P1
Quality TV is a completely objective term, used by ‘TV scholars, critics and broadcast agency groups’ to describe TV content which they argue is “higher quality due to its subject matter, style, or content.”
American media scholar Robert Thompson defines quality television as having the following characteristics:
- Breaks the established rules of television and is like nothing that has come before.
- Produced by people of quality aesthetic ancestry, who have honed their skills in other areas, particularly film.
- Attracts a quality audience.
- Succeeds against the odds, after initial struggles.
- Has a large ensemble cast which allows for multiple plot lines.
- Has memory, referring back to previous episodes and seasons in the development of plot.
- Defies genre classification.
- Tends to be literary.
- Contains sharp social and cultural criticisms with cultural references and allusions to popular culture.
- Tends toward the controversial.
- Aspires toward realism.
- Recognised and appreciated by critics, with awards and critical acclaim.
While one of the characteristics is “defies genre classification”, it seems as though drama-based TV shows are the only genre related to as ‘quality tv’, at least by ‘TV scholars, critics and broadcast agency groups’. This may be due to the ‘serious tones’ that are seen in them compared to say a comedy TV show, which can be quickly interpreted as ‘cheap entertainment’, especially by ‘TV scholars’, who believe their opinion outweighs quality of entertainment.
As another one of Thompson’s characteristics of quality TV states, it is produced by people of quality aesthetic ancestry. This is an aspect I feel is also mostly found in dramatic TV shows. I feel like it’s quite uncommon for a comedy tv show to feature ‘quality’ actors, especially without becoming an apparent cash grab, maybe holding its foundations for a few episodes before falling short.
While some shows regarded as quality tv include The Sopranos and The Wire, which aren’t regarded as purely drama, they still contain elements making them crime-drama rather than just a purely crime show. Maybe it’s the need for a show to ‘move’ people that makes a show ‘quality TV’ in the ever superior eyes of media scholars.
All in all, I don’t know If i believe ‘quality tv’ is really a term I understand or believe in. I think it seems to be a chauvinistic term that media scholars can use in order to argue their tastes are more refined than ours. At the same time I do understand a difference between shows like The Sopranos are seen as higher quality than something like Jersey Shore, but at the end of the day if it’s entertaining what does it matter?
Disclaimer: I am not endorsing Jersey Shore as an entertaining program.
Sources
Thompson, Robert J., Television’s second golden age. Syracuse, N.Y. : Syracuse University Press, 1997
P2
The demand for content is often responded to with previously tried and tested formulas, as mentioned in Blog 1. I think there’s now less of a demand from the audience for new/engaging content, in place for something that is easily digestible and ‘mindless’ to watch – potentially due to the rise in multitasking while watching shows, as mobile phones, etc. steal our attention. This has given rise to reality TV and shows which copy the styles/themes of previous successes (e.g. Seinfeld and seemingly almost any comedy show focusing on a group in the last 20 years).
Hamish Stephen 