It's been a nearly a year since I first wrote a post questioning Heather Havrilesky's usefulness as a TV columnist, during which I gave "I Like To Watch" a chance to improve or find its groove or something. Instead it remains annoying - narcissism, reverse snobbery (her uncritical love of reality TV seems largely about liking what she thinks others hate) and space filling self-referential schtick (she seems to write as much about writing the column as she writes about TV).

HH is terribly smug about her own wittiness, but her jokes reflect a limited range. Either she doesn't have all that much cultural knowledge to draw upon (pop or otherwise), or she can't be bothered because it's only TV. She often makes jokes about how she doesn't recognize references or know about the backgrounds of actors and writers. Compared to the CSI recaps, which draw upon a knowledge of science and pop culture, often in the same sentence, it comes off as thin gruel indeed.

Yes, HH is not TWoP and shouldn't be expected to match the site, but she is in a magazine which tries to get people to pay directly for content. So how about some pride and effort. Instead she often reads like Dave Barry making an excuse for not doing his homework, and a rehash of the flattest jokes on the TWoP boards. The overall attitude of the column seems to be that TV is primarily shallow and sloppy so it's okay if writing about it is as well. Which isn't as fun as it is pretentious. If HH can't be bothered to care about what she's writing about howabout handing the space over to a recapper who'd appreciate it?

HH is very witty in certain contexts, but not here.

I think they're mostly horrible.

I guess all the good reviewers gravitate towards movie but I feel most tv reviewers are second-rate. I think I've read quite a few tv reviewers on the internet and I find them elitist, bland and very unoriginal. They all seem to like the same shows and hate the same shows, almost as if they are all linked to a hive mind.

At least with the reviewers who cover movies you get some variety and you get some disagreements and differing opinions.

I guess this is symptomatic of the fact that most media outlets covering television are generally poorly run and not very organized.

I like Robert Bianco in USA Today. He does long form reviews and features, as well as a daily 'Critics Corner', and I generally find him informative, not too snobbish, but he does have standards and opinions and isn't afraid to express them. He can also be mildly funny. I don't always agree with him, but I generally appreciate where he's coming from.

I really like Lisa De Moraes's weekly chat on Friday at the Washington Post's web site. It's often very funny. Her columns are often quite good, too. Her job is to cover television rather than critique it, but she is also forthright about her opinions on the shows she covers.

Tom Shales is the critic at the Post, and his writing about television is outstanding. It's especially good when he writes a rave about a show I would not have otherwise watched; his "Epitafios" review is what got me to watch that terrific show in the first place.

I miss Rudy Martzke's "Sports on TV" columns in USA Today very badly.

So do I. Rudy was good at pointing out commentators' quotes and insights or broadcast techie info that I'd miss or didn't get a chance to see or hear.

I really don't like the TV critic who writes for the Chicago Sun-Times, Doug Elfman. I started to dislike him, when he pretty much stated that The Amazing Race had no entertainment value whatsover. His praising the quality of this year's Emmy's noms was the last straw as far as his opinion having any validity with me.

Here's are the qualities that my dream tv reviewer would have.

Versatile Viewer -- They should watch a wide variety of television, from The West Wing to Big Brother, and they shouldn't have that hint of elitism that affects so many tv reviewers.

Hit the Funnybone -- TV reviews should use humor and be fun/easy to read. Also I feel there's a fine line between snark and just being negative. You can make fun of a show but too many tv reviewers these days are just nasty to prove how much of a know-it-all they are. I feel it takes effort and skill to make a criticism funny while it's just lazy to just plainly trash a show.

Organize! -- Easy archive to re-read reviews/articles. This one is so simple yet is practiced so rarely. I guess this one is more a fault of the webmaster/designers but so frustrating nonthless.

Sense of the Moment -- Be humorous most of the time but get serious when the situation merits. If a show has a truely great, watershed episode, it should get a ton of credit and recognition.

Be different -- If two or more tv critics are writing something similar to what you're writing then you're doing something wrong. I'd like my tv reviewers to have some controversial/outside-the-box/non-mainstream opinions.

She's blogging daily about covering fall promo events in LA right now. It's HILARIOUS! I highly recommend checking it out on the Post's site.

Thanks, FutonPotato! I wondered why she wasn't chatting last Friday. You can link straight to the de Moraes coverage here.

Robert Bianco from USA Today has been my favorite reviewer for years. He's pretty on-target, and not afraid to mention when he feels a show is beginning a downward spiral. He'll also give a tepid pilot review but say that the show has a real chance to build if the network and viewers will give it a chance. I like his passion.

I also think Matt Roush from TV Guide is an excellent critic, who gives the reasons why he does, or does not, like a show or an actor.

