with the Independent nearby, while the Guardian has resettled in North London (, accessed 17 March 2010). Such moves herald the passing of the old working practices that once held sway in Fleet Street; the power of the old print chapels, or unions, has been broken. Journalists can now typeset their stories, quickly and efficiently, directly on to a shared computer network (Williams 2010a: 220–221). Newspapers have had to change because of competition, market squeeze and falling readerships. Failing papers, such as Today, have been closed while others were bought up by conglomerates with large pockets seeking possible synergies, or political clout; for example News Corp. taking over The Times (Sparks 1999: 53; Williams 2010a: 215). Throughout this period papers sought new ways, and refined old ones, to attract and maintain readerships. With television being a popular cultural activity, one that attracted readers from all sections of the community, coverage was

194

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

increased. Television was, in many ways, seen as one cultural area that the British did well at, whether in terms of soap operas such as EastEnders or Coronation Street, epic costume drama such Brideshead Revisited or Jewel in the Crown, experimental series such as Boys from the Black Stuff, political drama such as Edge of Darkness, and even comedy in the form of Not the Nine O’Clock News or The Young Ones (Cooke 2003: 195). Where British cinemas have traditionally been dominated by Hollywood, television seems to be more quintessentially British, though increasingly it is the American programmes that are gaining critical acclaim. TV is medium about which there is much public discussion, about what is happening in the programmes, the awards won by the writers and directors and the lives of the celebrities. As channel choice has expanded, more information and advice has been offered to the reader or viewer about what was on, when, what’s been missed and what important public debates are going on. For some newspaper groups, such as News Corp., there was also a need to use their papers to support their new channels, while also attacking the old established system. For those with no television interests coverage of the medium was still important, though sometimes it was an object to ‘vent their spleen at’ (Ellis 2008: 244). Therefore, as explored in this chapter, the amount and type of television coverage in national newspapers, whether in terms of listings, previews, reviewing, news and background stories, has increased. Indeed, by the 1990s most papers had weekly television guides. It seemed that just as the airwaves were becoming awash with television channels, so newspapers were equally saturated with information, gossip, discussions and opinions about television. Even quality papers increased their coverage. Television, as part of popular culture, now seemed acceptable to critique, to write about and to read about, in a serious way (McDonald 2007: 19).

MULTICHANNEL TELEVISION AND TV CRITICISM

195

The critic in this period has continued to be an important part of the secondary text, helping to shape the discourse around television. However, whereas at one time many critics would review programmes in a similar way, watching similar channels and programmes, this has now changed. As the press and television went niche, so too has television criticism. Now there are many different types of critics, engaging with different programmes and television forms in a multitude of ways. Indeed, the reviews and criticism that they produce are being read by diverse groups of readers, divided by class, ethnic background, gender and age. It would seem that, on the surface, the public discourse around television has broken down, and that, perhaps, it would be better to think of the critic now as serving micro-publics. However, I would argue that most critics still, even in limited ways, utilise a similar literary informed approach, if only at the level of focusing on the text; that all, at times, will write about similar programmes; and that through the operation of the tertiary text, the wider cultural and social arena, critics will pick up on wider public debates about television and these will inform their columns. In this way, the secondary text that they produce, though aimed at niche groups, is still linked into a wider public debate about television. While the national community is segmented this still implies that some linkage still exists; that there is some relationship between the segments that make up the whole. Television and the discourse around it act as part of this linkage. In the next chapter I will start to explore how the coming of the internet and the World Wide Web has impacted on the discourse of television criticism.

7 TV CRITICISM AND THE INTERNET: THE DEATH OF THE TV CRITIC?

Introduction By the end of the 1990s a new media form had emerged; one that is global on scale and one whose content is dominated more than any medium ever before by material produced by the public. Some people know it as the internet and others as the Web. These terms mean slightly different things but, for ease of use, I will refer to it as the ‘internet’ for the rest of this chapter. At first it seemed a little like a fad, of interest only to a few technomaniacs. However, in a very short time its use spread throughout society, from youngsters using social network sites, to ‘silver surfers’ checking their bank statements. In this final chapter, I will be exploring how this development and spread of the internet has impacted on TV critics and the public discourse around television. The interaction of the public with critics, in a form of public debate, has a long history. Members of the public have always been quick to express their views publicly through readers’ pages, phone-ins and polls in papers and, in some cases, by creating their own publications or media forms, such as fanzines. What the internet offers for the user, however, is direct and easy access to both the media critic and a large number of other users. It has also allowed

198

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

new forms of criticism to appear, using the internet’s visual and hyperlink facilities, e.g. Charlie Brooker’s www.tvgohome. com website parody of the Radio Times format. To help in this exploration, I will refer to a range of theories and concepts, some of which have been developed in relation to fans – an area where substantial work has been undertaken over the years (Jenkins 1992, 2006; Gray et al. 2007). For example, the concept of ‘poaching’ (Jenkins 1992) can be used to understand the way the public and fans take over and try to shape the discourse around certain programmes. Then there is the appearance of ‘prosumers’ (Tumber 2001), where members of the public are not just consuming reviews and criticism but are producing their own examples of the medium in question, with short films, scripts and the like, making the artefact relevant to their culture, their experiences and their lives. Such developments suggest a restructuring of communication and media away from the top-down, mediated form that has dominated for some time, to one more horizontal in character, where the interaction occurs between users rather than with traditional media professionals, for example with the rise of discussion sites and blogs where all can participate (ibid.). For some, another concept, that of the public sphere seems applicable to the internet. Here is a new space where the public can freely enter and engage in a rational discourse. In this sense, the public no longer require or need television critics to pronounce judgement, or to provide consensus; this can be achieved by the public actively engaging in a debate about television with their peers. However, as I will argue, the internet is not a public sphere in its classic sense. The internet offers a much more dynamic set of connections, where individuals, groups, governments and states interact and struggle, on many levels, over many issues and for many reasons. By its nature, the connections between these groups are constantly changing, and therefore, the spaces of discourse and those

TV CRITICISM AND THE INTERNET

199

involved do not correlate well to the concept of a fixed or known cultural or political community or civil society. An alternative way, perhaps, to understand the internet and the interactions that occur in these virtual spaces, is by the use of the concepts of rhizome, mesh and nodes (Cranny-Francis 2005: 126–128; Lister et al. 2003: 26–27). These ideas offer a more nuanced and complex understanding of how the internet brings different publics, groups and individuals, commercial concerns and political bodies together in a dynamic and changing dialogue. After exploring these ideas I will investigate the different types of discourse appearing on the internet about television, analysing the programmes covered, the underlying values, the style and form of language used and their similarity to and difference from those found in the press. I will end by summarising the main theories and ideas raised in this chapter by asking the question whether these developments now spell the death of the TV critic or just a new phase in their development. Background history: The critic and the public As noted at the start of this book we all, in some way, take on elements of the role of the critic. We talk to each other about films, television programmes, artists and authors that we like or dislike. We will evaluate and judge the work and argue with others, trying to persuade them of our position. We will often utilise knowledge of the area, accepted canons of work, and various ad hoc forms of textual analysis. We might argue that The Royle Family is a better sitcom than The Office, or compare the work of Stephen Poliakoff to Denis Potter, evaluating the direction, editing, script and the roundness of the characters. We might even compare older series, such as The Professionals, to newer ones such as Spooks or compare television’s output to that of other cultural forms, such as theatre, film or radio. However, while we might sometimes consider this to be a critical discussion, in which we evaluate the programme or the

200

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

work of a writer or director, we would not usually think of ourselves as critics. This title is usually reserved for those working for the media, for example, the Television Critic of The Times. However, this is not to say that members of the public do not engage in mediated public discussions about the media, often with professional critics. Members of the public have over a long period of time written in to newspapers raising their views and concerns about television. For example, J.B. Boothroyd wrote a letter to The Times in 1960 complaining that the critics had not reviewed Late Extra (The Times 1960b: 16); or the letters sent to Victor Lewis-Smith about some of his reviews when the critic for the London Evening Standard (Lewis-Smith 1996: 30–31). The critic has in many ways taken on the role of the ‘voice’ of the public, but one removed (Allan 1999:15–16). However, regardless of this, members of the public still write in to the letter pages of the press, engaging with journalists, critics and other letter writers. Some form of dialogue still continues. Some members of the public might also have unsolicited articles accepted for publication, and the views of the public will still, in some form, find their way into the work of critics and journalists, as public opinion circulates around and into newspaper copy, acting as part of the tertiary text which feeds back into the critics’ copy (Fiske 1994: 124). Also, certain subjects have encouraged publications to appear that have been more open to input from the public, such as science fiction magazines like Astounding Stories, which from the 1920s allowed space for interested readers to engage with each other, from which sprung early fan communities (Jenkins 2006: 137). Indeed, the way fans help shape the discourse around particular activities or cultural forms, their role in creating an alternative media space for such discussions, is important. While it might appear to have developed only recently, some argue that the conditions for a form of nascent fan were

TV CRITICISM AND THE INTERNET

201

present in the nineteenth century (Cavicchi 2007). Fans, working through fanzines, music cassettes, short films and now the internet, have created a rich, vibrant culture where the evaluation and criticism of various cultural activities and products occurs. While in some ways marginalised, and often ridiculed, the work of fans has been important in the rise of many of the television-related sites on the internet, such as www.drwho.org – which offers a plethora of interesting insights into the world of Dr Who. One reason for this marginalisation has been that the reading position of fans is often different from the dominant position. Fans are not, by definition, disinterested critics; they are active for the very reason of their interest. They often seek out performances, artefacts or products not usually awarded critical attention. Re-conceptualising the internet: new connection, new forms, new spaces The internet, through email, chat boards, blogs and dedicated websites, provides a more open, horizontal space for a discourse about television and its programmes than has existed previously. It allows discussions between individuals rather than the more vertical, up-down, mediated discussions from critic to readers and viewers (Youngs and Boyd-Barrett 2002: 384–385). In most societies the main media forms of communication have tended to be dominated by a small, elite group of professionals who create the symbolic form, which is then consumed by a national audience (Youngs and Boyd-Barrett 2002: 378). The audience, while active in reading the text, in terms of meaning creation, has usually had little direct intervention in the creation of the cultural form itself. The model is very much from the centre outward, or top-down, radiating out from a few to many (Nguyen and Alexander 1996: 110– 111; Lister et al. 2003: 32–33). However, the internet allows a more peer-to-peer form of communication and dialogue, from the many to the many. Indeed, some of the most

202

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

successful sites are the ones that promote this form of contact, such as social networking sites Facebook, MySpace and Bebo (Wurff 2008: 68–69). With the appearance, development and spread of the internet, some feel that it is now possible to create virtual spaces where all can engage more fully in a public sphere(s) (Rheingold 1993). No longer are members of the public constrained to engage only with a mediated public sphere; one more or less structured by commercial and political forces. Instead they can take an active role in a virtual public sphere(s) on the internet (Lister et al. 2003: 176–180). The public can use the internet to gain information and access the same knowledge as others, allowing them to engage with other members of the public on an equal footing. In terms of television criticism and associated critical debates they no longer have to just read reviews and criticism but they can participate and write their own. Nevertheless, important criticisms have been raised about the concept of ‘public sphere’, as well as its transference to the realm of the internet (Bignell 2001: 199–201). For example, as Lister et al. point out, ‘a public sphere must by definition be characterised by maximum access’ (Lister et al. 2003: 180). Even in terms of Habermas’s original concept this can be seen as lacking; it was never a space which everyone could enter, it was very much a male bourgeois public sphere, from which certain groups, such as women were excluded. Perhaps, therefore, as we talk about a virtual public sphere we still have to think of the excluded, those without access to computers or the internet, possibly those without the technical knowhow or time. Also, over time, some have suggested that a number of public spheres have appeared representing different publics, such as the working class (Sassi 2001: 92). Different groups that might seek to develop their own spaces on the internet. Therefore, we have to accept that many of the differences that define society, whether gender, class or

TV CRITICISM AND THE INTERNET

203

race, will still play a role on the internet. That these new public spheres are not divorced from the material world in which we live our lives (Lister et al. 2003: 180). Habermas has also argued that the public sphere, as extended and developed through the media, has come to be dominated by the state and commercial voices (Street 2001: 42). These groups and organisations have capabilities and resources not available to the average member of the public. Therefore, entry to the public sphere is not equal. Large companies and the State are in an advantageous situation, they can use their stronger economic and political might to direct and structure discussions. In some ways similar questions must be raised about the role of commercial and political forces on the internet. Commercial concerns that own the copyright of many images and written works will try to control their use, thus restricting what can be said and how on the internet. For example, attempts by Fox to control how content relating to The Simpsons is used by various fan sites has led to some sites being closed down (Jenkins 2006: 147). Likewise, state bodies also play a role in policing or censoring access to the internet. For example, China has made attempts to restrict the access of its citizens to certain sites or internet searches (Street 2001: 122). Another problem of transferring the public sphere concept to the internet is that the ‘communities’ on the internet are different from those usually associated with such a concept, such as the nation. The public sphere, in its idealised sense, is a space where rational debate takes place between citizens, living together in a civil society, about the nature of their society. It is a community they feel a part of, which they can identify with and have a sense of belonging to, even if it is imagined (Dahlgren 1995: 151). The internet, however, provides many different types of dynamic and changing linkages between individuals, groups and communities, who are often not based in one particular location, and mostly do not

204

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

possess any form of shared identity or sense of belonging, apart from participating in or moving through a website or discussion page. Indeed, most website spaces are ‘single-issue information clusters’ (Lister et al. 2003: 179), bringing users together over a particular interest, rather than in wider dialogue about their collective needs. Some, such as Alexander and Jacobs have, however, redefined civil society ‘as a realm of symbolic communication’ (cited in Sassi 2001: 94), opening up the possibility that the public sphere could operate on the internet in a more ‘discursive and linguistic form’. However, if one surveys the internet in this light, it would appear to be populated by a plethora of groups with different interests and concerns, with loose and changeable linkages, that are often hostile to each other. Such a virtual based public sphere is apparently becoming fragmentary in nature (Sassi 2001: 100). Perhaps another way of thinking through the way the public interacts on the internet, the way it dynamically defines the virtual space by constantly changing links and connections, is in terms of rhizomes, mesh and nodes (CrannyFrancis 2005: 126–128; Lister et al. 2003: 26–27). The internet is made up of many points of different levels of activity, places providing information, such as web pages, often with links to other sites, places that allow differing forms of participation and interaction, such as discussions sites and blogs, where personal views are provided by individuals. But these places are not organised, linked or developing in a structured way. In other words, the internet is rhizome-like, having a random pattern, ‘growing haphazardly, reached via various different (browser) pathways’ (Cranny-Francis 2005: 127). It is the movement of users that dynamically link places. Rather than thinking of the internet as having virtual spaces which users enter, it might be better to conceptualise the internet as a mesh, where many complex and changing connections are made. In some places there might be empty spaces where few have travelled; in others, where many users move, the

TV CRITICISM AND THE INTERNET

205

connection lines start to resemble a mesh. Internet users, as they travel, might go down existing roads and, at other times, forge new ones. In some places so many connections and visits are being made that the connections no longer look like a mesh, but more of a solid; a node. Indeed, a node can act as a magnet or gravity well pulling new users in. Such nodes might attract users from one physical place, or from many places, they might converse in one particular language, or in many, they might be dominated by one gender or age group, or by none, some might be run by commercial or state concerns, or have more input from them. Some might have some central organisation running them, such as www. facebook.com, while others might be more archaic; for example, www.anarchy.net and its modus operandi of users contributing pieces to its website. Nodes tend to be focused on particular activities, such as those with a commercial aim, such as www.amazon.co.uk, government information sites such as www.gov.uk, media-run sites, such as www.bbc.co.uk and more public-led forms, such as the peer-to-peer music exchange site www.piolet.com. They might focus on particular issues, such as climate change (http://climatechange action.blogspot.com), or link a particular community or diaspora, such as www.palestinecampaign.org. Each person entering a node helps define it as such and connects it to other points in the mesh, possibly to other nodes. The concept of a mesh, therefore, helps to conjure up the idea of potential connections that come into existence as users travel along them. Unlike the traditional media the internet offers the possibility not just to consume but to produce. Internet users can therefore be ‘prosumers’ (Tumber 2001; Lister et al. 2003: 33). As they graze across the media, across the internet, some will poach (Jenkin 1992), take from other areas, and create new ideas, pictures, sounds and information, which they can then assemble, if they want, into their own internet space, or use

