Golden Globes have been caught flat-footed this year as TV award arbiters, favoring big names over artistic quality

Vox

"Regardless of whether you view the awards as hopelessly corrupt or just sort of silly, it’s undeniable Globes voters are frequently swayed by the sorts of TV shows that land on magazine covers, not the ones that are actually, objectively 'the best' (whatever that means)," says Emily Todd VanDerWerff. "The awards ceremony has an aversion to genre series (the Watchmen snub; Kit Harington’s nomination for Game of Thrones marks not just the show’s sole nomination but its first nomination for a performance since 2012). It loves star-studded follies (The Morning Show, Big Little Lies). And it always has more of an eye on new TV than the Emmys seem to, regardless of critical acclaim (The Morning Show, again). For many years (and we’re talking, like, back in the 1990s and 2000s), that predilection for nominating new things meant the Globes were sometimes held up by TV fans as cooler than the Emmys, which has always been staid and stuck in its ways. But as the amount of TV shows has exploded in the past decade, the Emmys has seemed like it’s trying to keep pace and the Globes has been caught flat-footed, increasingly trapped by its own evident lack of interest in trying to reward artistically relevant TV in favor of stuff that might allow famous actors to turn up at their awards ceremony."

ALSO:

• Ava DuVernay shrugs off Globes' When They See Us snub
• Kit Harington on being the only Game of Thrones star to be nominated for a Globes award: "I just imagine myself sitting down at a table all by myself as the 'loner Throner!'"
• Fleabag "Hot Priest" Andrew Scott gets a Globes nomination after being snubbed by the Emmys