This article was downloaded by:[Lotz, Amanda D.] On: 25 January 2008 Access Details: [subscription number 789974097] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Popular Communication The International Journal of Media and Culture Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653693 On "Television Criticism": The Pursuit of the Critical Examination of a Popular Art Amanda D. Lotz a a University of Michigan,

Online Publication Date: 01 January 2008 To cite this Article: Lotz, Amanda D. (2008) 'On "Television Criticism": The Pursuit of the Critical Examination of a Popular Art', Popular Communication, 6:1, 20 - 36 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/15405700701746509 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15405700701746509

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 Copyright Popular throughout television developed criticism make that States because and that not diverge who work acknowledging who of The DOI: ISSN Street, artistic U.S. decades, years article organization establishment the and production production. sociological “Television Correspondence diminish On 10.1080/15405700701746509 the 1540-5702 tend reach job might write Ann and cursory Communication historical function the © artistic television from of as and in draws T to Arbor, critics. role “Television criticism. aylor about thousands its for challenges and deride U.S. well other separate print the mission despite that simultaneous recommendations Those of criticism” & other frameworks a in potential MI from development their / television of under should F as television three-week The importance 1540-5710 the , rancis traditions, television countering 6 is of 48103, : the interviews 20–36, This who a forms television commonly these norms the daily literary, of range Group, be of rich titles Television Examination occupies writing USA. and addressed differentiation online write those 2008 statement history, motivations early through for that participant LLC of commercial and which of of programs networks’ accomplishments such and with E-mail: Criticism”: art, criticism general journalistic daily critic, aesthetic status called do about of at literature to an relevance Critics and with Amanda as makes critics once viewing. far Amanda which University may [email protected] columns uncertain defined of observation television a for audiences more television many efforts of perhaps typically mandate. popular in predominantly an Association characteristics seem who that it their the television critics’ D. understanding artistic difficult of Their D. than about other Lotz, of examined here television to place have their of exceedingly of “popular” the writing Lotz, critic, control The of fail on—in critics Hundreds television announce a roles Michigan Assistant writing as and television cultural least written the criticism work. relative to (TCA), Popular to those commercial Ph.D. utilize TCA the commercial writer, have about critic, embrace consideration or critical Pursuit differs most or Professor, the differs work about powerful newspaper critics, to obvious of press are what which “commercial” in play been television the the role, cases—a journalists other the or assessments often substantially of the the considerably scholarly tour. an is outlets form. editor Art University United studied has critics although purpose, form. on critical to medium complexity important of cultural dismissed of and served some, have television daily This its in and the in throughout States, Intellectual relative attributes magazine insights of last of which traditions television’s varied these and for article basis, Michigan, from as produce engagement. particularly role from television. Critical 25 as including that the a importance each they years. to variances insubstantial in significantly significant and other does the examines past rather the journalists transpires, and cultural cultural traditions 303 columns initial write, night theories work United indeed The two forms the the Wilton those than The do or of of Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 McGuire– Ft. Christian understanding—required of the of popular way that In Morning in Guide interviews participant document or features these attributes more pursue large widely held medium circumscribed developing critics precipice and in require traditions role circuit examine production some some the 1 As “high industrial the Lauderdale Every critical proposes there and , to to specialized publications Dusty audiences. in United of and cases their medium pervasive News a expectations Albany Science categorize discussion ways, function by effort with the the art” cultural distinct of of exists of the with Saunders– observation and traditions the a has , no work, a television, case contents literature, measures. David Sun-Sentinel more has that criticism—to a States, history Times-Union Monitor by fourth. this required means cultural circulation many complicated that such been venues In production. of theoretical of and the three as may Bianculli– of paper sophisticated Rocky much television addition, made other make of most , of and a of the specific of CAN of R The reliance perceived diminish , considerably art, thing . of In the and providing distinctive other common popular Mountain , D Charlie their the a begins medium, to of scholarship Rob . write the critical of addition article New particular it Heldenfels– verify adopt, and publications THERE institutional critics. framework. dual the Consequently, on as cultural difficult the forms criticism Owen– columns July attributes York McCollum– unverifiable for television the more from the explanation News U.S. writing as to enumerates status publications traditions, some but its phases 1 2003 recollections what to Pittsburgh Daily vastly relevance other of circumscribe Akron BE , intellectual what goods. content, about television Diane recently, to not conventional artistic as with of as sort in The would “TELEVISION San Television that structures News assert personal forms it Beacon characterize criticism. accept influential may the which a Werts– this this might little of television Existing of Post-Gazette Jose primarily analysis , the of factors and and criticism. Eric that medium be film, article their public individuals, that be of criticism, criticism, Journal New training memories. Mercury a nation’s the attention critics considered be its importance artistic Deggans– a of employ distinction academic Critics Although television role problematic York and understood that role activity scholarship due traces first power , this service. , critics commercial Noel they Scott The CRITICISM”? write, News Newsday in and but how in Critics distinguish criticism. this to since explores St. television history to Association television cultural ON Holston– the the culture, examine; questions its Pierce– , “popular” Petersburg they of elite occupy the “criticism” and paper of the that Kay criticism U.S. lack and “TELEVISION interviewed history the . television ubiquity as assumption on this role particularities and industry vocabulary negotiate of Deseret the remains McFadden– New an form the These beginning production. television there draws television recorded journalists contemporary an work extension critics of questions in that explored Times York audiences outlets, of (TCA) can important that the the is include: and News are particular television criticism, from we trade , Newsday salient the by CRITICISM” organizational Seattle in for Gloria be affect critic United is various engagement , that of is critics may press rather either the Matt most Their intermittently in of some, equated of contribute Ed a of nevertheless sources the common three-week , Goodale– resulted Times and the what role in within Bark– pursuit television television how be Tom industrial Rousch– but criticism States, tour accurate medium tends than features cultural cultural work critical that on norms , in history Dallas is these Jicha– with M they that and the the the the the The 21 ark by TV is, of in to to to is a Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 22 intellectual afforded forms. of broadcasting, (2002) they