Who Does The PTC Hate This Week – August 15, 2008

I have been neglecting my self-appointed duty to tell you what the Parents Television Council finds objectionable. Perhaps that's partly because the PTC hasn't exactly been overly active of late. However a few things have cropped up over the past few days that I thought were worth mentioning. And unfortunately, to tell part of this story with full accuracy I am going to have to use a fleeting obscenity; a word that has appeared in this blog before, usually in connection with the PTC.

The first of these is a PTC press release expressing their outrage about something that happened on the August 5^th episode of Big Brother. According to the PTC, "During last night's broadcast, a woman named Libra was arguing with a man and said: 'Memphis was in the f***ing room!'" I'm shocked to have to say that on this one, the PTC was right – Libra did say "fucking" when she was arguing with Jesse. But here's the other thing though, I watch Big Brother including that particular episode and I don't remember her saying it. And I'm not the only one. In his August 6^th Programming Insider podcast Mark Berman's guest mentions that the PTC was protesting the use of "the word" and Berman was amazed, because he didn't hear it either. So, in an effort to discover whether she did or she didn't I asked the question at Jackie Schnoop's The (TV) Show Must Go On blog (the place to stop for Big Brother discussion). I got a reply from "Clementine" who pointed me to the appropriate clip of the show on YouTube (unfortunately the clip can't be embedded). The incident took place at around the ten minute mark of the clip. And sure enough, Libra does say "fucking." Just one thing though; I had to listen to the clip six or seven times before I could actually tell what she was saying. Now admittedly, I've been having some temporary hearing problems over the past little while, but even so it normally doesn't take me that long to pick out that word (and believe me I hear it often enough). What I think happened is that whoever was handling the editing at CBS simply missed the word – believed it was unintelligable. Why do I think so? Simply because the Big Brother Houseguests use the word "fucking" often and it has always been censored in the past. Indeed it was censored on numerous other occasions, so why let this one through unless the editor in question simply didn't hear the word. In other words, it wasn't even a simple case of human error but rather a case where someone was genuinely unable to determine what was being said.

Of course, that's not the way the PTC sees it. In their press release, which includes a link to a prepared form email that's all ready to be sent to the FCC, PTC President Tim Winter writes the following: "There is absolutely no justification for allowing an 'F-word' like this to air unedited on prime time broadcast television. There can be no question that this was an intentional act on the part of the network; someone actually had to edit the scene with the word into the show. Just this past November, CBS hypocritically entered into yet another consent decree with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) promising not to air indecent material. But apparently, CBS will break its own formal promise – again. Last time it was to air a teen orgy; this time it is for the opportunity to air the 'F-word.' CBS' behavior is a direct result of the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on so-called fleeting profanity – a case that will be heard by the Supreme Court this fall. But let me be clear: Unlike the facts of that legal challenge, this was no live broadcast. It was an intentional airing of pre-packaged program that contained obscene language. The network's reprehensible decision to air it cannot go without consequence."

Well let's look at this in a couple of different ways. First, let's look at why the word aired. As I've said, there is a plausible explanation of how the how the word might have slipped by, namely that the person editing the episode either did not hear the word or misheard the word either as something else or couldn't be sure of the word that Libra said; in other words the word was unintelligible to him. The other aspect to consider though is Mr. Winter's interpretation of the 2^nd Circuit's ruling on fleeting profanity – not "so-called fleeting profanity" but actual fleeting profanity as defined by the FCC itself before the current administration. His interpretation of the ruling was that it only applies to live events. In his majority opinion on the Pacifica case (which the PTC is so fond of quoting), Justice Stevens wrote, "This case does not involve a two-way radio conversation between a cab driver and a dispatcher, or a telecast of an Elizabethan comedy. We have not decided that an occasional expletive in either setting would justify any sanction or, indeed, that this broadcast would justify a criminal prosecution." In the case of an Elizabethan comedy of course one would be dealing with scripted, and one would presume previously recorded, material. Even in 1978, Stevens recognised that not all uses of expletives in pre-recorded programming would be actionable.

Worth noting at this point is a recent Amicus Brief submitted in the FCC appeal of the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling to Supreme Court. The brief, was submitted by a number of former officials of the FCC including former chairmen Newton Minnow, Mark Fowler, and former acting chairman and longest serving appointee to the Commission James Quello. Quello was a commissioner at the time of the Pacifica case. In the Amicus Brief, the former FCC officials stated that "... we have been dismayed by a series of recent [FCC] decisions that have transformed a hitherto moderate policy of policing only the most extreme cases of indecent broadcast programming into a campaign of regulatory surveillance that will chill the production of all but the blandest of broadcast programming." Likening the current FCC's enforcement program to "a Victorian crusade" they stated that "To effectuate its new clean-up-the-airwaves policy, the Commission has radically expanded the definition of indecency beyond its original conception; magnified the penalties for even minor, ephemeral images or objectionable language; and targeted respected television programs, movies, and even noncommercial documentaries." While one would hardly describe Big Brother as a "respected television program" there could hardly be a better definition of "minor, ephemeral...objectionable language" than the incident in the episode of Big Brother.

(Actually the former commissioners went further than just calling on the Supreme Court to uphold the 2^nd Circuit Court ruling. According to Broadcast & Cable the Brief calls on the Court to remove the FCC from the business of regulating content. According to the article, "They said the court's work would be incomplete if it simply struck down the 'fleeting expletives' policy, arguing that the FCC's indecency calls in cases of nudity and nonfleeting profanity were inconsistent and that the commission was using 'context' as a 'talisman to ward off serious questions about the extreme subjectivity of the agency's determinations.'" They also argued that the basis of the original Pacifica decision – the uniquely pervasive nature of the broadcast medium – had ceased to exist in the era of the Internet and multi-channel video (by which I assume they mean cable TV). "It is time for the Court to bring its views of the electronic media into alignment with contemporary technological and social reality. As former regulators, we appreciate that the FCC is in an uncomfortable position, buffeted by the turbulent passions of anxious parents and threats from excited congressmen. But that is precisely why the matter must be taken out of the agency's hands entirely." Needless to say, the PTC is not pleased by the Brief.)

Of course you don't actually have to say or be seen to say bad words to arouse the ire of the PTC – not if you're Big Brother anyway. The series was described as "Misrated." This was before the August 5^th incident although that incident (which I still contend was an accident – they do happen you know no matter what the PTC thinks) although it did rate a mention – in boldface type no less – in the article. No, what the PTC objected to was words that you couldn't hear uttered by lips that you couldn't see. They claimed that the episode of July 31^st should have been rated TV-14L and state that there was no rating applied to the episode at all, something that I find extremely hard to believe. Anyway, here's what they have to say: "The episode's opening recap featured a shouting match between Jerry and Memphis. The latter was upset over Jerry attacking his character. 'You calling me a ______ (bleeped, blurred f***ing) womanizer?' Memphis asks. 'You wanna see me get ______ (bleeped, blurred f***ing) real? I'll get really real, old man!' Memphis' outburst was shown several times, each with another f-bomb. 'Are you out of your mind, old man?' Memphis shouts, 'Are you _____ (bleeped, blurred f***ing) out of your mind?' Later in the episode, Jerry strikes back at the four contestants who have ganged up on him. 'You think I'm going to kiss your ass? You guys _____ (bleeped, blurred f***) me, I'm gonna kiss your ass?...You come and jump on me with your friends. Four of you. Four of you on my ass. You want? All four, come on! Let's go and get it on. ____ (bleeped, blurred F***) ya!'" Now remember, you can't hear the word "fuck" and its variants, and a lip-reader couldn't pick up on it either because you can't see the people's lips (and they did a really good job of completely obliterating the lips). And yet here's what the PTC has to say: "Given the frequency and severity of the swearing, the show should have been rated TV-14 L." By the PTC "standards", the show clearly wasn't censored enough even though – as even they state you couldn't hear or see the words in question – so one has to ask, where exactly does it stop?

