Do TV Writers Have A Fiduciary Duty To Their Audiences?

It's just fiction. Get over it.

I guess u don t get the point.





David

I guess not. TV shows invariably disappoint...it's just a matter of time.

I can't imagine the writers having a fiduciard duty to their employers, let alone their audiences.

That has not been my observation.





David

Do u care to explain your reasoning ?

artists always have a responsibility to tell truth, so yes.

I used to watch that show, being a fan of Simon Baker, but I felt like I was being played with over the whole Red John thing. They strung the audience along for so long, I lost interest. In revealing it like they did they did do a disservice to fans like yourself, but perhaps their focus groups told them to wrap it up since they had flogged the Red John horse to death. I am hoping the series will continue since I still like Simon Baker and the others, maybe they can show life after Red John?

Rather the opposite. They are not in any particular position of trust, so how can they have a fiduciary responsibility to anyone? In other words, back to you.

which is not to say they have no position of trust....as kin they do have some.

About as much as your taxi driver.

Im glad that artists don't limit themselves to "And they all lived happily ever after"

The end of the Sopranos , as an example.

Deal with it.

It's fiction, so - no.

It's a business and it's covered under Sarbanes-Oxley. They need to show their shareholders and the board that they're doing whatever they can to make a profit. But no, the obligation doesn't go to the audience - it only goes to the network.

Art doesn't pigeonhole that well into that, but it doesn't stop networks, etc. from trying. This is why we see so many sequels, remakes, copycats and reboots these days. Those kinds of items are more or less proven winners and so it can be shown that the network is exercising a form of due care.

For a longstanding show, they are mainly just under an obligation to either continue (and by continue, that means being able to sell advertising at a good rate) or at least to lead into other shows and make the other shows more profitable. Keep in mind that television programs aren't just about the show that you see on the screen. They are increasingly about DVDs, Youtube views, Facebook likes, Pinterest pins, tweets, name/logo merchandise, contests and conventions. And that's not just science fiction like Star Trek (the big pioneer in a lot of these areas) - fans want to meet their idols, no matter what they're doing or what kind of show they're in.

If a show suddenly takes a serious left turn, it often loses audience share. But not always. It may be a network taking a small risk, to see if a floundering franchise can be revitalized. Or it can be some work being done to wrap up a series. The network might have Simon Baker under contract for a few other ideas in development. Hence if they can end The Mentalist well, they could give a better lead-in for whatever comes afterwards.

Or it can fall flat. And if these creative left turns continue to fall flat, you'll see fewer and fewer of them over time. Truly edgy characters are pretty much only on cable these days; regular network TV can't do that anymore, as they are far too beholden to their shareholders and boards, and are terrified of making a wrong move. Hence the umpteenth reality show (they're cheap) and reboot, etc.

And so it will be until the paradigm shifts. Want the paradigm to shift? Support the edgy left turns and the odd projects out there, and don't support the middle of the road junk like Two and a Half Men.

I dissent from your premise, Roger,
in that it seems to me that when one buys a murder mystery,
the tacit implication is that at or by its end, a full explanation
of the relevant events will be rendered, including all peculiarities
that have been sprinkled along the way. Traditionally, the art form
was expected to be crafted in such a way that an astute reader
or member of the audience cud figure out who the murderer was
and figure out his motive. He 'd then continue reading to see
if the author wud prove him right or not.

In some TV mysteries of recent years, it seems to me that
the writers just decided to make it ez on themselves
by not taking the trouble to answer questions that were
left open qua the plot, along the way. This is dishonorable.

A fiduciary relationship is one of TRUST and CONFIDENCE.
A mystery is incomplete information.
If I buy a murder mystery novel, then my payment of
its purchase price evinces my trust in its author
and my confidence that he will pay off
in rendering the missing information COMPLETELY,
not leaving open un-answered questions.

