Peer Judging Defined
A peer judge is defined as any person with a minimum of two years of professional experience in the field of television program production, programming, or allied media who is directly engaged in or supervises the discipline they’re being asked to judge. Potential judges may also include professionals in allied fields, who by the specific nature of their work are uniquely qualified to make judgmental decisions concerning particular areas of television or media production. Examples of peer judges include: television and multi-media writers, producers, directors; programming, production and news executives; craft persons; advertising agency executives and creative directors involved in programming decisions; print journalists (who have hands-on television production experience); sports professionals; college university educators who represent journalism/film/television/media; and former broadcast journalists.
To judge, teachers must either teach the specific crafts being judged, or have had professional experience performing the craft being judged.
Writing newspaper or magazine columns, blogs, and/or articles about television or media does not qualify a person as a peer in any category. Television critics are not peers.
Whenever a current job title does not obviously qualify a judge as a peer, the judge should list, on the judge’s certification section of the ballot, his/her previous experience, which qualifies him/her as a peer for the programs or crafts being judged.
Judges may not have a conflict of interest, which is described as direct involvement in the production of an entry, or having a personal relationship with a member of the production staff of an entry. Group ownership, by itself, does not necessarily create a conflict of interest.
NON-COMPETITIVE JUDGING: Entries are judged against a standard of excellence and do not compete against each other. There may be one award, more than one award or no award given in each category. Any exceptions will be noted in the category description.
JUDGING REQUIREMENT: The success of the Emmy® Awards process depends on the willingness of qualified professionals to serve as judges. Peers in other NATAS Chapters are serving this Chapter’s entrants. This Chapter will judge other Chapter’s entries. By entering, you agree to serve as a judge when asked.
All entries sent to judges for screening are deemed to be eligible by the Chapter whose work is being judged. For that reason, judges are required to score each entry regardless if they feel it has been placed in the wrong category or might have technical problems. Forms are available should judges wish to challenge any entry. On challenge entries, judges are asked to score without bias, even if they believe an entry is not in an appropriate category.
By entering, you agree to serve as a judge when asked, and that judging must occur during calendar year 2016 – the year of your entry.
- If you enter once, you’ll need to judge once
- If you enter twice, you’ll need to judge twice
- If you enter three or more times, you’ll need to judge at least 3 times
If you don’t meet your judging requirement, your entry fees will increase by $25 the next time you enter the competition.
Check your status on your membership profile, and look for the emoji:
There are typically 6-9 opportunities to judge other chapters’ entries during the year (we call them Rounds) and all entrants are notified via email. You can expect to see these judging notices regularly through July/August, after which the judging is on an unscheduled basis – if at all.
What’s the time commitment for judging? 30 minutes to 2 hours, depending on the category; judging can be done anywhere you have a computer; it’s all online.
When you judge 3 or more times during a calendar year, you’ll earn a $10 discount on membership dues for the coming year. There is no limit to the amount of judging you can do, as long as you’re qualified to judge the categories you choose.
We polled several of our long-time judges, to ask them Why Judge? Here’s what they said:
- “I like to compare my work with other markets around the country”
- “It expands the judging pool, which is how I want my work judged”
- “I get a ton of ideas from watching other people’s work”
- “Doing it online is super-easy for my schedule; I don’t have to do it all at once”