Swingtown yet again earns the "accolade" of worst show of the week. I won't go into detail on what the PTC states – since I don't watch the show I'm really not in a position to judge or to entirely contradict what the PTC position – however based entirely on what the PTC says and what the series producer has claimed about the show, the episode that the PTC is complaining about is concerned with the consequences of the protagonists' actions. The consequences of these actions include jealousy and the weakening of the familial bonds. And these are consequences that the characters are aware of. The PTC summarizes a scene between a father and his teenage daughter by saying: "Bruce attempts to scold Laurie for being involved with her older teacher, but when Laurie shoots back with 'What about what you two were doing?' Bruce realizes he and Susan have no moral ground to stand on. Bruce muses, 'No wonder our kids are off the rails. The buck stops here. We are taking back control of this family.'" The PTC ignores this business of consequences of course. Instead, in their conclusion they write, "By airing content intended for premium cable channels on network television, CBS has subjected families to topics that only adult couples should be discussing. And like so much of TV today, by suggesting that monogamy is stifling and, therefore, unhealthy, the show fails to promote positive exploration of sexuality within the confines of marriage." And yet surely scenes like the one they themselves quote are indicative that even the characters of the show are coming to realize that the lifestyle they've adopted is the unhealthy one rather than monogamy. But surely the most absurd thing is the assertion that, "by airing content intended for premium cable channels on network television, CBS has subjected families to topics that only adult couples should be discussing." They seem to be taking the truly absurd position that premium channels like Showtime and HBO are only subscribed to by families without children. Premium channels are available to all who are willing to pay for them... including families with children.

The PTC has been running their TV Trends column dutifully each week while I haven't been writing about them, but quite frankly their weekly Jeremiads have been the typical reactionary stuff we've come to expect from the author of these "think pieces." In the July 17^th column, for example, he expressed the opinion that supposedly child-friendly shows were dens of filth and inappropriate language. Proof? Hugh Hefner and his three Girl Next Door girlfriends were on Celebrity Family Feud against some actors from The Sopranos including Vincent Pastore ("Big Pussy" Bonpensiero.) and Hefner said "I think [the girls] are going to do very well against Big Pussy." Smutty double entendre of course – at least in the PTC's view. And there was "Busty Heart" crushing beer cans with her boobs on America's Got Talent (I'd be more upset that kids would try to imitate the sword swallower myself), and a singer supposedly singing "I Kissed A Girl" which supposedly were an "explicit endorsement of drunkenness and promiscuity." You can tell it was bad because they underlined it and put it in italics. If they could have bold-faced it without being to obvious you can bet they'd have done it. In the July 25^th column the writer goes on and on about TV's fixation with breasts. The writer states, "It is pathetic that a medium with the tremendous power which television possesses is willing to objectify one-half of the human race; but increasingly, remarks about breasts, scenes emphasizing breasts and even entire storylines about breasts are becoming commonplace on TV. Such a focus ignores intelligence, personality, charm, integrity and the entire host of human qualities, and essentially reduces women to objects valued only for their anatomy." Of course that doesn't stop the writer from going into exacting prurient detail about every specific incident, making sure to mention "the formerly clean" My Name Is Earl (which was also mentioned in the July 17^th column as the "increasingly raunchy" My Name Is Earl). In the current column, the writer is practically gloating over the failure of Swingtown in the ratings symbolized by the network decision to move the show to the Friday at 10 p.m. timeslot – "a day and time widely regarded within the entertainment industry as the Place Where Series Go To Die" (an assessment that ignores CBS's general success on that night, a success so great that CBS has been able to cancel shows that have won their time slot in the past two seasons: Close To Home and Moonlight) – and trumpets the decisions of major advertisers not to put commercials on the show. But yet again the writer lovingly delineates, in detail more graphic than anything actually seen on screen, the evil sexual misdeeds depicted on the show, and thoroughly doesn't get the nuances of the show, which as one of the writers pointed out included the fact that these people's actions have consequences that they don't foresee; not necessarily punishment but definitely consequences. But of course acknowledging that the show doesn't actually send "the messages Swingtown is sending to young viewers: marriage vows are meaningless; teachers kissing students is acceptable; and any kind of sex, with any number of people, has no consequences whatsoever." Nuance is lost on the PTC.

Finally (well not finally; there's a rather absurd study presented by the PTC on how TV is devaluing marital sex and emphasising premarital sex, extra-marital affairs, and perverted practices – of course being the PTC the methodology is incomprehensible and the study doesn't consider or worry about either context of nuance) we have the return of The Worst Show on Cable. For months, literally, the PTC was stuck calling a particular episode of Nip/Tuck the worst show on cable. Now they've gotten outraged by the latest episode of Saving Grace. Why? Well there's a "bigger picture" thing going on here which we'll get to but to illustrate the "big picture" badness they have to illustrate it with a specific incident. In this case it is a sex play scene in which Grace and her lover play with food. Of course the PTC lovingly describes the scene in explicit detail:

The episode opened with a shot of Ham's naked rear-end as he and Grace wake up on her living room floor, presumably after a night of drunken lovemaking. Grace tries to rouse Ham by smacking his buttocks, to which he mumbles, "Much harder." Grace obliges by licking a dirty fork clean and jabbing him with it. The couple then migrate to the kitchen, where Ham tells Grace that he has left his wife. Clearly upset, the commitment-phobic Grace sprays Ham with ketchup. Not to be outdone, Ham grabs Grace and shoves ice cubes down her panties. Grace responds by emptying a bottle of mustard on his chest. Clearly aroused, Grace straddles Ham, licks the condiments off of his body, and proclaims, "You taste like a corndog." Grace is then seen kneeling in front of Ham, licking the mustard and ketchup mixture off his abdomen. Ham reaches into the refrigerator and dumps milk all over her head. The couple finally collapse to the kitchen floor and began having sex. All of this occurred before the opening credits.

Now here's the big picture, in the words of the PTC itself: "Touted as a redemptive series chronicling a troubled female detective's struggle against her personal demons, the show's underlying positive themes are often undercut by over-the-top depictions of sex and drug use." So basically what the PTC is saying is that the eventual redemption of Grace Hanadarko's character is a "good" thing – a positive theme as they put it – but that theme is hurt by showing her the drug use, the alcohol abuse and the irresponsible sexual activities that are why she needs redemption. The thing is though, that if you simply say that Grace's activities are bad it doesn't have the impact of showing it. It's a standard dramatic maxim "show it, don't say it." But the PTC says "don't show it and don't even go into details in saying it." But of course it is perfectly alright for the PTC to show it – describe scenes in exquisite detail, and at least in the past show video clips of "bad" scenes from cable shows – rather than simply saying it – telling us that the show has explicit sex scenes and scenes of drug use. Anything is acceptable in their cause, the demand for cable choice. Cable choice is something that I agree with in principle but am realistic enough to understand that until every cable user has to use a specialized set-top box like the digital box I have on my TV. But even if you have cable choice available on your cable system, the fact that not every program on the cable channel represents "objectionable content." Do you throw out all of the "good" because of a little bit of the "bad?" (And by the way this description of "good" and "bad" is theirs not mine. Having seen several episodes of Saving Grace, my opinion is that the show is one of the better things on television, showing the complexities of a woman who seeks to escape the traumas in her life in a miasma of sensation – drugs, alcohol, and sex. The major question for me is not why she needs redemption but rather why God, through the mechanism of the angel Earl, has chosen to try to offer Grace the option of redemption. But then again I don't see things from the same obsessed single-minded perspective that the PTC adopts.)

Short Takes – February 21, 2008

I really do mean to get these out on the weekend but they seem to pile up until I get something that I really want to talk about and then I sort of spew them out like opinions from a FOX News employee. So here goes.

