Why Isn't There a Roger Ebert of Television Criticism?

Since his death several days ago the Internet has been jammed with reminders of the influence of Roger Ebert. He was arguably the best known film critic and until his death he was perhaps the most influential. It's a testament to his reach that if you asked the casual film-goer to name a movie critic, Roger Ebert was the name you'd be most likely to hear. He was a creative force of nature and his opinions mattered. Not just to audiences but to the people making movies.

Hearing all of these accolades got me thinking about why hasn't there been a television critic that has influence, reach or credibility of Roger Ebert? There are certainly a lot of articulate, thoughtful and knowledgeable critics covering the small screen. But while TV fans can easily reel off the names of a few critics there hasn't been someone who has been able to transcend the limitations of the medium.

Here are a few of the reasons why I think that's the case and I'm interested in hearing your thoughts in the comment section below.

There's No National Forum For A TV Critic

The self-limiting factor of being a TV critic is that because you review shows from all sorts of networks, you're not going to have the ability to talk about them on television the way a movie critic can. No network wants someone hyping competing programs, so there isn't a possibility for a television critic to do the TV equivalent of the Siskel and Ebert PBS series. And even if you could do it somehow - and figure out a way to be as good as Ebert was on that show - the current fractured media landscape makes it very difficult to build an audience through a TV show in the same way a critic could in the 1980s.

And that national name recognition is important. In the days before the internet each town had its own TV critic and while there were a few critics working for trade publications or newsmagazines, no one had the audience necessary to become a pop culture icon. While the internet has brought every critic the chance for at least the potential of a national (or international) audience, its also increased the number of critics and the amount of background noise for TV fans. As a result, there is this tier of perhaps as many as fifty really solid TV critics, but any of them could be considered the "best known" depending on the week and the amount of recent buzz.

Unlike Most Movie And TV Critics, Roger Ebert Understood The Process

If you read Roger Ebert's reviews on a regular basis, you quickly realized that he had a deep understanding of not just the movies but of the movie business. He knew how films were made and that knowledge gave him the ability to look at a film and discern that a problem was the fault of an editor or cinematographer rather than just attributing it to the director. He was able to enjoy an actor's performance as much as any civilian, but he also understood the basics of acting and knew when someone was failing and why. These are traits that entirely too many TV (and movie) critics lack and it shows in their reviews. In television we're living in a showrunner-centric world right now and way too often the success or failure of a show is thrown entirely on their backs. It's not typical to read a review that discusses not just the quality of someone's acting but what they should have done to correct the problem. Maybe it's because the typical career path for critics in recent years has been to move from fan to freelancer to full-time critic. That path is all well-and-good but it doesn't provide the underpinning of knowledge that is needed to effectively dissect a show.

Roger Ebert Approached Each Film On Its Own Terms

I spent some time with both Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel when I was breaking into journalism back in the mid-1980s and each of them imparted me with advice that I use every day. Siskel once told me that as a critic you should fight the temptation to write about what the film should have been about or obsess on the way you wish the characters would have responded in an ideal world. Review the movie that's there, Siskel insisted. Not the movie you wish they would have made.

Roger Ebert's lesson was also a basic one but it's also one of the things that made him such a great critic. He approached each film on its own terms. If he was reviewing "Annie Hall," he examined it in the context of a Woody Allen movie and what his expectations were based on that history. The movie could be spectacular but if if didn't live up to its pedigree and the talent involved in making it, Ebert could be brutal.

But he also took the same approach when writing about a "B" or "C" movie like "Anaconda." He didn't write a review that argued the movie was okay but it wasn't as good as "Jaws." His starting point began with the parameters of the movie itself. How well did the film execute its vision? If it's a "C" movie, is it a well-made "C" movie? He could appreciate "Anaconda" as much as "Star Wars" because he was able to examine each film on its own terms.

You don't see a lot of examples of that approach with television critics. Everyone wants to tackle "Game of Thrones" or "Mad Men." They are prestigious projects with an obvious complexity that lends itself to writing weekly reviews of the show. But it's a lot less common to see a critic seriously tackle less ambitious shows on a regular basis. "NCIS" might still be the most-watched scripted series after ten years on the air. But there are plenty of critics who have never seriously written about the show. I can't help but think that if Roger Ebert had been a TV critic, he would have written about everything from "NCIS" and "Arrow" to the new BYUTV series "Granite Falls." He was a passionate consumer (and critic) of everything in the movie genre and that is a depth you don't often see in a TV critic.

The Limitations Of The Recap

Because TV shows are episodic and not stand-alone like a movie, an entire sub-genre of recap criticism has exploded since the birth of the Internet. I'm not going to argue about whether or not that is a good idea. But one consequence of the popularity of recaps is that it forces nearly every critic to devote a sizeable amount of time to writing them. If you're cranking out recaps of four or five shows a week (and that's a conservative number for a lot of critics), you just have less time to devote to lesser known shows and projects. You don't have the time to watch shows you'll never review, simply to help give you a context for what is going on in the industry. Writing recaps can be as much of a creative trap as a destination and the popularity of them helps shape the work flow of most TV critics.

These are just some of the factors that have helped prevent the breakout of a TV critic equivalent to Roger Ebert. But rather than writing another 1,000 words about it, I want to hear your thoughts in the comments section below. I'll answer some of the best feedback in a follow-up piece this Wednesday. And if you don't to comment publicly, feel free to share your thoughts with me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.