more art high or from assess vast type Assumptions while functioned the characteristics 1966–67; Studies disparate art scholarship. many artistic literature, features can technological “serve” mandate criticism purchase of a critical role. writing vast Peterson’s 2 A Television The the social (Shrum, forms, In circulation still and of art the share sizable recently another the of on LOTZ the array Despite critical identifies traditions activity accomplishment literature the often and be require art, field high heterogeneous these differs of a critical theories meaning effect Magnus, art, scholars assessed public. to book frame particular books, its 1996), of cultural recent Rather scholarly (1977) distinguishing features, of art focused criticism film film, create and other review of the fairly of object of from of that sociology as writing since status, warrants after film, (Bielby, this study, in popular certain These critics key (Baumann, music, and theater the in 1966–67; music, and than “production forms cultural we their significant ephemeral other music, modes writing on the for characteristics and, the the literature differences core dates DeWerth-Pallmeyer audience, some necessarily despite evaluated consider itself requirements or the calls and many developing origin criticism, columnists publication examinations and Moloney, such television “high (Levo, television, and at the cultural among forms. to of sociological have McGrath persists outside 2002). least operates allow to nature as the new advertising—are the assessments about of production other of art” television long the 1993), for fiction of recently culture” the origins high in must and significant industries and & content of criticism us In criticism a profession how of field as of (Lichty, structure of arts the an the medium. cultural under Ngo, the distribution, & addition (2003) to of the their work the and the and symphonic reach inherent Internet/popular traditions Nance, nature it case acknowledge of that critics of perspective. begun criticism objects that succeeds “mainstream.” each 2005). review. of Bourdieu’s low writing. literature conducted the of has meaningful communication because industry 1963; differences the enabled of a Even value to regarding contemporary distinguish of more medium art day considering and vaster 1966–67; been and possibilities broadcasting, the 2 of and artistic used differently music But function in Most and Mayeux, that and cultural their criticism of defining surveys (Janssen, culture) directly This significantly such norms its audiences (1993) that audience the perhaps separate fails to and thwarted the in worth early of Criticism criticism (Glynn writings Steinberg, work them unavoidability as study television of the the to television took crucially of capital practice once societies. within available feature television theories are “media 1969–1970; implicated better from 1997; days, its production—yet contemporary nature in more tends from from than to the different rarely & the particular was these differentiated in exists, understand of the afforded these attend television arts” Lounsbury, van of of 1974), previously the has conventional in to the significant, of typical criticism to art what Cultural of the critical television. from expected criticism focus the cultural cultural critics Rees, medium—as of in object constraints. 1950s the the and studies subject Rossman, foci performances the their Hesmondhalgh norms requirement the to surveys cultural work medium capability of on encompassed (including literature 1983, traditions these industries— through and the commercial of and contemporary 2005), from production production mentioned “high industries, traditional to (Kreiling, that television of analysis. function emerges medium of applied reach 1960s. 1987), forms, of ample These forms 1965; do often other what from those art” this and has the for its or of to a Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 critics. typical identifies culture. renewed consulting who arguably the are roles the identified—he illustrating out faceted Negus, theories studies critics. to television production, cation understandings in critics. such publications, Television tions academic (1998) 1981; significant other more 1973). 1966–67); Young, regional 3 4 include Another Unlike Fewer It Cultural smooth media awkwardly within “initiate, as is of sociological he critical of research Littlejohn, also These traces The research This 1997; that power this aesthetic broadly 1966–67), enumerates. attention perform receive television studies criticism. the economy firms, possible yet shifts all or and studies the running although way writing media role, of perspective traditions. now the Hesmondhalgh, studies assessments sociological aspects carry also diligently art typically roles and national varied positioned evident but in or identified to have payment to connections what 1976; value, methods produces has and to the systems scholarship, market usually Turow’s consider assessments of studies theorize surveys of out, Media some that the since predominantly This of medium those literature assessed production and Turow in newspapers, has Scher, emerged industrial or the broad acknowledges taken Turow the from researchers critics of description research scholarship oversight relative and at in external studies evaluate assessments often (1997). not still the of creation a the the late 2002; between delimits on and theories detailed 1974; industrial television the in attended which (that of the work identified a time enumerates effect from unexpected the 1990s operations—he machinations, different television’s nature research to producer based to does du mass Although nevertheless critical used “linking is is, and (Turow, Shelby, the of as of as the popular is increasing Gay common examination both the of when or and not to of the the cultural factors critics more criticism focus. textual media in circulation industrial particular as television understanding importance pin” account has importance this & the characteristics or understandable the “facilitator past “television as locations employing 1997). 1973; creative Pryke, Turow’s writing role. distributor broadened isolated model “beat” can to theories content,” and common relevant provide analysis excludes economy decade attention for written the Critics that object 4 medium be Rossman, more the of the 2002). More of that about “production enterprise. of of in derived role,” addresses taxonomy cultural to autonomy critics” certainly development textual an the of offers the to criticism of of such to “craft-services” occurred the comparable after which journalistic they to (du ON importantly, academic of 3 important Bourdieu and study circuit the work television critics’ about the Such the which understanding “TELEVISION certain 1975; Gay, tools as the perform from analysis) media, study; whose texts, revealing. and cultural agency role the of talent of of is models of (Rossman, at which 1960s, independence columns is that Hall, critics media tensions culture” journals Vincent, this or cultural the particularly contribution of critics of including to the and characteristic publications they columns while the agencies, Peterson, television might traditional industry than cross-media time and various production they (meal Janes, perhaps and facilitators Television the CRITICISM” as and are of from most rather production among assessments part power do or (Himmelstein, 1975; 1980). emergence theories write. be characteristic “production” appear members their the catering) Mackay, journalistic specialized and in law useful of to communi- the applied critics related criticism. fertilization criticism (Shelby, than work of popular cultural cultural Shelby, percep- can carried role Critics Turow Spigel power multi- critics firms, those daily drew and the are for 23 be of of of of in to & to to of Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 24 cultural they the is financially mirrored factors. this of status The that art have critics particularities of critics with editors or maintain of critics’ their discussion the television organization,” of tiated critics’ the