Some of what goes into making television shows is science and some of it is Science. We understand basically everything about how to write a compelling story. Most of the time when critics enjoy something and fans don't, it is because the writers were intentionally being subversive. Writing a story is a science and it is subjective. In contrast, we understand very little about how to shoot film without making a lot of mistakes. A big reason why the push into digital film and computer generated imagery is happening is so that it is easier to fix mistakes after they happen. Filming, especially analog photography, is a Science and it is objective. Media absolutely can be superior to other media if you are specific about your criteria.
I don't think that's sufficient to explain it, though, since it doesn't take into account an individual's likes and dislikes. For example, many people love the Star Trek episode The Inner Light, but others think it's overrated and not very good at all. Can you tell one of these groups they are objectively wrong? Surely, if you could, that group would say, "Yes, you are completely correct," in just the same way they would if they had claimed that 1+1=3 and you explained their error to them.