The Critical Eye: Re-Viewing 1970S Television
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Communication Dissertations Department of Communication Winter 12-7-2012 The Critical Eye: Re-Viewing 1970s Television Karen C. Petruska PhD Georgia State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_diss Recommended Citation Petruska, Karen C. PhD, "The Critical Eye: Re-Viewing 1970s Television." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2012. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_diss/38 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Communication at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CRITICAL EYE: RE-VIEWING 1970S TELEVISION by KAREN PETRUSKA Under the Direction of Dr. Alisa Perren ABSTRACT In my dissertation entitled “The Critical Eye: Re-Viewing 1970s Television,” I argue that TV scholars would benefit greatly by engaging in a more nuanced consideration of the television critic’s industrial position as a key figure of negotiation. As such, critical discourse has often been taken for granted in scholarship without attention to how this discourse may obscure contradictions implicit within the TV industry and the critic’s own identity as both an insider and an outsider to the television business. My dissertation brings the critic to the fore, employing the critic as a lens through which I view television aesthetics, media policy, and technology. This study is grounded in the disciplines of television studies, media industries studies, new media studies, and cultural studies. Yet because the critic’s writing reflects the totality of television as an entertainment and public service medium, the significance of this study expands beyond disciplinary concerns to a reconsideration of the impact of television upon American culture. This project offers a history of the television critic during the 1970s, a decade in which the field of criticism professionalized and expanded dramatically. Methodologically, I am incorporating three approaches, including historical research of the 1970s television industry, textual analysis of critical writing, and interviews with critics working during that decade. I’ve identified the 1970s for a variety of reasons, including its parallels with today’s significant technological and industrial transformations. My central texts will be the industry trade publications, Variety and Broadcasting, and national daily newspapers including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Chicago Tribune. Viewing TV criticism as a profession, a historical source, and a site of scholarly analysis, this project offers a series of interventions, including a consideration of how critical writing may serve as a primary source for historians and how television studies has overlooked the significance of the critic as an object of analysis in his/her own right. INDEX WORDS: Television studies, Media industry studies, Cultural studies, Television criticism, Media history THE CRITICAL EYE: RE-VIEWING 1970S TELEVISION by KAREN PETRUSKA A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University 2012 Copyright by Karen Christine Petruska 2012 THE CRITICAL EYE: RE-VIEWING 1970S TELEVISION by KAREN PETRUSKA Committee Chair: Alisa Perren Committee: Ted Friedman Kathryn Fuller-Seeley Greg Smith Horace Newcomb Electronic Version Approved: Office of Graduate Studies College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University December 2012 iv DEDICATION For my father, who has been waiting a long time for me to become the next Dr. Petruska. And for my partner, who endured with grace and generosity all that it took for me to finish. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Coming to Georgia State was among the best decisions of my life. The program’s rigor challenged me, the support of the faculty encouraged me, and the friendship of my cohort sustained me. Among the faculty who helped shape this project and my identity as a scholar are Kathy Fuller-Seeley, Ted Friedman, Greg Smith, Angelo Restivo, Jennifer Barker, Mary Stuckey, and Alessandra Raengo. To them, I say thank you for having your door always open. Special thanks also to Horace Newcomb, who shared with me his vast experience, his contacts, and his conversation. Thanks also to Nedda Ahmed, world’s most helpful and fun librarian. My mentor, Alisa Perren, gave endlessly of her time and knowledge. She read everything I ever wrote while at Georgia State, and I always knew that her advice would make my work better. Without Alisa, I would not have identified the deep passion of my intellectual life—the study of television—and for that I am deeply grateful. Years from now, when fellow scholars read my work and spot evidence of my training under her, I’ll be proud to be known as “one of Alisa’s.” A number of critics and reporters writing in the 1970s or early 1980s were kind enough to talk with me, and their contributions to how I have conceived of the critic as an industrial figure have been immeasurable. Thanks to Howard Rosenberg, Tom Shales, Erik Mink, David Bianculli, Joe Flint, Lee Margulies, and Noel Holston. You were all incredibly generous with your time and with your memories. I hope I have reflected your work fairly—I’ve enjoyed seeing television through your eyes. My committee, Kathy, Greg, Ted, and Horace Newcomb worked with me throughout this process, helping me to refine my vision and to find the most important questions about how TV criticism matters to television scholarship. I am very grateful for their advice and encouragement. vi Countless friends have followed my progress through this project. Amanda spent hours discussing academia with me, and having her as a companion beyond our Master’s program has enriched my life. The Viz girls have been a reassuring cheering section, and my Big D understood like few others the struggle of finishing. Darcey was my grad school girlfriend—I will miss our nights with Grey’s Anatomy and Thai food (and wine). Christine Becker provided an invaluable research aid, without which this project would have been MUCH harder. Steve, Kris, and Drew were the best cohort I could imagine—always pacing me, always willing to talk shop, always happy to hang out. For my coffee shop buddies, Kris and Alessandra, you made work fun. Thanks for the hours you spent chatting over the tops of our macs. My path to an academic career has led me through St. Louis, Louisville, Chicago, Italy, Atlanta, and (soon) Boston. My parents have stood by me through all that change, all those moves including an adventure through the West Virginia mountains with a queen-sized bed (almost but not quite) falling off a minivan. They never stopped trusting that I knew what I was doing—even when I did not know myself what was next. I’ve lived an incredible life of education, art, and culture, and none of it would have been possible without them. Thanks to Mary for being my best friend, to Paul for being my kindred spirit, and to Brian for being my hero. I’m very lucky that you are my family. My new family, the Ayers, have welcomed me with open arms—my visits to Iowa have become a highlight of the summer and winter, and I look forward to the many visits to come. Macie and Cora, you give me joy—thanks for being my cuddle buddies. And to Drew, my partner in life, love, and learning, thank you for making dinner when I was working, for doing the routine when I was traveling, for formatting this dissertation when I needed to revise, and for introducing me to Hell’s Kitchen, the best anti- stress program on TV. Quite simply, I love our life together. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... x 1 INTRODUCTION: THE PASSING OF THE BATON: TELEVISION CRITICISM IN THE 1970S ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 TV Criticism as a Profession ..................................................................................... 4 1.2 TV Criticism as a (Historical) Source ..................................................................... 14 1.3 Critics in Context: Debates and a Cast of Characters ............................................ 19 1.4 TV Criticism as a Site .............................................................................................. 33 1.5 Chapter Descriptions ............................................................................................... 41 2 THE CRITIC’S PURVIEW: PROGRAM EVALUATION AND THE POPULAR ...... 45 2.1 A Program Saved by Critics: The Authenticity of The Waltons .............................. 53 2.2 Happy Days: The Program that Jumped the Shark and Built a Network ................ 70 2.3 Holocaust: Selling Products and Tragedy ............................................................... 84 2.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................