206

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

this to engage with others in another space. They are, in this way, producing information, content and spaces of interaction, often in a multimedia form. For example, they are creating, in some cases, new forms of engagement with television and its programmes. This might be in a recognisable form, such as television reviews, sites which offer ‘facts’, provide historical overviews or discussion areas. It might take other forms, hyperlink pages, satire or parody, caricatures, even the production of their own scripts or episodes of programmes. This, however, raises a problem of what constitutes the ‘text’; the text in terms of what the internet users are writing about and in terms of what they are producing on the internet. To take the first point, while traditional critics, working within the literary paradigm, mostly focus on a particular defined text, such as a programme, book or film, those producing on the internet, especially fans, will often look at a greater range of number of linked ‘texts’, at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels (Fiske 1994: 108–127). This is especially so in relation to television. Television programmes, unlike many forms of media production, are often produced as long-running series and serials, connected by actors, writers, directors. They connect to a wider history of different genre and television channels, the supratext, and to the wider history of the national television system, the megatext (Rixon 2006: 29). Also television is not experienced as discrete programmes; it exists as a flow, with programmes cut apart by trailers and adverts and television series being viewed weekly often over a number of seasons. In this way the television text is not as self-defined as, for example, a book (Rixon 2006: 26–27). The way these online critics approach or read their ‘text’, the way they define it, is often different from the way media critics have done so in the past. They use their knowledge of television to contextualise the text, to talk about its intertextuality, to build up a multidimensional understand-

TV CRITICISM AND THE INTERNET

207

ing of the programmes, series or genres. They help, in this way, in the production of the secondary text by which we understand primary texts. The other problem that is apparent is that the actual ‘text’ the internet critics produce, the way they present a discourse about television, does not have clear borders. It involves many connections – hyperlinks – with other nodes. It connects with other television sites and pages, also touching on the material world, where television has traditionally been watched. It is part of a larger text, a metatext; one that is dynamic and ever changing. It is part of a wider debate and knowledge of television, its programmes, the stars, the different episodes and other programmes in the genre. From this point of view, the work on individual sites cannot be understood in terms of self-contained pieces of criticism, written by individuals. Instead, it must be viewed as the work of many. As explored above, the internet potentially offers a new space for public discussions about television. No longer do you have to be a professional critic to reach thousands or millions of people. Now anyone, with the right equipment and access, can review a programme, post the review on a website and become active in a wider discourse about television. The range and forms taken by these online spaces are many, which does present some methodological problems for analysing their critical role in the public discussions around television. What such developments might spell is a shift away from the guiding hand of the professional critic towards a much more interactive, public-dominated debate about popular culture and, in particular, television. Having said that it is important to note that critics working for the press still play an important role in the shape and nature of the national televisual public discourse, which those working on the internet will find hard, at the moment, to duplicate. Those working on the internet, unlike the current media critics, have a weak connection to the social, cultural and political communities within

208

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

which we, for now, still live. Indeed, it is interesting to note that the guiding values and hierarchies that inform the work of the media critics are present on the internet. At the end of the day the material world, and its values, within which we all live, spreads its tentacles into the online spaces; our virtual selves are still linked to our physical bodies and their environment (Lister et al. 2003: 181). Perhaps, rather than viewing the debates occurring on the internet as part of a separate new form of public sphere(s), at this stage at least, we should be trying to understand the interaction between the internetbased discourses and those found in the national media, and take the approach that the internet is currently an extension to the existing public sphere(s), though developing in a unique way. In this light we should be thinking about how the practice of critics is being affected by the onset of the internet and new forms of public criticism, and how this impacts on the national public discourse about television. Public criticism on the internet As noted in an earlier chapter, Fiske suggests that journalistic writing about television, which includes television criticism, can be seen in terms of an axis; at one end it is working in the viewer’s interests while at the other end it works more in the interests of the studio and producer (Fiske 1994: 118–119). At the mid-point lie the fan-based magazines and more soft forms of news coverage that rely on studios and broadcasters for behind-the-scenes information, gossip and access to the stars and celebrities for interviews. For Fiske, those providing independent criticism take on an important role of exploring, expanding and offering different interpretations of programmes than those offered by broadcasters. However, this conceptualisation is not easily transferable to the internet. To start with, who is supplying this independent criticism? In Fisk’s original formulation he is referring to journalistic writing and, by implication, the television critic, who works on

TV CRITICISM AND THE INTERNET

209

behalf of the public – though, as I have been arguing, this independent nature is problematic as the critic is in fact beholden to both newspaper and the broadcasting industries. However, in relation to the internet there are many different types of writers producing different types of coverage, some working for the online presence of media firms, some working for dedicated television websites, some working for fan sites and others discussing programmes on their own blogs or websites. There are no identifiable new critics here able to take on the role that Fiske envisages. Alongside the public’s discourse on television, media companies, including programme producers, distributors and broadcasters, are still active trying to shape and control the discourse around their programmes and their channels. This they will do this through their own websites, through PR, publicity and marketing agencies, by providing information to relevant parties and by trying to mould the shape of the narrative image of their product (Ellis 1982: 24–33; Miller 2000: 56–60). One way commercial concerns seek to control such discussions on the internet is by trying to direct discussions; to support particular nodes and, possibly, to hinder others. Though, it could argued, that as the public use of the internet has increased so has its own power and oversight, limiting the freedom of commercial concerns to act as they might want without some form of criticism or resistance. Indeed, some internet users are active in disrupting commercial groups, their dominant messages and overt attempts to control the internet (Jenkins 2006: 149–151). Another way of conceptualising the different types of intervention on the internet, rather than in terms of an axis, is by way of a field. In this concept we can view critical debates on television occurring within a field structured according to a hierarchy of values. As individuals, groups and organisations struggle over the meaning of television and its programmes they take up positions in this field depending on the values

210

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

they espouse. Traditionally, those aligning with the dominant values would be in an advantageous position; their views would be accepted as more important than the views of those taking up a weaker position. However, there is a question of whether the dominant values and hierarchies of the physical world would hold sway on the internet. In many ways the power of the dominant culture is less in the virtual world, as the guardians of this hierarchy are less active there. There are no dominant gatekeepers, editors or cultural standard setters and there are many critics and writers on the internet taking many different reading positions, such that no one appears in a dominant position. However, we should be aware that many of those writing on the internet are imbued with the values of the ‘real’ world and that some will still hold to the dominant cultural hierarchy when assessing cultural artefacts and forms. Also, that some groups are more able to articulate their views than others, such as commercial firms with large financial resources. However, the internet is a great leveller, in that a rich company might create a site that no one visits, while someone working from home can create a site that has millions of hits. Therefore, as we go on to explore the television criticism appearing on the internet, we must be aware of how the values of the ‘real’ world inform the debates and work on the internet and vice versa. The public as critic No longer do you have to be a professional critic to potentially reach thousands or millions of people or a regular basis. Now anyone can review or write about a television programme, post the review on a website and become active in the wider public discourse about television. Websites such as www.tvtome.com, www.thefutoncritic.com and www.tvfrog. com, offer a variety of spaces for would-be television reviewers or critics. Some of these sites are more personal, and run more as blogs, such as Susan Stepney’s blog (, accessed 1 January 2010), others are larger and are open for anyone’s contribution, such as www.offthetelly.co.uk. Looking at the reviews on such sites, which cover a wide range of programmes, one is struck both by the similarity and differences of reviewing styles in relation to those found in national newspapers. While some focus primarily on critically analysing the form and content of programmes, others tend to present a more contextualised view. For example, in a review of South Park on a British student site we can see the way they emphasise and highlight a sequence in South Park within the wider context of American’s attitude to war, ‘Full of the usual close to the knuckle humour: look out for the anti-war banners held by the boys and listen closely to the episode’s musical contribution for some contemporary fun-poking at America’s attitudes to war’ (, accessed 12 May 2005). Such a review connects and highlights an aspect of a programme that might not have been to the forefront of a review in a traditional newspaper. It allows a group or individual to comment on wider political or ideological points using the form of a TV review. This is not to suggest that the South Park creator’s intentions were not in the first place to comment on the war, but the internet provides a space where this can be highlighted and explored. Some of the reviewers on these sites critique programmes in a similar way to the more ‘serious’ critics writing for the broadsheets. For example, one review on Dr Who from www. offthetelly.co.uk (accessed 25 September 2008) spends some time talking about the actors, the script, direction and the writer. It presents an analysis of the programme that is evaluative and judgemental, in a similar way to a serious critic writing for one of the national newspapers. Other reviews found on this site are impressionistic in style, similar to the way neocritics write about television, highlighting the writer’s impressions of the programme, while others write subjectively about

212

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

how the programme has become part of their life. They are not always disinterested critics. It would seem, as argued earlier, that some of the values and approaches to television reviewing found in a range of newspapers are held and utilised by those writing on the internet. The cultural values dominant in society defining the object of a television critic’s review and the way it should be evaluated seem to carry on into the virtual world. Some of the reviews on the internet seem, perhaps for obvious reasons, to be written by fans. It would appear that many of these public reviewers are using their newfound voice to articulate their views about their programmes which are or were their favourites, ‘[t]he West Wing’s cast and crew don’t seem able to take things seriously anymore, the programme’s not worth sticking with even … let alone respect’ (, accessed 12 May 2005). This is especially true with some of the more cult-styled shows that, while not shown in prime time, and often receiving little coverage in the mainstream press, are watched religiously by a small fan base. For example, at least for a period of time, The Mighty Boosh, Seinfeld, Arrested Development and Millennium were series that both the public and critic had heard little about but were applauded by devoted fans writing on the internet. Some of the reviews on these sites might be viewed as being a little sycophantic, underlying the fan’s passion about the programme. For example, one contributor to a site on The Mighty Boosh writes: When I first watched the show, I didn’t really get it but upon watching it again I really enjoy it and find it hilarious. I talked to my friends and they all thought that the first time you watch it its weird and the second time its [sic] hilarious (, accessed 1 December 2010).

TV CRITICISM AND THE INTERNET

213

Fans, in some ways, are utilising their fastidious knowledge of the programme to debate and criticise it often in rather arcane terms. For Jenkins, this is partly linked to the struggle over the programme; this is one way fans can argue from a position of knowledge about the programmes they love, that others will find hard to engage with (1992: 86–119). Fans might love their programmes, but they will still criticise them in the hope that they will improve (Verba in Jenkins 1992: 86). Television reviews found on the internet are a mixture of all that is found in the media: serious, comic, popular and surreal. The difference is that they are overwhelmingly written by members of the public, not by full-time critics. They write for a number of reasons: some wish to write like and to be accepted as critics, some just want to be part of a public debate about television while some are fans of particular programmes. While some do this in a way that upholds accepted values and styles of how to critically appraise television programmes, others use the space to evaluate programmes in ways often absent from traditional reviews. The internet is a place where there are no accepted or enforced journalistic standards or practices, but many of these do inform what does appear and the form it takes. Informing the debate: television information websites The internet, through its vast number of interconnected sites, provides large amounts of information, of various quantities and quality. While some of this is dubious, systems are developing for the public to act as peer assessors. For example, with www.wikepedia.org, where the public submits and edits the entries to this online encyclopaedia, a form of peer reviewing is used, though it is ultimately overseen by a group of editors. The internet has many different information sources on television, provided by commercial concerns as well as private groups and individuals. Indeed, many members of the

214

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

public run specialised websites on television, actors and the media. These provide a huge amount of background information. For example, if you want to know more about the background of the Black Adder series there a range of sites, including official BBC ones and unofficial ones: www.bbc.co. uk/ comedy/blackadder (accessed 24 November 2008) [this is now closed and is left only as a reference guide], www. blackadderhall.com/blog (accessed 24 November 2008) and www.sitcom.co.uk/blackadder (accessed 24 November 2008). Some of these are completely dedicated to Black Adder, while others are part of larger websites dealing with subjects such as the BBC or sitcoms. These sites give information about the actors, the series, the episodes, specials, awards and future events etc. For example, www.blackadderhall.com includes news, series guides, information about each episode, special one-off productions, a blog, interviews, articles, links to other fan sites, songs and merchandising. Many of these websites are run by fans; those members of the public with a fixation about and passion for the programme. Such sites are often nodal points, high traffic places where users of the internet, the ‘nomads’, come to pick up information, to exchange views or to interact as a quasi-community – ‘quasi’ in the sense that this is dynamic and changing group without the usual range of connections of identity that a community would exhibit (see: Graham 1999: 128–136). As they do this they connect the site to other areas, increasing the site’s profile. The site, by presenting different types of information about the programme, both paradigmatic and syntagmatic, provides a complex view of the series. Indeed, as the site connects with others so it becomes part of a larger metatext about the programme and television generally. The view of the text is not, therefore, ordered and defined. It has what Hartley calls ‘dirty boundaries’ (2002: 23–27). It is a text that spills out, that has a past and future; it is defined inter-

TV CRITICISM AND THE INTERNET

215

textually, as it is connected to other programme of the genre, to the life histories of actors, writers and directors and what they have been and are doing. In a way, all websites have ‘dirty’ borders, as they mostly interconnect with other sites in a never-ending mesh, and thus it is a form that is hard to control. Therefore, the internet provides accessible information to members of the public – all they need do is to search for it. When they do they are often directed towards popular nodal points (or those paying to come up higher on the search engines). Such information is detailed, and often opinionated, bringing many different aspects together to help present a particular view or views of the programme or series under discussion. There are different providers of these sites; some are run by fans or members of the public while others are operated by commercial concerns. Such websites illustrate a struggle going on over the ownership of these programmes, what they mean and thus how they fit within people’s lives and the wider cultural community. Virtual discussion spaces While sites exist that provide background information about television, whether focusing on particular genres, decades and series and serials, spaces also exist where members of the public can discuss and debate various issues and topics relating to programmes and television as a whole. These might be linked to information or review sites or may be part of larger discussion sites: one such site is www.glbtq.com (accessed 24 March 2010), which covers the arts, social sciences and literature. Or they might be part of a large TV site, which are usually divided up into many different themes and topics. For example www.tvgold.co.uk has different discussion forums and topics, including US television, UK television, those for specific drama programmes such as Upstairs, Downstairs, I, Claudius and Fall of Eagles, and UK classic sci-fi programmes,

216

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

such as Survivors, Blake’s 7 and Doctor Who. Within these various threads exist, for example in the UK Television forum there are debates on different aspects and questions relating to Merlin, Danger UXB and Spooks (, accessed 24 September 2008). To take one of these as an example, there is one thread on The Avengers, with some 35 replies as of 24 September 2008. The discussion starts with an overview of the series, of each episode, some historical context and information on the actors involved. The posts after this explore a variety of views of the programme, how the writers discovered the series, which are their favourite episodes, quotes from books on the series, some evaluative pieces presenting short critiques, information on the next showing and references to the film released in the 1990s. For example, ‘[t]he sight of Emma Peel draped in a Union Jack flag holding a trident in a photographic studio is a quintisential [sic] English/British symbol of the series in general’. There is a debate going on here, made up of various forms of dialogue and interaction, where the meaning of the series to the participants is discussed, explored and defined. It is written using less reverential tones than a critic would use, and the postings are often short, sometimes only a line or two. They appear less as analytical critiques of the programme or series than as a conversation or dialogue about the programme. It is also interesting that some of the postings on this site, in a similar way to some of the newer media critics, talk about the relevance of the programmes to their lived culture: I was … [in] a friend’s house one night, I’d taken down a video of Doctor Who, and he insisted that he taped The Avengers ‘Death at Bargain Prices’ before we watched my video. So I sulkily sat waiting for him to start taping the show, quite sure I’d go insane with boredom. Not so. The instant the music started, I felt

