Despite my reputation, I really don’t delight in picking fights with people. My schedule is already so crowded that I barely have time for my long-established grudges. Much less adding any new running battles to my daily agenda.
But as this week has progressed, I have realized that it’s time to write about my TV critic buddies in the TV industry. Not so much because I want to. But because if there was ever an organization that needed a career intervention, it’s the Television Critics Association.
The TCA meets twice a year in the L.A. area to meet network execs and the stars of the shows. The original premise was a good one. The gatherings equalized the field for the critics by giving them all access to the stars and creative minds behind the TV shows they cover.
But while the television industry has undergone a seismic shift in recent years, most of the members of the TCA are still operating as if it’s 1987. They attend the twice-a-year gatherings, and use those panels as fodder for columns throughout the rest of the year. They complain about the hours they spend listening to presentations, joking that it’s all like some sort of "death march."
Perhaps it’s a reflection of the average age of a TCA member, but most of the participants aren’t exactly what could be described as "tech-savvy." Many of them have just gotten acquainted with blogging, and you’ll hear frequent admissions that they are barely comfortable with cellphones and iPods.
All of that is frightening given the drastic shift of the industry to delivery methods that don’t depend on a coaxial cable or satellite dish. Advertising money and creative energy is rapidly being focused online and in mobile, and the TCA members generally seem less than comfortable with that future.
The TCA member’s resistance to change may be why so many of them have been fighting for their jobs.
Newspaper TV critics are rapidly becoming a dying breed, in large part due to the fact that they seem less relevant to a younger audience. The critics aren’t reflecting the changes in the industry, they’re not writing frequently enough, or about a wide enough range of programming.
They are also ironically being hurt by the very premise of the TCA gatherings. Ten years ago, giving a TV Critic in Cleveland access to quotes from Steven Bochco was great for both the critic and his newspaper. The readers didn’t realize he had the same quotes as the critic from Des Moines or Birmingham. Most people only were able to read the local coverage.
But with the everyday use of the Internet, that lack of original coverage is noticeable both to readers and to the management at the respective newspapers. And when it’s time to make job cuts, many TVcritics are feeling the pain because there is a growing impression that the paper can now just get those Bochco quotes from a wire service.
All of which leads me to conclude that the TCA has its creative relevance to the television industry. While I understand why the critics love the TCA gatherings, I’m less convinced that the presentations make sense for the networks. The critics tend to write the most about shows which least need the coverage. Everyone wants to be there for the HBO panels, but the smaller cable networks and broadcasters get scant appreciation. Most networks would be better served by focusing their attention primarily on less traditional outlets that tend to write more frequently.
And there is some movement in that direction. The Sci Fi Network recently hosted a digital press tour in Vancouver, where they held panels and offered up extensive tours of the sets and productions of shows ranging from "Eureka" and "Battlestar Galactica" to the new "Flash Gordon." (Disclosure: AllYourTV.com was invited to attend the event). The success of that gathering has already motivated several other networks to consider similar events in the coming months.
Given all of the industry changes, you would expect the TCA to work hard to remain relevant to both readers and the industry. But they seem genetically incapable of doing so, adopting an odd arrogance for an organization whose members are frequently seen as less important to a newspapers success than the local home and garden editor.
The TCA’s membership still appears to be almost entirely composed of newspaper critics, or those who have some sort of connection to major industry players (Tribune’s Zap2it.com, MSNBC, etc). And the TCA hasn’t been especially open to applications from digital reporters and critics.
One notable example of this was Brian Stelter, who is best known for running the popular TV Cable News blog TVNewser. He’s influential enough to be an industry must-read, and a profile last November in the NY Times included raves from Brian Williams and CNN’s Jonathan Klein. And yet, according to the article, Stelter didn’t have much luck with his application to the TCA:
"Mr. Stelter’s relationship with the reporters who cover the industry is more strained. The Television Critics Association, an industry group, will not accept him as a member because he is a blogger. And there are some who feel his influence is out of proportion. "He kind of dominates the conversation in this business, just because he posts everything," said Michael Learmonth, a reporter for Variety, a trade publication."
I had a roughly similar experience when I applied for admission. I received a short email back the TCA membership coordinator, simply stating that I didn’t "qualify for membership" because I was a digital journalist. My attempts at getting any additional info were ignored, and I’m smart enough to know when I’m not wanted.
When I passed along my experience during a recent conversation with a network publicist, she laughed and asked me "Why do you even care? You don't need them. I’m not even sure WE need them."
And, that my friends, is exactly the point of this piece.
