Much more than others.
As a hard news journalist I've covered the insurance industry, the banking sector, did general hard news covering the beats of crime, court, politics and human tragedy (with more sad and horrible stories and images I will never forget).
And none of those come close to how people in South Africa's television industry often react to stories and what they would call "bad" news or "bad" reviews written by critics and journalists.
Personally and speaking for just myself, my aim has always been, and semains, to give credible, objective, real - sometimes opinionated - truth and the real facts and honest reviews about television in South Africa. We need more TV critics, and we need more TV critics doing that. It helps to make better television for those it's for: the viewer.
Because a lot of journalists in South Africa covering television (often as a sub part of being a broader entertainment journalist) and TV critics are very junior, don't know better and don't care to learn, simply don't read, care more about goodie bags and access to parties than actual journalism and reporting, they've by and large become merely extensions of South Africa's TV industry's PR machine - running those reams of press releases only when issued, and basically unchanged as issued.
What an almost crime when you dare to write something "ahead" of time. Is it any wonder South Africa's TV world can't cope when news is leaked ahead of the almightly press statement?
And woe to whoever dare trash a TV show or TV channel after another sad, bad and distasteful trash production makes it onto the air, followed by the jubilant self-congratulatory messages producers and cast write on each others' Facebook pages.
I wish more people working in television in South Africa had the mature, seeing-it-in-perspective viewpoint of someone like Aletta Alberts, the past few years the general manager of content at MultiChoice South Africa, and someone I have a lot of respect for. She's excellent; lives, breathes and knows television.
Over many years - having spoken at many, many events addressing TV critics and writers covering television as she worked for different places, Aletta Alberts would always conclude her speeches whether its a new show, new personality, new line-up or new channel launch, by saying: "Write what you want, but please just keep writing about us".
How astounding, outstanding, and a clear perspective. Why am I saying all of this?
Brian Lowry, writing for Variety, America's one daily trade publication (where they have several publications which include daily coverage of the TV industry; in South Africa we have ...) has a fascinating and very truthful reflection today about the role of the TV critic.
It's so important and so true - also for South Africa's TV industry and critics and people writing about this medium - that I'm republishing it below as it appears today in Variety, written by Brian Lowry:
At one point the conversation turned to advice for producers, and it was suggested they shouldn't take criticism of their programs personally. When confronted by an agent regarding why he was critical of a client's work, Roush said he responded the guy's crime was being "in television." In other words, you produce TV, and I review it. It's no more personal than a lion hunting a wildebeest. Just part of the food system.
Wise words. It's never personal, or at least shouldn't be. I've had producers and executives convinced I had vendettas against them, only to discover I don't when they put on a show I respond to favourably. In similar fashion, producers I've admired for years have put on programs I panned.
The New York Times magazine just featured an essay by Dwight Garner, in which he discussed criticism in the context of disappearing book-review sections. In the broad strokes, though, his piece -- and particularly this part of it -- could have easily applied to reviewing any form of the arts:
The sad truth about the book world is that it doesn’t need more yes-saying novelists and certainly no more yes-saying critics. We are drowning in them. What we need more of, now that newspaper book sections are shrinking and vanishing like glaciers, are excellent and authoritative and punishing critics -- perceptive enough to single out the voices that matter for legitimate praise, abusive enough to remind us that not everyone gets, or deserves, a gold star.
Two more small points on this. First, people often say a certain critic is "mean" or overly harsh. But without imposing some kind of standards positive reviews tend to be meaningless. There's nothing worse than finding out a critic loves your show or movie, and then reading his or her rave about something you think is completely awful.
Second, everyone's a critic in their own way (what could be more subjective?), and it's hilarious how people who are often most sensitive about negative appraisals of their own work, once drawn into conversation, can be positively brutal in assessing that of others.
Nobody sits down wanting to hate something. That said, in the modern age – where networks often send out multiple episodes of shows - it’s easier to become testy. Although the first couple of episodes of Scandal cemented my opinion, I confess to growing a trifle irritated ABC sent out all seven before the show made its debut, which felt more punishing than enlightening.
Admittedly, negative reviews can be more fun to write, though sometimes that amounts to rewarding oneself for having survived the screening process. Either way, think of critics as the Mob. It's not personal. It's strictly business.
If you want to read Brian Lowry's reflection in Variety, you will find it here.
