Yeah, this piece is ... not entirely wrong about what Emily In Paris is, but it's extremely wrong about how it fits into television history. Oof. https://twitter.com/alisonwillmore/status/1328696077764222978

TV that's good for leaving on one the background while it's not your primary focus is not an innovation. There's a reason some genres (soaps, House Hunters) constantly remind people what's going on.

In fact, I would argue that the innovation was television that was serialized -- and devoid of handholding -- to the point where you actually had to pay attention to it.

Television was developed to be watched in the home, where interruptions and distractions are common. It was, for decades, something that happened in real time and had to be made such that you could answer the phone or let the dog out without getting lost.

This is one of the real challenges of watching movies at home. The experience is not as immersive unless you *decide* it will be. Unless you decide not to look at your phone, etc.

I just think it's ahistorical to suggest that television that tolerates a lack of attention is an innovation, unless your reference point for TV is prestige shows made since 2005.