Objective or subjective?

As a semi-professional list-maker (and by "semi-professional" I mean "I don't get paid for it but I do it as much as a paid list-maker would") I often find it hard to determine whether I'm looking at things subjectively or objectively. Sure, most of my lists are heavily dependent on opinion - top TV shows, favourite songs, etc. - but it's still possible to reasonably judge a show based on certain quantifiable criteria - its influence; the extent to which it broke tradition and flouted convention; its cultural impact; its success, both domestic and internationally; its realism; its ability to weave multiple genres together seamlessly; its critical acclaim.

Yet when it comes to compiling my lists, I tend to pick and choose from these criteria, in an attempt to justify my rating of it (positive or negative). I often laud Friday Night Lights, for example - one of my favourite drama series - for its realism, yet its influence is minimal, and its success both at home and abroad has been muted. Similarly, Friends was fairly popular with critics and was a remarkable success, but it had minimal effect on the sitcom genre - instead of flouting tradition, it often adhered rigidly to it. Yet I still rate it as an all-time classic, and many others do too.

My top TV shows list surprises many people; not usually for what shows make it in to the list at all, but for some suspect choices in the top 10. King of the Hill and Malcolm In The Middle often elicit surprise in particular. Most accept them as good shows, but all-time top 10? Maybe not. Thing is, I actually agree with them that neither belong on an objective all-time top 10 list. Sure, King of the Hill is more realistic than most of its animated counterparts; and Malcolm was a pioneer of mainstream multi-camera laugh-track-free sitcom - but neither shook up the TV world like, say, The Wire. It's with these shows that subjectivity enters my list. One can make good cases for The Simpsons, ER and Seinfeld showing up in a top-10 TV show list - but KOTH and Malcolm? Harder.

So why are they there? I think it's because, along with The Simpsons, they were among my first forays into the world of TV beyond Nicktoons and Cartoon Network. I first stumbled across both back around 2000, at ten years old (and just a year after I discovered The Simpsons). Even though I'd been hooked on the idiot box since an early age, it wasn't until then that I picked up on the potential of the format, albeit in my little ten-year-old way. Comedy without a laugh track? Cool! Animated people that actually seemed like real people? Even cooler! I've been hooked on both ever since. It's no surprise that, given rather more years of exposure than almost any other shows, I rate them highly. 24, one of my highest-rated dramas, has been similarly affected: it was the first genuinely dramatic show I got interested in, back when I was 13.

Meanwhile, shows such as Friends, Whose Line Is It Anyway? (US) and Everybody Loves Raymond have been similarly affected. All rate within my top 20, even though none of them really challenged the format (and of course, WLIIA (US) is just a remake of the original UK show). Here, another subjective emotion comes into play: the feelgood factor. In late 2004 I was pretty unwell for a couple of weeks; marathoning seasons 2-5 of Friends for the first time made the time pass so much faster. Whose Line (US) became a staple of my Saturday in 2007; Five US's weekend afternoon marathons, which I'd always settle down to with a family member or two, was a highlight of my week. Raymond S3 made the return to school in September 2006 far more palatable. It's these little things that help me to build up a positive picture of a TV show in my mind, even if it's not genuinely deserving. (Not that I think the shows I've mentioned aren't deserving; but I'd be lying if I said those certain circumstances didn't have at least some effect on my perception of them).

I guess I've given up my search for objectivity. I'm sure stats-mad TV fan could come up with the perfect equation to determine how important a TV show is, based on ratings, sales overseas, Google hits, blog mentions, and the number of times Matt Roush has been quoted on its DVD boxset cover. But I'm happy to continue grading things my way: searching for what I find objectively hilarious and genuinely dramatic, certainly; but also allowing personal circumstances to prevent my list from becoming a dreary clone with no sense of independent taste. (Where else can you find Judge Judy, Saved by the Bell, The Sopranos and NewsRadio all on the same list?)