Prosecutor, judge, jury, appellate court: That's a perfect definition of the FCC. They decide which complaints will be considered and which rejected (prosecutor), determine the guilt of the parties on those cases (jury), determine the penalty (judge), and then hear the appeals of those found guilty (appellate court). And worst of all, it seems like they're making it up as the go along.

Broadcast & Cable reports on the latest incident of this, the results of the "appeal" over the NYPD Blue Indecency Fine. The FCC issued their finding which upheld the fines for 40 of the 52 ABC stations on February 19^th, with the requirement that the fine be paid by February 21^st. This has apparently been done in such a rapid manner as to avoid the five year statute of limitations on findings in cases like this. This explains why the stations had a mere seventeen days to prepare their appeal instead of the customary thirty days, and also why the stations were given a mere 52 hours to pay the fine once the order was upheld.

As I mentioned, the FCC upheld the fines on 40 of the 52 stations cited in the original case, which means that twelve stations were exempted. In two of those cases, according to Broadcast & Cable the fact that the stations had received license renewals in the years between the original incident and the original decision on the fines meant that the statute of limitations for those stations had expired. In the case of most of the other stations, the fine was rescinded because "because the complaints had not come from the market in which the station was located." I'm not sure exactly what that's supposed to mean. Is it that "community standards" weren't offended in those markets because there were no complaints from them but were in markets where there was one PTC form letter was sent?

In defending the episode the ABC affiliates went into great detail to explain why the buttocks are neither a sexual nor an excretory organ. They also pointed out the flaws in the FCC's procedures: "the stations pointed out that the FCC proposed levying the maximum fine then allowable -- $27,500 per station -- for 'broadcasting a depiction of buttocks, for fewer than seven seconds, during the 10th season of one of the most lauded shows in television history.' They also argued that the FCC action is 'rife with procedural infirmities; is predicated on form complaints that do not satisfy the commission's own policies; proscribes material outside the scope of the commission's indecency-enforcement authority; misapplies the commission's own multifactor test for patent offensiveness; is inconsistent with the commission's governing precedent at the time of broadcast; and reaches a result that is plainly unconstitutional.'"

In response to the stations' arguments about the nature of the buttocks, the FCC made the following statement:

the depiction of an adult woman's naked buttocks was sufficiently graphic and explicit to support an indecency finding.

She is not wearing a g-string or other clothing, nor are the shots of her buttocks pixillated or obscured. Thus, the material is sufficiently graphic and explicit to support an indecency finding. Although the partial views of her naked breast from behind and from the side are not sufficiently graphic and explicit in and of themselves to support an indecency finding, they also add somewhat to the first factor's weight here.

In context and on balance, the graphic, repeated, pandering, titillating and shocking nature of the scene's visual depiction of a woman's naked buttocks warrant a finding that it is patently offensive under contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, notwithstanding any artistic or social merit and the presence of a parental advisory and rating. Therefore, it is actionably indecent.

The American Civil Liberties Union has called the original FCC fine "paternalism at its worst." Their statement, issued at the time of the original fines stated that:

This is just another government attempt to trump our own good judgment and determine what we're mature enough to see. NYPD Blue aired well past the bedtime of most children -- at 10 p.m. in most markets. Only those affiliates that aired the program between the hours of 6 p.m.-10 p.m. would be subject to the fine, which just goes to show the fickle nature of the FCC's rules. By their logic, airing a shot of a bare behind at 10:30 p.m. is fine, but the same shot at 9:30 p.m. is worth millions in fines and penalties.

It's also worth noting that ABC included a warning before NYPD Blue indicating that the program was intended for mature audiences only. Such warnings allow audiences to decide for themselves whether they want to see the content or permit their children to see the content. Instead, the government is stepping in to chill free speech and the free expression of ideas by 'parenting the parents.'

I personally find a lot of things wrong with the FCC's ruling in the original case starting with the original definition of the buttocks as a "sexual" organ, but for me the big one has always been that the decision flew in the face of precedent, specifically the fact that the show had shown similar examples of nudity – male as well as female – in previous season without being the subject of an FCC fine. This doesn't even mention other incidents of nudity in previous years, including Meredith Baxter's bare breast in the CBS TV movie My Breast (1994). The determination to void precedent continued into the appeals process when the FCC arbitrarily chose to hold the appeals process to a total of slightly more than half the normal time (17 days as opposed to 30) – which they justified by claiming (according to Broadcast & Cable) that, "the stations had ample opportunity to respond, demonstrated by the fact, the agency added, that they did respond with their appeal, noting, '20 law firms and/or companies coordinated and responded to the NAL in one consolidated, 70-page brief, with exhibits, on behalf of the majority of ABC-affiliated stations.'" And surely the requirement that the 40 stations pay the fines within 52 hours surely has to be without precedent.

What I, as an outside observer find particularly galling though is that it is the FCC itself that is hearing the appeal of its own decision rather than some outside body that is not a party to the case. Because make no mistake about it, the FCC is a party to this case. The Commission was the organization that served as prosecutor and adjudicator in this matter. It seems the height of insanity that the FCC gets to determine that an offense occurred and then decide whether they themselves were mistaken in determining that a mistake had been made. And remember that organizations such as the PTC maintain that the television networks should not be allowed to take the appeals process beyond the FCC to the courts. There is something inherently wrong about this. Apparently someone at ABC agrees, because according to MediaWeek the network and its affiliates have launched an appeal of the FCC decision before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. No doubt the PTC will rail against ABC for appealing and the Second Circuit Court for the "fleeting obscenities" decision.

More touchiness: On a far less serious, but no less moronic note, the American Family Association – on of the PTC's running buddies on trying to sanitize the airwaves ("sanitized" being the equivalent of "do what we tell you to do or face a boycott") initiated a protest against the US TVLand network after the network began a promotion for a weekend of 1980s movies which the network was calling the "'Ohmigod That's So '80s' movie weekend." The AFA, which is notoriously anti-Gay (they are urging members to boycott Ford for "supporting homosexual groups which are pushing homosexual marriage," and call Proctor and Gamble "the top pro-homosexual sponsor on television") and pro-God, objected to the repeated use of the phrase "Ohnigod." Their press release at the time even stated that "I can't tell you how offensive it is to listen to the advertisement for this new show as they must say 'OHMIGOD' five times in thirty seconds." The press release even contained a warning that the ad aired automatically when you visited the website. The press release concluded "Disrespect for Christians and God have gone on for some time with this phrase, but now we have a network that feels it appropriate to name an entire program series with this phrase." In response TVLand changed the phrase on their website to "Ohmygosh" and deleted the offensive audio clip... from their website. As reported by website Good As You (a Gay and Lesbian site obviously opposed to the AFA and its head Donald Wildmon) what the network didn't do was to actually change the promo for the weekend on their TV commercials for it although they did pull it of the air. For all of one day (February 15^th).

Yet more touchiness: The advocacy group Autism United has demanded that CBS cancel the current run of Big Brother because of a statement by contestant Adam Jasinski. At the very least they want Jasinski removed from the show. In the show's second episode Adam stated that if he won he intended to use some of the money to fund a hair salon for autistic kids saying that it would be a place where, "retards can get it together and get their hair done." When one of the other houseguests, Sheila, told him not to call them that, Adam responded by saying, "Disabled kids. I can call them whatever I want. I work with them all day, okay?" In a letter to CBS quoted by TMZ, Autism United executive director John Gilmore wrote, "Just as we are confident that CBS would not tolerate the use derogatory epithets regarding race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation we hope that the use of derogatory Terms for people with disabilities in [sic] also unacceptable in your programming.... While Jasinski's displayed gross ignorance, the producers of the show chose to use his comments to forward the show's storyline. This displays a conscious choice on their part to demean and hurt a large group of people to further their own commercial goals." Gilmore added in a rather bizarre paragraph that "It is appropriate I believe to note that the Holocaust began with the extermination of developmental disabled children in a secret program called Aktion T-4. The techniques, organization and personnel for Aktion T-4 went directly to run the extermination camps at Treblinka, Sobibor and others. All extermination campaigns begin with the dehumanization of the target group. And referring to developmental disabled people and people with autism as "retards" indeed fails to recognize the humanity of people with these disorders." I'm not entirely sure why it was "appropriate" to mention the Holocaust in this context. It is worth noting that this is not the first time such comments have caused controversy on the show. Last season contestant Amber Siyavus made anti-Semitic remarks directed in part against one of her fellow houseguests. She was not removed from the house. Indeed there have only been two occasions when houseguests have been removed from the show; both cases were related to violent behaviour by contestants.