TV CRITICISM AND THE INTERNET

217

drawn to the series, and by the time Steed tells Mrs Peel that he ‘rattled up the stairs, three at a time’ to see Mrs Peel in ladies underwear, well, that was me away (, accessed 24 Sept 2008). These views are less critical, less about evaluating the programme against a set of explicit cultural or aesthetic values, than discussing the meaning of the programme in terms of how and why it has become part of people’s lives. In some ways they appear more like gossip than a formal discussion. As noted above, the form this takes is more a dialogue between the participants than through the work of one ‘critic’ trying to present a shared view of the programme. Through such discussions internet users can express different viewpoints; the programme or series can be talked about in a variety of ways, often linked to other cultural forms and debates. These discussion boards allow different people to talk about the television programmes they like – they are interactive, welcoming, a source of information and opinion. They are important in helping shape the meaning of the programme to these internet users, as well as feeding back into the wider discourse around these programmes; a move from the tertiary to the secondary. Overall they are less evaluative and judgemental than the reviews found elsewhere, partly because those engaging in these forums are fans or supporters of the programmes, rather than neutral critics or viewers who did not like the programmes. New forms of discourse The internet provides many ways for the public to write and communicate their views on television, for example in terms of the more traditional forms of written essays or short reviews, as noted above. But it also provides new ways for the public to write and engage with television and its programmes. For example, some internet users write about pro-

218

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

grammes they have been watching on their personal internet diaries, such as blogs. Other people will tweet, using messages made up of 140 characters, about what they are viewing or programmes they like. The internet also allows a whole range of types of multimedia coverage to be produced. It allows sound and visual clips, written material and pictures to exist side by side (Youngs and Boyd-Barrett 2002: 379–382). Websites can use hyperlinks to link to different pages on the site and with other websites, to provide a non-linear access to the content. Also, such websites can provide areas of participation, not only in terms of allowing online discussions but also where the user can change the website copy or where the input can become part of the copy. This has led to sites built or contributed to by users, such as www.wikipedia.org, which provides some coverage of television, its programmes and celebrities. Almost all television sites use some of these different aspects to provide information, comment, critical analysis and discussion space on television. While not completely new, some of these elements, such as letter pages and images, have existed in newspapers for some time, but the way they work on the internet in real time being easily accessed seamlessly anywhere in the world is new. As noted, websites often include multimedia functions with search facilities and hyperlinks to other parts of the site and other sites, not just allowing a huge range of information to be provided but also offering a new way of accessing and linking this together. It creates a new, expansive form of secondary text around television. These experiences are not usually available to the reader of the printed form of review or criticism. For example, the American site www.televisionwith outpity.com (accessed 26 September 2008) has a number of different sections. There is information about programmes and series, forums with many different threads of discussion, photographs, links to blogs, a limited number of video clips, extras including interviews, scripts and news pieces, TV

TV CRITICISM AND THE INTERNET

219

listings and a form of TV wikipedia, where the public can look up, edit and add information about television programmes. Such sites require the public to interact with the text, pictures, hyperlinks etc. This means that the information, reviews and overall meaning framework provided are always changing. The overall ‘supra-text’, the whole website as such, is always changing and only when it is finally archived will its continual development end. The internet, due to its multimedia form, is particularly well adapted for parodying or satirising television or its coverage in the print media. It allows the public to make copies of well-known audio, written, filmed and televised work cheaply and easily. For example, there is the parody by the now-defunct website www.tvgohome.com, of the BBC’s listing magazine the Radio Times. An example from this site is shown below. 8.30 Waterman’s Nest. Occasional series in which Dennis Waterman, dressed as a blackbird, attempts to build a nest in a gigantic concrete tree, while Hywel Bennett clings to his back offering nothing but relentless criticism (accessed 26 September 2008). This parody works on the shared knowledge of the layout of the listings magazine, the way it normally covers programmes shown on British television, and the types of programmes and actors that appear on our screens. So, in the example above, it is obvious from the overall layout of the page on the screen, and the couple of short sentences about the programme, that this is a mock-up of a listings magazine. When one starts to read the description of the programme, it is soon obvious that it is a parody. Dennis Waterman was, for a time, the young dashing hero figure who appeared in such series as Minder and The Sweeney. The idea of him wearing a bird costume while building a nest is ludicrous. While Hywel Bennett is an actor

220

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

who has now faded from view, he starred in various films in the 1960s and 1970s and is probably best known for his rather dour outlook. The idea of these two actors working together, in such a peculiar set-up, is obviously made up. The humour comes from the fact that there are so many ludicrous television programmes that they often appear this outlandish, along with knowledge of the actors being put into these roles against type and the way ‘official’ listing magazines like the Radio Times normally covers British television, often in a rather sycophantic way. As I argued in an earlier chapter, while some forms of reviews and criticisms reinforce dominant approaches to culture and art, such as those which use a literary approach to critique the programme as a text, some reviews and approaches to film are more subversive. This can be accomplished by presenting alternative readings or reviews of programmes or, in certain examples, by approaching television in different way. Hence I have spoken of carnivalesque or surreal approaches. These, through their content and the way they present it, provide new ways of understanding and making sense of society and culture – in this case television (Rixon 2006: 154–157). The dominant values and approaches are ignored and instead a more comic, less reverential approach is often taken. This opens our eyes to different ways of reading, valuing and understanding the way the text or medium works. So, in this vein, tvgohome presents a ludicrous vision of British television that on one hand is similar to what is happening, but at the same time is far removed. It provides a different model, or way of thinking through programmes shown on British television and how it is developing. Other similar sites are www.mediapill.com (accessed 24 September 2008), which includes a pastiche of EastEnders circa 1917, www.doodie.com (accessed 24 September 2008), which has a host of cartoon characters doing unsightly things, and www.thepoke.co.uk (accessed 24 October 2010), with its “‘The Wire’ Monopoly

TV CRITICISM AND THE INTERNET

221

game”. In terms of parodies one of the most famous sites is the American based www.onion.com (accessed 24 September 2008), which presents itself as a news website. The internet offers a range of new ways of discussing, framing and engaging with television. While it does draw from existing forms of criticism, personal reflections and media parodies, either found in the traditional media or created by the public using more accessible media or communication forms, such as the photocopier or fanzine, the internet allows it to work on a national or global scale attracting huge or minuscule numbers of users alike. These new forms of engagement often utilise easy access to the internet to present up-to-the-minute personal accounts, such as with the blog, or can be used to create multimedia experiences, where many types of text, pictures and hyperlinks are used. No longer is the public debate built solely on oral interaction or the written page. Now it can also include simulations, parodies and multimedia creations. These are all part of the way the public, increasingly, engages interactively with the television discourse. Here and there, it is evident that the values that underwrite the dominant approach to art and culture have not gone away, though they are often turned on their head by more surreal forms of criticism. Fan television sites The separation of sites into ‘normal’ or ‘fan’ television sites is rather arbitrary, if not impossible. In some ways, putting up any website about television or focused on a specific genre or series would suggest fan-like behaviour. However, it could be argued that some differences might be perceived. For example, one could differentiate between people who discuss many areas and interests, of which television is but one. For example, those writing blogs will often mention favourite programmes, alongside references to favourite films, books and other cultural artefacts or events. These blogs are written by

222

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

people who are more interested in telling the web community about their lives, views and activities, than using their blog as a fan putting their own sub-cultural interests to the fore. The more identifiable television fan sites often relate to specific genres and certain series. These are particular cultural forms that the website owner is fascinated in or fanatical about. Some of the most prolific ones relate to the science fiction and fantasy genre. In many ways, these sites echo the more popular fan communities that existed before the internet. However, fans – those with an obsession, or deep-seated interest in aspects of our popular culture – come in many forms (Jenkins 1992: 9–24). Television fan communities on the internet focus on all sorts of areas, actors, series, genres and writers. For example, there is a fan site, www.nigelhavers alliance.com, for Nigel Havers, a fairly well-known British television actor. This one is satirical in nature, and on 26 September 2008 led with a story about how Nigel can sort out the credit crunch. Fan sites are often made up of many of the forms so far explored in this chapter. They might have reviews and previews, clips, pictures, discussion areas, scripts, hyperlinks to other sites, interviews, downloads and merchandising. The difference between these sites and others run by members of the public or commercial organisations is the passion and detail, the amount of information, views and insights provided. For example, the Blake’s 7 fan website, www.hermit. org/Blakes7 (accessed 1 January 2010), has information about Blake’s 7 fanzines, cast information, news, convention information, reviews, novelisations (stories written by fans), information on locations, costumes, and many more detailed pieces of information carefully collected by fans and assembled and linked together on and through this site. There is even a ‘Sevencyclopaedia’ to help locate information about Blake’s 7.

TV CRITICISM AND THE INTERNET

223

Fan sites number in the thousands. Indeed, Phil Wickham points out that, ‘[i]f you put “Buffy the Vampire” + “Fan forum” into Google … it comes up with 24,100 hits’ (Wickham 2007: 83). Programmes often have multiple fan sites, situated in the same country or across the globe. Such a fan discourse, while partially cut off from the mainstream debates about television, does influence the public discourse and, ultimately, feeds into how we frame, understand and view television. For example, a programme might not gain a lot of public support on its initial screening but then, through the discourse on fan sites, the public and critics might pick up on the programme and then, perhaps, using some of the meanings developed by fans, develop a more accessible framework for understanding it. For example, new programmes are sometimes screened on less watched channels like BBC2, serving a particular audience group. As they develop a fan following so the critics and the public at large also become aware of them, such that they are then retransmitted on more popular channels, such as BBC1, or in some cases transferred from radio to television. Such programme include The Mighty Boosh, which started as a radio programme on Radio 4 and was then remade as a television series for BBC television (BBC3 and then BBC2), and The Office and Monty Python’s Flying Circus, which were initially both shown on BBC2 before being transferred to BBC1. Commercial websites While the internet has given the public new ways of engaging in a public discourse about television and its programmes, it has also been increasingly embraced by commercial concerns, including TV stations, production and distribution companies, talent agencies and PR companies. This engagement with the internet has taken several forms: firstly, in trying to shape existing internet coverage, including that by fan sites, often by offering or restricting the use of official material to

224

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

which they can have access. In this way there is an attempt to manage the profile and representation of the channel, programme or talent on the internet and, therefore, in the wider public discourse. For example, as noted earlier, Fox has restricted the use of its copyright material on various Simpson’s fan sites (Jenkins 2006: 147). Secondly, commercial and public concerns often set up their own sites, to act as places where information, views and merchandise can be gained, completely under the control of the commercial concern. One example is Fox’s 24 website, www.fox.com/24 (accessed 1 January 2010), which features clips, downloads, catch-up facilities, pictures, news, merchandise and even discussion boards. These are controlled sites, where the commercial concern will shape and control the representation of their programmes, channels or talent. While there are discussion spaces where some critical comment is allowed, this is policed and, if any item breaks the terms of conditions, it could be pulled. Thirdly, the internet is used in what many view as a more underhand way, to release viral stories. These are stories that have been created and placed on the internet for others to pick up and develop. The hope is, usually, to create a ‘buzz’ around a programme or series, as if coming from the ground up, from the fans or internet users (Jenkins 2006: 148). It would seem that as much as the public has found a new voice on the internet, so have commercial concerns. Indeed, one could argue that the internet offers such businesses not only new ways of communicating with the public but also new ways of collecting information about fans and the public and their behaviour, which provides them with the ability to target their services and production at users in ways once only dreamed of (Lyon 1999; Eyre and Walgrave 2002: 366–368). Marketing, PR and broadcasting firms can attempt, through their sites, to shape the way their programmes are viewed, but if a debate or discussion is going the wrong way, they can react before things go too far. The internet might allow a new

TV CRITICISM AND THE INTERNET

225

critical voice for the public, but it provides commercial concerns with a new way to engage in the discourse about their products. Newspapers go online While the public have been active in creating their own internet presence and coverage of television, the traditional outlets for the discourse around TV, the press, have also developed their own websites, discussion areas and information site. Some of this activity has been in terms of merely making available their physical paper online, with little attempt to shape it for the new medium; a kind of ‘shovelware’, though in a searchable form (Wurff 2008: 79; Franklin 2008b: 24). However, increasingly, some newspapers are creating more internet-savvy sites, such as www.guardian.co.uk, to attract users, advertisers and, for a select number of papers such as the Financial Times, subscribers (Hall 2008: 215–223). So, for example, one can search the Sun’s site and be given links to various reviews and stories about television that have been printed already in hard copy. For example, if one explore the Sun’s website, one can find news stories about the axing of the long-running police series, The Bill (, accessed 27 March 2010). However, the Sun’s website is not just a copy of the newspaper; it also uses the multimedia capabilities of the internet. Therefore, near these stories one can find hyperlinks to Sky News, a linked News Corp. company, where clips of The Bill can also be viewed. Likewise, on the Guardian website, www.guardian.co. uk, alongside stories and reviews are facilities to tweet, to blog and comment. For example, next to a story about ‘Which films should be turned into TV series?’ there were, on 27 March 2010, four social website links, 10 tweets and 63 comments provided by the public. Newspapers, to differing degrees, are providing established, well-regarded, popular, wellwritten and designed websites, where old and new forms of

226

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

television coverage are provided. Through internet search facilities internet users can locate, and create linkages between, old and new stories, reviews and information about programme. These now mostly all come with additional features and links, such as links to blogs by TV critics (), clips of television programmes, for example here with The Bill (, accessed 27 March 2010), with photographs and with hyperlinks between stories on the newspaper’s website and to other websites. There are also extensive previews, for example on the Daily Telegraph site () and links to ‘view again’ sites, such as the BBC iplayer (, accessed 28 March 2010). In some cases, newspapers now also offer the ability to set up personal television listings, and then to have reminders sent out by email on the morning the programmes are shown (). It would seem that newspapers are now responding to the new opportunities offered by the internet, though not necessarily with a business model that all can agree with (Ala-Fossi et al. 2008: 149–154). Much of this content is still free, though News Corp. is starting to put up pay walls around its newspaper sites, including those of The Times and the Sunday Times. What is on offer here is not just access to the usual reviews or previews of the press critics, but access to a metatextual overview of television: one where all sorts of background information, old and new stories, pictures, etc., are on offer. Members of the public can now also post their own views of programmes, launch discussions with other members of the public or reply to critics. What has been created here is more like a public sphere in miniature; one that can connect members of the national community together in a discussion, one in

TV CRITICISM AND THE INTERNET

227

which the critics still play an important role in the selection of programmes, the initiating of debates and defining, in many ways, the values and language used to critique, review, preview and write about television. Conclusion: end of TV critics as we know them? The internet has, in many ways, brought many benefits: social, cultural, political, economic and technological. It has allowed many new and different forms of political activity, technological and cultural innovations, new markets and virtual communities to appear. For some it has allowed a new voice for the public, for the ordinary person; a voice that was mediated by the media for far too long. While the traditional discourse around the media supported an idea of it acting as the public’s voice, allowing public opinion to be heard, in many ways political, ideological and commercial forces have shaped and controlled this for their own benefits. The internet, however, while not operating like the public sphere(s), does allow the public a space where it can participate in a less mediated way in debates about culture, politics and society (Rheingold 1993). For some, the rise of the internet has weakened the role of the critic as cultural arbiter. Where once the critic, working for the media, would be sought out for judgement and evaluation, for guidance, for their understanding of the shared culture (Eagleton 1987), now the public can turn to the internet, to seek out a huge range of evaluations while also offering up their own views, in whatever form. As argued above, the ways in which the internet can be used to inform and extend the public debate around culture, popular culture, television and its programmes, are many. It can take the form of traditional critical judgement and evaluation, similar in form and approach to those found in national newspapers, or where others present reviews that are more personal and subjective, more in line with the neo- and niche critics. Some take a more

