Real Talk with Dillon Mawe, a new age in blogicism

Television, the one thing pretty much everyone in the last 50 years has in common. People my age and older have grown up with television shows ranging from Power Rangers to Charles in Charge to Scrubs, and we have always had “our shows”. I myself was a Boy Meets World kid, and not much has changed, I still love Tapanga. If you are wondering why you should read this blog, and not Perez Hilton’s. It is mostly because I feel like I can bring a fresh and entertaining approach to T.V. criticism. I am not trying to be famous for this. I just want to share my opinion, and interact with my fellow television audience. My goal is not to be condescending or aloof. Instead I’m just going to be me, Dillon Mawe.

I am not stupid, but I am certainly no genius either. I see myself as a pretty average American (aside from the good looks and pet penguin). That is why I consider everyone who uses this site as my peers. Just because I write a blog does not mean I know more than anyone else, I still have to watch The Office on Thursdays like everyone else. Brunsdon (1993) would call our relationship transparent, which means we are all just ordinary viewers acting accordingly. No one is held in higher standing than anyone else. This is why I feel that reader’s comments will be especially helpful and almost necessary in making this blog work. O’Donnell (2007) categorizes criticism as both subjective, and persuasive. My opinion is just that, my opinion. Readers are allowed to think what they want to and I have no problem with that. Criticism is also persuasive; I want to take advantage of this through my opinion. Since this is my first post I obviously lack credibility, and I have no references either. I just trust that my opinion is a good one, one that other people will someday trust. If I can persuade you to trust me, we can keep excellent shows like Dexter, and The Office on the air forever. Who knows, if I would have started half a decade ago, we may have been able to save Arrested Development.
Sillars and Gronbeck (2001) state that “A critical argument is a statement plus a reason that justifies thinking that that statement in true.(6)” One cannot write solid criticism without evidence for why they feel the way they do. If I just listed names of shows with a star rating under them, but gave no reasons for why a particular show earned its’ stars, people would not be interested. I plan on giving star earnings, but not without listing the reasons why a program has earned them. I want to engage my audience and have them interpret the evidence for themselves too. While I want them to respect and acknowledge my opinion, I do not want to be a shepherd. I just would not cut it in the sheep-farming game. As I said earlier, interaction with my fellow audience is the key to making this blog work. So if people never bother to think for themselves our interaction will be pretty dull.

Lastly, I am genuinely excited for this to begin. As we start the information sharing process I urge people to say what they want to say. We are all entitled to our own opinions so let them be heard. Everyone has guilty pleasures; it is a lot more fun for everyone if we just embrace them. I hope that people do find me fresh and unique, and together we can create a lively dialogue and help educate each other on something that we are all experts in. T.V.

References

Brunsdon, C. (1993). Identity in feminist television criticism. Media, Culture and Society, 15: 309-320.
O’Donnell, V. (2007). Television Criticism. New York: Sage.
Sillars, M. O. and Gronbeck, B. E. (2001). Communication Criticism: Rhetoric, Social Codes, Cultural Studies. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.