.jpg)
L 'practice of television criticism today is certainly much neutralized by the omnipresence of TV now in almost all the pages of newspapers. Appears in subtrack in the news, politics, life, culture and, of course, in the pages of the shows where they already often well above information on cinema, theater, musical events, which often takes more evidence televised event in itself.
D the result space of television criticism has been gradually eroded by the celebration of television and therefore marginalized on the edge of the paper, in contiguity with the drummers of the programs of the day. From the second part of the 90s, the importance of television critic has surely scaled than in previous decades. At its most remote of these is a figure in improvised editorial applied to half of limited artistic value, analysis, criteria methodologies and their critics or movie theater.
At the beginning of the 60 daily newspapers began to rely on signatures of the famous cinema and literature, the task of criticizing the television in the 80s and only the critical tool is refined and modeled on the means taken in question, making an analysis model that not only determine the good or the bad television production, but strives to integrate the television event in current social and cultural context in which it is produced. The next step is to clean the critics, experts on television, often with a university education and the typical look of a professor who has not faced a public readers, but students who listen to his lecture.
L in the terminal phase of television criticism, and analytical reflection of its function, is finally one in which we merely report the results of the previous day in terms of data Auditel. On the percentage share is divided in a comment you must give up their autonomy to be reasonable, a bit 'as one who judges the value of football clubs on the results of the ticket.
on N is difficult to establish the reasons for such a rapid eclipse of this type of journalism in relation to longevity, though with considerable loss of authority, the film criticism, music or literature that preceded it in time on the pages of newspapers. The television itself makes difficult the development of critical reflection on its styles and its production. The rule of the format has given approval impressive product, especially where competition between networks and publishers are not fought on the field of invention, but rather the repetition of successful programs with minimal changes in the package. Consequently, the analytical vein fades tedium of repetition and lose aggressiveness and verve, so the newspaper editorial choice to suppress it, whereas at that point more palatable to the reader more information about gossip speculation and controversy among small networks, managers and television personalities. In other cases the space for criticism of television land often turns into the intersection of subliminal messages, comprehensible only to insiders, the critic's personal passion or envy him or his publisher covertly representing the interests of which, when not becomes a powerful bargaining chip for small collaborazioncine occult hated the TV to play on their own or contract out to friends and relatives.
Q his is even more the case, one part for an ever more evident among large media groups, television and politics. On the other side of the high social meaning that today involves having to do with the "world of television" also led its most remote and peripheral. It is also very frequently by those who should only deal with criticism over casually to review actions or even promotion of television programs, thus betraying the natural vocation of his existence. It then collapsed for some time the vow of abstinence by the contamination of critical personnel with the target of their actions, this especially after the recent birth of a generation of writers of television variety shows former television critics and pundits of the former "bad teacher ". (written in 1999)
0 comments:
Post a Comment