228

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

subversive approach, such as the surreal critics mentioned in Chapter 6. It would seem that the same cultural approaches, values and the associated cultural hierarchy are transferred, to a degree, to the internet. As I have argued, the internet is not separate from the physical world, it, like all media forms, is linked to it, though not necessarily embedded in it. As Baym argues, ‘online groups are often woven into the fabric of offline life rather than set in opposition to it’ (cited in Jones 1998: 63). However, alongside this transfer of critical debate from the traditional media to the internet, there is a diversification of the ways in which television is written about, portrayed and, indeed, contextualised. Multimedia websites, fan sites, information sites, blogs and viral campaigns are all feeding into the discourse around television. As the means of watching television have increased, as the numbers of ways we can catch up with our favourite programmes or select a download have multiplied, so too have the means by which we can either engage or contribute to the discourse around them. The notion of a few cultural critics selecting the best examples has long gone, even for critics working for newspapers. Now it is about covering, in many differing ways, the myriad television channels, programmes and outlets that the public watches, downloads or selects from. The internet provides multiple ways of doing this, with a plethora of websites offered by commercial organisations, government bodies, charities, lobby groups, fan groups, advertisers, critics of established media groups and members of the public, all engaging in a discourse, and in some ways a struggle, over the meaning, perceptions and acceptance of television, as a cultural, political, economic and technological form. However, the role of the critic has not disappeared, though it might have transmuted and metamorphosed with the coming of the internet. As with all forms of cultural endeavour, whether painting, music, sculpture, theatre, film,

TV CRITICISM AND THE INTERNET

229

rock, dance, writing, or even journalism, we like to experience the best, the most topical, the most riveting and enjoyable forms. The best might be judged in terms of those critics with the right cultural capital who sit at the top of the cultural hierarchy, who produce critiques that are judged and accepted to be well written and argued, or the best might be defined as the most popular critics, though these two forms are not necessarily mutually exclusive. So, on one level, television criticism can be viewed as a cultural form, as much as a film or a play, where the best writers, the most popular writers, those with the highest exposure, will attract more attention. In this way, what society defines as good, talented critics will be sought out and read because of the pleasure and insight that they provide the reader, internet user, listener or viewer. A second reason why critics might survive is the public’s wish to tap into the shared experience of the national community, for most still the most important community to which we belong, to find out what other people think about the programmes they have seen, or, at contextual level, to find out about what is happening in the television industry. To do this they can obviously search the internet for suitable reviews and criticism. However, this does not mean that the work they find and read is written by someone connected to their (national) community, nor that they reflect the views of that community. However, the critics writing for the national papers are linked to the national community; they are positioned, culturally, as ‘public’ critics, producing and maintaining a public discourse on television. Thus they are still able to play an important social and culture role for the reader, a way of bonding readers together into a shared (televisual) culture. Many people still seek out these critics. Only a critic embedded within a community can help the reader engage in a dialogue of whether their views of television are in tune with the shared public discourse around television.

230

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Lastly, the critic will survive, and perhaps prosper, at this time of television and critical abundance, as guidance and expertise is still sought, and a touchstone is still required. The public, as it seeks cultural guidance, is still positioned within a cultural field dominated by a particular culture hierarchy. This field is more fractured than ever, with different actors and groups taking up different positions, sometimes resisting the dominant notions of value and culture. However, most readers, if they were seeking ‘serious’ critics, would seek out those that match up to these weakened dominant values. If they were looking for more entertaining and popular critics, they would seek out those positioned as such, writing in a more engaging and accessible style. If seeking an alternative view, they would seek out a more subversive critic, one holding to different values who might be able to expose the workings of the cultural field. At a time of television abundance, with the circulation of a more complex discourse around television, critics, whether writing on the internet or the traditional media, are sought out for their knowledge, insights, guidance and judgement. The traditional dominance and form of the media critic might be dead, or dying, but from this decline new critics will appear to take their place. The question that might concern us is whether these critics will in the future be appointed by the media or will be nominated by a popular plebiscite, indicated by the number of visits to particular critics’ internet sites.

CONCLUSION

As this book has illustrated, television criticism is a complex and disputed activity. There is little agreement on who is a critic, where they operate, in whose interest, what the actual object of study is and how television should be evaluated. Therefore, much of this work has had to focus on definitions, marking out what I am looking at and why. Unusually for many areas of academic interest, there is dearth of work in the area. The most cited piece, now rather dated, is that by Mike Poole (1984). Indeed, apart from a handful of books and articles, there is also little reflective work by those practising in the area. Perhaps the reasons for this relate to its nature as a form of journalistic practice, one with a focus on television, a media form held for many years in low esteem, combined with the tendency of many critics to focus on producing good copy, rather than insightful, critical analysis. For those studying television the tendency has been to focus on the programmes, institutions and practitioners and not so much on the journalistic discourse written about it. What I have tried to do in this work is to re-address this balance; to argue that the public discourse, partly shaped by the television critic, is important in the way we, as a national community, make sense of our television culture. It is the way we mark out what we do or do not like, the way we frame the meaning of the programme, the different ways we engage with television, how

232

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

we identify the important issues and questions that need to be discussed and why we enjoy this cultural form. Over time different views of the role of the critic have been put forward. For some, the critic has been the upholder of universal truths, there to judge and evaluate the arts and culture. For others the critic, working for the media, acts as a guide for public taste; to help in the creation of a critical and cultural consensus. Such media critics are no longer serving a small minority or elite, but the whole public. For Eagleton (1987), what is important is not the idea of the critic being able to tap into and apply universal values, but the way they take an ideological role in the public sphere; the way they help to sustain and maintain a shared culture, to create a form of consensus. These two ideas, of the critic as expert or judge and that of the critic as a public guide, are important in our understanding of the current debates about the television critic. As the modern media developed, as the role of the critic started to be defined more in terms of the journalistic discourse, a schism occurred. The cultural acolytes, the critics who believed their role was to uphold the elite cultural values, sought refuge in the universities. Here, away from commercial and popular pressures, they hoped they would be able to maintain standards and to develop a form of criticism with a serious critical intent. What was left in the newspapers, apart from the odd intrusion of critical commentary by an intellectual or university-based acolyte, is mostly popular reviewing. The role of the media-based critic, more or less, is to review texts, rather than to critique the cultural form using rather arcane language. In many ways the schism that occurred at the end of the nineteenth century, when ‘English’ as a discipline became established, has continued with only limited cross-fertilisation between the two. The theoretical underpinning of most disciplines, their closed language and often obtuse ideas, such as with the ‘death of the author’ and that of

CONCLUSION

233

cultural relativism, do not accord well with popular entertainment-driven journalistic copy. This has meant, for television, that the popular discourse in newspapers, one about reviewing and evaluating programmes, has often been at odds with the more prosaic work on television in the universities. Therefore, the two have often been at loggerheads; one looking down on the other as popular and non-analytical writing, and the other seen as dry, closed and theoretical gobbledygook. Those working for the press have had to balance good copy with some form of limited criticism or evaluation, though these are not mutually exclusive. Such critics work as part of the journalistic discourse, using and being aware of the practices of the profession. They work for an editor and publish their work, which is then consumed by a readership, each with their own needs. The television critic, if they wish to continue in employment, has to satisfy all interested parties. In this way they have to balance up the need to produce good entertaining copy, while still critiquing or providing some judgement of the programme. Newspapers are not, however, all alike. They define themselves in particular ways, using different balances of the news mix and styles of journalism. So for example, the popular newspapers aimed at the mass audience, have tended to become dominated by soft news, offering human interest stories, celebrity news, gossip, exposés and general light-hearted coverage. The quality newspapers have favoured more hard news, factual foreign, political and home news; though soft news is also found in such papers. Television, in its turn, has been covered in both hard and soft news forms. All papers, often through their supplements and magazines, provide stories on television celebrities, gossip and fashion, while the TV listings, previews and reviews are provided on the television pages, treated as a form of entertainment, though some of the

234

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

quality papers still place the television reviews in the arts sections with other reviews. However, over time, as the journalistic discourse has changed, as it has become more dominated by soft news, so its coverage of television has developed in a similar way, with a shift to using more popular reviewing styles. Equally, as television has changed, as it has gone through dramatic developments in terms of the programmes being made and number of channels on offer, so the coverage by TV critics has multiplied and become more diverse. As Poole has argued, television criticism is part of both the newspaper and broadcasting discourse, and must, in many ways, be understood in this light (1984, 1994). Public debates about television are now as likely to be about using www.YouTube.com to catch-up on missed programmes, as discussing the culture worth of public service broadcasting; likewise reviews have now moved beyond mostly focusing on single one-off plays to writing about and evaluating the whole array of different serials and series found on television. For McArthur (1980) criticism’s relationship to the journalistic and broadcasting discourses, dominated by a literary bias with a focus on the text, has led to a stunted form of television criticism. This has not been helped by the lack of a critical body of work developing around this practice (Caughie 1984). Television Studies in universities has only recently established itself, and, alongside other approaches such as Media Studies and Cultural Studies, it has generally lacked an accessible language; the conceptual and theoretical frameworks presented for television’s study are often obtuse and impenetrable. It has also, for some time, like many similar disciplines, shied away from evaluation and offering judgement, the bread and butter of television criticism in the press. This has meant that the dominant form of criticism in the press is still influenced by approaches developed in relation to other forms of reviewing, such as that for theatre and literature.

CONCLUSION

235

These approaches have a literary overtone, tending to focus on the programme as text, and evaluating the quality of the script, performance and direction. For those like McArthur what is needed is an approach that is more in tune with television as a unique form, one that has its own history, where genre have developed over time, that operates on a 24-hour basis and where programmes are made in huge runs that might be shown over a number of years. However, criticisms like these should not stop us exploring and analysing the coverage of television in the press. If anything, we should be seeking to understand how the journalistic discourse and broadcasting discourse interacted with television criticism to create particular forms of coverage, meaning and judgement. Such an analysis could tell us something about the changing shape and form of the public debate about television. It might illuminate the various ways we as a national community, in all its parts, have come to create a shared understanding of television. In a way such a study should be part of the very critical response that Mike Poole argues television critics should be developing (1984). We should understand television not just as a text or even in terms of an institution, but also as a cultural form where there is a struggle over meaning and value, one that has been occurring around television in the public sphere for some time. It has also to be questioned whether all the criticisms of those like Colin McArthur and Mike Poole can be upheld. Television has never just been written about in terms of a text. There have always been a number of journalists who have, in various ways, asked questions about the organisations that provide the service, the economics and finance and the connection of television to other media and leisure forms, such as theatre and film. Also, where the critics have analysed programmes, it is true that many utilise a literary-style approach, focusing on the text, looking for the sorts of features associated with the written text and the theatre, such as the

236

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

script and performances. However, alongside these serious approaches, others have also been developed which might be viewed as more sympathetic to the televisual form. While dismissed by Mike Poole, neo-critics such as Clive James have developed engaging and entertaining copy that attempts some form of evaluation, often using a range of popular references, developing a form of intertextual critique. This might not be written in the usual academic or scholarly language, but it does start to ask the question of what makes worthy or good television. There has also been a resurgence of a more serious form of writing about television, with the work of cultural commentators like Mark Lawson (2006). Others, such as the surreal critics, go further; through their work they actually turn the accepted approach to television and other forms of culture on its head, which implicitly raises questions about the way we usually evaluate television. Also, even the much maligned soft criticism coverage of television can open a text up to other, different meanings, different readings and the potential or resistance found within this ‘dirty’ text, as Hartley puts it (2002). In many ways we have to question whether the type of criticism some would like to develop would be one that equates with a particular value system, one that, while more accepting of television as a unique cultural form, would still seek to apply a more academic or elitist approach to its study, one that would be illsuited for the needs of the newspapers and perhaps the wishes of the readers. This opens up the problem of the line of development taken by Television Studies in the universities. As noted earlier, such work, following in some ways the schism between journalism and academia at the end of the nineteenth century, has tended to develop a theoretical approach devoid of much attempt to judge or evaluate television. This is a tension that some of those working in Television Studies have increasingly come to accept. As much as media critics might need to

CONCLUSION

237

develop their critical approaches while still balancing up the need to produce good copy, those in academia need to find a way to approach questions of cultural worth and quality in relation to television. A reciprocal two-way development is needed; more exchange of ideas and even personnel would help. Perhaps figures like Raymond Williams need to be employed again to write seriously about television in the media, but in a popular way that, in the final analysis, can also provide some judgement about the programme or television in general. In turn, the media critics need to engage more with academic debates, as some, such as Mark Lawson (2006), have started to do. Perhaps in this way the level of discussion about television can develop and rise, at least in some quarters. However, at this moment of possible reconciliation, the moment when criticism might be rejuvenated, some have started to ask if we still need media critics. Suddenly, in a relatively short period of time, a new form of communication the internet has arrived, changing the whole mediascape. Some papers, especially in America, have started to lay off their television critics. What is the point of having a critic who writes about something seen a night or two before, when such copy can be found and produced by anyone on the internet? Even in Britain the role of the critic for newspapers is being questioned; one paper, the Daily Mail, even deciding not to replace its critic in 2006 and instead provides more previews, which are seen as being more relevant to the way its readers watch television (Ellis 2008: 244). However, even though television criticism can be found on the internet, people do still read and enjoy newspaper critics’ copy. People want to read good, well-written and enjoyable reviews, so they seek out writers who are able to provide this, many of whom are working for the press. The papers provide a known location for respected critics; critics who are writing about television from a British perspective. It is a criticism that is still linked to a

238

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

greater national debate or public sphere. While the internet is global and potentially able to attract people from many communities, the newspaper is aimed at a physical or known community: the city, region or nation. This is a community one can feel a sense of belonging to, that one can feel a cultural bonding with, even if it is tenuous or imagined. Perhaps, in this way, the media critic still plays an important role in still seeking to create and maintain consensus, something that, for some, is increasingly important in a world segmenting into many different groups and communities. For 60 years or so the television critics have been a part of British newspapers. They have provided both entertaining and informative copy that is popular with the readers. While their form has replicated other reviewing styles, of theatre and literature, few readers have complained about this. In many ways they have created styles of writing that people understand and want from their TV critic. The reviews and writing on television since the beginning of press coverage tell us something about the public debates that have occurred over television, its importance for our nation and the way we have come to value it. However, as newspapers face increased competition, and as the internet offers new opportunities for would-be critics, questions have been raised as to whether the television critic is still needed. What is certain is that television, in some form, will continue as a popular medium; one which the public will debate and discuss. To help, some form of public debate and coverage is required. Whether this will be found primarily in newspapers, on the internet or a mixture of both is, of course, open to conjecture. Whether there will be identifiable and known critics, I would argue yes. The only question is whether they will be appointed by the press, or will come to the fore through mediums such as the internet.

