How Should You Watch The New Season Of 'Arrested Development?' However You Want

As the days ticked down towards this weekend's release of a new season of "Arrested Development" on Netflix, much of the conversation on my Twitter and Facebook feeds centered on the idea of binge vs. non-binge viewing of the show. All 15 episodes of the fourth season were being released at once, and for a show so beloved by fans that fact led to all sorts of viewing-related angst. Do you watch the entire season in one or two binge-heavy viewing blocks, or do you watch the episodes a couple at a time over the course of a week or two?

The only logical answer is simple. You watch "Arrested Development" in whatever fashion works best for you.

While that free-for-all approach works great for the average viewer, the chaos has made it tougher on those covering the shows. Now TV critics and other industry insiders worry about an audience's viewing habits because they are expected to be able to offer up cogent thoughts on the new season, even if it's dumped onto them at one time. And Netflix didn't make TV critics any happier about the process when they declined to make any of the episodes available for review ahead of time. Then there's the question of how you cover a show that pops up a full season at a time. Do you write one general piece about all of the episodes? Do you opt for the "I'm going to recap one episode a week" approach, even though the audience may be watching it in a different manner?

While some of the hand-wringing is fun to watch, it does point to one of the core problems of covering television in today's environment. With the variety of viewing platforms and release dates it's increasingly difficult to find a "one approach fits all" method of television criticism. As the traditional viewing audiences shatters into dozens of smaller, more nimble alternatives, you're not going to find an editorial approach that works for every viewer. And TV critics will increasingly make editorial decisions based on their personal viewing habits. There's not much difference between deciding that you won't write about most "unscripted" TV because it bores you and opting for reviewing episodes of "Arrested Development" as you get around to watching them. These editorial decisions reflect the viewing decisions of readers and  those readers will follow the critics who best reflect their sensibilities.

In fact, I would make the argument that this new season of "Arrested Development" was made less for immediate viewing than for people to discover long after the premiere date. While it's difficult to find a TV critic who has seen all or most of the previous seasons, it's doubtful that more than a small percentage of Netflix's 36 million worldwide subscribers have seen the show at all. Which makes the new season an interesting programming proposition. Yes, a lot of fans of the show are going to be watching the new episodes this week. But given the amount of publicity about the show, I suspect Netflix's internal numbers show a lot of interest in the previous seasons as people begin to do the ultimate catch-up marathon. And as those people do their catch-up, they'll continue to look for reviews and information on the episodes as they view them.

That's really the challenge for networks promoting television as well as the TV critics covering them. In a near on-demand viewing environment, can promotional and editorial activities continue to be based around some artificial schedule that best suits Hollywood and the press? For years, I've argued that the twice-a-year TCA gatherings are an anachronism. Not because TV critics don't matter and not because it isn't nice to have face-to-face access with talent. The TCA matters less because as the TV landscape changes, the gatherings are less timely and more focused on shows that happen to be premiering at those times of the year.

It's the flipside of the Netflix quandary, but it's also connected. How do you best service an audience that sees more of its TV diet on its own schedule?

I think the answer is that you cover it on your own schedule. You post interviews as they happen, even if the show doesn't air for two weeks. If you don't get to the entire season of "Arrested Development" for two weeks, then you write several shorter pieces about what you've seen so far. You worry less about being the "first" to write about a show and focus more on providing the most useful content. Yes, there is still plenty of TV that happens on a tight schedule and your coverage needs to reflect that. But just as the audience has the option to watch "Arrested Development" on its own schedule, critics should have the option of doing the same.

Otherwise, the result is what happened this weekend. A lot of quickly posted takes on an entire season, written by exhausted critics who just plowed through an entire season in one day. Other than ego and wanting to be first, how does that approach help with the critics or the readers?