Zucker out of step: Remember how Jeff Zucker was all over the entertainment blogs (including this one) and the media saying that the "upfronts" – those extravaganzas where the networks reveal their new season line-ups and shows to the world, and more importantly to the advertising agencies – were passé. That they were "vestiges of an era that's gone by and won't return," and that he expected that the other networks would follow in NBC's lead. Well turns out that none of the other networks agreed with him. By February 14^th the other four networks – CBS, ABC, FOX and The CW – had all announced that they would be doing upfront presentations for the ad agencies. One has to wonder how some of Zucker's other ideas are playing out with the competition. You remember, the stuff he announced at the NATPE meetings, like doing away with pilots, and trying to develop a year-round programming schedule strategy. These were all moves that Zucker said the other networks would follow once NBC was successful with them. There's a line from The West Wing that covers this situation: "A leader without any followers is just a guy taking a walk."

Speaking of NBC dropping upfronts: They aren't. Well they are and they aren't. Maybe. Sort of. In a way. Confused? Well so am I.

See here's what happened. On February 18^th TVSquad had a headline quoting AdWeek which said that NBC would be holding an upfront event after all. The trouble is that, in order to see the Adweek article you have to be a subscriber. In order to confirm the TVSquad report, I Googled "NBC + Upfronts" in the News search. Here's what I got. MediaPost states that NBC will "still hold a gathering of advertisers and others in a large hall with top Hollywood talent on display. But what's being referred to as 'a multimedia, interactive' event will not be held at its long-standing venue, Radio City Music Hall, May 12--and it will focus less on NBC and more on NBCU." However, NBC will "lay out its prime-time schedule for the full 52 weeks ahead in April," after which NBCU's sales teams will meet with advertisers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago for further meetings about the schedule and opportunities for advertising on the NBC-Universal family of channels. The upfront – which will occur on May 12^th – won't actually be an upfront but a "spotlight event."

On the other hand the LA Times stated that "NBC Universal said Tuesday that it was abandoning its spring ritual of unveiling the network's fall schedule in an expensive, star-studded presentation at Radio City Music Hall in favor of smaller meetings with advertisers in three cities, including Los Angeles. 'We are taking what has been a one-way conversation and turning it into a two-way dialogue with advertisers,' said Marc Graboff, co-chairman of NBC Entertainment. The company also plans a trade show-like 'expo' in New York on May 12, the day that had been reserved for NBC's presentation. Last month, NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker announced the company would probably scrap its annual presentation, which he dismissed as little more than a 'dog-and-pony show.'

So is this "Spotlight Event" really an Upfront or what? I'm inclined to think of it as an "or what." After all, the advertisers at the very least will know the actual primetime schedule for 52 weeks in advance sometime in April and I can't honestly see this not leaking out to the general public before the "spotlight event." But in that case, why hold the "spotlight event?" I can't help but wonder if what the NBCU sales teams will be presenting to the advertisers might be set in something less durable than stone so that if some aspects of the schedule are received less than favourably by the ad agencies shows can be moved, or dropped entirely – remember they're selling the new shows without pilots. What is clear is that so far at least Jeff Zucker and NBC are again "just a guy taking a walk." The other networks aren't cancelling their upfront presentations because, as the LA Times pointed out, "the presentations, although expensive, help generate interest in their programs and drive sales. The annual events had been marked by advanced peeks at the new fall shows, glitzy parties and opportunities for advertisers to get their photos snapped with stars." As well, presumably, they are an opportunity to present the details of the year's schedule to all of the agencies at the same time rather than in small groups. One thing that is apparent – if nothing else is – is that no matter how you present the shows to advertisers, nothing in either process is going to save crap shows from the ultimate "critic" in such things, the viewing audience.

On The Fourth Day Of Christmas

On the Fourth day of Christmas my true love gave to me....Four Reality-Competition Show Stars. (Well five really but two of these are so joined in the public imagination that they can safely be counted as one.) Okay, admittedly these are people from shows that I watch and I don't really focus on shows like Project Runway, America's Next Top Model, or American Idol, but do you really want to be reminded of Sanjaya?

Yau-Man Chan: Everybody's favourite loser on Survivor: Fiji. Yau-Man was smart, enthusiastic, agile, and beloved by his fellow competitors. He opened a sealed wooden box when brawnier members of his tribe failed through the simple expedient of dropping it on its corner. His childhood in Borneo gave him some knowledge of the jungle. He almost single handedly won an immunity challenge for his team by applying physics – by way of "unorthodox" techniques – to a challenge involving traditional Fijian weapons. He not only managed to tell his alliance that he had one of the hidden Immunity Idols when forced by two other players, he managed to build on his alliance by revealing that his belongings had been searched. He read his opponents so well that he knew the exact time to play his Immunity Idol – if he hadn't played it at just the right time he'd have been eliminated by a 4-2 vote. His one misstep involved the "car curse." In a Reward Challenge he won a new truck. He immediately decided to use it as a bargaining chip, offering it to cheerleading coach "Dreamz" in return for a promise that if "Dreamz" won the immunity challenge in the final four he wouldn't vote for Yau-Man. "Dreamz" took the truck and then broke his promise, with Yau-Man finishing fourth. The "car curse" turned out to be doubly powerful – "Dreamz" not only didn't win the million dollar first prize, neither he nor Cassandra (the other player who faced the final jury vote) got a single vote.

Dick Donato: "Evel" was by turns abusive, arrogant, tender, mocking and strategically brilliant during his time on Big Brother 8. The California National Organization for Women called for his removal from the show because of remarks he made about a female competitor, and online petitions circulated for and against him. And yet there was usually method in his supposed madness because when it came down to it, Dick's primary objective was not to win the half million dollar prize for himself but to win it for his daughter Danielle who was also a contestant. He was the first person in the history of the American version of Big Brother to have been able to used the Power of Veto to save himself and instead use it on the other nominee – his daughter Danielle (she later returned the favour). And although he tended to be less than successful at challenges his determination a marathon task that didn't work as planned (part of the mechanism for the challenge broke down early in the challenge leaving the two remaining contestants to hold onto a rope while being drenched in water) was only a prelude to his success in the remaining two parts of the final Head of Household competition. This in turn allowed him to go to the final two with his daughter, as he had planned. The quality of his game play (combined with his popularity with the public in a season where phone voting controlled one player) allowed him to win the season.

"Jeric" (Jessica Hughbanks & Eric Stein): You know you have something when you have two reality-competition players whose connection is so deep that they grow a compound name, and their fans petition for their inclusion in The Amazing Race. That happened to "Romber" (Rob & Amber from Survivor: All Stars, and one of the best teams ever to appear on The Amazing Race in my opinion) and it happened to Jessica & Eric. Admittedly they didn't win Big Brother 8, or even finish in the final four, but they had amazing chemistry together and their romantic relationship blossomed on the show. Admittedly things were complicated for Eric due to the whole "America's Player" thing, which allowed viewers at home to determine who Eric would vote for and some of his other actions – on his own Eric probably wouldn't have made some of the voting decisions that were made for him – but somehow they worked through it. True, Eric's first kiss with Jessica had been voted on by the fans, and it was their choice that he give his (supposed) childhood "woobie" to her but there was a definite connection there. Even their evictions from the house had an almost Romeo & Juliet quality to it – in a double eviction episode Eric was removed from the show just minutes after Erica. Since their appearance on Big Brother they are apparently still together, if in a rather long distance relationship at the moment. More to the point they were such fan favourites that when Eric made a comment about how he'd like to be on The Amazing Race, fans started a petition to get the couple on the show.

