Two Articles

Both of these articles taught me about a man named Alan Sepinwall and how he revolutionized television criticism. The first article was about how Alan got his start and what he turned out to become. I learned how Alan changed the criticism world by having in-depth weekly reviews of a show he followed rather than watching a few episodes of a series and creating a short review for it that became irrelevant quickly as the show series progressed. The other article presented the argument that this new style isn’t always better. The fact the reviewer follows the show and tends to appreciate what it is taints the unbiased opinion of the matter. Sometimes the reviewer may overlook the flaws of the show and only point out the highs of it in order to promote it. In Alan’s case, the argument over his efforts to save the series “Chuck” is brought up. He offered some critique to save the show and after the show took his advice, his reviews were positive and promotional to get more viewers. The article emphasized the line between appreciating a show while critique its flaws and simply promoting a show through praise and avoiding pointing out any flaws for it.

The first hyperlink I clicked on was the link taking me to the article on Sepinwall making a cameo appearance on the show “Community.” I was curious to see how it happened or why it happened. It seems the article it took me to was a review by Sepinwall himself after his appearance on the show. It turned out to be a weekly review of the show and his involvement with it. He also temporarily discussed an interview he held with Gillian Jacobs. The second link I clicked on was a link to Myles McNutt. I really wanted to know who this guy was after he started criticizing Levin’s criticism of Sepinwall. I became more interested after seeing that Mcnutt continued the argument in the comment section of Levin’s response article to it. The link just led to Mcnutt’s original criticism review of Levin. From what I got from the article, I’m assuming McNutt is some type of critic as well and was using this article to point out to Levin that the questions and problems he points out in his article have been addressed many years ago and will always exist since there are no true answers or solutions to them.