valuable producers, many briefly the crucial readers, 5 power their artistic changes theoretical Although critics Media institutional networks media characterize history, role write bring those level varied mentioned of status LOTZ and to also proper roles, In readership production. television for theater studies readership. of perform to as to and and criticism about industry distributors, its of their autonomous they as of in insights their their the the play “the illustrating of studies with and they access and first contemporary of the by their are must performance is the writing evaluate, work degree television reviews readjustments contributes Bourdieu the U.S. also use an perceived conglomerates expectations their of responsible such are transitions phase, as can 5 publication power based juxtaposed DEVELOPMENT be Bourdieu. Alienating television important adopting of to of a from history. diverge beholden constantly cultural compromise and jobs from to alterations creative the media resources and (1984), those which on which in critic creators, other complicated legitimacy of more to in practices. primarily from Critics the the cultural defined for their of although industry their industries medium, particular role and with outlets who or to personnel industry spans has of the norms exhibiting the forms the initiating negotiated by disrupting THE consequently represent underscore the practices in job. complicated norm their examining read their changed work television one industries. theoretical the provided (Turow, by determining The and television’s OF also of UNITED of negotiations as Critics Bourdieu cultural they ways role them, often organization dependence various artistic and such of a TELEVISION consequent the networks the the serve result with the of might the throughout cover, in the insights 1997, other that shifts politics the readers focus programming, and industry also aesthetics journalism. relationships relationship suggests. and cultural Critics’ television STATES others criticism. to ephemeral, also industrial, of origins contribution their both those negotiate and distinguish perhaps individuals involved technological p. among can common of on be on in status. with the 22). considered involved throughout their micro-level mirror power, production, major order television enable yet for and CRITICISM and U.S. Changes Three critic evaluations Critics with the in overlooked common technological, whom independence The freedom shifting, sensibilities in their as critics into European to of and power the following phases and cultural or detailed as either in compares gain position facilitators distinct developments, 1960s, the power negotiate and history task disable its contrast the they while in autonomy. sources “new from to and compliance the roles sociology, history IN the of those of cultural and role production. work these later considerable the of phases with television television of Turow’s cultural the constantly television in critics industrial with from and role such with their their in beneficial such critics they previous response have whims in lead art their particularly the production Relationships sociocultural that of intermediaries” the and characterize the other audience as power write as forms. by by process television definition television as competence redefined audience criticism criticism Many critics those medium industry of payrolls article’s because varying renego- another of night’s part to to forms about other their with using The the the of of of of of to is Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 collections (Greenberg, volume Times published (Deutschmann, leading surmised publications editors). (a that critics columns weekly productions programs. as produced and on research of argues (2002) however, of which critics critical selection those tell newspaper the run distinguished at episodes, that 1946–1961), the 7 6 their Television Despite, Jack percentage the the For Numerous program, a of 79% narrative disappeared began story who time–specifically, published considerable theater provided were network emergence readership the asserts traditions. publication, Gould a concerns some This of of (or of of 15-volume television in advance was 1965; most Much what had readers or or CBS daily individual recently viewing, also dissertations this ( by as and Playhouse suggests the or criticism forms. perhaps provide the papers the to higher part, Jakes, was not ( executives 1958, early The as this of film, date earliest during once widely newspapers later function about writing of of audience In reviews supposed series a viewed have the did republications fluidity 1960; might the ( New way early the The television Most television addition, the cited to than readers because they information the have writers most Michael not of been of how this its columns syndicated era New 90 medium embargo Lasky, television of of York and this television ubiquitous date to of the replace explored of existed scholarship ) in see the ephemeral aired. of reprinted) significant conferring time and critics York be television and with television could Hazard, live industry or first of, program. policymakers the 1989; of the an disappeared 59% Times despite criticism Arlen the Times collections supports of and its the Although annual live a reviews the specials in coverage industry in newspapers, phase program exerted criticism to not circulation McConnell, writings inability (Arlen, these network with production status , criteria such , developing ( 1963). nature regulators reach vaudeville-style 2000). 1947–1963), programming The value examining the was use compendium reviews dating at consequently this business-finance, writers 1966, a was greater complicated of New perspectives as of attempted critics this era’s being the of a of way and of and to of on individual 1983; writing soon national thesis. from greater function top television impossible. this 1997; those thereby norms critic from the time major carefully Yorker industry viewers’ an as were integrated television of could influence Peiblow, 1923 as criticism. John medium, era to appropriate all of Gould, about and other at critics wrote it to than critics, (Spigel, pursued audience, make , television this variety to also may aired. relationship as gained positioning the 1966–1981). review mobilize Crosby regarded 1988 decision so of 1971; inability a 50,000 2002; era only The art ON television top real but tool than about, 7 republished criticism into bear the particularly television as Because in The took 1998). criticism. “TELEVISION from shows Talbert, the little criticism recently of live particularities language Powers, to 1989 viewers column estate, while the ( U.S. closer New employed the critics’ the makers columns twin to critics’ not of the them of the series viewing 6 (Prouty, An capture this in 1995). emphasizes thoughtful cultural ( culture, In it in have 1990; form Texaco a the York aid relative garden, goals critic resemblance national might was in meaningful Unlike 2000, 1958 in important work addition to evaluations as upon reviews based appeared two collections in the CRITICISM” 1989); of Slide, discuss television of Herald competitors likely audience. it–consequently to has but of of hierarchy its while use study many live Star 1950s, media to whom the or elect and commenting this been the assessments on 1987). The promotion) the to to other in difference anthology that needed education its extended is previous Theater Tribune even reported aid Spigel’s medium regional of New daily to because published published to writing editors the during (many of visual Variety Frank Frank many these other view their such arts, York and only the for 25 or to ) , Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 26 of interviews of The programming 1960s. columns previewing found work location attention. the of recommendation use ease. networks were the before Pastore battled beginning Critics critics characterized critical of manner instead resulted which the rates and and 1960s, and of The Second the symbiosis—networks television, The Critics’ regulatory coverage industry nature practice financing adjustments industry of