Julia Williams: Reality TV fans are a fickle lot, and nothing showed that more than the reaction to Julia. She became a fan favourite on the third season of Hell's Kitchen due to her underdog status. While most of the other competitors had experience in fine dining establishments, Julia was a short order cook for the Waffle House chain. The abuse started almost immediately, when she was relegated to chopping apples during dinner service. It was only after one of the "better trained" members of her team repeatedly failed to fry quail eggs that she let her frustration go. Even then, some members of her team wanted to eliminate her because she "worked at the (expletive) Waffle House." She was nominated later for "not knowing proper culinary terms," something so absurd that Ramsay voided the nomination. Julia's performance continued to improve, and when Ramsay was finally forced to fire her, he not only praised her performance on the show but even offered to pay for her to attend culinary school. She was most assuredly the fan's favourite at this point in the show. And then came the series finale. The final two were "Rock", an executive chef from Virginia, and Bonnie, a self-described nanny an personal chef from Los Angeles. The relationship between Julia and Bonnie had never been good – Bonnie was one of the people who thought Julia should have been fired in the first episode – and Julia seemed resentful that Bonnie in particular was there and she wasn't. The fans – some of them at least – turned on her. She was pouting; she wasn't sufficiently grateful for Ramsay paying her way to culinary school. Worst of all, she was a "sore loser" and may even have used her attitude to keep Bonnie from winning. Even I felt that if it were a real restaurant rather than the finale of a reality competition, Bonnie would have been justified in firing Julia's ass – after service was over. Still, no one can deny that at least for most of what was really a lacklustre season for the show, Julia was the one the fans were behind.

Short Takes – August 13, 2007

It is sometimes irritating how time can slip away. I meant to do one of these last week, along with a TV on DVD posting, but with one thing and another (and another after that) by the time either one would have been done it would have been time to do this one – and some of the stuff that I had promised myself I would do this past week wouldn't have been done. And that doesn't even count some ongoing projects that have yet to be resolved. Plus I really wanted to get out to the new casino that opened about 24 miles out of town (a long and gory story exists about why it is 24 miles outside of Saskatoon but the short version is that the people of my hometown are moralistic morons – if you'd like to hear the full story ask me in comments and I'll do an off topic post) – I wanted to go on opening day (Friday) but decided against it and now I don't know when I'll get the chance.

Another thing that fell by the wayside was taking notes for this post. I have a system but it sort of fell apart this week in part because I didn't really check all of my usual sources. The end result is that I'm sort or winging it this week and it might not be terribly long or complete. Well except for the PTC section this week, which is huge.

Big Brother bigotry: The really big story concerning this season of Big Brother in the U.S. has nothing to do with banner planes or the twist of "America's player" or "Evel" Dick (that's how he wants "evil" spelled) cursing at anyone who gets in his way and dumping iced tea on Jen's head. No it has to do with statements that have never been broadcast either on the three weekly episodes of Big Brother that air on CBS or on the nightly three hour live show – Big Brother After Dark – that airs on ShowtimeToo. These were statements made by houseguest Amber which happened to be picked up on the Internet live feeds. Speaking to fellow houseguest (and truly odd Christian – at least in my experience) Jameka, Amber said "The majority of people I know from New York are Jewish, and the majority of Jewish people I know, my gosh, so many are so selfish. So weird. Even my sister always tells me, she's like my sister, and my mom will meet someone and I'll be like, 'I don't like that person. That person doesn't seem like a very good person to me,' and my mom and sister are like, 'You know why?' Why? 'They're Jewish.' How do you know? 'Amber you can tell by their last name, you can tell by their nose.' I'm like, 'Really?'" One of the other houseguests with whom Amber has had an on and off feud is Eric Stein who, as it happens, is from the New York City area (Westchester County) and is Jewish.

Needless to say the statements made their way from the show's live feed to the various video sharing sites including YouTube. Also needless to say there has been considerable reaction, some calling for Amber's removal from the house. It was a story on both FOX News and CNN. Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, said "It's part of the unintended consequences of the communications revolution. Anybody can say what they do - but reality shows are now giving license to these expressions of anti-Semitism. Now, all of a sudden, the world is privy to their bigotry and it's on national television... then enhanced on YouTube. What they've done is distributed anti-Semitism -- which started as a private conversation -- and by putting it on a reality TV show broadcast it to the world at large. I want CBS to understand they are facilitating anti-Semitism. They should act responsibly to the community; they are legitimizing bigoted conversation." In the same posting on TMZ, CBS responded by stating that "Big Brother is a reality show about watching a group of people who have no privacy 24/7 - and seeing every moment of their lives. At times, the Houseguests reveal prejudices and other beliefs that we do not condone. We certainly find the statements made by Amber Siyavus on the live Internet feed to be offensive and they will not be part of any future broadcast on the CBS Television Network."

I confess that this whole controversy bothers me, and it bothers me on both sides. It is pretty apparent that Amber is a very stupid and very strange woman. She's a former drug addict who lied a couple of times to her former boyfriend about being pregnant. That in fact was part of the reason for her extremely angry breach with Eric. Her bigotry isn't surprising. In many ways it is a throwback to the way that North American society was for many years, the sort of prejudice that was common into the 1950s, well after Hitler's rise and fall took anti-Semitism to a frightening extreme. That said, I feel that the statements that have been made about Amber's statements are significant overreaction. They are also expected of course. The live feeds are just that – live – and therefore uncensored. CBS has not, and according to their statement will not "broadcast it to the world at large." The live feeds are Internet rather than television and are a pay to view service. That's significantly different from making "the world ... privy to their bigotry and it's on national television." What is CBS supposed to do to not distribute anti-Semitism? Were they supposed to pull the plug on the Feed and if so at what point were they supposed to do it? Were they supposed to force YouTube to pull the clips off of their site? It is a fact that Amber was aware that she is on camera all the time but it is also a fact that people who are under constant surveillance – either in documentaries or in business situations – who are aware of the fact come to either forget or ignore the fact that they are under surveillance and revert to their normal pattern of life. I think that Amber either forgot that she was constantly on camera or was just living her life and having a conversation with someone she regards as her closest friend in the house. That her speech was bigoted is obvious but so is the fact that if Amber's statement hadn't been the subject of such righteous indignation far fewer people would have seen it or been aware of it since few people – including our Jackie – watch every minute of the live feeds (though she tries).

Coming to Criminal Minds – Harvey Keitel Joe Montegna: When Mandy Patinkin pulled – well a Mandy Patinkin – and suddenly left the successful Criminal Minds in much the same way that he left Chicago Hope (then for "personal reasons" now for "creative differences") a number of names were bandied about as possible replacements of various degrees of seriousness. Geena Davis was under consideration as were Michael Keaton and Bob Hoskins. Eventually it seemed likely that Patinkin would be replaced by Harvey Keitel, star of such movies as Reservoir Dogs and The Bad Lieutenant. TVSquad actually announced that he was in serious negotiations for the part. And almost immediately they had to recant when a TV Guide report stated that the negotiations had fallen through. Eventually it was announced that Joe Montegna, who previously starred in Joan of Arcadia, and First Monday, would be replacing Patinkin.

Who does the PTC hate this week?: And the answer is so many things that it's hard to keep count.

