Critique: The 15 Best TV Shows of 2022

Source: atlantic
Authors: Megan Garber, Sophie Gilbert, Shirley Li
URL: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2022/12/best-tv-shows-2022-white-lotus-yellowstone/672521/

What the article reports

Three Atlantic culture critics (Megan Garber, Sophie Gilbert, Shirley Li) each contribute short capsule reviews of 15 television series they consider the best of 2022. The piece covers prestige drama, comedy, limited series, and streaming originals across multiple platforms. Each entry is bylined to an individual critic and runs roughly 150–200 words.

Factual accuracy — Adequate

Most verifiable claims hold up. Amanda Seyfried's Emmy win for The Dropout is accurate (Outstanding Lead Actress in a Limited Series, 2022). The claim about Jennifer Lawrence — "Jennifer Lawrence decided against pursuing her turn at the role after watching the show" — is a specific, falsifiable claim that circulated in press coverage at the time and appears accurate, though no source is cited. Andor's relationship to Rogue One and Cassian Andor's arc are correctly described. The claim that Yellowstone is "the most popular show in America" is presented as fact without qualification; it was the most-watched cable drama by certain Nielsen metrics at that period, but the assertion is broader than the evidence supports without a citation. The framing of Irma Vep as based on "a 1910s French serial called Les Vampires" is accurate (1915–1916). One soft error: the piece says Minx "was almost already gone from HBO Max" — the show was in fact renewed then later cancelled; the phrasing is ambiguous rather than wrong. No outright factual errors detected, but several claims float without sourcing.

Framing — Favorable

1. Promotional register throughout. The introduction reads, "TV has provided something even more essential: a lifeline," establishing an advocacy frame before any individual show is discussed. This is the critics' stated premise, but it is not flagged as such — it presents enthusiasm as consensus fact.

2. Unattributed superlatives. On Derry Girls: "solidified its place among the best coming-of-age comedies of all time" — this is an authorial judgment delivered as settled conclusion, with no acknowledgment that it is one critic's view.

3. Blurb-adjacent language. Phrases like "barnstorming dramedy," "needle-sharp," "a murderer's row of excellent cameos," and "thrilling, funny, beautifully rendered" are evaluative but function more as jacket-copy than critical argument. They assert quality rather than demonstrating it.

4. The piece is structurally opinion — a "best of" list — but is not labeled "opinion" or "criticism" in any explicit genre tag visible in the article body. The Atlantic's section header ("Culture") and the list format imply this is criticism, but a reader unfamiliar with the publication's conventions might not register the fully subjective nature of the selections.

5. Positive framing is consistent across all 15 entries. No entry contains a substantive reservation about the show's weaknesses beyond brief, parenthetical hedges (e.g., "The show could be read as a glib intellectual exercise" — immediately reversed with "instead, it is a poignant one"). The genre does not require balance, but the uniformly laudatory register is worth naming.

Source balance

External voices quoted substantively: 0. The New Yorker cartoon is cited as cultural shorthand, not as a critical source. All evaluative authority rests with three staff critics from a single outlet. No dissenting critical opinion, no audience data, no peer-critic perspectives from other publications are included.

Ratio: 3 supportive voices : 0 critical : 0 neutral on every show discussed. This is structurally inherent to the "best of" list format, but it is a meaningful limitation.

Omissions

1. Selection criteria are never stated. What does "best" mean here — cultural impact, craft, critical consensus, personal enjoyment? Readers have no basis for evaluating whether the list reflects a coherent standard or purely individual taste.

2. The scope of what was considered is absent. How many shows did the critics watch? Were any major shows considered and excluded? This context would help readers assess the list's comprehensiveness. House of the Dragon, Euphoria (Season 2), Pachinko, and Station Eleven (technically late 2021/early 2022) are notable prestige omissions not acknowledged.

3. Audience and critical reception data are omitted. For Yellowstone — called "the most popular show in America" — no ratings figures are cited. For other shows, no Rotten Tomatoes scores, Emmy nominations, or viewership numbers appear, which would help readers calibrate the claims.

4. Platform / availability context is minimal. Several shows are on streaming services that have since moved, cancelled, or restructured titles (notably Minx and HBO Max originals). The piece doesn't note any access caveats.

5. Historical context for the "TV as lifeline" frame is missing. The introduction makes a strong sociological claim about television's role in 2022 specifically. No prior year is compared; no data or cultural criticism supports the premise.

What it does well

• Clear individual authorship. Each capsule is initialed (MG, SG, SL) and the bylines are named at the top — readers always know whose taste they're reading.
• Genuine critical argument in the best entries. The Bear entry goes beyond praise to identify a structural idea: "hierarchical workplaces can prize obeisance over potential and aggression over achievement." The White Lotus entry articulates what makes the show formally interesting — "it merges them seamlessly" — rather than just asserting quality.
• Tonal range across entries. The piece moves from rigorous (Andor, Dropout) to personal (Minx: "I came so late to Minx, truth be told") to playful (Severance: "Is the melon symbolic?"), matching register to subject.
• Self-aware recommendation. The Minx entry's closing line — "Find Minx a new streamer, stat" — is a charming disclosure of advocacy that makes the critical stance transparent rather than disguised as objectivity.
• Concise but specific descriptions. Each entry names actors, showrunners, and plot specifics, giving readers enough to make an informed decision rather than vague hype.

Rating

Overall: 6/10 — A craft-strong, well-attributed critics' list that earns its enthusiasm but gives readers no framework for evaluating the selections and no voices beyond three colleagues at the same publication.