Shows that couldn't crack the fall lineup. Clones of reality hits. The major networks won't give viewers a vacation.
By ERIC DEGGANS
Published June 9, 2003
Once upon a time, a couch potato could count on a little summer break in June, as the networks head into rerun-land and cable TV ramps up its telecasts of M*A*S*H episodes.
These days, that's a hazy dream, as the networks jam a boatload of reality shows and cast-off new series into the summer months, hoping viewers will take time in between visits to Disney World and the beach to curl up with an American Idol rip-off or a new series that wasn't good enough to make the cut.
It's just an extension of what happened during the regular TV season, when viewers rewarded mediocrities such as Jim Belushi's According to Jim and Jami Gertz's Still Standing with superior ratings while allowing more ambitious, yet admittedly flawed, series such as Push, Nevada and John Doe to die on the vine.
These are the thoughts that trouble a TV critic this time of year, when everyone from Television Week magazine to the Television Critics Association is tabulating votes and collecting comments to figure out how things went on the small screen this year.
As my list of favorites this year unspooled in my head - Comedy Central's The Daily Show and Chappelle's Show, HBO's The Wire and Six Feet Under, USA Network's Monk and The Dead Zone, FX's Lucky and The Shield - I realized something startling.
They're all on cable.
"This was a year in which an interesting transition occurred," said Robert Thompson, the head of Syracuse University's Center for the Study of Popular Television. "We've known for a while that the test kitchen for network TV was on cable. But it's now become where all the best programming is. I mean, when the series you're looking forward to seeing are on USA Network, what does that tell you?"
What it tells me, is that the big networks slowly eased out of the risk-taking business (unless you include airing a reality show that pits a team of nearly 50 midgets against an elephant to see who pulls a plane faster, as Fox did in January).
There were a few other lessons to glean from television in recent weeks, if you were paying attention. Here's a short list of what TV's taught me lately:
Lesson No. 1: If you pretend a new series is airing in summer because it's good, people just might buy it.
Network executives are earning their Pinocchio-length noses by pretending the new series debuting this month and next are as good as anything airing in fall.
In truth, there's little enthusiasm in network-land for new shows such as the WB's The O'Keefes (pop culture-hating parents deal with home-schooled teens; debuted May 22), Fox's Keen Eddie (New York cop stumbles through Britain; debuted last Tuesday), CBS' Baby Bob (Talking baby amuses parents; returned Friday) and Nathan Lane's CBS sitcom Charlie Lawrence (Onetime actor is elected to Congress; debuts Sunday).
These shows were originally planned for last fall or midseason and were pushed back to summer because somebody confidence in them. Don't be fooled: Even if you wind up liking some of them, the network has little intention of bringing them back after their limited runs.
Lesson No. 2: The best way to disguise a media takeover by conservatives is to blame the victim.
Considering how little FCC chairman Michael Powell was willing to reveal about the agency's plan to relax media ownership rules before last Monday's vote, watching his virtual media tour after the deal was sealed spoke volumes.
Okay, I only noted three Powell appearances Monday: on CNBC's Ludlow and Kramer, Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto and PBS' The Charlie Rose Show. Still, the interviews amounted to a Magical Mystery Tour of sorts for Powell, who faced the cameras to tell the business elites who watch these shows that those who fear a loss of media diversity because of his actions just don't understand the issues.
It was a condescending, emotionless performance that belied the incredible transfer of power that had been okayed. And it allowed TV types to pretend they were covering the issue, though their stories mostly came too late to alert the public (the blizzard of coverage in the days leading to Monday's vote belied one explanation for the lack of TV coverage; that it wasn't a visual story).
In the end, it all felt like a dismaying capper to a wave of conservative, pro-business moves that have swept the media lately: from many TV outlets' jingoistic coverage of the Iraq war to the domination of talk radio and cable TV political shows by pointedly conservative voices.
And no, I'm not buying the claptrap that progressive, liberal voices are somehow less entertaining or aggressive than their conservative counterparts.
The simple fact is, many viewers want to believe in their government, their leaders and their country, an impulse conservatives ranging from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to Michael Savage and Dr. Laura Schlessinger have exploited for their own benefit.
Doesn't hurt that these are attitudes that advertisers know can help them sell soap and tennis shoes. After all, it's a lot easier to persuade folks to jump in line for the next Matrix movie if they're secure about what their fellow Americans are doing in Iraq desert.
Lesson No. 3: Reality TV works best when it's insincere.
Say what you want about reality shows such as Are You Hot? and Man vs. Beast (the show with the midgets and elephant); at least they were honest. They were also roundly rejected by viewers, who quickly realized they might need a shower after watching such nakedly exploitive fare.
Time and again, while developing stories on the advertising "upfront" sales season in New York City, I asked top network executives what marks the difference between Joe Millionaire and The Bachelor (successful reality TV) and not-so successful stuff such as Mr. Personality and All American Girl?
Their answers were vague enough to suggest they had no idea (or at least none they wanted to share publicly), but I have a theory. It's about honesty.
The Bachelor purports to focus on the search for the perfect mate, not the vicarious thrill of watching a guy sample the affections of a harem's worth of women. Joe Millionaire's producers said that show was about the search for love apart from finances, not a chance to savor the thrill of seeing gold-digging contestants fooled by their own greed.
Especially when it comes to relationship shows, it seems viewers respond better when the shows conceal their focus on sex, humiliation or conflict: promising to deliver larger truths while really catering to baser instincts.
Lesson No. 4: Commercialism and convergence aren't just the province of commercial broadcasters.
Yeah, it's not television. But when I heard one of my favorite online magazines was teaming up with my favorite public radio outlet, I joined many middle-class liberal, intellectual types in applauding the development of Day to Day: a radio show combining material from National Public Radio and Slate magazine.
Then a friend caught my ear and listed the drawbacks: a Microsoft-owned Web operation getting access to $1.8-million in public money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; a government-funded news outlet closely aligned with a company sued by the government for antitrust violations; a combo of two media outlets known for their appeal to the nation's educated, left-leaning elites.
At a time when public broadcasting's "underwriting messages" feel more like old-fashioned commercials every day, do we need another connection to a moneymaking enterprise?
"I don't anticipate any conflict problems, but I wish the show were co-produced by a foundation, or Burger King, or anyone else, including Satan," Bob Garfield, a former NPR correspondent and host of the public radio show On The Media, told the Online Journalism Review.
It may not matter to local folks; area NPR affiliate WUSF-FM (89.7) won't air Day to Day to avoid disrupting its daytime classical music programming (it was tough enough extending NPR's Morning Edition a half-hour to 9 a.m. weekdays, general manager Jo Ann Urofsky said).
Still, consumers will need to keep a close eye on this collaboration. Because there won't be much value left in public broadcasting if it becomes just another outlet for a wealthy, multinational corporation.