The PTC announced their list of "Best" and "Worst" advertisers. The definitions are obviously based on the degree to which the company advertises on programming that the PTC regards as suitable, although they say that they base it on "how frequently they sponsor wholesome, family-oriented television shows or those containing sexually graphic, violent or profane material on broadcast television." The 10 "Best" are (in order): Proctor & Gamble, Walt Disney Co., Ford, Unilever, Viacom, McDonalds, Johnson & Johnson, Schering-Plough [Products include: Afrin, Claritin, Nasonex, Dr. Scholls, Lotrimin], Coca-Cola, and General Mills. The 10 "Worst" are: Toyota, GM, Limited Brands, Payless Shoe Source, Vonage, Volkswagen, Dunkin Brands, Reckitt Benckiser [Products include: Clearasil, Lysol, Spray and Wash, Air Wick, Woolite, Jet Dry, Glass Plus, Electrasol, Easy Off], GEICO, and Bayer.

There is an obvious fault in this list, and that is that it seems to assume that the "good" advertisers are making the decisions that they have as to where to put their advertising dollars based on moral grounds, and presumably the "bad" advertisers are immoral scum. Maybe some of that is in fact the case – at least as far as the "good" advertisers – but I suspect a lot of both groups' choices are based on where they can get the most bang for their bucks; in other words which programming will target their demographics that buys their products. Obviously Disney is going to market most of their movies and their theme parks to families with pre-teen children and will therefore advertise primarily on programs that reach that demographic. In much the same way, most automobile companies will target their advertising to people who buy cars. General Motors and General Mills are not aiming at the same demographics and it makes sense that they will advertise to different audiences and on different programs. If General Mills suddenly found that the population who bought their cereals was watching Rescue Me, they would be advertising on Rescue Me.

Next up, the PTC is upset with MyNetwork TV, and its parent company News Corp. You may remember MyNetwork TV; they were the motley collection of UPN and WB stations, many of them owned by News Corp (which also owns FOX and FX) that were formed into a network after being excluded after The CW was created. Their line-up is a thoroughly pathetic mix of reality shows, movies and a lesser extreme fighting league with Wednesdays in the summer being devoted to "various programs." On August 1, MyNetwork TV aired the first two episodes of the new F/X series Damages, which stars Glenn Close in what the PTC descrinbes as "the so-called Family Hour" (whether the use of "so-called" is a case of the PTC finally acknowledging that the Family Hour doesn't really exist or – more likely – is a protest against the networks who fail to acknowledge the "existence" of the Family Hour, is unknown). The PTC was scathing in their denunciation of News Corp for running the show: "The programming executives at News Corp. and its subsidiaries have demonstrated once again their blatant disregard for children and families, in spite of giving considerable lip-service about being responsible. Coming less than a year after airing a scripted 'S-word' on an 8 p.m. broadcast program, this contemptuous act – airing an adult-themed, mature-rated, 10 p.m. cable program on broadcast television during the family hour – illustrates just how little they truly care about their public interest obligation." Later they add "More children watch television during the 8 pm hour than on Saturday mornings or after school. If the Fox executive suite truly cared about acting responsibly, the company wouldn't put an adult-targeted, MA-rated cable program on one of its broadcast networks at the start of the family hour. Their FX channel has proven to be a cable network that regularly – and proudly – attacks the decency sensibilities of most American families, and now this same graphic and gratuitous content is airing on broadcast television at 8 pm. This behavior proves once again that the self-serving TV ratings system managed by the industry is a sham. Television networks cannot be trusted to rate their own programs. If parents are ever going to trust and rely on a TV ratings system for content information, the system needs to be accurate, consistent and transparent. The networks must be held to an objective and uniform standard, and there needs to be a real consequence for failing to apply ratings accurately."

In a separate article the PTC outlines their objections to the show which primarily seems to be that not enough was cut to meet the standards that the PTC feels should be met for the rating and descriptors used by the network. The FX airing of the show was rated as TV-MA SL (Mature Audience, Sexual Content, Language). The My Network TV version was listed as TV-14 SLV (Sex, Language, Violence). The PTC notes that an article in Variety about the airing of the show stated "the Damages episodes will be edited to reflect a TV-14 rating, which means some of the language will be trimmed, as well as some sexual content, from the original FX airing." In other words, violent scenes would not be edited. The PTC then stated that "Comparing the FX premiere episode with the MyNetworkTV premiere episode, the only discernable difference is that all instances of the "s-word" and "g-ddamn" were cut, as well as a few (but not all) instances of the word "bitch." Left uncut were the words "ass," "hell," "damn," and "bitch," which are not uncommon for TV-14 broadcast shows." In other words the show had been edited to bring the show down to the common standard for a TV-14 broadcast show. They next turn their attention to a bedroom scene that was edited from 55 seconds to 30 seconds. Here's the PTC description of the scene: "there is a scene in which the main character Ellen and her fiancée Noah are clearly having sex. The viewer can see Ellen drag her hands down Noah's bare back, which is glistening with sweat. They passionately kiss, Ellen is shown on top of her fiancée smiling while Noah is on the bottom, smiling up at her." The PTC states "The FX version of this scene is 55 seconds long, while the MyNetworkTV version is 30 seconds long – so, to be fair, the executives did "edit" the scene. But are network executives making the argument that if a sex scene on broadcast is shorter than on cable that somehow makes it appropriate content for a 14-year-old? What is of real concern is that the scene was edited for length, not for content." They may very well be arguing just that. During the period of the Production Code in Hollywood after all the duration of a kiss was one of the defining factors as to whether or not a scene was acceptable (any kiss lasting longer than 3 seconds was defined as lewd, and there could be no open mouth kisses). A 30 second sex scene may indeed be acceptable in the context of a TV-14 series with an S descriptor. Finally the PTC objects to two scenes of violence which were unedited between the FX and MyNetwork TV editions despite the fact that the FX version carried a TV-MA rating but no V descriptor while the MyNetwork TV shows had a V descriptor for the TV-14 rating. In other words the violence in the cable version was not sufficient to earn the V descriptor but in the broadcast version it was. In terms of violence the episode would seem to be correctly rated.

The PTC's new Misrated feature seems to be directed primarily at ABC's series (well really ABC Family's series) Greek and their most recent attack on the show contains what has to be the most absurd and prudish thing I've seen in a while, something literally worthy of The Simpsons' Ned Flanders. The piece starts with a piece of dialog between Casey and her ex-boyfriend Cappie which is apparently about coffee: "Nothing starts the day off right like that first cup of Joe. After all, your first is always the best, don't you agree? The one that's most special?" The PTC points out that "Cappie is referring to the fact that he and Casey had their first sexual encounter together." But then they bring out the next part of the same scene where Cappie's fraternity brother comes in. His nickname is "Beaver": "Beaver: 'You guys are way too into your coffee. Pardon. I spy a tasty morning muffin. [Beaver then walks over to Rebecca.] Beaver: 'Top of the morning, muffin.'" The PTC points out "What is the most offensive about this content is that both the term 'beaver' and 'muffin' are commonly used vulgar slang for a part of the female anatomy, and they are deliberately used to emphasize the sexual nature of the conversation." Heavens, what they must think of Beaver Cleaver, the little sex fiend! They also choose to ignore the fact that "muffin" is frequently used as a non-sexual term of endearment and even directed at children. The PTC decries the fact that the episode is rated TV-PG SDL (Sex, Dialog, Language): "If Greek's content is only rated TV-PG SDL, one can only wonder what would warrant the TV-14 SDL rating." In the case of the scene described above, we are obviously seeing double entendre at work, material that more mature people will catch (and presumably be amused by) but which younger and less sophisticated viewers wouldn't catch. The PTC is so fixated on sexual innuendo that they deliberately ignore the non-sexual contexts that exist for the situation. Not that I'm surprised of course

