Are online TV fans representative?

[Ben Varkentine]

That's the question asked of a couple of writers and showrunners in this BlogCritics entry:

(Oh, just to be on the safe side: If you watch Bones and haven't caught up with the end of last season, the entry does contain a huge spoiler)

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/06/16/104112.php

Samples:

[House writer David] Hoselton confessed he has to browse forum comments the day after his own episodes air, sifting through the "three pages on Chase's pants" to find the insightful ones... until he has to back away when they turn into online fights. Still, "there are these incredibly intelligent, observant people who catch every mistake you could possibly make," he laughed.

Alan Poul, executive producer and director of Swingtown and Six Feet Under, sees the benefit to even negative reactions.

"It's hard to get anything made. It's just as hard to make something that's mediocre or bad as it is to make something good,"

"My first reaction is: 'those bastards, how dare they?' Then I try to be open minded and look for the person's point of view ... before I trash it," he joked before getting serious. "Somebody cares enough. That's much better than indifference. You have to honour that."

[Feena]

I post on Outpost Gallifrey, home of many a manic fan

RTD was asked in a couple of interviews about online fans.

Metro

Do you have a disparaging view of online fandom?
I’m suspicious of any focus group. If the BBC said, ‘we’ve done a focus group of 200 people from Ipswich and asked their opinions’, I’d say: ‘F*** off, Ipswich.’ It’s no way to work properly. It’s the same as an online forum, it’s like a focus group. If you worked in advertising and used that as a way of doing your research, your boss would sack you because it’s not representative of the general public. It seems that they’re becoming more powerful, particularly in American sci-fi shows, who seem to imagine those groups are the general public. They are all people of a similar background, similar philosophy and similar take on Dr Who – that’s fandom.

Los Angeles Times

It falls to Davies “to keep balancing how much continuity there is, how many stand-alone elements there are.” Ever mindful of the shows’ “mainstream audience” (meaning, not just sci-fi enthusiasts) and put off by “exclusivity” in general, he said he is reticent of creating overly inclusive stories dependent on viewers’ in-depth knowledge of ornate histories.

This job is made easier by Davies’ policy of ignoring the voices of those most vigilant. “I think we’re an unusual science-fiction franchise in taking a very big step back from fandom and having nothing to do with them… . Every program on the BBC has a message board on the website. I forbid it to happen on ‘Doctor Who.’ I’m sorry to say this, all the science fiction producers making stuff in America, they are way too engaged with their fandom. They all need to step back.”