Two articles in the space of a week – one on Time Out, one on The Guardian‘s web site – argue that TV is better than film, not just artistically but also because you don’t need to endure other people at the cinema.
What do you think? Do you prefer TV or would you rather watch a good movie? And are The Guardian and Time Out merely rebelling against modern cinema and are swayed by the lower quality of much of modern television? Would the argument have been any different if it had been held in the 70s or 80s?
-
I’m Rob Buckley, a journalist who writes for UK media magazines that most people have never heard of although you might have heard me on the podcast Lockdown Land or Radio 5 Live’s Saturday Edition or Afternoon Edition. I’ve edited Dreamwatch, Sprocket and Cambridge Film Festival Daily; been technical editor for TV producers magazine Televisual; reviewed films for the short-lived newspaper Cambridge Insider; written features for the even shorter-lived newspaper Soho Independent; and was regularly sarcastic about television on the blink-and-you-missed-it “web site for urban hedonists” The Tribe. Since going freelance, I've contributed to the likes of Broadcast, Total Content + Media, Action TV, Off The Telly, Action Network, TV Scoop and The Custard TV.
View all posts