networks transition that replaced Even distinctly in LOTZ series. to led The Americans CBS advent assessments, for even series first of in of from specialized could Phase more began indicated This in live to that of ability networks a which their if at became held the previewed and of the players number programming the and and that invited television and later (as of critics changing to the provide programs frequently arguably would sending from the initiated longest columns early because previewing the hearings then previous consequently would had industrial opposed to critics their critics’ in audiences more network’s publications. diminishing developed second had select were write the other of widely ABC 1970s. aid for creative shows preview goals writing could dominate and increased by years and decade established their wrote subdued in attend of era. series the discretion, unable and to of critics art critics’ norms phase the consented and general did purchased series Networks were critics’ decreasing and week-to-week specials provide programs, before criticism through extravagant its Congressional publish about the because staffs and tapes as to networks Although not to and for programming to of critics’ attention expanded by convinced the offering instead importance and sought attend the television allow preview the they writing, the its directly the and as critics home to or initially televisions closed-circuit assessments that basic popular mandate of next ideally well ambition. allow networks escalating late relevance anthologies) the recognized network-funded events assessed of to previewing recommendations the to opportunity videocassette consistency was with of 40 Subcommittee exploit to networks a anthologies and industrial as 1960s of profitability, criticism promotional forbade previewing norms, particular the critics years. publications in those shifted criticism aimed that access and such Shifts relented a necessity emphasis the to of decreased this screenings positive sought the engaged After enabling the allowed working until were once programs previewing, access practices medium. to results at to afforded to opportunity in recorder and promotional episode, for events preview production maximizing a celebrities (Steinberg, of such (Steinberg, achieving potential the initially 1974. the at continued more of of on this specials, way. Communications might in industry from least them critics viewing on television, medium nature series at to critics of as before routinized Further, audience technology content. Closed-circuit specialized the specials introduce and local These production, a the hesitant changes throughout to increase of and substantial superficial process; programming commercial to potential networks‘ 1974). of likewise to 1974). preview with workers critics transition before positive they became television attend circumscribe programming creative the the events that By in nightly to an in critics developed aired the NBC establishment aspirations the and audience development. Senator however, enable Frank on shows the ample distribution, with much affected that attention penetration appearance to established reviews screenings increasing likelihood were end the to teams potential, networks viewing, business changed to viewing enabled stations resisted critics’ greater filmed argues matter actual of of series aired. sense John their best that and and the the the the for or of to Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 Variety critique many to autographs press screed written junket at critic “laundry Networks tality, as gradually; creative Critics thirty characterized particular became aspects which reportage, were mythology cadre As Third to television Mike criticism of as recalled devote television events forces, criticize the enter Los those criticism—gave Exceptional A a confluence who also releases Duffy, result major television who Phase networks’ and deviated however, Angeles, atmosphere, such nine often a articles of in a the of that primarily personnel was money” reporter requirement shows became brought effectively the the criticism some and 1974 those the that during began even profession a papers. years of who as attended perceived as verbatim transition medium first dominant considerations largesse were journalists their the from of junkets, New journalists soon critics (which stations expense. characteristic expense began or careers or a his work-related interested adjustments earlier). way to in junkets “legitimate as a “cab not writer training eroded draperies the York, passed have more dinners small, as with that as reports (often report writing in on to followed for practices and exceptional. the dominance fare,” a as At the payments could those the was central to Deeb grown-up a and to London, which formalized and these television of columns this out roundtable romanticized at characteristics in attending of various at television. of in part along that about events, news a more and the the bring trained the trained stars’ the television general time, cash other took Variety relatively among task. the of networks expense several opportunity led Hawaii, each business post-Watergate beat” of television characteristic Chicago with of the locations networks about by and exception journalists’ homes critics critical This as professional reviewing in in these style to embargo his Various year networks critic calling many journalism for view production, the television, the critics short-lived the of happened of significant Arizona, contemporaries prepared in operations papers and writers because Tribune chats. refusal those arts—the traditions. the for and selected Les characterization of to as the to far of critics that and The truth), had standards of the preview in four paid Brown’s journalists’ assigned pursuit—or political late world In and their more of increasingly diversified for at accommodations, and newspaper he role norms. I Detroit critic emphasizing the lists social the the interviewed critics these tours papers who all of 1970s It the could the whom Las predecessors. opportunity of ON of extravagant may same attendees this programs of their often Gary in practice attention to commentary [1965] change. The the came annually Free early Vegas. journalism, “TELEVISION of send questions the that cover and tendency reporting highly be of at beyond time writing, journalist expenses the creation mirrored Deeb attended industry Press least more owned these the to them early recounted years, publication of and first television These veteran to contributed the to in commercial entertainment, sums asking artistic published A detailed Watergate for and in accurate flew out and talk about locations rather to 1980s events and of many breadth beat television (Waxman, norms (Watson, CRITICISM” the to 1980, trade new institutionalized reprint more for broader television than provided with investigations, approximately second a celebrities compromised also and in television than dry story of adopted critics, of criticism publication as recalls to to a developed of the necessary papers led as stars a industry, aesthetic occurred cleaning the scathing network junkets. 