Last week, The New York Times dropped a bombshell of an article that has been reverberating through the country ever since. The article, while certainly controversial, was undeniably thought-provoking. So much so that I cannot seem to get it out of my head. No, it was not a report breaking down the latest midterm polling numbers. Instead, it was something far more contentious: “The 100 Best TV Shows of the 21st Century.”
I try to avoid reviewing movies and TV shows in this column. People have opinions about these things, and they are not afraid to share them.
About two years ago, I reviewed a movie that I found to be underrated and hilarious. I won’t even mention which movie out of fear that I may rekindle the fire that I started. I still hear about it.
It is no surprise, then, that this list has turned everyone and their mother into a television critic … including me.
The first thing that popped out to me upon examining the list was the placement of some of my personal all-time favorites. “House” (95), “Justified” (83), and what I consider to be the best show still currently airing, “Slow Horses” (63). After my initial shock faded, something occurred to me: Rather than being offended that they were ranked too low (too high? I never know which to say), I should probably be honored that they made the list at all. Just because I like something, doesn’t make it good. Seeing it on the list provides me with a certain sense of taste vindication.
The sheer variety of shows on this list is probably the most impressive part. When making a list like this, I would most certainly fall into the trap of compartmentalizing by genre. How does one even compare the greatness of “Band of Brothers,” “The Great British Baking Show,” “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” and “Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown”? The only thing those shows have in common, in my book, is that they are on TV. To even attempt to quantify a metric that would compare them is no small feat.
What is the measurement anyway? Writing? Acting? Rewatchability? All of the above? Did The New York Times simply feed everything into some mysterious algorithm? Or is this simply the opinion of a Times staffer who watches way too much TV?
The starkest realization I came to from this list is how many shows I have not seen. Of the 100 shows listed, I have only seen 44. And that is while using very loose criteria for the definition of “seen.” By no means have I watched all 44 from start to finish.
Is that number something to be proud of or ashamed of? I honestly don’t know.
One thing is for certain: gone are the days when Americans would all tune into the same three channels to watch the same six shows each week. That phenomenon belongs to the 20th century.
There is such a plethora of content on television that you can list 100 shows and still have people up in arms that something they considered “great,” or at least “among the best,” was left off the list.
As of this writing, the article had generated more than 5,500 comments on The New York Times website. Not to mention the hundreds of articles — including this one, I suppose — that have been written about the list. We may not all be watching the same shows anymore, but there is no doubt television is still a major part of American life.
So if you ever hear me complain that there is nothing good to watch, remind me that I still have 56 shows left on this list. And we are only a quarter of the way through the century. At this rate, by the year 2100, I’ll have to write a follow-up about the 400 best TV shows of the 21st century.