If I execute MY part of the deal by buying n reading the book,
or by watching the play to its full length, I 'm entitled to a very
full n thorough explanation of all mysteries within that work of art.
To the extent that those explanations are not forthcoming by the end
of it, the artist was sloppy, liberal and defaulting.
If he does not pay off, then he is opprobious and he shud be
remembered for that when he offers more work.

He shud be discredited in his field of art.
"White man cheat Indian once, shame on white man;
white man cheat Indian twice, shame on Indian."

In this particular case, The Mentalist, one of the mysteries
was how the fiend knew the strategies of the police (repeatedly,
an on-going theme of the show, for years on end). As the fiend
was about to be killed, avenging 2 of his victims, he began to
reveal the answer, but the hero stopped him, declaring that
HE did not care. (He ALSO did not care about screwing the audience,
on whose behalf he was relinquishing and rejecting this central point
of information, and that was the subject matter of the sale to the audience.)

I began to watch The Mentalist because I like looking
at Robin Tunney and I wish that I looked some fraction
as good as Simon Baker, but the writing is the heart n soul
of the show. The writers are the gods of that universe; thay define it.
I thought that thay did good work on each individual show,
each being self-contained, in addition to the prolonged storyline.
We hope for some reasonable loyalty from the writers
in revealing the missing parts of the mystery, but thay
took it ez on themselves, at the expense of the work,
at the expense of their audience who bore them enuf faith to keep watching.


In the interests of justice, I 'd be pleased to read in the newspapers
that members of the show 's TV audience were expectorating upon its
writing staff or perhaps hurling the odd Molotov cocktail toward their estates,
in furtherance of their critical opinions qua shoddy workmanship and fraud.

O, well; that 's not likely to happen.
The actual punishment will be loss of respect
for the writing staff and for TV writers more generally;
prejudice against them, in the belief that thay are
devoid of virtue. Thay are charlatans;
i.e., thay are liars about what thay offer for sale,
like Dr. Good selling his snake oil medicine from
the wagon of a traveling show. Past is prolog.

If I met someone who confessed to being a TV writer,
I 'd take a prejudiced attitude toward him,
looking down upon him, suspecting him of being
lower than a used car salesman or a telemarketer.

Will our TV experience move us to include TV writers
into the same skepticism n disrepute as Gypsies and Irish Travelers?

Flashing anger ?

I saw its last episode; I inferred that
the writers invited each member of the audience
to decide for himself whether all hell wud break loose (lethally)
or whether the family wud arrive safely, uneventfully at home; a libertarian ending.

I saw the odds of either ending as being 5O:5O.

Either way was fully plausible.

Arguably, a fictional story can be used
as a vehicle for expressing the truth
of the circumstances of the story,
or of human nature;
e.g. what life was like during a designated war. Yes?

In contradistinction, what 'd u think of an author of fiction
whose background involved the Turks being really sweet n kind
to the Armenians from 1915 - 20?? Ring true? Authentic? Honest?

Screen writers for motion pictures and for television chronically make a complete hash of the historical evidence when writing about wars. The same can be said of any type of event in an historical era. The same can be said of the depiction of how people live in contemporary society. It's called fiction because you get to make sh*t up in the hope of making an appealing story. Whackeye's claim about artists having a responsibility to tell the truth was an idiotic contention. I guess he doesn't read science fiction, or watch science fiction motion pictures or television programs. I guess he didn't watch The Lord of the Rings, nor any of the recent television programs about vampires. Those guys were all liars.

In my opinion, from my life and observation, it is ethically n morally OK
to write a fictional story (e.g. of love n romance of imaginary characters)
against a given historical background. I consider it to be cheating
if purportedly true background is inaccurate, without a specific disclaimer.
If I write a story of the adventures of imaginary characters
set in the early 1960s, I might include reference to Kennedy
stealing the election of 1960 in Chicago and in Texas,
but not allude to Kennedy carrying on a homosexual
affair with Adlai Stevenson, and maybe throw in an "of course,
only the most ignorant were unaware of this."
That wud be hitting below the belt; not fair,
regardless of how "appealing" the story was.