1985). stations cultural classify making writing writing similar phases of 1998). hospi- varied 1970s many critic fully who new that one and the for 27 by of to Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 28 executive in film questions. other the press and require allows The of Angeles, 10-day main controlled information had action, provided which of viewers and period television, The tour” of body, order criticism papers network subject writing more writing the annual a the the The The press work widespread write more TCA junkets industry press events. conventional and tour entertainment to established LOTZ presentation they network-controlled of began which the post-Watergate tour despite creation duties network about with junkets wrest while and tour multi-channel by as promotion introduces significantly vets unfavorable limited In junkets conference takes as tour could occurs subsequent on “television their The contrast, new was paying was ethical it into television with VALUE the control the whatever their a availability was of and or place practice collective as much control particularly also and budgets network a membership criticism breadth space in the the studio critics the venue certain events the own. for introspection, characterized January. atmosphere. Waxman the reviews culture contributed of television on in OF TCA to transition reporting” Television more relationships their that network (Lotz, critical over a the July junkets establishment the invitation. The and far of experience—where sponsors. THE characterized organization of negative topics and resulted begins their critics’ press significant professional precipice also more technologies Journalists their and formation without who list 2005). (1997) reviews journalism TCA writing brought is and as than to In Critics writing. led by and that lasts events television presenting akin review in often off-limits, Television attendance Importantly, inaugurating the the from to competition FOR to notes the fear the as enables of of of as for that to revise as nearly introspection networks contemporary about pay of Association, did “television atmosphere two considerable the from well. late such critics the or a junkets instead of journalists CONTEMPORARY the that preceded political their viewing. even not television material studio a a annual critics’ by 1970s, them tour three of critics TCA as Because the common network’s film subsequently they the the have sought travel among network the of after to attendance—an networks. into hosts criticism” merely the development press third critics resulted weeks, press about provided them, remote than even writing desire consequently recognized each incarnation the change asking critics expenses of current practice a to just phase conference events expect, reprisal formal that the critical tours though the day can foster I reporting to while control continue for in three The a has clear began a as in appearance characteristic increase particularly find pays incarnation the crucial of organized CRITICISM papers at to as the the the with of enabled press of and clout formation of many a important U.S. film can networks, connection come elimination a themselves national and for press to shorter, the “network third cutting potential than result to the even step tour ask in junkets organize television the to meals VCR use verbatim still to them smaller journalists. of the by phase tour, ensure probing known tough of in professionalism require and environment “critics” cable of of difference them impropriety approximately also the eroded junkets that and the such of of era” according to uninvited of junkets a no stay in of TCA. these directives collective transform collective cities questions transition criticism. access produced networks as network- provided the off question network 1977 internal popular softball of in “press as into Some many costs from U.S. new The Los that that that my of in to to in to a Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 evaded issue. at removing of industry decisions other particular or of informs assessment papers unanswered reporters that evening available television regularized case, a television and recounts to Waxman, and if returned to the to Rukeyser expenditures appearance some networks’ some papers continue mechanism they the sign cover, punish The Television Still, the NBC’s evasive other column of critics would network artistic critics, The tour trade are may significance waivers studios question–reportedly began their parties. the executives to stories makes to the networks for for industrial who his refused critics the network displeased critics expense corporate the the of executives. of will practice have space complicate questions, have nature press influence critical critics sense particularly a to network one-on-one impropriety critics critics executives) paying preceding also the threatening following vast specifying it discipline Television of ask reported had little been difficult to leaves also leadership simply of reports into conducts of film and of was range reported provides traditions allow communications, also tough with and been the from the press for interest the unable as attend The commercial the the illustrated critics January the tour. those creative in alter receiving formal have critics’ of network the critics’ taboo them for filled the than that so to his executives regarding the questions. relationship 1980s. the tour convention content. that networks an persistent critics. and cancel to executives film the in This that travel film network the working far July being critics norm in attend executive in subjects these they and collectivity in and evaluations direction creative tour funding comparison in power lack critics the more Many “journalists event angry organization which press The advertising 1981 and the its of informal banned wrote know attempted with of The days executive otherwise. and (and to a for among other of to and many formal competition sexuality other illustrates corporate critics dynamic. calls with tour. hotel participate session of he environment when of avoid their press little the smaller-market NBC perhaps more the in where and any a objected from journalistic with in Rukeyser’s allowed aspects access ensuring conversations cultural network’s the executive expenses and in critics access were leverage. sessions, readers Bud to column aspect questions, Critics conference abdicated, response extensively at of response executive the their the studio His assert networks may antagonistic) from each the in Rukeyser, staunchly to to expect that story limited access to industries; of of attempt a the continue are counterparts content. lead not studio what contexts. programming. forum but of network the session executive other functions tour, action the to papers, as ON remain subsequent and to interested may have environment responsible their throughout their and character these tour about to their critics networks, one recourse “TELEVISION poor networks then and executives. opposed failed, in as A-list The to came run” in a journalists. indicates emerges for writing, which continued The critic critics power a financed presence encounters meaningful express the pursuing for reviews. decision the will executive result writing organization example, (1997, stars in in in as readers July other available In “lukewarm executives recalled pick for which to the they for reports response Love, over in the of addition, of the and concern CRITICISM” from may In this by tour at shaping critics’ about day attending an the p. networks. Although makers a Although up having can following inform contrast, networks vice-president of counterpart each whether the Sydney the room 36). no subsequently answer practice, be each as to of in television’s late and many interrogate considered to film. critics definitive requested are about members networks networks a reviews” an attention flustered She tour creative nothing (in a civility other’s critics’ full 1970s, during —that at effort panel some NBC these often to most local each lack July also this and but the the 29 by an of in Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 in transformations new the complicated logical, the fourth to but The and the how describes criticism take in the evaluations efforts watches it programs; and 30 their without view sentiment production Critics Serving networks continue network argue could having [programming] the 1980, affect In TCA, many advent substantial production Tom its forms creation bad perception industrial the assessing afford that culture LOTZ phase to the potential are industrial regard are better expressed the practice TV norms to “based the Jicha effectively balance and industrial than Jicha the journalists of of not with very not express industrial on complex Readers is, of of of criticism generational cable California for that than adjustments factors, of of programs, made of only resulting already but criticism. of for an explained critics the on aware of and the community the with their this a television likely understanding I’m factors creative the and the using ambivalence buy TCA perspective with commercial with pay South cultural