1.
“The Last Inappropriate Man on Television,” June 3–16
For the cover of New York’s annual “TV Issue,” Jessica Pressler profiled the Real Housewives host and executive producer Andy Cohen as lawsuits and accusations of harassment threaten to dethrone the King of Bravo. “Andy is more of a Housewives staple than the housewives are,” wrote writer and producer Kim Dahlgren in a since-deleted tweet. “Although I’ve heard people say the ‘golden age’ of Housewives is over, you wouldn’t know it by the frequency with which we still talk about it.” Many commenters debated Cohen, Bravo, and the state of reality television. “Andy wants it both ways,” wrote cg1327cg. “He wants to exploit the lives of his housewives, voyeuristic cameras everywhere, loving the hot mike scandals and the gotcha moments. When the inevitable explosions occur, he holds his hands up with the innocence of a child, and has no remorse or responsibility for creating an environment that requires salacious drama and extremism for these women to keep those Bravo checks coming.” hollerhither wrote, “Hey, Andy? You don’t get to decide what is or isn’t feminist … You knew exactly what Gloria Steinem would say when you brought her on. The Housewives etc., though featuring women, manage to center men and people who serve them and keep their secrets. Wives, ex-wives, mistresses — literally that’s the first identifier. Production is the male gaze. Entertaining as it can be.” “I don’t hate Andy Cohen,” wrote ucandothatontelevision. “I do hate — and am gobsmacked by — how he remains untouchable and impervious to critique for failing to perform his actual job duties while he wields power to embarrass, favorite, and materially affect the lives of his predominantly female talent base — on a network made lucrative on the backs of women and the vulnerability of their lives.” “The tone of this article is over-the-top fawning and flattering,” said esreverbrown, while pppppp countered that Cohen has “built a social and psychological pop cosmos that is so layered, durational, pathological, and spectacular that it has brought joy to millions, and fame and riches to the few who dare to step into the ring (and know how to leverage it). He’s devoted his life to it and he should be applauded and thanked, not attacked.”
2.
“The Love Machine”
Kathryn VanArendonk looked at Love Is Blind and its creator, Chris Coelen, who believes the show is more documentary than reality TV. Writer Colleen Kelly joked, “I devoured this story like I was alone with a hard-boiled egg and no one to watch me eat it.” Editor Mallika Sen wrote, “This had SO MANY of the logistical details I’d long sought.” Jm_la advised, “Chris, have your couples do couples therapy pre-wedding as part of the process. All of them desperately need it. Your show leans more towards exploitation than genuine love experiment and I think this could shift it in the right direction.” “Love Is Blind aka Stanford Prison Experiment,” wrote navpg21, who suggested Coelen conduct an ethics review “to determine if the conditions of the experiment are detrimental to the mental health of their subjects.” Them’s Michael Cuby had a different takeaway: “Of everything in this article, the reveal that the creator of Love Is Blind eats his cereal with water may be the most disturbing.”
3.
“Survivor’s ‘Shrug’ Era”
Mark Harris explored how Survivor’s new emphasis on gameplay neuters its entertainment value. Leahaghiradella said, “Thank you, Mark Harris, for articulating most of the complaints — and sighs, hums and ughs — my husband and I have uttered since the new age of Survivor reared its rather boring head.” English professor Mike Sell praised the “smart ideas about how to disrupt Survivor’s current metagame by removing idols and restoring a genuine survivalist ethos,” while commenter stacieandmats specified that “the constantly changing rules on finding idols/tokens etc is really boring. The challenges have become too similar. The emphasis of the show should be on human dynamics.” “When all the players talk endlessly about ‘building my resume,’ you know things have gotten too meta,” commented benthead. doritsfleetingaccent added, “There seems to be too many amenities now. People manage to look pretty well-groomed between muddy or slimy challenges. Remember armpit hair? Picking teeth with weeds instead of brushing? Dirty clothes and grown out roots and facial hair?” rd10012 wrote, “I used to love seeing amazing people doing amazing things on the show. I’m curious to know how producers could bring back a meritocracy where winners were larger than life, rather than those that gamed the system.”
Send correspondence to comments@nymag.com. Or go to nymag.com to respond to individual stories.