I read a lot of newspaper reviewers, just for fun, but haven't found any that consistently do a good job, IMO.

for online I like TV Gal on Zap to It.

Being from the DC area, I love both Lisa De Moraes and Tom Shales as TV critics. During each season of American Idol, her column about it is subtitled "Watching it so you don't have to". Even though Tom Shales can be a little unreasonable in some of his reviews, he'll always have my love for his yearly reviews of the Kathy Lee Gifford Christmas specials. If you think some people on TWOP are snarky, Shales put us all to shame. It was so funny that it almost made me want to watch the Christmas special so I could understnad some of the jokes.

Yes, agree Tom Shales is great. There was a fun day last week where both Shales and the new TV reviewer for the New York Times, Virginia Hefferman (spelling?) filed articles on the same show --a new Wednesday series featuring short stories by Stephen King. Hefferman's was earnest and kind of blah blah, while Shales had done his homework and suggested King had plagarized one of the first stories. His article was not only better researched, something the Times prides itself on, but way better written.

I am not so into Lisa @ Washington Post. She seems more into gossip (at least on those online discussions) and those Washington women can really get their hate on. Lisa hates Katie Couric as much as Maureen Dowd hates Hilary.

Yikes, albaniantv, that's a really close comparison. And I can't stand Maureen Dowd; her columns are full of contempt, and I never feel like I've learned anything or gained any insight after reading them.

De Moraes really isn't all that different when I think about it. Can I still like her columns and chats because her barbs are funny and aimed at something as trivial as T.V.?

Oops, double post. Can I use this space anyway to state that I don't like Frank Rich either?

I am also a big fan of both Tom Shales and Lisa De Moraes at the Post. My favorite part of the Oscars, Emmys, Grammys, etc. are Tom Shales' reviews the next day. I still remember his line about Tom Hanks - who thinks that there must be an award for best award show acceptance speech.

Ok I have a favorite tv critic now, Adam Buckman of the NY Post. I agree with a lot of his opinions



And this;

I can't say he towers over everybody but I prefer Jay over Dave and I'm glad somebody spoke up against the majority opinion.

I think tv critics need to cut down on the nagging and just tell us if they like it or not. You can tell us you like it without becoming a cheerleader for a particular show.

And they need to be less judgemental, don't tell us Studio 60 is not watched by people because it might be "too smart" for the masses. That is extremely insulting.

I miss John Leonard on CBS Sunday Morning like crazy...sometimes, I'd have to dig for a thesaurus but some of his commentary was fantastic (his review of The X-Files movie is still fun and he did two great "TV of the times" for the Sunday Morning 15th and 20th anniversary shows. The guy they had one week from TV Guide was awful).

I like Tim Goodman of the SF Chronicle (esp his Bastard Machine blog).

Never have cared for Bianco but I like Matt Roush and Ken Tucker (glad he's back at EW). I wish Matt was on the TV Guide podcast instead of the cast of idiots who made me stop listening (we get it, Ausiello, you love Gilmore Girls. We got it 8 million years ago).

Heather H is gawdawful. Especially since Joyce Milliman, who used to be at Salon, was an actual critic.

I like de Mores's snippy style (but why was she so mad at poor Hugh Laurie, anyone got the scoop?) and Shales can be fun.

Bianculli is hit and miss.

Great place to catch everyone is tvtattle --great round up of coverage.

I totally agree - there certainly is nothing more irritating then someone's incessant cheerleading for a show you have no interest in.

Alan Sepinwall of the Newark (NJ) Star-Ledger always states his reasons for liking and not liking a show. His reviews are interesting and informative, he succinctly answers readers' questions, and he even has a blog. God, I sound like a reference letter.


Matt Rousch seems like a giant douchebag to me for some reason. Maybe it's the sweater.

Kristin Dos Santos of E! is basically a fangirl. Only her favorite shows get reviewed.

Entertainment Weekly's Dalton Ross is funny as hell.

Its a very childish thing but the Daily Mail in Britain has this woman who 'critiques' soap operas, Jackie something or other. I read her columns because a) I find them hilarious and b) my sister is fanatical about soap operas (I think they should be illegal because they rot the brain) and we have so little in common that its about the only way I have the slightest clue what she's interested in.

Anyway, Jackie talks about 'Eastenders' as if its 'King Lear' and 'Coronation Street' as if its 'Twelfth Night' and seems to feel that poor quality soap actors and writers who are on soaps for a reason - they're crap, are somehow hard-done-to because they didn't get any BAFTAs. We aren't talking about the collected works of George Bernard Shaw here, its cheap, quickly produced trash and get over yourself! Hilarious!