The PTC's Broadcast Worst of the Week was more reruns; in this case a two hour package of Family Guy episodes tied to the new Fox movie Superbad "the latest sex comedy geared for teens and young adults." Despite the fact that the PTC says that the episodes contain "some of the most outrageous and depraved content of the season" they are episodes which have aired before. Instead let's turn to the PTC's Cable Worst of the Week, which is "repeat offender" Rescue Me. Their approach on this one is interesting. They start off with their usual objections to the show: "Rampant alcoholism. Violent outbursts. Rape. Falling babies? Those four lines now sum up Rescue Me, FX's gritty chronicle of the tragic New York City firefighter Tommy Gavin. But last week the program reached a new low: depicting falling, and dying, babies." Which you would think is all they object to but you'd be wrong. They actually try to argue about the artistic merits of the show, but in typical PTC fashion they don't get it: "The producers of the show undoubtedly considered the August 1^st episode critical to Tommy's growing sense of alienation." They delineate the events of main character Tommy Gavin's life include his apparent reconciliation with his ex-wife because of a new baby. Then they describe his life falling apart – the baby turns out to be his brother's and his ex-wife is suffering from post-partum depression. And here is where they don't get it: "At this point the show's writers and producers had a choice: they could have depicted, however hyperbolically, the real difficulties of infidelity and parenthood, or they could go for cheap thrills. You can guess which they chose: Tommy, contemplating infanticide is shown dangling Janet's baby over a city bridge." Here's the thing though; it wouldn't be in character for the Tommy Gavin we know deal with this any way other than this. Tommy is an incredibly flawed and haunted human being (arguably schizophrenic), and this is in character for him. And then they got into the question of "art": "Art, whether on your television or in the Louvre, deals with profound – and sometimes ugly – truths of human nature. But disagreement can and should occur on the line between aesthetic evolution and graphic sensationalism. That basic cable viewers – whether offended or enthralled by cable's programming, whether avid watchers or V-Chip users – are forced to subsidize all basic cable programming is not only unfair, but violates another component of art: the spectator's right of choice."

It is, as I have said numerous times, a bogus argument. Basic cable is advertiser supported, a fact which the PTC acknowledges every time they criticize advertiser for putting their commercials on Rescue Me. The cable user is paying for the cable network's delivery of programming; the advertisers pay for the shows (yes it's a bit simplistic but essentially true) and if the audience isn't there – as was the case with E!'s most recent edition of The Simple Life – the show will be cancelled because the advertisers won't support the show. It is a clear proof that "the spectator's right of choice" really does exist and it exists through the medium of the On-Off switch on the TV. I you don't like the show, don't watch it. If enough people don't watch the show it will end up being cancelled.

One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others

There are a couple of reasons for this title which will become clear in due time, but for the moment, let's just bask in the return of Big Brother – the horribly mutated version for North America. It's true, this is not the show that John de Mol created and which the rest of the world watches and participates in by calling in and voting for who should be evicted and who should stay. CBS tried that in the summer of 2000, and I think it's fair to say that if that were the only example of a reality show that was on the air that year the genre might have died "a-borning." But there was a little show called Survivor – which I'm convinced that no one at either Endemol or CBS thought was going to take off the way it did – that kicked Big Brother in the balls and took its lunch money. And when Big Brother came back for its second season it had ceased to be a show where the audience was an active participant and became a somewhat weak Survivor clone, but one which holds an audience.

This season the Big Brother house has been done over in a sort of Alice in Wonderland – or probably more accurately an Alice Through The Looking Glass – motif complete with one bedroom where everything is oversized and one is undersized (to say the least). And there was one room where the beds were round for no apparent reason, although I'm sure we'll discover one eventually. The eleven house guests were let into the house in groups of four, three, and four. Yes, I did say eleven, which is down from last year, but that's part of The Twist for this season (or one of the twists anyway). Naturally the "randomly chosen" first four – Carol, Joe, Mike and Amber (not that one) – grab the big beds, while the second three – Nick, Danielle, and Jameka (this season's only African American player, who admits that she doesn't spend much time with White People and is rather nervous about it) have far reduced choices. The final four – Kail, Jen, Eric and Zach – just happens to include some of the tallest members of the cast get the "Hobbit Hole" room with the tiny bed and the low to the floor door.

Once the players have their beds selected they get together in the living room to introduce themselves and it's a chance for us to get a really good look at them. The oldest one – so far – is 38 year old Kail while the youngest at "not quite 21" is blonde Danielle. In fact this is probably the youngest group of houseguests ever since – of the ones we know about – the only other one out of his twenties is graphic designer Zach. There's the usual sort of bitchy but insubstantial comments that occur. One houseguest states in confessional that she doesn't think another woman is "a person of substance" because of her enormous giant boobs." Don't snicker; from such facile observations are alliances forged on this show. The big early revelation is that Joe is Gay (no shock there). Actually he says that he works as a receptionist in a children's hair salon which is about the least "butch" job one can think of and yet another example of Big Brother casting the most stereotypical Gay people in America. Kail (who owns multiple businesses and is willing to tell us all about how most of her small Oregon town works for her or her family, but has only told her fellow houseguests that she was "just" a real estate agent) came off as something of a homophobe when she said in confessional that she would be "heartbroken" of one of her children "chose a Gay lifestyle." Which is a pretty crappy thing to say, but there's a bit of a hitch because we don't know when these confessionals were shot, and there are revelations to come about our happy little Gay guy.

The revelations are going to come because of the first Twist of the season. Host Julie Chen shows up on the living room monitor and tells the denizens of the minimum security prison known as the Big Brother House that they are not the only houseguests in the building. They are three people that they know; possibly a rival, an enemy or someone they have unfinished business with. And they're watching the action in the living room on TV. The three are Joe's ex, Dustin, "Evil" Dick (he insists on calling himself "Evil") who is Danielle's estranged father, and Jessica who is owed $5 by Carol from back when they were in high school. Huh!? Back downstairs the main group of inmates is speculating on who from their past life could be upstairs. Joe almost immediately says it has to be Dustin, and claims that Dustin gave him gonorrhoea (Dustin says it was Joe who was cheating and gave him The Clap), and that after they broke up Joe turned all of Dustin's friends against him. If Kail's comments about the Gay Lifestyle came after hearing this, they may seem just a bit less homophobic. Or maybe not. Suffice it to say that "our happy little Gay guy" doesn't come off at all well even without a rebuttal from Dustin. Danielle is afraid that it's probably her dad but doesn't say anything, while Kail is mostly worried that someone from her hometown will reveal the fact that she is – say it with me folks – a multiple business owner. As for Carol, she can't figure out who from her life could be somewhere in the house except maybe one of the girls she dissed when she was in high school.

The HOH competition was a bog standard one with a bit of a spin added to it – so to speak. Players paired up (with one not getting a partner and thus not competing) and while one player sat on a giant mushroom (like the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland – remember that part of the theme) while their partner answered questions based on what the houseguest said in a general questionnaire before the start of the show. For every incorrect answer the mushroom of the "answerer's" partner would spin faster. Eric, who was trying desperately to answer questions wrong, ended up winning the challenge with his partner Kail who stuck to the mushroom like glue. Then Julie announced that the Head of Household would be chosen by the three players we haven't met yet. They decided to give it to Kail. Then, after everyone cleaned up (there were geysers of mud and a cloud of powdery white dust for the mushroom riders), the three players upstairs came down to meet everybody else. Pointedly Joe refused to shake hands with Dustin, but clearly the most emotional situation related to the massively tattooed "Evil" Dick and his daughter who fled to the bathroom along with most of the women on the show. I suspect that while Dustin & Joe is the relationship with the most external conflict, whatever happened between Dick and Danielle goes a lot deeper.