TELEVISION PROGRAMME GUIDE

... And So To Ted (BBC, 1965) A Camera in China (ITV, 1965) Americans at Home (BBC, 1954) Are You Being Served? (BBC, 1972–85) Arrested Development (Imagine Entertainment/ 20th Century Fox Television, 2002–6) Avengers, The (ITV, ABC, Thames, 1961–9) Bad Girls (Shed Productions, 1999–2006) Baldmoney, Sneezewort, Dodder and Cloudberry (ITV, 1975) Bed-Sit Girl, The (ITV, 1965) Big Brother (Brighter Pictures/Endemol, 2000–) Bill, The (Thames, 1984–2010) Blake’s 7 (BBC, 1978–81) Boys from the Black Stuff (BBC, 1982) Breeze Anstey (ITV, 1975) Brideshead Revisited (ITV/Granada, 1981) Caesar’s Friend (BBC, 1954) Cheers (NBC, 1982–93) Churchill’s People (BBC, 1974–5) Coronation Street (Granada, 1960–) Cracker (Granada, 1993–5) CSI (Alliance Atlantis/Jerry Bruckheimer/CBS, 2000–) Danger UXB (Euston Films/Thames, 1979)

240

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Day of the Triffids (BBC, 1981) Desperate Housewives (Cherry Productions/ABC, 2004–) Dick Van Dyke Show, The (Calvada/T&L, 1961–6) Dixon of Dock Green (BBC, 1955–76) Doctor Who (BBC, 1963–) EastEnders (BBC, 1985–) Edge of Darkness (BBC, 1985) Edward VII (ATV, 1975) ER (Constant Productions/Amblin Entertainment/ WB Television Network/NBC, 1994–2009) European Journal (BBC, 1965) Eurovision Song Contest (EBU, 1956–) Fabian of Scotland Yard (BBC 1954–56) Fight against Slavery, The (BBC, 1975) Frasier (Paramount/NBC, 1992–2004) Friends (Warner Bros. Television/NBC, 1994–2004) Further Up Pompeii! (BBC, 1975) ‘Good Shoemaker and the Poor Fish-peddler, The’ (BBC, 1965) Goodbye Johnnie (ITV, 1965) Gravelhanger (BBC 1954) Grove Family, The (BBC, 1954-7) Hill Street Blues (MTM Productions Inc., 1981–7) Hollyoaks (Lime Pictures, 1995–) I, Claudius (BBC, 1976) I Object (BBC, 1975) Jamie Oliver’s School Dinners (Fresh One Productions, 2005) Jewel in the Crown (Granada, 1984) Law and Order (Wolf Films/NBC, 1990–) Little House on the Prairie, The (NBC, 1974–83) Long Long Walkabout, The (BBC, 1975) Look, Stranger (BBC, 1975) Love Thy Neighbour (ITV, 1972–6) Man Alive (BBC, 1965–81) Martians and Us, The (Blast Films, 2007)

TELEVISION PROGRAMME GUIDE Martin’s Nest, The (BBC, 1954) Menus and Music (BBC, 1996) Merlin (Shine Limited/BBC, 2008–) Mighty Boosh, The (BBC, 2004–7) Millennium (20th Century Fox, 1996–9) Minder (Euston Films/Thames/Central, 1979–94) Monitor (BBC, 1958–65) Nip/Tuck (Warner Bros, 2003–10) Not the Nine O’Clock News (BBC, 1979–82) NYPD Blue (20th Century Fox/Steven Bochco/NBC, 1993–2005) Office, The (BBC, 2003–4) Play for Today (BBC, 1970–84) Prepare to Meet Thy Boom (BBC, 1975) Prime Suspect (Granada, 1991–2006) Professionals, The (Avengers Mark 1/LWT, 1977–83) Pygmalion (BBC, 1956) Quatermass (BBC, 1955–9) Royle Family, The (Granada, 1998–2009) Second City Firsts (BBC, 1975) Seinfeld (West-Shapiro/Castle Rock/NBC, 1989–98) Sex and the City (Sex in the City Productions/HBO, 1998–2004) Shameless (Company Pictures, 2004–) Simpsons, The (Gracie Films/20th Century Fox, 1989–) Six Characters in Search of an Author (BBC, 1954) Six Days of Justice (Thames, 1975) Six Feet Under (The Greenblatt Janollari Studio/HBO, 2001–5) Sopranos, The (Chase Films/HBO, 1999–2007) Spooks (Kudos/BBC, 2002–) Street, The (BBC, 2006–9) Survivors (BBC, 1975–7) Sweeney, The (Euston Films, 1975–8) Thick as Old Timber (ITV, 1965)

241

242

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

This Week (BBC, 2003) Threads (BBC, 1984) Thriller (ATV, 1973–6) Touch the Truck (C5, 2005) 24 (Imagine/20th Century Fox, 2002–10) Upstairs, Downstairs (LWT/Sagitta, 1971–5) Waltons, The (Lorimar Productions, 1972–81) War of the Roses, The (BBC, 1965) Wednesday Play, The (BBC, 1964–70) Wire, The (Blown Deadline Productions/HBO, 2002–8) Without a Trace (CBS, 2002–9) X-Factor (Fremantle Media/talkbackThames, 2004–) You are There (BBC, 1954) Young Ones, The (BBC, 1982–4) Z-Cars (BBC, 1962–79) Film Edouard et Caroline (Union Générale Cinématographique, 1951)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adorno, T.W. 2001, The Culture Industry: Selected essays on mass culture, Routledge, London. Ala-Fossi, M., Bakker, P., Ellonen, H-K., Kung, L., Lax, S., Sadaba, C. and Wurff, R. 2008, ‘The impact of the internet on business models in the media industries – a sector-by-sector analysis’, in L. Kung, R.G. Picard and R. Towse (eds), The Internet and the Mass Media, Sage, London. Allan, S. 1999, News Culture, Open University Press, Buckingham. Allsop, L. 2008, Guardian, 6 July, p. 6. Baily, K. 1954, ‘Sally’s not so pally in the alley’, People, 2 May, p. 8. Banks-Smith, N. 1975a, ‘Television’, Guardian, 2 April, p. 8. ––– 1975b, ‘The long long walkabout’, Guardian, 8 April, p. 10. ––– 1975c, ‘One Man’s Week on BBC2’, Guardian, 10 April, p. 8. ––– 1975d, ‘This Week’, Guardian, 11 April, p. 10. ––– 1975e, ‘Six Days of Justice’, Guardian, 15 April, p. 12. Barrington, J. 1938a, ‘Wife Lands Sweep A Job – On Radio’, Daily Express, 1 April, p. 19. ––– 1938b, Daily Express, 11 April, p. 19. Barry, I. 1926, Let’s Go to the Pictures, Chatto and Windus, London. Bignell, J. 2001, Postmodern Media Culture, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Billington, M. 2009, ‘Critic’s notebook’, Guardian, 10 September, p. 21. Biressi, A. and Nunn, H. (eds) 2008, The Tabloid Culture Reader, Open University Press, McGraw Hill, Maidenhead. Black, P. 1954a, ‘Teleview’, Daily Mail, 7 April, p. 6. ––– 1954b, ‘Teleview’, Daily Mail, 8 April, p. 6.

244 ––– ––– ––– –––

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

1954c, ‘Teleview’, Daily Mail, 12 April, p. 6. 1954d, ‘Teleview’, Daily Mail, 21 April, p. 6. 1965a, Daily Mail, 14 April, p. 3. 1965b, ‘BBC triumph with Wars of the Roses’, Daily Mail, 23 April, p. 3. ––– 1972, The Biggest Aspidistra in the World: A Personal Celebration of 50 years of the BBC, BBC, London. ––– 1973, The Mirror in the Corner: The People’s Television, Hutchinson, London. Blumler, J.G. and Katz, E. 1974, The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research, Sage, London. Boothroyd, J.B. 1960, ‘Letter: Television Criticism’, The Times, p. 16. Brett, N. and Holmes, T. 2008, ‘Supplements’, in B. Franklin (ed.), Pulling Newspapers Apart: Analysing Print Journalism, Routledge, London, pp. 198–205. Briggs, A. 1961, The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: The Birth of Broadcasting, vol. 1, The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, Oxford. ––– 1965, The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: The Golden Age of Wireless, vol. II, The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, Oxford. ––– 1970, The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: The War of Words, vol. III, The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, Oxford. ––– 1979, The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Sound and Vision, vol. IV, The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, Oxford. ––– 1995, The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Competition, vol. V, The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Briggs, A. and Burke, P. 2002, A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet, Polity Press, Cambridge. Brookeman, C. 1984, American Culture and Society Since the 1930s, Schocken Books, London. Brooker, C. 2005, Screen Burn: Television with its Face Torn off, Faber and Faber, London. ––– 2007, Dawn of the Dumb: Dispatches from the Idiotic Frontline, Faber and Faber, London.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

245

Burkeman, O. 2009, ‘The Brangelina industry’, Guardian, G2, 24 June, p. 6. Cardwell, S. 2007, ‘Is Quality Television Any Good?’, in J. McCabe and K. Akass (eds), Quality TV: Contemporary American Television and Beyond, I.B.Tauris, London, pp. 19–34. Caughie, J. 1984, ‘Television Criticism: “a discourse in search of an object”’, Screen, vol. 25, no. 4–5, pp. 109–121. Cavicchi, D. 2007, ‘Loving Music: listeners, entertainers, and the origins of music fandom in nineteenth-century America’, in J. Gray, C. Sandvoss and C.L. Harrington (eds), Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, New York University Press, New York, pp. 235–249. Clark, P. 2002, ‘The anatomy of a hit’, Evening Standard, 20 December. Cole, P. 2008, ‘Compacts’, in B. Franklin (ed.), Pulling Newspapers Apart: Analysing Print Journalism, Routledge, London, pp. 183–191. Conboy, M. 2008, Journalism: A Critical History, Sage, London. Cook, J. 2004, ‘Hazlitt, speech and writing’, in K. Campbell (ed.), Journalism Literature and Modernity: From Hazlitt to Modernism, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 15–37. Cooke, L. 2003, British Television Drama: A History, British Film Institute, London. Coren, A. 1975a, ‘Look Stranger’, The Times, 8 April, p. 9. ––– 1975b, ‘Love Thy Neighbour’, The Times, 18 April, p. 11. ––– 1975c, ‘Giving the Depression a facelift’, The Times, 29 April, p. 9. Corner, J. 2003, ‘Finding data, reading patterns, telling stories: issues in the historiography of television’, Media, Culture and Society, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 273–280. Courtauld, C. 2004, ‘What a load of rubble’, Independent on Sunday, 10 August. Cranny-Francis, A. 2005, Multimedia, Sage, London. Creeber, G. (ed.) 2006, Tele-Visions: An Introduction to Studying Television, British Film Institute, London. Crisell, A. 1997, An Introductory History of British Broadcasting, Routledge, London. Crozier, M. 1958, Broadcasting: Sound and Television, Oxford University Press, London.

246

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

––– 1959, ‘Dotto, Dottier, Dottiest’, in The Bedside ‘Guardian’ 8: A Selection from the Manchester Guardian 1958–1959, Collins, London, pp. 59–60. ––– 1960, ‘Letter to the Editor: Television criticism’, The Times. ––– 1965a, ‘Thick as old timber’, Guardian, 13 April, p. 9. ––– 1965b, ‘...And so to Ted’, Guardian, 19 April, p. 5. ––– 1965c, ‘Monitor and European Journal’, Guardian, 21 April, p. 7. ––– 1965d, ‘The Wars of the Roses: Richard III’, Guardian, 23 April, p. 11. ––– 1965e, ‘Goodbye Johnnie’, Guardian, 27 April, p. 9. Curran, J. 1996, ‘The impact of advertising on the British mass media’, in P. Marris and S. Thornham (eds), Media Studies: A Reader, 2nd edn, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 710–726. Curran, J. and Seaton, J. 1997, Power without Responsibility: The Press and Broadcasting in Britain, Routledge, London. Dahlgren, P. 1995, Television and the Public Sphere: Citizenship, Democracy, and the Media, Sage, London. Daily Express 1938, ‘Enter “Bunch” Middleton’, 2 April, p. 23. Daily Record 2003, ‘New girl is all-woman, laughs amused mum’, 1 July, p. 15. Daily Telegraph 1954, ‘The trial of Christ’, 12 April 1954, p. 7. Davis, I. 1965, ‘That Dick Can Dyke Show Girl … She plans to be the new Doris Day’, Daily Express, 24 April, p.10. Drummond, P. and Paterson, R. (eds) 1986, Television in Transition: Papers from the First International Television Studies Conference, British Film Institute, London. Du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H. and Negas, K. 1997, Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman (Culture, Media & Identities), Sage, London. Dunkley, C. 1982, ‘Newspaper duty’, Television, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 18–19. ––– 1985, Television today and tomorrow: Wall-to-Wall Dallas?, Penguin, Harmondsworth. Dyer, R. 1990, Stars, British Film Institute, London. Eagleton, T. 1987, The Function of Criticism: From the Spectator to PostStructuralism, Verso, London.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

247

––– 1991, Ideology: An introduction, Verso, London. Eden, J. 2005, ‘Rumbled?’, Sun, 9 April, p. 20. Eichler, U. 1981, ‘Critical look at the TV critics’, Television, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 16–17. Ellis, J. 2002, Seeing Things: Television in the Age of Uncertainty, I.B.Tauris, London. ––– 2005, ‘Importance, significance, cost and value: Is an ITV canon possible?’, in C. Johnson and R. Turnock (eds), ITV Cultures: Independent Television Over Fifty Years, Open University Press, Berkshire, pp. 36–56. ––– 2008, ‘TV Pages’, in B. Franklin (ed.), Pulling Newspapers Apart: Analysing Print Journalism, Routledge, London, pp. 174–182. Elsom, J. 1992, Criticism 1: European, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Engel, M. 1997, Tickle The Public: One Hundred Years of the Popular Press, Indigo, London. Enright, D.J. 1990, Fields of Vision: Literature, Language, and Television, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Evening Standard 2000, ‘Sex and the City’, 19 March. Ewbank, T. 1975a, ‘Last hours before a king is killed’, Daily Mail, 2 April, p. 25. ––– 1975b, ‘Chickens come home to roost in Surbiton’, Daily Mail, 4 April, p. 27. Eyre, R. and Walrave, M. 2002, ‘Advertising and marketing’, in C. Newbold, O. Boyd-Barrett and H. Van Den Bulck (eds), The Media Book, Arnold, London, pp. 318–371. Fanthome, C. 2003, Channel 5: The Early Years, University of Luton Press, Luton. Fiddick, P. 1975a, Guardian, 14 April, p. 10. ––– 1975b, ‘Further Up Pompeii!’, Guardian, 1 April, p. 10. Fiske, J. 1992, ‘Popularity and the politics of information’, in C. Sparks and P. Dahlgren (eds), Journalism and Popular Culture, Sage, London, pp. 45–63. ––– 1992 Television Culture, Routledge, London. ––– 1994 Television Culture, Routledge, London. ––– 2001, Understanding Popular Culture, Routledge, London. Fitzpatrick, F. 2007, ‘City Pretty; Exclusive Fans snap up Sarah’s chic design for just a tenner’, Sunday Mail, 27 May, p. 31.