balance industry—as power have portend task such an CRITICISM California strained aspirations” always that the from influence cuisine to for critics Just a him industry transitions considerably open that and in from column Florida characterize development excellence been as they the writing tastes factors of relations. the the as in more “you surprised commercial the budgets factors mind,” also echoed provided meals, other mind about realities the of modifying television massive cuisine constantly through as executives, as need Sun New the of AFTER can’t continue extensive balance previously and opportunity a forms a as nevertheless. the critics negative the but The institutional shifted while by soapbox Sentinel (Waxman, critics by for York of the now of served by changes impose these program. many hotel arrangement, determinants industry how the exponential critical of U.S. target commercial THE an negotiate NBC consider to Bark coming suggest Newsday criticism. of but the , altered practice, web adjust awareness meals. meal good or by who other of television literature your NETWORK in audience. on 1998). also relationship a and norms conceded CBS previewing, TV and for how space both costs and TV Wednesday adjustments. critics’ that critics. the their own economic Guide with columnist Ed growth the a that newspaper despite viability, on viewers Most notes, is,” sentiment over of role started or we to with are Bark standards, distribution Thursday, Such role limit broader their role art. that only The a may critic of beyond the ERA among significantly, sentiment in “People Watergate, its the of processes Television critics, in and writing watch sentiments many leads and critics Noel explore into readers–a programming last the artistic be journalism that unlikely Matt this audience the constrain you’ve Dallas those but on critics decade, account critics clearly of Holston complain television of a acknowledged system way television that Rousch the variety personal success. still, conventional that the the critics most indicate it much reality Morning and precipice acknowledges got they pleasures to also is while differentiates circumscribe formation programs many in the explains enabled of difficult review a journalists of succinctly to networks, and assessing generally negotiate lot favorites continue different columns medium that cultural techno- look critics’ greater critics about shifts News they of and and the the by he of it, to at a Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 environment as programming by organize a value networks show extensive the it blocks 2000s, or and receives sent vocation on help the Research, about American critics enables on more review a available quently they in from the Even Too single three-network became “free” episodes 8 Readers Critics The programming and its television, This regular networks potential each to audiences Many used nascent because at Desperate diversified, network which still review. networks immersion on consequent the is has show viewers its an entails their package promotion where for to remain sums 2003). homes to their more daily same Channels, of average origins, emphasize too decreased reach of review audience determine that cable proliferation. neither a of column can six networks’ often find David program viewing development on own system, the flow Housewives primarily have to difficult taxed shows an received increasingly might while new in create viewers heightened programs. promotion channels easily “promotion” television that of important will now the networks. Bianculli, the of topics the was shows. costs increased 20 Too the both saturation what regardless hours contain a content possesses programming the buzz–or capture well for audience FedEx an homogeneity broader limited outside read The in viewing programming Many collectively, and range critics aided on conducting average In to networks of part outside seek surpasses produced competition critics’ television As anywhere the of a dry write their they programming eventually word shipments need makes multi-channel their a of Shows of of the range most of them audiences and nor elsewhere. columns perception cleaning regular networks’ offer their of collective content of from about. medium press column of promotion to for of that an viewers critic critics’ 100 recently more but television of critic available mouth from of promote and television tour national unmanageable three three from viewing critics which network channels, a The of this bags). fragmented was space daily, and could the emphatically series take of for In one expanding ability imagination, era critics within and by networks additional networks era unbiased in expansion the manner activities the narrow now a of on (e.g., half-hour location. on shows producing online As contributes can overlooked criticism single possibly recommendations required has viewing, profuse early New to indicating added the around the it contribute no cut imprinting enhanced among in became promotional breadth enough expanded in access opinion per ON York broadcast culture longer 2000s, critic to broadcast as through and which even of The importance. sitcom, programming, this as using critics “TELEVISION keep critics’ adjunct day the mailing to programming Daily by an the topics can the in to creating watch increasingly of way that in many networks and to the during country. viewers the amount abreast this promotions time various to to proliferation general. content. to multitude networks, address. networks. preview columns the News efforts. promotional critics’ critics include authority. a voluminous because and of reassess environment every critics Even 12-hour during national “sweeps” buzz columns CRITICISM” , and the of newspapers (Nielsen Although began copies reported 8 direction. content By Until were In importance show Critics critics, programming programming necessary derived writing critics’ and of This unsupported as so for commercial the the miniseries, the of are offerings, discourse agents spending offerings of much the likely also are the they months, days content returned. growth criteria of that 1980s, conse- do Media whose 2003, about many focus more early This now new vast acts that not are for 31 he of of to to to Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 32 standard promoted, and to do conglomerate, audience, cable, exist programming standards to channel tively critic space specials they options makes provides to of local of e-mail critical vastly to also Just New types. was in the because generally networks. not which interact nine?” their 9 print a The A find Networks interest innovative as adjusted singular now generally paper. among Venues, regularly number reflected is basic LOTZ small increased also it the assessments multi-channel available print a columns some too ! that promotion easy the a acknowledged ! and series and Many must or ! with Internet daily-updated has of advertisements normally or it’s A valuable readership audiences: the circulation, view deviate they the local of has of for shows the expanded number assessments New on enabled readers. programs more consider going the the critics that activity critics channels has with a readers become average do the network, or has practices promote channels that reach Opportunities from need expanded to viewers not syndicated era technologically only superfluity to of fundamentally subscribes make critics The waste for acknowledged that “there analog indicating are of to is air have critics digest regard an the buzz has they of different reader. one their a criticism of target that they distribution not were issue of on few individual efforts conventional on network’s are and might introduced is programming the fourteen to programming and little less-regularly noted of vetted they did highly unlikely negative national clicks. no Others stand of located to columns readers critics audience the links viewers for digital not premium by to utility. not panning upside give changed programming they savvy degree that Criticism by be critics creating out and cover to slip viewers. noted must be to on new critic. reviews encounter to programming responsive programming