After reading the Primetime Emmy Pt. 2 article, I wrote this response to Daisy, the writer...Feel free to chime in with your thoughts!


Is there a reason why the three paragraph love of Mad Men? For a show delivers modest viewing levels at best, why not more shine on series like Dexter and Breaking Bad? To say nothing more than they are “well regarded” is lazy writing, at best.

Jon Hamm, who headlines Mad Men won a golden globe back in 2008, followed by two Screen Actors’ Guild Awards. Meanwhile, Dexter seems to have momentum this year, with Michael C. Hall winning both the Golden Globe and the Screen Actors’ Guild award in 2009. John Lithgow also won a Golden Globe for his role in the fourth season. Dexter has gotten incredible buzz, and the season four heart-stopping, gut wrenching, finale was seen by almost 2.6M viewers, out-performing the season three finale of Mad Men.



Why does that mean something you ask? Well, since AMC is in more than four times as many homes as Showtime, it means a lot. And while Breaking Bad attracts a smaller audience than both Dexter and Mad Men, it has outstanding writing, and stellar performances by the likes of Bryan Cranston, who as won TWO Emmys for his portrayal of Walter White.

As a reader of Cynopsis, I just appreciate more thorough writing---with a few facts, not just a gushing of love over the show that gets buzz for looking stylish. While Mad Men is a good drama, don’t sell short the other offerings in the category that provide just as much drama and depth as the series you felt the need to fawn over in today’s editorial.

I get that it’s all about your opinion, but next time challenge yourself, and at least try to make your article a little more balanced, instead of ignoring the series it’s very clear you don’t watch.