248

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Flett, K. 2003, ‘And don’t spare the hearses: The finale of Six Feet Under offered a damp hankie moment, but in south London they do think differently’, Observer, 24 August, p. 20. Forwood, M. 1975, ‘Who will be our play stars?’, Sun, 19 April, p. 15. Franklin, B. (ed.) 2008a, Pulling Newspapers Apart: Analysing Print Journalism, Routledge, London. ––– 2008b, ‘Newszak: entertainment versus news and information’, in A. Biressi and H. Nunn (eds), The Tabloid Culture Reader, Open University Press, McGraw Hill, Maidenhead, pp. 13–22. Freeman, H. 2001, ‘Style: Gorgeous, darlings: Ab Fab is back – and this time Eddy and Patsy are setting the fashion agenda’, Guardian, 17 August, p. 8. Gander, L.M. 1954a, ‘Light Brigade charges again’, Daily Telegraph, 20 April, p. 8. ––– 1954b, ‘Stark force of Pirandello’, Daily Telegraph, 21 April, p. 8. ––– 1954c, ‘Snobbery and the social ladder’, Daily Telegraph, 28 April, p. 8. ––– 1965, ‘BBC needs a licence to go ahead’, Daily Telegraph, 12 April, p. 19. Garnham, N. and Williams, R. 1980, ‘Pierre Bourdieu and the sociology of culture: an introduction’, Media, Culture and Society, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 209–223. Geraghty, C. 2003, ‘Aesthetics and quality in popular television drama’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 25–45. Giddings, R. 1994, ‘The amateur’s point of view’, Guardian, 11 April, p. 16. Goldie, G.W. 1977, Facing the Nation: Television and Politics 1936–76, Bodley Head, London. Gould, J. 1996, ‘Early criticism, like early television, grappled with the same problems as today’, Quill, vol. 84, no. 10, pp. 314–320. Graham, G. 1999, the internet://a philosophical inquiry, Routledge, London.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

249

Gray, J., Sandvoss, C. and Harrington, C.L. 2007, Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, New York University Press, New York. Gripsrud, J. 2008, ‘Tabloidization, popular journalism, and democracy’, in A. Biressi and H. Nunn (eds), The Tabloid Culture Reader, Open University Press/ McGraw Hill, Maidenhead, pp. 34–44. Guardian 1975, ‘Review’, 15 April, p. 12. Habermas, J. 2002, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Polity, Cambridge. Hall, J. 2008, ‘Online editions: newspapers and the “new” news’, in B. Franklin (ed.), Pulling Newspapers Apart: Analysing Print Journalism, Routledge, London, pp. 215–223. Harbord, J. and Wright, J. 1992, 40 Years of British Television, Boxtree, London. Hartley, J. 2002, Tele-ology: Studies in Television, Routledge, London. Hazard, P.D. (ed.) 1966, TV as Art: Some Essays in Criticism, National Council of Teachers, Illinois. Hearst, S. 1981, ‘Critical Look at the TV critics’, Television, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 15–16. Hebdige, D. 1986, ‘Towards a cartography of taste’, in B. Waits, T. Bennett and G. Martins (eds), Popular Culture: Past and Present, Croom Helm/Open University Press, London, pp. 194–218. Hennessy, P. 2007, Having it So Good: Britain in the Fifties, Penguin, London. Hesmondhalgh, D. 2002, The Cultural Industries, Sage, London. Hilmes, M. (ed.) 2003, The Television History Book, British Film Institute, London. Himmelstein, H. 1981a, On the Small Screen: New Approaches in Television and Video Criticism, Praeger, New York. ––– 1981b, Television myth and the American mind, Westport, CT/ London. Hobsbawm, E.J. 1994, Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991, Michael Joseph, London. Hoggart, R. 1960, ‘The uses of television’, Encounter, January, pp. 38–45. ––– 1965, The Uses of Literacy, Pelican, London.

250

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Holland, P. 1998, ‘The Politics of the smile: “Soft news” and the sexualisation of the popular press’, in C. Carter, G. Branston and S. Allan (eds), News, Gender and Power, Routledge, London, pp. 17–32. Holmes, S. and Redman, S. (eds) 2006, Framing Celebrity, Routledge, Abingdon. Holmes, S. and Redman, S. (eds) 2007, Stardom and Celebrity: A Reader, Sage, London. Holmes, S. 2008, ‘“Off-guard, unkept, unready?” Deconstructing contemporary celebrity in Heat magazine’, in A. Biressi and H. Nunn (eds), The Tabloid Culture Reader, Open University Press, McGraw Hill, Maidenhead, pp. 163–175. Hope-Wallace, P. 1956, ‘Not …Likely’’, The Listener, vol. LV, no. 1403, p. 117. Hunt Report 1982, Cable Systems, Cabinet Office, London. ITAP (Information Technology Advisory Panel) 1982, Report of the Inquiry into Cable Expansion and Broadcasting Policy, Home Office, London. Jackson, M. 1975a, ‘The fight against slavery lingers on’, Daily Mail, 10 April, p. 19. ––– 1975b, ‘Why ITV are pulling out of the great Olympic race’, Daily Mail, 19 April, p. 17. Jacobs, J. 2000, The Intimate Screen: Early British Television Drama, Clarendon Press, Oxford. ––– 2003, ‘Early television in Great Britain’, in M. Hilmes (ed.), The Television History Book, British Film Institute, London, pp. 69–72. James, C. 1975a, ‘The main thing about Main’, Observer, 27 April, p. 33. ––– 1975b, ‘Fleeing and surviving’, Observer, 4 May, p. 26. ––– 1981, Visions Before Midnight, Picador, London. ––– 1982, The Crystal Bucket, Picador, London. ––– 1983, Glued to the Box, Picador, London. Jenkins, H. 1992, Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture, Routledge, London. ––– (ed.) 2006, Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers, New York University Press, New York.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

251

Johnson, R. 1996, ‘What is Cultural Studies anyway?’, in J. Storey (ed.), What is Cultural Studies? A Reader, Edward Arnold, London, pp. 75–114. Jones, S. (ed.) 1998, CyberSociety 2.0: revisiting computer-mediated communication and community, Sage, London. Katz, E. and Liebes, T. 1986, ‘Mutual aid in the decoding of Dallas: Preliminary notes from a cross-cultural study’, in P. Drummond and R. Paterson (eds), Television in Transition: Papers from the First International Television Studies Conference, British Film Institute, London, pp. 187–198. Kelly, L. 2005, ‘Terrible-Opinion’, Sun, 9 April, p. 25. Knight, P. 1965a, ‘“Tale of Two Cities” Leaps into Action’, Daily Telegraph, 12 April, p. 18. ––– 1965b, ‘Mediocre slapstick on BBC’, Daily Telegraph, 14 April, p. 19. Knox, C. 1938a, ‘Collie Knox Calling’, Daily Mail, 20 April, p. 14. ––– 1938b, ‘Collie Knox Calling’, Daily Mail, 27 April, p. 21. Lamacraft, T. 2001, ‘Must See TV: The Best on TV this Week’, Daily Mirror, 12 April, p. 3. Lawson, M. 2001, Message in a bottle’, Guardian, 3 December, p. 13. ––– 2006, ‘Why newspapers should stop publishing TV reviews’, Critical Studies in Television: Scholarly Studies in Small Screen Fiction, vol. 1, no. 1 Spring, pp. 104–107. ––– 2007, ‘Mark Lawson talks to David Chase’, in J. McCabe and K. Akass (eds), Quality TV: Contemporary American Television and Beyond, I.B.Tauris, London, pp. 185–220. ––– 2008, ‘TV Matters’, Guardian, 20 November, p. 31. Lealand, G. 1984, American Television Programmes on British Screens, Broadcasting Research Unit Working Paper, London. LeMahieu, D. 1988, A culture for democracy: mass communication and the cultivated mind in Britain, Oxford, Clarendon. Leslie, A. 1965, ‘The Other Man in Her Life’, Daily Express, 27 April, p. 6. Lewis-Smith, V. 1996a, ‘Menus and Music’, Evening Standard, 30 August, p. 31. ––– 1996b, Inside the Magic Rectangle, Indigo, London.

252

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Lister, M., Dovey, D., Giddings, S., Grant, I. and Kelly, K. (eds) 2003, New Media: A Critical Introduction, Routledge, London. Lockwood, L. 1965, ‘“Wars of Roses” Impressive television’, Daily Telegraph, 23 April, p. 21. Longhurst, B., Smith, G., Bagnall, G., Crawford, G. and Ogborn, M. (eds) 2008, Introducing Cultural Studies, 2nd edn, Pearson: Longman, Harlow. Lorraine, V. and Fly, B. 2008, ‘The Great Drain Robbery’, Sun, 6 October. Lull, J. 2000, Media, Communication, Culture : A Global Approach, Polity, Oxford. Lyon, D. 1999, ‘World Wide Web of surveillance: the internet and off-world power flows’, in H. Mackay and T. O’Sullivan (eds), The Media Reader: Continuity and Transformation, Sage, London, pp. 353–365. Macrae, R. 1965, ‘Eyes on Britt: Viewers will see her go swimming’, Daily Mail, 15 April, p. 3. Margrave, S. 1938, ‘Lubitsch directs a perfect star team’, Daily Mail, 25 April, p. 8. Marris, P. and Thornham, S. (eds) 1996, Media Studies: a reader, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Marshall, B. 2005, ‘Good Cop, Better Cop’, ‘The Guide’, Guardian, 16 April, p.4. Marshall, R. 1965, ‘She’s a designing woman: Cathy’s Clobber’, Daily Express, 24 April, p. 11. Marwick, A. 1991, The Pelican Social History of Britain: British Society Since 1945, Pelican, London. Matheson, D. 2000, ‘The birth of news discourse: changes in news language in British newspapers, 1880–1930’, Media, Culture and Society, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 557–573. McArthur, C. 1980, ‘Point of Review: Television Criticism in the Press’, Screen Education, vol. 35, summer, pp. 59–61. McCabe, J. and Akass, K. (eds) 2007, Quality TV: Contemporary Television and beyond, I.B.Tauris, London. McDonald, R. 2007, The Death of the Critic, Continuum, London. Meech, P. 2008, ‘Advertising’, in B. Franklin (ed.), Pulling Newspapers Apart: Analysing Print Journalism, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 235–243.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

253

Miller, J. 2000, Something Completely Different: British Television and American Culture, University of Minnesota Press, London. Milmo, D. 2005, ‘RTL takes full control of Channel Five’, 21 July, , accessed 25 July. Morley, D. 1980, The Nationwide Audience: Structure and Decoding, British Film Institute, London. ––– 1986, Family Television: Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure, Routledge, London. Morrison, R. 1994, ‘Critics at the blunt end’, Guardian, 19 October, p. 32. Morrow, F. 2004, ‘Abby ever after?’, Sun, 17 January, p. 15. Mosley, L. 1954, ‘TViewpoint: Suburbia – TV’s version’, Daily Express, 28 April, p. 3. Naughton, J. 1994, ‘The amateur’s point of view’, Guardian, 11 April, p. 16. Negroponte, N. 1996, Being Digital, Hodder and Stoughton, London. Nelson, R. 2007, State of Play: Contemporary ‘high-end’ TV drama, Manchester University Press, Manchester. Newbold, C., Boyd-Barrett, O. and Van Den Bulck, H. (eds) 2002, The Media Book, Arnold, London. Nguyen, D.T. and Alexander, J. 1996, ‘The coming of Cyberspacetime and the End of Polity’, in B. Shields (ed.), Cultures of Internet: Virtual Spaces, Real Histories, Living Bodies, Sage, London, pp. 99–124. Niblock, S. 2008, ‘Features’, in B. Franklin (ed.), Pulling Newspapers Apart: Analysing Print Journalism, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 48–57. Noam, E. 1987, ‘The Public Telecommunication Network: A Concept in Transition’, Journal of Communication, vol. 37, no. 1 Winter, pp. 30–48. O’Connor, A. (ed.) 1989, Raymond Williams on Television, Routledge, London. O’Malley, T. 2003, ‘BBC adapts to competition’, in M. Hilmes (ed.), The Television History Book, British Film Institute, London, pp. 86–89. O’Sullivan, T. 2007, ‘Researching the viewing culture: Television and the home, 1946–1960’, in H. Wheatley (ed.), Re-viewing

254

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Television History: Critical Issues in Television Historiography, I.B.Tauris, London, pp. 159–169. Ornebring, H. and Jonsson, A.M. 2008, ‘Tabloid journalism and the public sphere: a historical perspective on tabloid journalism’, in A. Biressi and H. Nunn (eds), The Tabloid Culture Reader, Open University Press, McGraw Hill, Maidenhead, pp. 23–33. Own reporter 1954, ‘Televising from a theatre’, Guardian, 21 April, p. 4. Parker, D. 1975a, ‘Play for Today’, The Times, 25 April, p. 13. ––– 1975b, ‘Long-life jokes’, The Times, 11 April, p. 13. Paterson, R. 1990, ‘A suitable schedule for the family’, in A. Goodwin and G. Whannel (eds), Understanding Television, Routledge, London, pp. 30–41. Pearson, R. 2005, ‘The writer/ producer in American television’, in M. Hammond and L. Mazdon (eds), The Contemporary Television Series, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 11–26. Petley, J. 1997, ‘Faces for spaces’, in M. Bromley and T. O’Malley (eds), A Journalism Reader, Routledge, London, pp. 251–272. Pollard, E. (ed.) 1994, Oxford Paperback Dictionary, 4th edn, 1 vol., Oxford University Press, Oxford. Ponce de Leon, C.L. 2002, Self-Exposure: Human Interest Journalism and the Emergence of Celebrity in America 1890–1940, University of North Carolina Press, NC. Poole, M. 1984, ‘The cult of the generalist: British television criticism 1936–83’, Screen, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 41–61. ––– 1994, ‘Lowering the Box’, The Guardian, 4 April 1994, p. 12. Prince-White, F.G. 1930, ‘Ideal Home Show to-day: Opening by Mrs Chamberlain’, Daily Mail, 5 April, pp. 13–14. Pritchard, S. 2009, ‘The readers’ editor on … the demise of the Observer’s TV guide’, Observer, 26 July, p. 28. Purnell, T. 1999, ‘Last Night’s view’, Daily Mirror, 24 August, p. 24. Pursehouse, M. 2008, ‘Looking at “The Sun”: into the nineties with a tabloid and its readers’, in H. Nunn and A. Biressi (eds), The Tabloid Culture Reader, McGraw Hill Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp. 287–302. Purser, P. 1992, Done Viewing: A personal account of the best years of our television, Quarter Books, London. Radio Critic 1954a, ‘American at Home’, Guardian, 10 March, p. 5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

255

––– 1954b, ‘The Grove Family’, Guardian, 14 April, p. 5. R.P.M.G. 1954, ‘The trial of Christ. Judas’s character’, Daily Telegraph, 12 April, p. 7. Ratcliffe, M. 1975, ‘Man Alive’, The Times, 25 April, p. 13. Rayner, J. 2008, ‘Is it curtains for critics?’, Guardian, 13 July, pp. 4–7. Remote Controller 2010, ‘TV Eye’, Private Eye, no. 1255, 5 February – 18 February, p. 10. Reynolds, S. 1975, ‘Thriller’, The Times, 14 April, p. 9. Rheingold, H. 1993, The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Richardson, M. 1965a, ‘Boomerang brickbats’, Observer, 4 April, p. 24. ––– 1965b, ‘Fighting for the throne’, Observer, 11 April, p. 29. ––– 1965c, ‘Genius through a haze’, Observer, 2 May, p. 24. ––– 1965d, ‘The Invisible Dubliners’, Observer, 25 April, p. 25. ––– 1979, Fits & Starts: Collected pieces, Michael Joseph. Rixon, P. 2006, American television on British screens: a story of cultural interaction, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. ––– 2008, ‘Star Trek: popular discourses: the role of broadcasters and critics’, in L Geraghty (ed.), The Influence of Star Trek on Television, Film and Culture, McFarland and Company, Jefferson, NC, pp. 153–169. Ross, K. and Nightingale, V. 2003, Media and Audiences: New Perspectives, Open University Press, Maidenhead. Sassi, S. 2001, ‘The Transformation of the Public Sphere? The internet as a new medium of civic engagement’, in B. Axford and R. Huggins (eds), New Media and Politics, Sage, London, pp. 89–108. Scott, G. 1975, ‘The role of the “Listener”’, The Listener, vol. 94, no. 2424, p. 360. Sendall, B. 1982, Independent Television in Britain, vol. I, Macmillan, London. ––– 1983, Independent Television in Britain, vol. II, Macmillan, London. Seymour-Ure, C. 1993, The British Press and Broadcasting Since 1945, Blackwell, Oxford. Shayon, R.L. (ed.) 1962, The Eighth Art: Twenty-three Views of Television Today, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