primarily an of fewer 9 one receive among receive beyond communication critics’ to expensive aware into correspond Just with to or programming particular cable cable established and viewed also the challenges that trashing consequence new which The engaged What the being also negative given much television created those the on consider e-mail programming of they at the columns depending venues Web may vast their to above cable vast digital particularly interested promotion on are geographical interest, a more the tiers, were of the of be media for from own program programming new site television by reviews. offerings. a you opportunities on found abundance because their networks, for situation average and network of from tiers easily, and (thankfully) critics network. TV unconventional on networks forums many for publication the going increasing organization. readers on newspaper to readers. a or whether that Tattle valuable. around on the a variety amount Rather, significant were levels while no range who sister and of readers network’s If have to the for extent of longer the oblivion, their are that of (www.tvtattle.com) do, consequently programming. network, likely balance located the Variant the web the Discovery or of of they and network the those industries, of not no Many they located knock have the premium the readership The programming. distribution range nation, guarantees programming programming discrepancies longer Internet opportunities republication to been subscribe community but regional in as would series be their is advent access compara- excellent if it markets of part column beyond outside widely Health bound viewers which it down make cable topic have own One like and and of has an or of of to to a Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 Critic In the those yet more and communities, expanded have the difficult costs role papers structure relationships but ways and such the programming to when agenda-setters assertion. an and supplement with and filing subscribe. addition a coverage or are critics on sibility tool three addition Critic The The whom the opportunity first still republished cheap one-way proof much irreverent interest–a criticism (Adalian, a correspondence created of creative who stories to readers (www.futoncritic.com) who way to have growth of different generally expanded phase stories publication to use in in R. of he compete more the the of production By might expanding write they to the an to D. the chosen for this with sends new broader transmission available, or and sites relationship and opportunities seek 2007). and tone the the very in online regular on to off-line Heldenfels online) casual day’s their trends. perform style columns write the expanded accessible interactive post previously summer less their venues pundits. the readership such of in to particular regular and to Internet papers’ is era, readership readers’ writing costs blog events. engage providing characteristic of account eliminate, criticism, stories responses, Such and papers. while world circulation as not their writing. for specifically the critics Some Pop model affirmed 2006 on online inquiries he and for discussion the commentary. pursuits has print mentioned segment critical than position Television The arguably and and jobs rather September accessibility (and of also As Matters fan easy norm as critics TCA also and might news, contrary events creating traditionally Many editions. readership blogs Zap characteristic columns, newspapers in may many files it culture, of that than enhance when audiences and created the national for apparently of of press the for of also To (www.popmatters.com) be enhances information, make and links finally stories the Without continue the dedicated the future. 11, television. of interactive to FLOW berate television readers an helpful to It The he noted but the tour, provided Internet and the web audience. new 2001 to the (www.zaptoit.com) critics online collected the and is struggle characteristic share, blogs provide for sites even substantially factors of Heldenfels them. the columnists’ does curious (www.flowtv.org) using Pity venues (in creation many critics’ to and in for international print television a All reporting beyond conversation and discussion has feature blogs addition blog. response publish in the outside and (www.tvwithoutpity.com) critics given Few is e-mail One to at suggesting of the many critics stories. for enhanced opportunity criticism about limited individual TV reinvent of he these For typically ON is “old” newspapers those television commentary critic perspective sophisticated of the predicted increase critic blogs of as to of for cases one Tattle, to published “TELEVISION example, have of viewers’ sites Most their newspaper those distribution they these his lack correspondence include to medium in about of maintains television. the their the with has features offered throughout papers viewing those made feature an contribution also sites newspaper for blogs consider writing of their criticism. increased exclusive immediacy even been likely increasing content the while great Heldenfels critics such blogs more general expand a television such of insightful with a to commercial writing. CRITICISM” also mix a topic greater of a one a more of newspaper for more Such which have breaking immediacy, a more list akin their in to the online as the and time, Although columns has offer value publication), of a and newspapers. with the response and experiment addition as and The immediate number number of academic, television fora year identified criticism, influence to filed criticism explored financial Notably, informal role they columns range focused cultural readers readers readers access, critics’ that spaces of acces- Futon down base, have with as that two this and can the 33 of of of of to in to a Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 on 34 cultural creating further tance production of or television substantial icance Nonetheless, indicate ships noteworthy. network-controlled of those implications expressed has Commission they is forms. converge the field, of hegemony alteration necessitate and television I Coming by industry These critic read review, identify occurring. reassert newspapers, The the commercial word the medium. been online and are Andy and of between outside LOTZ transition sites TV In and solidifying and case contributions promotion and executives that replaced) of Changes engage online the as addition, industry, the concern granted criticism, the of changes Guide for a media role mouth. Wallenstein, detailed The also the circulating of Many the Distinctions new growth the of networks pushed period importance of networks the yet cultural a rise of and complicated television collectivity in away medium potentially status the channel phase that industries with U.S. more the the has or critics resulting some who serious and junket industry but in conglomerated in of license cultural to changing critics’ medium younger from in resulted on-demand online writers television artistic creative products. television and the it and came even of artistic evidence organizing of among featuring in hosted is into discussion critics conventional societies the of access from the coverage. establish critics will financial likely the holders began media industries facilitator to the and who critics in continues patterns critics’ a staffs network legitimacy the promotional media by usher The continued networks industry criticism space group and technology exists informational fragmented that who the media never offering television may Variety beat that seem to arrangements of monitoring a success The collective. the in critics in the continue role can feedback seek for has television, pursue critical that to era be consume in television knew corporations and subsequent net seeking decreasingly TCA since adapt newspaper changing since either the aided a critic critical intervene in have mutual another practices and televised exhibition. achieve the result the viewership the 1970s an practice. their products the to The such provides to digital the older loop, Brian the roles TCA substantially them. to era of and complicated and blur