When a major newspaper unveiled its “100 Best TV Shows of the 21st Century” list, the internet erupted. Fans rallied on social platforms, arguing over omissions, championing their beloved series, and questioning the very premise of the ranking. While the exercise was clearly designed to spark conversation, it also exposed a larger issue: the assumption that television has produced a century-long parade of uniformly excellent shows.
From the perspective of a writer whose family has spent decades navigating the entertainment world, the list feels more like a talking-point than a genuine canon. It ignores the gritty realities that shape every episode—budget constraints, tax-incentive-driven location swaps, and the relentless demand for volume in a medium that must churn out content week after week.
Why “100 Good Shows” Is a Misleading Benchmark
The notion that a hundred series can all be considered “good” runs contrary to the historical view of television as Newton Minow’s “vast wasteland.” Even the most celebrated series, such as The Sopranos debuted before the 21st century and therefore fall outside the list’s eligibility window, despite their undeniable influence on modern storytelling. The brief surge of truly ambitious television after that landmark show quickly gave way to familiar tropes, cost-driven formulas, and a steady drift toward mediocrity.
Lists that attempt to canonize a fixed number of titles inevitably become snapshot arguments rather than lasting assessments. Their primary purpose is to generate clicks and debate, not to provide a definitive cultural ledger. As a result, the claim that “there are 100 good shows” feels more like a marketing hook than a fact-based conclusion.
Production Realities: Money, Geography, and Creative Compromise
Every creative decision in television is also a business decision. Unlike feature films, where the “yes or no” question revolves around whether a project gets green-lit, television operates under a grind-it-out model. Hundreds of series are produced each year, and tight budgets force producers to make compromises that can dilute the artistic vision.
One vivid illustration is the prevalence of stand-in locations. A series set in Washington, D.C. might be shot in Canadian provinces, with the local skyline masquerading as the capital. While most viewers may not notice, residents of the depicted city often feel betrayed by the inauthentic backdrop. The economic pull of tax credits and cheaper crews can outweigh the desire for geographic fidelity, turning a show’s setting into a cost-saving illusion.
Even when a show’s creator insists on meticulous realism—as was the case with the author of The Night Agent—the final product may still suffer from budgetary shortcuts that betray the original intent. This tension between artistic ambition and fiscal necessity explains why many critically praised series feel “sloppy” in their execution.
Controversy Over the Latest Ranking
The published ballot showed over 500 industry insiders—actors, showrunners, executives—casting votes. Their selections were made public, complete with video selfies that ranged from polished studio backdrops to casual home settings. The range of choices reflected personal bias as much as professional judgment. For instance, a comedian-turned-producer placed a niche documentary series alongside mainstream hits, while a drama-focused actor listed a teen superhero show as a top pick.
Such eclectic voting patterns highlight the subjectivity inherent in any “best of” list. Moreover, the list’s language claimed to be inclusive of non-English series, yet the final compilation was overwhelmingly Anglophone, exposing a disparity between stated intent and actual representation.
Critics also pointed out glaring omissions: a beloved adaptation of a celebrated Italian novel failed to appear, while lesser-known anthology series made the cut. The inclusion of a single-season anthology over a multi-season cultural phenomenon raised eyebrows, prompting readers to question the criteria used to determine “excellence.”
In short, the list functions as a conversation starter rather than a definitive record of television greatness. It illustrates how personal taste, industry politics, and economic realities intertwine to shape public perception of what constitutes a “great” series.
For anyone who watches television not just as escapism but as a reflection of societal trends, the ranking serves as a reminder that the medium’s output is as much a product of fiscal strategy as it is of creative ambition. Understanding those behind-the-scenes forces, from location tax credits to the grind of weekly episode delivery, helps viewers contextualize why some series shine while others stumble.