256

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Shelley, J. 2001, Interference: Tapehead versus Television, Atlantic Books, London. ––– 2004a, ‘Shelleyvision: Overpaid, overly thick and over at last’, Daily Mirror, 1 June, p. 19. ––– 2004b, ‘Shelly on the telly: Another Case of great drama’, Daily Mirror, 13 February, p. 19. Sidney, S.P. 1966, Defence of Posesi, Oxford University Press, London. Siegel, L. 2007, Not Remotely Controlled: Notes on Television, Basic Books, New York. Sinfield, A. 2004, Literature, Politics and Culture in Postwar Britain, Continuum, London. Sparks, C. 1992, ‘Popular journalism: theories and practice’, in P. Dahlgren and C. Sparks (eds), Journalism and Popular Culture, Sage, London. ––– 1999, ‘The Press’, in J. Stokes and A. Reading (eds), The Media in Britain: Current Debates and Developments, Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 41–60. Special Correspondent 1965, ‘Kind to every sport but football’, The Times, 17 April, p. 12. Steemers, J. 2004, Selling television. British television in the Global Marketplace, British Film Institute, London. Steemers, J. and Wise, R. 2000, ‘Old media, new media and the state’, in R. Wise (ed.), Multimedia: A Critical Introduction, Routledge, London, pp. 85–114. Storey, J. 1999, Cultural Consumption and Everyday Life, Arnold, London. ––– 2003, Inventing Popular Culture, Blackwell, Oxford. Street, J. 2001, Mass Media, Politics and Democracy, Palgrave Macmillan, London. Strinati, D. 2004, An introduction to theories of popular culture, 2nd edn, Routledge, London. Sun 2005, ‘Porn past of TV wife’, 4 January, p. 27. Sweney, M. 2009, ‘Video-on-demand is overtaking some TV channels, says Virgin Media chief’, Guardian, 30 October, p. 28. Technician 1938, ‘H.M.V. Model 901 Television’, Daily Mail 7 April, p. 17. Thomas, J. 1975, ‘A girl saves the world’, Daily Express, 12 April, p. 12.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

257

Thompson, G. 1984, ‘“Rolling Back” the state? Economic intervention 1975–82’, in G. McLennan, D. Held and S. Hall (eds), Contemporary Britain: A Critical Introduction, Polity, London, pp. 274–298. Thompson, R.J. 1997, Television’s Second Golden Age: From Hill Street Blues to ER, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, USA. Thumim, J. (ed.) 2002, Small Screens, Big Ideas: Television in the 1950s, I.B.Tauris, London. ––– 2004, Inventing Television Culture: Men, Women, and the Box, Ox ford Television Series, Oxford University Press, Oxford. The Times 1938, ‘Interference with Television’, 22 April, p. 17. ––– 1954a, ‘Rules for New Television. Safe guarding “Good Taste”’, 6 March, p. 3. ––– 1954b, ‘Edouard et Caroline’, 19 April, p. 6. ––– 1960, ‘Television play of force and power’, 24 October, p. 7. ––– 1965, ‘Puzzles Without Justification’, 15 April, p. 17. ––– 1975, ‘Last’s nights TV’, 25 April, p. 13. Tracey, M. 1998, The Decline and Fall of Public Service Broadcasting, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Tryhorn, C. 2009, ‘Leading the charge’, Media Guardian, 11 May, p. 1. Tumber, H. 2001, ‘Democracy in the information age: The role of the fourth estate in Cyberspace’, Information, Communication and Society, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 95–112. Tunstall, J. 1983, The Media in Britain, Constable, London. Turner, G. 1992, Film as Social Practice, Routledge, London. Turner, G., Bonner, F. and Marshall, P.D. 2008, ‘The meaning and significance of celebrity’, in A. Biressi and H. Nunn (eds), The Tabloid culture Reader, Open University Press, McGraw Hill, Maidenhead, pp. 141–148. Turnock, R. 2007, Television and Consumer Culture: Britain and the Transformation of Modernity, I.B.Tauris, London. Usher, S. 1975a, ‘Noble Raleigh to the rescue’, Daily Mail, 1 April, p. 17. ––– 1975b, ‘For my sixpennyworth Edward’s all right’, Daily Mail, 2 April, p. 25. ––– 1975c, ‘Strange encounters on the moors....’, Daily Mail, 4 April, p. 27.

258

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

––– 1975d, ‘There’s no smoke without fire...’, Daily Mail, 11 April, p. 19. Veljanovski, C.G. and Bishop, W.D. 1983, Choice by Cable: The Economics of a New Era in Television, Hobart Paper 96, Institute of Economic Affairs, London. Webster, F. 1995, Theories of The Information Society, Routledge, London. Weymouth, T. and Lamizet, B. 1996, Markets and Myths: Forces for Change in the European Media, Longman, London. Wheatley, H. 2003, ‘ITV 1955–89: Populism and experimentation’, in M. Hilmes (ed.), The Television History Book, British Film Institute, London, pp. 76–81. ––– (ed.) 2007, Re-viewing Television History: Critical Issues in Television Historiography, I.B.Tauris, London. Wickham, P. 2007, Understanding Television Texts, British Film Institute, London. Wieten, J., Murdock, G. and Dahlgren, P. (eds) 2000, Television Across Europe: A Comparative Introduction, Sage, London. Wiggin, M. 1968, The Memoirs of a Maverick, Thomas, Nelson and Sons, London. Wilk, M. 1999, The Golden Age of Television: Notes from Survivors, Silver Spring Press, Chicago. Williams, K. 1998, Get Me a Murder a Day! A History of Mass Communication in Britain, Arnold, London. ––– 2010a, Get Me a Murder a Day! A History of Media and Communication in Britain, 2nd edn, Bloomsbury, London. ––– 2010b, Read All About It! A History of the British Newpaper, Routledge, London. Williams, R. 1979, Television: Technology and Cultural Form, Fontana/ Collins, Glasgow. Winston, B. 2000, Media Technology and Society. A History: From the Telegraph to the Internet, Routledge, London. Wise, R. (ed.) 2000, MultiMedia: A Critical Introduction, Routledge, London. Woolf, V. 1967, Collected Essays, vol. 2, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York. Worsley, T.C. 1970, Television: The Ephemeral Art, Alan Ross, London.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

259

Wurff, R. 2008, ‘The impact of the internet on media content’, in L. Kung, R.G. Picard and T. Ruth (eds), The Internet and the Mass Media, Sage, London, pp. 65–101. Youngs, G. and Boyd-Barrett, O. 2002, ‘Interactive electronic media’, in C. Newbold, O. Boyd-Barrett and H. Van Den Bulck (eds), The Media Book, Arnold, London, pp. 372–399. Websites Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk [Accessed 1 January 2010]. anarchy.net: http://www.anarchy.net [Accessed 1 January 2010]. barb.co.uk: http://www.barb.co.uk/facts/multiChannelDevelopment? _s=4 [Accessed 17 March 2010]. ––– http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyTopProgrammes? [Accessed 17 March 2010]. bbc.co.uk: http://www.bbc.co.uk [Accessed 20 November 2008]. ––– http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/blackadder [Accessed 24 November 2008]. blackadderhall.com/blog: http://www.blackadderhall.com/blog [Accessed 24 November 2008]. climatechangeaction.blogspot.com: http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com [Accessed 20 November 2009]. digitaluk.co.uk: http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/when_do_i_switch/west _country [December 2009]. doodie.com: http://www.doodie.com [Accessed 10 November 2009]. drwho.org: http://www.drwho.org [Accessed 30 December 2009]. facebook: http://www.facebook.com [Accessed 10 October 2009]. fox.com/24: http://www.fox.com/24 [Accessed 1 January 2010]. freeview: http://www.freeview.co.uk/freeview/Channels [Accessed 17 March 2010]. glbtq.com: http://www.glbtq.com/subject/arts_a-b.html [Accessed 24 March 2010]. gov.uk: http://www.gov.uk [Accessed 10 April 2010]. guardian.co.uk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog [Accessed 30 January 2010]. hermit.org/Blakes7: http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 [Accessed 1 January 2010]. Itvplc.com: http://www.itvplc.com/itv/merger [Accessed April 2005].

260

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

mediapill.com: http://www.mediapill.com [Accessed 24 September 2008]. mediauk.com: http://www.mediauk.com [Accessed 17 March 2010]. nigelhaversalliance.com: http://www.nigelhaversalliance.com [Accessed 26 September 2008]. offthetelly.co.uk: http://www.offthetelly.co.uk [Accessed 10 November 2009]. onion.com: http://www.onion.com [Accessed 24 September 2008]. palestinecampaign.org: http://www.palestinecampaign.org/index2b.asp [Accessed 25 September 2008]. piolet.com: http://www.piolet.com [Accessed 10 April 2010]. sitcom.co.uk/blackadder: http://www.sitcom.co.uk/blackadder [Accessed 24 November 2008]. statistics.gov.uk: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=8 [Accessed 30 October 2009]. Stepney, S.: http://www-uers.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/sf/tv/index.htm [Accessed 1 January 2010]. Sun: http://www.page3.com/p3tv.shtml [Accessed 27 March 2010]. telegraph.co.uk: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/560 2956/TV-highlights.html [Accessed 28 March 2010]. televisionwithoutpity.com: http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/index. php [Accessed 26 September 2008]. thefutoncritic.com: http://www.thefutoncritic.com [Accessed 10 November 2009]. Themightyboosh.org: http://www.themightyboosh.org/index.php?op tion=com_content&task=category§ionid=13&id=32&Ite mid=51 [Accessed 1 January 2010]. Thepoke: http://www.thepoke.co.uk [Accessed 24 October 2010]. Thestudentzone.com: http://www.thestudentzone.com/articles/tv-south park.html [Accessed 12 May 2005]. tvfrog.com: http://www.tvfrog.com [Accessed 12 November 2009]. TVGoHome.com: http://www.TVGoHome.com [Accessed 26 September 2008]. tvgold.co.uk: http://www.tvgold.co.uk [Accessed 24 September 2008]. tvlistings.guardian.co.uk: http://tvlistings.guardian.co.uk/mychannels [Accessed 17 April 2010]. tvtome.com: http://www.tvtome.com [Accessed 10 November 2009].

INDEX

... And So To Ted 88, 89 A Camera in China 88 Aaronovitch, David 181 advertising 71, 102, 106–107, 129, 132, 135, 139, 144, 151, 156, 159, 172 Agate, James 51 Allan, Elkan 108 Amazon 205 American imports 74, 112 programmes 17, 37, 178, 179, 183, 194 Americans at Home 87 Amis, Martin 110 Aniston, Jennifer 152 Apple 165 Are You Being Served? 124, 126 Arnold, Matthew 44, 133–134 Arrested Development 212 Astounding Stories 200 Atari 165 Audit Bureau of Circulation newspaper categories 136 Avengers, The 216 Bad Girls 147 Baird, John Logie 69 Baldmoney, Sneezewort, Dodder and Cloudberry 126

Banks-Smith, Nancy 116–117, 119, 123, 125–126, 187–188 Barnes, Julian 110 Barrington, Jonah 70–71 Barry, Iris 52-53 Bartholomew, Guy 134 BBC3 193, 223 BBC4 192, 193 Beatles, The 104 Bebo 202 Bed-Sit Girl, The 89 Bennett, Hywed 219–220 Big Brother 16, 146, 153 Bill, The 225, 226 Billington, Michael 34 Black, Peter 6, 32, 55, 56, 67, 70, 73, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 126 Blake’s 7 216, 222 blogs 32, 198, 201, 204, 209, 210– 211, 218, 221, 226, 228 Boat Race 71 Bourdieu, Pierre 5, 26 Boyd, William 110 Boys from the Black Stuff 194 Bradbury, Malcolm 111 Brideshead Revisited 194 Briggs, Asa 32, 36 British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)

262

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

audiences 74, 223 competition 170, 171, 191 criticism 53, 55, 70, 76, 91, 98 duopoly 102, 171 monopoly 53, 73, 74 programmes 87, 88, 95, 116, 117, 120, 122, 188 Public Service Broadcasting 7 websites 214 British Social Attitudes report 172 ‘broadloid’ 174 Brooker, Charlie 1, 31, 32, 186– 189, 191, 198 BSkyB 191, 192 Bushell, Gary 144, 180 by-lines 84, 106, 119 cable television 17, 61, 62, 166, 167, 168, 170, 192, 193 Caesar’s Friend 87, 88, 96 Cannell, Robert 77 canon of work 15, 47, 79, 103, 199 carnivalesque 17, 32, 177, 190, 220 Carter, Chris 183 celebrity 25, 49, 60, 75, 131, 132, 134, 136, 137, 138, 148, 149, 151, 152, 154–156, 158–160, 194, 208, 218, 233 Channel 4 (C4) 61, 168, 178 Channel 5 (C5) 61, 168 channel abundance 7, 61, 62–63, 164, 167–171, 176, 177, 230 scarcity 163, 168, 171 chapels 7, 171, 193 Cheers 177–178 Christiansen, Arthur 134 Churchill’s People 125 circuit of culture 4, 22–23 civil society 35, 43, 199, 203–204

Clark, Pete 183 class 26–27, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 64, 68, 79, 80, 82, 95, 96, 103–104, 110, 128, 133, 137, 164, 169, 185, 195, 202, 203 Colindale 30 ‘Collie Knox Calling’ 70 columnists 20, 106, 114, 131, 145, 164, 173, 175, 176, 180, 181, 185 commercial websites 223–225 Communication Act 2003 170 Connors, Briton 18 consumer choice 167 Coren, Alan 6, 32, 110, 111, 117– 118, 121, 124 Corner, John 28–31 Coronation 73 Coronation Street 75, 83, 145, 154, 194 cosy duopoly 7, 74, 106–110 Cracker 188 critic academic 13, 47, 48–49 applied 2, 3, 18, 48 etymology 18 expert 18, 63, 80, 110, 114, 176– 177, 180, 181, 185, 230, 232 film 52 media based 5, 33, 42, 48, 53, 59, 64, 73, 197, 206, 207, 208, 216, 230, 232, 236–237, 238 niche 227 public 18, 20, 63, 229 public criticism 208 radio 53, 55, 70, 72, 87, 92 surreal 185–190, 228, 236 theatre 51, 53, 56, 58, 67, 80, 81 critical discourse 2, 13, 38, 77, 104 schism 5, 37, 42, 44, 48, 232, 236

INDEX criticism axis of 14, 15, 146–147, 208, 209 impressionism 5, 37, 41, 51, 52, 54, 62, 85, 87, 118, 211 intimate style 134, 144, 145, 146, 160 length of reviews 83, 91, 92–94, 123–127 neo-criticism 57, 65, 99, 113, 114–127 ‘neo-serious’ 183 performance 52, 53, 59, 69, 87, 111, 116, 117, 118, 201, 235, 236 public 29, 63, 208–210 serious 5, 19, 61, 96, 143 style 3, 5, 6, 30, 31, 39, 41, 54, 57, 58, 62, 68, 82, 85, 94, 99, 101, 105, 106, 110–116, 119– 123, 130, 144, 164, 175, 176, 177, 179, 199, 211, 213, 230, 233, 234, 238 subjective 8, 59, 62, 87, 106, 164, 176, 177, 179, 211, 227 surreal 32, 62, 65, 164, 177, 184–190, 213, 220, 221, 236 Crozier, Mary 6, 56, 79, 88, 89, 92, 93, 125, 132 CSI 182 cultural capital 5, 26, 27, 68, 78, 98, 229 change 101, 103–105, 169 consensus 42–44, 64, 198, 232, 238 consumption 4, 12, 16, 22, 23, 138, 139, 155, 159 field 5, 26–27, 102, 230 hierarchy 16, 25, 27, 28, 60–61, 105, 143, 185, 210, 228, 229 revolution 103, 164

