An anonymous executive’s Hollywood Reporter piece on the various types of TV writers is getting praised on Twitter: “Hilarious”; “The funniest/most honest thing I’ve EVER read in THR”; and “OMG. This is pure brilliance. Mostly because it’s 1,000,000% true.” (There’s more reaction here.)
The exec puts TV writers in these groups:
THE ANGRY YOUNG BLOGGER: “Pissed off at having to attend [the TV Critics Association press tour] and write about something other than himself. Generally doesn’t watch television but has a few cool shows he likes.”
THE TWIT: “Spends the entire time tweeting back and forth with a few other like-minded tweeters, each working mightily to be the most clever and impress other tweeters.”
THE ASSASSIN: “Hates the business. … Views himself or herself as an investigative reporter dedicated to the destruction of the evil empires that run the world and provide an inadequate breakfast.
THE SNOB: “Always looking for the show with the smallest possible audience.”
THE WALKING DEAD: “They have no chance of getting laid at one of the parties and even less opportunity to drive off the premises in that new BMW they just saw pulling away from the hotel curb, driven by a writer they know is far less talented than they.”
THE DINOSAURS: “They once ruled the planet. …During their reign, they were unchallenged kings of the beat. Now the landscape they knew is gone.”
THE FEW, THE PROUD: “Then there are those who slog through the mire, keeping their heads just above the water line, doing the hard job covering the miles of promotional material, pseudo-events and actual entertainment news they think are important for people who like television.”
I asked a few critics to guess who wrote the piece. “My guess: Kim Kardashian,” emails Gail Shister. “Funny stuff. I’d like to think I’m an Emeritus member of the last category.”
I suspect Los Angeles Times TV writer Scott Collins has the right guy:
Based on skimming it, I’d say CBS PR honcho Gil Schwartz (aka “Stanley Bing“)? Sure reads like his style. In fact, I could swear he’s written something like this before.
UPDATE: Here’s the response from Chicago Tribune’s Phil Rosenthal:
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn the author was Gil Schwartz/Stanley Bing. He at least would have a good reason to have this run anonymously, as I can’t believe the Hollywood Reporter would come up with the usual fee his byline commands. On the other hand, there are plenty of people — including some critics — who could, would and occasionally have written something along the same lines without cover of anonymity.
I’ve asked Bing/Schwartz and Hollywood Reporter editor Janice Min for comment.