Dubious TV awards scored anew
We’re glad that other writers have now joined us in criticizing some schools and universities for the dubious TV awards that they have of late instituted to honor so-called or so-perceived “outstanding” performance on local TV.
More than 10 new school-based award groups have been formed, and their choices of shows and personalities to “reward” are sometimes so contradictory that they further mess up the already confused state of affairs in the TV industry.
More schools are riding the awards bandwagon not just to give viewers a voice, but also to benefit from the publicity and “face value” that come with stellar awardees visiting their institutions, and giving students and teachers a chance to rub elbows with grateful, grinning celebrities.
To TV people, all awards are welcome, because they rightly or wrongly attest to the “excellence” of their work—but what about objective standards of professionalism, creativity and responsible work?
If even mediocre practitioners win “awards” from colleges, which kankungan will we crawl out of?
To be sure, some TV awards for excellence are relatively credible, so it’s up to discerning viewers to single them out—and summarily reject the rest.
Standards
We urge schools currently dispensing dubious awards to stringently review their standards and do much better work, or stop handing out questionable citations, because they’re making the situation worse.
It would also help if they give awards not to individual hosts or TV “stars,” but to shows—because everyone involved in a truly outstanding program should be recognized and rewarded.
That would also go a long way in eliminating the “star mentality” that has made many TV awards subjective and suspect. Reward the work, not the “stellar” personality, and we’ll all be the better for it.
In addition, “voters” should be extensively and intensively trained before they can cast their ballots, so they can more judiciously recognize excellence, and not just go for popular luminaries, who currently have an edge over the better but lesser-known workers who actually do the best work.
One of the well-regarded TV awards in the ’70s, the CAT or Citizens’ Awards for Television, selected a board of judges that was trained for months by TV experts before they actually chose the winners. And they made it a point to meet once a month to discuss their findings for that period, so that they could come up with exceptionally collegial and informed decisions.
—How many of today’s TV awards groups do as much?
