Week 1: Slate articles

Although I do not read many articles from critics like Alan Sepinwall or Josh Levin, these two articles had an interesting view on what it means to write about television. In Levin’s first article, The TV Guide he asks if it is possible to be a rabid fan and a thoughtful reviewer at the same time. For example, Levin is trying to analyze where the line is where someone simply becomes a fan writing about a show like Lost or a critic writing about Lost.

To answer this, Levin states that for a week-to-week critic, being a fan is an occupational requirement. “You wouldn’t commit yourself to writing 24 weekly reviews of a series unless you liked it” (Murray). Meaning that it is definitely possible to be a fan of a show and a critic at the same time.

In the second article, Levin goes even further in depth as to say although it is true that you wouldn’t commit yourself to writing 24 weekly reviews of a series unless you liked it, but it is still worth pondering where to draw the line between writing about TV and cheerleading for it. In this article, Levin now asks although it is good to be a fan about a series you write about, when does it simply become endorsement for the show. For example, Levin remarks on Sepinwall’s intentions when he made a cameo appearance on Community, a show where Sepinwall reviewed each week. Sepinwall does make a statement saying that he does regret his Community cameo because of the blurring of the line it caused. It questioned his own standards as a critic of the show.

As for the two links I decided to follow, I chose to take a look at Levin’s link to Lost and Sepinwall’s deviation from the guidelines of the New York Time ethics policy. 

In the Lost article, it was about how there were many fans for example, Chadwick Matlin, the writer of this article that really enjoyed the show because of its storyline on redemption. He argues that the finale of the show during the sixth season fundamentally changed Lost’s thematic message very abruptly and without regard to style. I agree with Matlin’s statement here, while I was watching Lost I enjoyed the show because it was always about trying to better yourself and live on. In regards to the finale of Lost I also thought it was rather rushed. I certainly did not feel content with it.

In the second article I read, I followed it because of Levin’s remark that although Sepinwall is a fantastic critic, some of his behavior would not be kosher if he operated under the New York Times policy. This is probably due to the fact that New York Times has a strong image of being reliable because they maintain a neutral standpoint in their articles. Sepinwall, on the other hand, broke his neutrality by making a cameo appearance on Community and by his questionable intentions when writing about Chuck. Was Sepingwall writing just to please his audience of Chuck?

While looking through the comments of both articles, there has been some conversation in both of them. But from what I read I enjoyed what Miles McNutt was saying in regards to Sepinwall's coverage of the show Chuck. McNutt simply states that he does not think that Sepinwall has been tainted as a critic or that some of his objectivity has been tarnished. Instead, McNutt states that Sepinway and himself simply do not watch Chuck in the same way.