Watching TV

With David Edelstein gone, TV-critic Troy Patterson is shaping up to be Slate's most consistently fascinating entertainment writer. TV critics tend to focus on dramas and sitcoms, but Patterson has set himself apart by writing brilliant dissections of guilty pleasure gimmick television--the ephemeral waste of what passes for reality and gamesmanship on television. It would be easy for him to simply run through each show's faults, or line them up and knock them down with obvious punchlines. But Patterson gives the shows, if not respect, then careful consideration, allowing each to suggest something about the shallowest fringes of pop culture. He doesn't make the usual culture crit mistake of railing about the decline of Western civilization either, and is willing to recognize when (and how) a show is effective, even if it's not great. His work is smart, narrowly-focused, to the point, and balanced.

Just look at his two most recent articles, one on the new reality show about wannabe rock journalists competing for a spot on the Rolling Stone roster, the other about two new dating shows. He gives the Stone-show credit where it's due, but doesn't hesitate to examine and poke fun at the show's cast of young wannabes, managing to play the "I'm an actual journalist" card fairly lightly, considering:

A bit later, braying a summer's-long farewell to her hometown from a concert stage, [one contestant] pledges sincerely to represent up in New York City. "We gotta make money, dawg. We gotta make money. That's what I'm talkin' 'bout." What is she talking about? Has the dear thing confused print journalism with one of those lucrative professions—bagging groceries, say?

His piece on dating shows is even better, capturing rather succinctly the distinct awfulness of two new shows that offer their contestants a chance to compete for a hot date, but at the risk of humiliation. And again, even though he is clearly disturbed by what he sees, he's honest about its appeal, saying about one of the shows, "As pure nonsense goes, Gay, Straight or Taken? is briskly paced, invitingly shot, and painfully contemporary—a Love Connection for the conspiracy-minded." This, I think, is what really sets him apart from other TV critics--the ability to both seriously examine the cultural implications of the idiot box and simultaneously not require it to be anything more or other than what it is--shameless, shallow diversion.