263

values 16, 19, 26–27, 44, 48, 56, 60, 80, 90, 91, 96, 97, 128, 185, 212, 232 Cultural Studies 37, 47, 234 Daily Express 49, 70, 77, 93, 95, 123, 133, 134, 136, 141, 148, 150, 154, 157 Daily Mail 49, 52, 53, 55, 62, 69, 70, 73, 75–76, 80, 84, 85, 89, 92, 93, 97–98, 106, 119, 123–124, 126, 133, 136, 140–141, 149, 172, 173, 191–192, 237 Daily Mirror 7, 19, 50, 76, 105, 123, 129, 133, 134, 136, 141, 147, 193 Daily Telegraph 51, 72, 76, 87, 88, 92, 96, 133, 136, 226 Danger UXB 216 Darlington, William Aubrey 51 Day of the Triffids 188 death of the author 232–233 of the critic 8, 34, 64 Desperate Housewives 146, 153 Dick Van Dyke Show, The 149–150 digital switch over 171 digitalisation 166 Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) 166 Direct to Home (DTH) 166, 168 dirty boundaries 26, 214 Discovery Channel 169 discussion boards 217, 224 discussion sites 198, 215 Dr Who 37, 182, 201, 211 Dunkley, Chris 17, 76, 84, 91, 97, 111 Eagleton, Terry 43, 64, 122, 227, 232

264

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

EastEnders 145, 194, 220 Eden, Jenny 153 Edge of Darkness 194 Edinburgh Review 51 Edward VII 126 eighth art 67, 77, 89 Ekland, Britt 149 ‘Elkan’s days’ 108 Ellis, John 123, 135, 160, 171, 191, 209 email 170, 201, 226 English Literature 42, 48, 110 Enright, Dennis Joseph 81, 111 ER 145 European Journal 88 Eurovision Song Contest 112 Ewbank, Tim 124, 126, 127 Examiner 51 Face, The 173 Facebook 202, 205 fan sites 203, 209, 214, 222–223, 224, 228 fans 63, 154, 198, 200–201, 206, 212, 215, 217, 222, 224 fashion 16, 20, 50, 60, 131, 134, 135, 139, 142, 155–159, 160, 173, 233 female critics 59 feminisation of the press 133–134 feudal society 43–44 Fiddick, Peter 17, 82, 84, 111, 125 Fight against Slavery, The 126 film industry 140, 155 Financial Times 17, 80–81, 92, 111, 225 Fiske, John 14–15, 23–24, 96, 113, 143, 146–147, 152, 208–209 Fleet Street 7, 163, 171–176, 193 Forwood, Margaret 120–121

Fox 203, 224 Frasier 177–178 Freeman, Hadley 158 Freeview 170, 171, 191 Friends 152 Further Up Pompeii! 126 FX 182 Gander, Leonard Marsland 72, 84, 87, 88, 92 genre current affairs 78, 88, 89, 97, 125, 126 documentary 76, 86–89, 90, 92, 98, 108, 124, 125, 127, 169, 188 drama 15, 53, 57, 76, 86–89, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 108, 112–113, 124, 125–127, 145, 147, 178, 182, 183, 184, 194, 215 sitcom 78, 90, 98, 112, 156, 178, 199, 214 soaps 16, 87, 90, 91, 113, 145, 194 Giddings, Robert 122 Gielgud, Val 85 Gill, Adrian Anthony 181 global guide 8, 62, 176, 177, 190– 192 golden era of television 74, 102, 109 Goldie, Grace Wyndham 72, 78 ‘Good Shoemaker and the Poor Fish-peddler, The’ 88 Goodbye Johnnie 88 gossip 5, 15, 16, 20, 25, 49, 50, 51, 60, 63, 75, 109, 131–132, 134, 137, 138, 142, 146, 152–155, 159–160, 186, 194, 208, 217, 233 Gould, Jack 14

INDEX Gravelhanger 85, 88 Gripsrud, Jostein 137 Grove Family, The 87 Guardian 1, 9, 19, 52, 79, 87–88, 92, 93, 111, 123, 125–126, 136, 158, 173, 184, 186, 191, 193, 225– 226 Guardian ‘Guide’ 1, 9, 186, 191 Habermas, Jürgen 43, 202–203 Haley, William 73 hard news 59, 105, 106, 134, 135, 137, 142, 143, 233 Harrison, Tom 84 Hartley, John 25–26, 143–144, 214–215, 236 Havers, Nigel 222 Hazlitt, William 51, 115, 121 Hill, Benny 150–151 historical approach 12, 21, 28–33 Hobsbawm, Eric 103, 104, 164, 169 Hoggart, Richard 33, 49 Hoggart, Simon 110 Hollywood 148, 150, 184, 194 Home Box Office (HBO) 179, 184 Hope-Wallace, Philip 93, 95 human interest stories 105, 134, 174, 233 Hunt Report 167 I Object 88 I, Claudius 215 Idea Home Show, Olympia 69 ideology 22–23, 48, 132, 159, 160, 167 Independent 19, 136, 173, 193 Independent Television (ITV) 7, 37, 74, 75, 102, 107, 126, 148, 170, 171, 191, 193

265

Independent Television Authority (ITA) 74 Information Technology Advisory Panel (ITAP) 167 Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) 165 intellectuals 20, 31, 110–111 interactive services 168, 170 internet 8, 9, 12, 19, 20, 25, 32, 33–36, 39, 61, 63–64, 65, 165, 170, 172, 195, 198, 199, 201– 214, 217, 218, 221, 222, 224– 230, 237, 238 Intertextuality horizontal 24 vertical 4, 24 primary 5, 24, 207 secondary 5, 24, 206–207 tertiary 5, 25, 156 ITVdigital 170 James Bond film 104 James, Clive 7–8, 31, 32, 58, 106, 110, 111, 112–113, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 181, 236 Jamie Oliver’s School Dinners 145 Jenkins, Henry 198, 200, 213 Jewel in the Crown 194 Jolie, Angeline 152–153 journalistic discourse 28–29, 38, 57, 59, 75–77, 84–85, 94, 97, 102, 107, 119, 131–132, 140, 156, 158, 176, 231–234, 235 Kelly, David 183 Keynesianism 164 Knight, Peter 88–90 Knox, Collie 53, 55, 70, 84, 91, 141 Kretzmer, Herbert 81

266

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

Lambert, Rex 72 Law and Order 182 Lawson, Mark 78, 81, 87, 184, 236, 237 Lealand, Geoffrey 112 Leavis, Frank Raymond 46–49, 103 Leavis, Queenie Doroth 46–49, 103 leisure 50, 76, 129, 132, 137, 138, 140, 159, 172, 174, 176, 177, 235 LeMahieu, Dan L. 33, 45, 46–47, 49–50, 52 Lejeune, Caroline Alice 52 Lewis-Smith, Victor 31, 187–188, 200 Listener, The 20, 72, 76, 92, 93, 95 literary approach 13, 15, 53, 64–65, 84, 116, 220 tradition 6, 41, 110, 111, 114, 115–116, 183, 184 literary criticism 21, 45, 46, 48, 86 Little House on the Prairie, The 122, 125 Littlejohn, David 20 London Evening Standard 200 Long Long Walkabout, The 126 Look, Stranger 116, 117, 124 ‘Looking at TV’ 84 ‘Looking-In?’ 72 Lord Northcliffe 49–50 Love Thy Neighbour 124 Man Alive 124, 125 Margrave, Seton 140–141 Martians and Us, The 188 Martin’s Nest, The 87, 95 Mary-Tyler-Moore (MTM) 184 McArthur, Colin 6, 65, 82, 84, 234, 235

McDonald, Rónán 18, 33, 34 McGowan, Cathy 157–158 Media Studies 234 megatext 206 men of letters 43 Menus and Music 188 Merlin 216 mesh 35, 36, 199, 204–205, 215 meta criticism 82 metatext 207, 214, 226 micro-culture 7, 169 Microsoft 165 middle class 42, 43–44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 80, 95, 110, 133, 185 Mighty Boosh, The 212, 223 Millennium 212 Minder 219 Mirror in the Corner, The 83 Modern Review 174 Monitor 88, 93 Montagu, Ivor 52 Moore, Mary Tyler 149–150, 151 Morley, David 14 Morrow, Fiona 145 Moseley, Sydney 53 MTV 7, 169 multichannel television 61–63, 170– 171, 176 multimedia websites 206, 218, 219, 221, 225, 228 music hall 57, 138, 148 ‘must-see’ 62, 164, 177, 182 narrative image 15, 209 ‘narrowcasting’ 163, 169, 176 Naughton, John 110, 115, 122–123 Neale, Nigel 188 Near Video on Demand (NVoD) 170

INDEX neo-critic 6, 32, 57–59, 101, 102, 110–114, 116, 118, 119, 129, 164, 176, 177, 180, 236 New Criticism 46 Newman, Ernest 53 News Corporation 147, 192, 193, 225, 226 News of the World 192, 193 newspapers changes in style 102, 105–106, 135–136, 139, 174, 176, 233 changes in layout 50, 83, 105– 106, 133, 134, 135, 173 middlebrow 4, 27, 31, 56, 67, 68, 78, 87, 91, 93, 98, 105, 114, 119, 120, 123, 124, 127, 129, 135, 141, 156, 180 quality 19, 52, 68, 78, 87, 92, 97, 120, 127, 136, 146, 233 supplements 8, 105, 106, 131, 142, 158, 173, 233 tabloid 4, 19, 31, 62, 65, 94, 105–106 women’s pages niche audiences 7, 8, 62, 63, 161, 164, 172, 174–177, 182, 185, 189, 190, 195, 227 Nip/Tuck 182 nodes 35, 36, 199, 204–205, 207, 209 ‘nomads’ 214 Not the Nine O’Clock News 194 ‘Notes on Broadcasting’ 92 NYPD Blue 182 O’Sullivan, Tim 29 Observer 7, 84, 88, 92, 93, 106, 120, 123, 125, 178, 181 Ofcom 189 Office, The 199, 223

267

Ondigital 170 paparazzi 154 Parker, Derek 123, 124 Paterson, Peter 191 Petley, Julian 174, 181 Pilkington Report 74 Pitt, Brad 152 Play for Today 124 pleasure 14, 38, 57, 61, 121, 143, 147, 153, 155, 180, 187, 188, 190, 229 Poole, Michael 3, 13, 36, 37, 38, 53, 72, 81, 84, 98, 101, 107, 115, 118, 122, 147, 180, 231, 234– 236 post-structuralism 47, 48 Potter, Dennis 58, 81, 188, 199 Practical Criticism 46, 48 pre-image 24, 109, 112 Prepare to Meet Thy Boom 120 preview 3, 6, 20, 38, 62, 75, 77, 97, 101, 108, 124, 126, 127, 144– 146, 159, 175, 176, 191, 192, 194, 222, 226–227, 233, 237 previewer 126 Prime Suspect 189 Prince-White, F.G. 69 Professionals, The 199 programme listings 6, 31, 61–62, 72, 75, 93, 101, 102, 123–124, 126, 175, 191–192, 194, 218– 220, 226, 233 ‘prosumers’ 205 Public Relations (PR) 14, 18, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 209, 223, 224 Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) 167, 169, 234 public sphere

268

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

dominant 8, 18, 33, 35–36, 41– 44, 45, 64, 144, 160, 198, 202– 204, 208, 226, 227, 232, 235, 238 alternative 160 Public, Telephone and Telegraph (PTT) 165 Punch 111 Purbeck, Peter 72 Purser, Philip 6, 31, 32, 55, 56, 67, 68, 70, 71–72, 75–76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 111, 116, 121 Pygmalion 95 Quatermass 188–189 R.P.M.G. 87, 96 radio and TV licences 56, 74 Radio Times 72, 107, 198, 219, 220 Rambler 43 Ratcliffe, Michael 124, 125 Raynor, Jay 34, 64 reviewer 1, 20, 48, 52, 53, 54, 81, 84, 93, 97, 110, 114–115, 116, 119, 122, 125, 127, 145, 146, 156, 175, 176, 179, 180, 210, 211, 212 reviewing film 6, 67, 79 literature 6, 41, 42, 43, 67, 81, 82, 87, 130, 235 radio 6, 76 television 2–5, 41, 56, 59, 62, 79, 82, 106, 111, 122, 130, 145, 164, 176, 185, 191, 213, 233 theatre 6, 42, 43, 67, 79, 81, 82, 87, 130, 235 reviews length 91–94, 123–127 range of 62, 91, 112, 123–127, 145–146, 185, 211

Reynolds, Stanley 124 Rheingold, Howard 33, 202, 227 rhizome 35, 199, 204 Richards, Ivor Armstrong 46, Richardson, Maurice 81, 88, 89, 93, 125 rise of capitalism 42–43 Rosenthal, Jack 188 Royle Family, The 199 S4C 170 satellite television 17, 61–62, 147, 166–170, 172, 192–193 Scottish Daily Mail 81 ‘Screen Burn’ 1, 186, 191 Second City Firsts 126 Seinfeld 212 Self, Will 181 Sendall, Brian 32 Sex and the City 146, 156 sexual attitudes 103 Shameless 182 Shelly, Jim 32 Shergold, Adrian 184 ‘Shovelware’ 225 Siegel, Lee 34 Simpsons, The 203 Six Characters in Search of an Author 87, 88 Six Days of Justice 116, 126 Six Feet Under 178–179, 182 Sky 170, 191–192, 225 soft criticism 4, 7, 16, 32, 59–61, 137–144, 180, 236 news 7, 16, 19, 20, 25–26, 29, 38, 55, 62, 65, 75, 123, 132–137, 177, 208, 233, 234 Sopranos, The 37, 183 Spectator 43, 51, 52, 53

INDEX Spooks 199, 216 Starbucks 136 stars 15, 16, 49, 50, 51, 60, 63, 134, 136–138, 140–141, 146, 148, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156–158, 160, 184, 207, 208 Street, The 182 structuralism 47–48 Sun 7, 19, 94 Sunday People 76, 77, 141, 180 Sunday Times 51, 52, 53, 79, 80, 81, 181, 192, 226 ‘supra-text’ 219 Survivors 216 Sweeney, The 12, 219 symbiotic relationship 107, 108, 138, 139, 156 tabloid war 105–106 tabloidisation 136, 174 taste 5, 26, 43–44, 88, 90, 185, 232 Tatler, The 43, 51 technology 29, 55, 69, 128, 166– 167 ‘Teleview’ 73, 76–77, 92 television flows 24, 84, 108–109, 183, 206 Television Studies 21, 37, 65, 234, 236–237 text closed 113 excess 132, 147, 158, 159, 187– 188 open 96, 113, 143, 188, 190, 220, 236 primary 4, 24, 25, 38, 207 ‘producerly’ 113 secondary 4–5, 24–25, 28, 37– 38, 140, 159, 161, 195, 206–207, 217, 218

269

tertiary 5, 25, 28, 37, 60, 195, 200, 206, 217 ‘writerly’ 96, 113 Thackeray, William Makepeace 119 Thefutoncritic.com 210 Thick as Old Timber 93 Thumim, Nancy 13, 37, 75, 89 Times, The 19, 69, 71, 72, 76, 88, 92, 94, 111, 122, 123, 125, 129, 133, 136, 171, 173, 181, 192, 193, 200, 226 Tracey, Michael 169 Turner Television 166 TV Times 107 Tvfrog.com 211 ‘TViewpoint’ 77 TVtome.com 210 tweet 218, 225 Tynan, Kenneth 93 Usher, Shaun 6, 119, 124, 126 VHS 61, 62, 102, 108–109 Video on Demand (VoD) 170 viral stories 224, 228 Walker, J. Stubbs 55, 69 Wapping dispute 171, 173, 193 War and Peace 83 Warren, C. Henry 53 Waterhouse, Robert 93, 123 Waterman, Dennis 219 weekly television guides 191, 194 Wellek, Rene 47 Whedon, Joss 183 Wiggin, Maurice 31, 79, 80, 89 Williams, Raymond 20, 26, 32, 237 Woolf, Virginia 52 World Film News and Television Progress 76

270

TV CRITICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

World Wide Web (WWW) 33, 195 Worsley, Terence Cuthbert 31, 56– 57, 67, 79, 80–81, 86, 90, 94

Write, Macer 52 You 173–174