Is shallow criticism hurting innovation in TV?

I’ve noticed a worrying trend in today’s media landscape — there is a tendency to sensationalise television criticism for clicks, rewarding shallow and reactionary opinions over thoughtful analysis. Not only are creators disappointed, but audiences are too. Hot takes and instant opinions are brilliant at driving views and engagement for press outlets, but creative, nuanced television deserves time to evolve and be truly understood before throwing your two-pence in.

Unnecessarily bad coverage for the sake of clickbait can clip the wings of fledgling shows and discourage creators from taking risks with new concepts. In a world of reduced budgets and quick cancellations, there needs to be a certain level of hype around a show (as well as those all important viewing figures) if it has any hope of being recommissioned. It’s like supporting a football team — we often feel compelled to fly the flag for the shows we love.

Adaptations are an art form, not TV fodder

This all became apparent after I recently watched, and loved, the new Channel 4 drama, Patience. The show, which is about a young autistic woman working in a police records office in York, faced harsh judgment from some quarters when it debuted in January. Patience experiences the world through her own unique perspective and can untangle tricky cases by seeing patterns in data that others miss.

Several critics were quick to dismiss Patience, accusing the show of being a ‘rip off’ of Astrid et Raphaëlle, a French show which is also available on Channel 4 via Walter Presents. Patience is an adaptation of Astrid, tailored to suit a British audience, and this information was always available. Yet, the press seemed to wield the comparison as a tool to dismiss the production, rather than look at how it was reinterpreting its source material  — failing to discuss how adaptation can be an art form in itself.

At first glance, this critique may seem like just another uninformed clickbait headline, but it’s actually a deeper reflection of how we engage with media today. The need for immediate judgments and quick opinions reflects society’s broader impatience with complexity, where content consumption is now at breakneck speed.

Two-fifths of UK viewers will wait for a show to end its run before starting to watch it, preferring to consume the content all at once, rather than as a show is released. This impatience influences both press coverage and audience perception, where a show’s early performance can dictate its future, sometimes unfairly. Having a reactionary mindset like this feeds into a cycle where shows are either celebrated or discarded, without giving them time to be fully appreciated.

A call for greater discussion around representation 

The second major failure of the press coverage was the negative response towards Patience’s portrayal of an autistic central character, with several articles focused on perceived inaccuracies in how autism was represented. The creators had taken active steps to ensure that neurodivergent voices were involved, and the lead actor, Ella Maisy Purvis, who has autism and ADHD, brought an authenticity to the role that was unfairly overlooked in the broader discussion.  

Narrow perceptions of what representation looks like don’t just harm the creators behind the show – they hinder the audience’s ability to interact with and learn from diverse experiences. Rather than recognising this as a progressive move for representation in television, many reviews seemed to rely on outdated assumptions about who gets to define an ‘accurate’ portrayal of autism.

There were some comparisons to another recent example of autism on screen; Dan Bird, a contestant who appeared on The Traitors this year, which was seen by some to be ‘more realistic’. But comparing a real person with a character in a show seems unfair. While some concerns may have been valid, the broader response from the press reflected a binary understanding of neurodivergence. The result was a missed opportunity for a deeper conversation about the evolving nature of representation in television.

It’s time for a shift towards thoughtful analysis

It’s disappointing that the articles I came across about Patience seemed to be based on a handful of tweets. Why is there such a rush to tear down new shows? This approach doesn’t just shortchange the work itself – it also shuts down meaningful discussions about art, representation, and entertainment.

When critics overlook the depth of a show like Patience, it sends a message to networks and creators that taking risks, whether in storytelling or representation, might not be worth it. If thoughtful projects are met with dismissive or shallow criticism, it discourages future innovation. With three-quarters of fans spending up to an hour researching what to watch, by viewing trailers or reading reviews online, there must be a large number of shows that don’t get the attention they deserve following a few scathing comments. 

The good news is that Patience has performed well for Channel 4 – Broadcast Magazine reported it had launched ‘strongly’, with the show being the channel’s first to pass 3 million on 7 day consolidated figures since 2022.  But for the media industry to truly support TV in a meaningful way, critics and journalists need to move past surface-level reactions. They should understand and acknowledge the artistic and cultural context of adaptations, appreciate diversity in representation, and encourage conversations that challenge audiences rather than reinforce stereotypes. Only then can television criticism evolve into something that serves both creators and viewers in a more meaningful way.