Recently, Empire Magazine came out with a list of the 50 greatest TV shows of all time. Addicted as I am to lists of any kind, I immediately pored through the list with abandon, desperate to see someone else’s opinion and, of course, immediately judge it and pick apart its faults. I was disappointed to discover that the list was pretty good. It had only one outstanding flaw, and it’s a flaw I’ve noticed developing in a lot of evaluative lists: the bias towards recency.
Nine of the top 10 shows on Empire’s list are either still airing or ended in the last five years. And the whole list included 12 shows that haven’t finished their runs yet. How can we evaluate an incomplete work?
Okay, maybe “ER” and “The Simpsons” have been on long enough to judge the series, maybe. But what about number 30: “Dexter”? In two seasons, there have been 25 episodes. Who knows what else the show will do and if it will be any good.
Moreover, what about number 15: “Heroes”? Thirty-four episodes over two seasons. And while the first half of the first season was a sensation, the second half stagnated and offered only a handful of good episodes. The first season finale was nearly universally panned by fans. And the second season was a disaster, by show creator Tim Kring’s own admission. Exactly what merits are we judging these shows on?
But it’s not Empire’s fault, or at least it’s not exclusively their problem. It’s a general trend I’ve noticed in these kinds of evaluations. We tend to weight more heavily that which we have experienced, and the events of the past seem to dull with time. That’s why IMDB.com’s Top 250 has Citizen Kane at number 25, falling below Pulp Fiction, two of the Lord of the Rings movies, Raiders of the Lost Ark — even Fight Club.
And this bias towards recency does not limit itself to the world of television and film. Last season, sports broadcasters were falling all over themselves to call the Patriots the best team of all time, or debate whether Tom Brady was the best quarterback ever. And, in a twist of sweet irony, that “best team ever” didn’t even win the Super Bowl. What’s that they say about counting chickens?
Even political pundits fall victim to this kind of bias. George W. Bush is often called the worst president ever by those on the far left. But as bad as things may be, has Bush done a worse job than Herbert Hoover? What about James Buchanan, who did nothing as the nation was plunged into civil war?
Part of the blame might be due to our general linguistic penchant for hyperbole, but I think the biggest issue is our inability to contextualize old movies and TV shows. It is easy to see why “Scrubs” is a good show, because it’s so much better than anything else we see on TV these days. But watching “I Love Lucy” on DVD doesn’t convey what an amazing feat it was. “CSI” is exciting, but it is hard to remember how much that show, and all cop shows, owes to “Hill Street Blues” and “Dragnet.”
And in an important sense, let’s not forget that all TV shows build off the accomplishments of a previous show. Obviously comedy from the 1950s doesn’t translate too well, but from “The Honeymooners” to “Family Guy,” a fat, dumb guy and his quick-witted wife and their wacky neighbor will always be funny.
Patrick Thompson is a senior in the College and a former senior Guide editor. He can be reached at thompson@thehoya.com. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes appears every other Friday in The Guide.