Deez Interviews: Krutika Mallikarjuna on whether covering TV ruins the experience of watching it like a regular couch potato, plus her picks for most overrated + underrated shows
Happy Friday, Deezers! Today’s interview is with TV Guide features editor Krutika Mallikarjuna, who talked about her editing process, her early career working in TV/film production, and being strategic about what to cover in the age of Netflix. Enjoy!
//
First, what is your day-to-day like?
My morning always starts with emails and edits I owe freelancers and staffers; I tend to prioritize work I owe other people for the first half of the day and spend the second half of the day on my own stories. If it’s a heavy edit day, I’ll actually block off my calendar for a 3-4 hour block so I can have uninterrupted time to closely read stories.
Generally, I prefer to leave notes via comments for the first draft so the writer really has a chance to understand any structure changes as they’re rewriting. This system often means a phone call to walk through questions with freelancers (especially folks who are writing for us for the first time), make sure we’re on the same page, and that the story is expressing their ideas in their own words.
One of the biggest challenges of the pace of digital media in my opinion is that the editor who takes (or has) the time to teach is very rare. A lot of times when you're reading a freelancer story on a site, it's been heavily rewritten by an editor instead of being handed back to the writer for another draft. The lack of time for a back-and-forth is a problem I empathize with, and am occasionally guilty of, but it's an essential part of the job particularly if you're an editor committed to making space for minority voices. Not everyone can afford to go to j-school or has the connections to intern for a prestigious magazine, but that shouldn't disqualify them from being able to learn how to write feature stories.
The second half of my day is mostly writing and working through screeners — especially for shows that are culturally important but won't necessarily drive high volumes of traffic — and figuring out what the one big story we should be doing is.
Sometimes that means taking a long view and doing a big reported piece with multiple sources; sometimes it means honing in on a detail I think other outlets will miss and finding a sharp take; sometimes it means realizing I shouldn't be the person writing that story period and reaching out to a staffer or freelancer to see if they want to tackle it. In between that are the greatest hits: endless emails to publicists with too many exclamation points, interviewing, transcribing, drafting, editing, and collaborating with other departments on bigger projects like profiles and video projects.
Before you got into journalism, you worked in production for TV shows. What inspired you to go from working in entertainment to covering it?
If you are a creative person with creative goals, TV and film production is a death sentence. My first job out of college was as an office PA on an indie film, and I realized quickly that if I ever wanted to write for TV or movies that production was the worst possible way to make connections.
Some people do work their way up into writers rooms by working the crowd when they deliver lunch to the writing staff, but I ended up two years and a dozen jobs later staring at a promotion that would put me in the Producer's Union. This was on a cheesy TV drama, and I was wondering if the insane (at the time) amount of money was worth forever being relegated to all the business stuff like handling guest star and extras contracts, major vendor invoices, and the temper tantrums of various producers. Basically my life in production was working 60-90 hours a week on incredibly boring logistics, not having time to write or work on my projects, and taking everyone else's shit.
Thankfully between Season 1 and 2 of that show, the entire production staff was laid off and I stumbled upon the BuzzFeed fellowship (a fellow former Gawker intern who worked there hooked me up with an interview). This was 2013, and it was the first time they were trying out the program … I figured if I didn't get hired after I could just go back to production, but I did get hired and the rest is history.
I'm really thankful I was able to make the move when I did, because I learned from writers and editors I deeply admired and really developed critical thinking skills in a way I hadn't had to flex before. Switching over to journalism gave me a space to actually learn how to pitch (always have at least three more ideas in your pocket), research and write quickly, and really understand audience — all skills I can transfer to pretty much any medium of writing.
There are ways in which writing about everyone's favorite TV show can seem like a dream job, but I've also heard that it can be pretty grueling. How do you handle the pace?
If you try to cover everything, then you're setting the staff up to burn out, and burn out hard — which is really where a lot of features work comes in.
If it's a show that's gonna pop off, we'll paper the cal with SEO and social plays and also a feature or two that will either break news or hone in on an angle that other places won't tackle. If it's a show that's culturally relevant that we know won't do a ton of traffic, we'll zero in on one big story, and let the person who really connected with the show write about it in an engaging way.
The greatest thing about features writing is that it makes the grind relatively manageable because you get to be really strategic about what you cover and why. The reason doesn't have to be traffic. Because a lot of these features are the only story we'll publish about a particular show, it means it's okay if it doesn't do huge numbers, as long as it hits a majority of the audience or fandom (which I normally gauge through social reactions) it was actually written for.
Here's a question I've always wondered: does covering entertainment sort of "ruin" the experience of just, say, watching a good movie or enjoying a TV show just for yourself?
The answer is a hard yes. I probably would have really enjoyed Game of Thrones if I wasn't constantly (over multiple outlets) writing and editing stories that made me realize how inconsistent and trivial the minutiae of the show is. (To be fair, the series would need to have a much better understanding of sexual assault for me to truly love Game of Thrones.)
But realistically, I've found that covering a show rather than simply watching it as a fan really separates the wheat from the chaff. Basically if a show is sincerely great, it will constantly inspire you to have new ideas and you’ll always want to write about it.
If a show is fun and good, but really doesn't have much to say (Which is fine! People should get to enjoy things simply because they enjoy it!), then yes, it turns into a grind that leeches your love of it until you're a husk of your former self.
Finally, what are the most overrated + most underrated shows you've seen recently?
Tuca & Bertie was probably my favorite new show of 2019 and not only deserved major awards, but also a second season. Also in the underrated category for 2019 are Undone, The Other Two, Sherman’s Showcase, Doom Patrol, Couples Therapy, Dickinson and Primal.
Fleabag is a perfect and correctly rated show.
And I already talked about the most overrated show on television in the last q, so I won't beat a dead horse.
//
Don’t forget to follow @krutika on Twitter, and have a very well-programmed weekend! (Find me on the couch watching alllll of those recs^^).
Deez Links is a dailyish newsletter written by @delia_cai. You can support the newsletter by sharing it or hitting up our merch store!