the and has creation benefit landscape maximize generational institutional final whole potential the industrial are sites consolidation, is in in seek necessary forum Square of competition concerned Internet as experienced been critics Lowry as video engaging Countless Many by tour which that cultural now and all injury some various have newspaper ownership and but no an of involved. and for bear conglomerated retiring recorders Off came altered as have all and of and use, the and means expansion the disparate helped circulated or valuable television to readjustments constantly , production shift with a promotional the important journalism reports a norms the Federal within The TCA cultural unpredictable however, cultural in the long public weekly to newspaper, and and of all the tool permanent in The to transforming reorganization Hollywood (DVRs) the outlets forecast as ends increase the aspects are examples in social in the being television and criticism that Communications increased trust. shifting production. a commercial beat, norms television opportunities publication ownership. and body could in broader is third opportunities, from characteristic anecdotes reinvigorates in and threaten jeopardy replaced particularly the of Television process discussion television, the or but all of Reporter diminish that phase relation- in the of a cultural cultural content demise secure. impor- signif- media media critics of 2006. many once- show how tour will The and and the the (if of of of in to Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 Frank, du du Brown, Deeb, De-Wirth-Pallmeyer, Bourdieu, Baumann, Arlen, Arlen, Peiblow, Hesmondhalgh, Janssen, Jakes, Himmelstein, Lotz, Littlejohn, Hazard, Greenberg, Gould, Glynn, Bielby, Bourdieu, Adalain, The Nielsen Mayeux, McGrath, McConnell, Magnus, Lichty, Levo, Lasky, Kreiling, Gay, Gay, London: Press. economy: nication University Poetics http://www.variety.com/articlel/VR1117968874.htm Bowling Poetics drama. Journal (pp. in era 11 Doctoral 25–36. New A. (1), a Y. G. F. M. M. R. K. of L. M. L. D. L. cultural Media 147–173). P., P. S. D. U. P., H. E. Z. York (1974, L. J. P. (2002). industry 57–61. L. P. J. J. J. (1989). P. W. S. , , (1965, D. A., Doctoral D. D., (1997). Hall, , D. of 30 24 R. (1966–67). (1966–67). (1993). (2005). (1960). (2007, Sage. (1997). (1966). Green (1971). & dissertation, (1984). B. 11 (Ed.). (1969–70). (2002). (1993). Cultural H. (1976). (1963, (1963). , , Popular Press. (1965). Times & Moloney, Research. R. (1), Pryke, 243–262. 275–297. D. Jr., production January S., (1981). Lounsbury, On August (1983). The transformation. New Reviewing (2002). (2002). State 100–114. Janes, The & July dissertation, Seventeen A The Living-room . Distinction: A Marketing, The Fall). D. television: (2000). Thoughts What Television—Its newspaper analysis study Nance, M. Film Considerations A comparative York: (2003). theatre On 9). view University. M., Three (2003). Ohio 4). 19). field The critical L., The (2002). Television Watching system. does TV the and of Medium & M. Mackay, Television from as television Praeger. of Out M. University. days cultural and the on critic Ngo, small critics—The The television When cultural Ohio A Television (2005). social TV a war cultural critic. critics Research (1966–67). television social television Cultural standards highway Journal with commercial at audience nature analysis . television B. as needs criticism: screen: critics State New H., a of Hollywood practice: industries Journal reviews a of hierarchy, criticism Q. critic From critique the West production: & cultural , critics: American and York: (2005). of University. economy: respected in 33 1: Negus, and hack critic criticism. imposed . of old, New Television counted. Management (1), New the REFERENCES the Essays come German function A life of Institutional 2000. the criticism. . of of Penguin pack. agent: prehistory. Sociology Thousand critics’ and 22–28. write in Broadcasting and Stated approaches Aesthetics (pp. K. York: the Michael evaluative of television. jury. with by Essays on An Chicago, (1997). In Highland: the The age judgment television Variety 1–20). about? of Esslin, four reviewing: television R. corner: vs. ! Nielsen introduction. relevance Books. Doctoral . Variety ! the New Studies ! Austin: constraints of Adler Oaks, nobody. Arlen: Television on leading Doing manifest of in media London: , Organizations Journal , statements IL: Doctoral Marowitz, pp. Leader art 11 television of Examining television Logic criticism. , Media , . & CA: (1), pp. Fitzroy taste 1966–81: 42 Syracuse, dissertation, University 104, and of A cultural arts D television Variety.com (5), critics: 1, search . , 3–8. on Sage. of functions. In blending, Quarterly Sage. . Carter 85 literature dissertation, 108. Research. (R. 52. critic. ON Broadcasting 1031–1055. critics’ and of P. (6) Dearborn. criticism: and Journal the , studies: Nice, A NY: du two 23 Film for “TELEVISION 54–56. Tynan. of (Eds.), video critics The study Wayne Television , Gay , . Texas discursive . 1–43. attention criteria. television Journal 53–60. Syracuse Trans). New in Retrieved of New The Mapping Indiana criticism of the Poetics Broadcasting & with Television , State Press. York: 7 Arlen’s story M Jersey United (4) Cambridge, Journal for . Critics of respect University change critics. Pryke 353–358. University. , University. . CRITICISM” July contemporary of critics’ Broadcasting 21 Columbia New Journal aesthetic States, the , as 525–543. Association of to , 20, and (Eds.), a Sony Masters 11 York: live Broadcasting cultural reviews MA: Press. (1) 2007, 1935–1980. authenticity of University standards. Walkman television 9–15. Praeger. Commu- Cultural Harvard , fiction. thesis, 14 in force from tour. (1), 35 an . , Downloaded By: [Lotz, Amanda D.] At: 12:19 25 January 2008 Turow, Talbert, Slide, Scher, Rossman, Spigel, Shelby, Schrum, Steinberg, Shelby, Watson, Waxman, 36 Rossman, Prouty, Powers, Peterson, van van Vincent, Waxman, Young, Oklahoma. (pp. University Garland. Jovanovich. criticism. NY: Quarterly Rees, Rees, A. S. H. J. E. L. LOTZ M. M. 63–94). R. Longman. M. M. W. R. (Ed.). N. R. S. S. (1997). J. J. C. C. C. L. H. (1990). (1998). E. E. C. A. (1995). (1975). (1965). M., A. (1974, (1997, (1998, , J. Poetics (1974). (1966–67). J. (Ed.). Jr. Jr. 647–646, Press. (1980, (1985). (1987). (1987). (1977). (1983). London: Jr. (1973). (1966–67). Media The The Summer). June). October). (1996). The What Media (1989). , The 12 Winter). beast, Television How Selected The How 676 , making TV systems One Criticism Arnold. 397–417. compleat do Fade Fringe the production . Variety critic reviewers Patterns the reviewers a Spoon-fed medium: The literary The news: to radio eunuch, of in criticism black. role column: and and television society: evolution television a in Television and T reach of Two work of longevity fortune: actually V thirty news. American and the culture television elite. Is in Understanding critics, consensus becomes the television critic. it the yeas of reviews American influential? The review? . In television glass-eyed of critics popular Beverly of Journalism two television Television C. role criticism broadcast a 1923–1988: on critic: Geraghty views. masterpiece. and Journal of Journalism press. Hills, the criticism industries, Journal critics child: news . Four programs. value M Quarterly Review Journal criticism. Critical CA: etuchen, of & Television in commentary. The Broadcasting approaches. of of Review in D high Sage. On , strategies, Broadcasting . literary pp. of first the , Studies Journal Lusted the NJ: 11 Journal Broadcasting and 32–37. New , (2), fifteen in pp. threefold The popular words. the Today’s in 5–11. , (Eds.), York Doctoral 36–39. of and 9 of Scarecrow Mass 1980s volumes (2), , Broadcasting Broadcasting 19 power Times Poetics selection , arts 167–175. (4), The Speech 11 . Communication New dissertation, . (1), 401–411. of : Princeton, (2nd television Press. 1949-1977. , the 16 41–55. York: , practiced 1–6. , , , ed.). 17 series 275–294. 11 (3), Harcourt (1), NJ: University White studies . , 277–286. New Journalism 2 27–40. by , Princeton 66–75. literary Plains, York: Brace book of