It was a long run, and more fun than any job is supposed to be. Over several decades at newspapers and magazines writing about media, I enjoyed a privileged view at a time of historic change, from movable type to streaming video.
Gutenberg and I were not classmates, exactly, but I did take a course in graphic arts in journalism school that included setting type. At my first job out of college, at a magazine in Washington, D.C., we wrote on manual typewriters and literally trimmed inches from stories with scissors as we glued columns of print to fit the space on the physical page.
Today, algorithms and apps have taken over for gluepots and lead type.
For Broadcasting in New York, I covered the introduction of the “time shifting machine” that was Sony’s Betamax, the DVR forerunner. As the Denver Post TV critic at a time of breathtaking change, I witnessed breakthrough programming. I was there when the casts of “Cosby,” “Roseanne,” “Friends,” the original “Twin Peaks” and “Mad Men” were introduced, when Matt Groening unveiled “The Simpsons” and when Colorado’s “South Park” boys first met the press in L.A. I puzzled over rudimentary attempts at streaming-buffering-streaming video.
I covered cable’s switch from old movie reruns to original program production, an era of staggering choices, and a truly golden age of drama.
Among the most amazing trends I witnessed on the TV beat was the proliferation of niches. Who knew cooking, tennis, sharks, sci-fi and Spanish telenovelas would have their own channels, or that more than one cable news network could be financially viable? Who knew we needed a comedy set in a hospice where caregivers tend to dying patients (“Getting On”)? Who knew we would fall in love with a tragedy about a chemistry teacher-turned-meth dealer (“Breaking Bad”)? If “Sex and the City” was second-wave feminism, “Girls” is third- or fourth-wave. There will be niches for still more.
The nature of TV criticism changed with the birth of TV recap culture, with dozens of sites offering instant and obsessive analysis of episodes, characters, story arcs and quotes.
The rise of streaming outlets, led by Netflix, made the idea of TV on demand, when and where we want it, a reality. Cord-cutting is on the rise, and no wonder.
The constant availability of news made the network evening newscasts less necessary, the anchors outmoded figureheads. Documentary and investigative heavy-lifting has migrated elsewhere (PBS’s “Frontline,” HBO).
The flood of “reality” TV ultimately made us even more cynical about how the TV sausage is made. The more despicable the characters, the higher the ratings; the higher the ratings, the more contrived “reality” filler turned up on the air, playing to the public’s worst instincts. The carnival freak show continues.
While there’s still a long way to go in terms of diversity on the air, the progress compared to 30 years ago is remarkable. Television’s role in changing attitudes should not be underestimated. Credit “Will & Grace” and “Ellen” with helping gays gain broad acceptance. Shows like “Black-ish,” “Jane the Virgin,” “Fresh Off the Boat” and “Modern Family” reflect the country’s demographics.
The amount of literate, thoughtful fare has risen steadily. Ken Burns’ “The Civil War,” David Simon’s “The Wire,” Aaron Sorkin’s “The West Wing” and Ryan Murphy’s ”The People vs. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story” stack up well against TV classics like Larry Gelbart’s “M*A*S*H,” Norman Lear’s “All in the Family” and the original “Roots.”
Show business, always a balance of art and commerce, leans toward the crass. But miraculous achievements do beam through, shaping the culture, reminding us who we are, and feeding optimism for the next big thing. I’ve managed to stay mostly optimistic.
I leave with thanks to the many editors, colleagues and readers who made it a pleasure.