Ah, but there's one more complication thrown into the mix for this season and it's The Big Twist. Throughout the show they had been teasing us with the idea that one houseguest would be ours (the audience's) to control. At the end of the episode it is finally revealed that the one to be controlled would be Eric, who had been Kail's partner in the HOH competition. At the end of each episode viewers will be polled as to what "we" want Eric to do in a given situation ranging from how we want him to vote during the eliminations to which woman (I think/hope it's only women) he should start a "showmance" with. He's our little puppet to master. And while It's not the same as being able to vote out houseguests ourselves as is done in other shows in the Big Brother worldwide franchise, it is a lot more interactivity than has been available in the past. Despite the fact that he seems like the other players Eric is most assuredly not like the others.

The Big Brother houseguests are in their seventh day in the Big House. It is possible to get the live Internet feeds on Real Networks, but for the first time ever there is a daily three hour show available on the American cable network Showtime Too called Big Brother After Dark which shows viewers what's going on, live, in the Big Brother house from Midnight to 3 a.m. Eastern which is 9 p.m. to Midnight in California where the house is located – according to producer Allison Grodner, "That's primetime for the Big Brother house. It's when our houseguests are most wide awake and having fun, talking about strategy and playing the game. People are going to see quite a bit." And since it's on cable it won't be as censored as the broadcast programming is. Unfortunately that option isn't available in Canada. Global, which broadcasts Big Brother in Canada is offering an interactive contest called "In The House" where players can answer questions on their computers as each episode progresses. The highest point total for the week wins a TV with the highest point total for the year winning tickets to the show's wrap party. It's all part of an effort to make Big Brother 8 a more involving experience for the viewers at home. (Of course if you can't be bothered with the internet live feeds and aren't willing to subscribe to Showtime Too there's always Jackie's blog The (TV) Show Must Go On where she makes a heroic effort to summarize what's going on in the house, complete with her patented eyerolls @@. She has also posted the names of some other sites that recap the live feeds.)

Big Brother is the height of mindless summertime programming, the sort of thing that has little significance and not much in the way of dramatic qualities. The "characters" aren't particularly compelling and the casting – this year in particular – has tended to focus on the young and insubstantial rather than people who have accomplished something in their lives as some previous seasons have had. Purely on the level of the three episodes a week that most people see it can be dismissed as a typical reality show. Dimension is added however by the ability to see material other than what the show's producers edit for mainstream consumption – the live feeds and now Big Brother After Dark – which gives an enhanced view of what is occurring in the house. Because it's live it represents a more candid view of the people in the house. It's still "reality TV" but it's "reality" as it happens rather than interpreted by producers and editors looking to create artificial conflict and dramatic storylines. Where the series is finally making a breakthrough is in terms of interactivity. By giving the viewers a player to "control," even to the limited degree that we will be able to make decisions for him; the producers have made a big step. Having Eric "controlled" by the viewers breaks down the fourth wall from our side, making those who vote on what he should do participants rather than just observers. It's a small step, but more than the baby steps of other audience participation shows like American Idol in making TV interactive. And if you don't think this is significant consider something the Dianne Krisitine posted in Blogcritics. The article titled TV Yearns to Let You Choose Your Own Adventure states that new NBC Entertainment boss Ben Silverman wants to develop dramatic series along the lines of "choose your own adventure books" where decisions made by readers – or in the case of TV, viewers – influence the direction in which the story goes leading eventually to different endings. Indeed Chuck Lorre proposed a primitive version of this to FOX in 2001 with a show called Nathan's Choice where viewers would vote during a commercial break as to which of two options the lead character would take and then air the second act of the episode based on the viewers vote. With the "America's Player" idea, in which some of Eric's actions are controlled by the players, we are seeing this idea in action, although admittedly not in the format that either Silverman or Lorre envisioned. It'll to be interesting to see how this is going to work.

Short Takes - July 10, 2006

I should have written a bit earlier about the Big Brother: All Stars selections but to be honest with you when I made my little excursion on the "new look" Saskatoon Transit System I got a little too much sun - which is a euphemism for a lot too much sun. It hit me that night and I was in no shape to do anything for a couple of days really. Not the transit system's fault though but my own for trying to walk a couple of miles that afternoon. I think I'll wait until Tuesday - first Power of Veto day - to give an opinion, which should give me a lot more information. Meanwhile check out Jackie's blog for up to the minute details of that minimum security prison I call the Big Brother house. See Jackie has the live feeds, which is giving me a little preliminary feeling of what's going down in the house. Here's a little taster: Nakomis to someone Jackie doesn't identify: "I was an odd child." Why am I not at all surprised.

I shot an arrow... Speaking of odd reality show winners, let us consider the recent exploits of Survivor: Thailand winner Brian Heidik. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Heidik was arrested last Tuesday for shooting a five month old German Shepherd-cross puppy with a bow and arrow. He claimed that he thought the animal was a fox or a coyote, but his wife and former fellow soft-core porn star Charmaine (who also filed charges against him for domestic violence after he grabbed her face and pushed her down) said that he had shot the dog from a range of about a foot saying that he was "tired of stupid dogs on my back porch." Heidik and his wife are legally separated but still live in the same house. Heidik made bail on Wednesday. The dog, Edgar, was being picked up from the by his owner on Thursday.

And yet another crazy: We all know that the United States is a litigious society, but this one just makes you want to shake your head. According to the Boston Herald, Nicholas Christakis is suing Donald Trump and Mark Burnett because he wasn't selected for the first edition of The Apprentice. The suit for $250 million claims that Burnett and Trump (who Christakis never met) engaged in “improper business practices and ethics” and that Burnett “'defamed, slandered and libeled' him in front of a California casting crew during the August 2003 final interviews conducted to hand-pick 16 contenders to become Trump’s one and only first Apprentice.” Christakis's credentials to become the Apprentice might not have been the best though. In 2001 he filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy while in 2002 his family's breakfast restaurant "The Cove" was shut down by health inspectors - the family has sued. According to Christakis, “Mark Burnett passed judgment on me. He thought I was a lunatic.” Well I know where I stand on that one.

Emmy stuff: Of course the big TV news was the Emmy's and that seems to have pushed all of the other business off to the side once they were released - or escaped in some cases. For example Emmy rules VP John Leverence explained to Variety that says Desperate Housewives might not have nee funny enough and Lost too complex to be nominated. "At the panels, the ha-ha comedies had 'em rolling in the aisles whereas Desperate Housewives does a both a drama dance and a comedy dance. Having the dramatic elements in with the comedic perhaps tended to dilute the force of the comedic." About Lost he said "If Lost in fact chose an episode that was midway into a very complex action and you had people in that room who were seeing it for the first time, there's a distinct possibility they might not have gotten it. It might not have had that kind of resonance that a non-serialized program would have." So if I read this right the "Blue Ribbon Panel" system benefits shows that aren't complex and don't require you to watch more than one episode.

Here's another point of view from Tom O'Neil who does the Gold Derby blog on the LA Times' The Envelope awards show site. In the article Emmy Reax: 3 Experts' Smackdown O'Neil takes a contrarian view from most people including the other two people he's talking to (and me): "I think these are some of the gutsiest and best Emmy nominations ever. I agree that they failed to achieve their goal to boost shows on those alternative networks like the WB, UPN, FX, TNT, USA and Showtime, but there's not a single nominee that doesn't deserve to be on the list. Some of the choices are kooky, sure, but marvelously courageous — like Stockard Channing in Out of Practice, Lisa Kudrow in The Comeback and Geena Davis in Commander in Chief. I just love it when the Emmys totally go their own way and don't care if a show's canceled. Well I'm glad someone liked them but really - "not a single nominee that doesn't deserve to be on the list?" - isn't that going just a little bit far even for someone who likes the nominees? He even lauds the fact that four fo the five "Oustanding Actress In A Comedy" nominees came from cancelled shows. According to him that's "what is so GREAT about the Emmys! Shows what great guts Emmy voters have and how little value they put on Nielsens when they look at shows carefully."

A blow for censorship?: That's one way to interpret a recent court ruling. U.S. District Court Judge Richard P. Matsch ruled against firms which "sanitizes" movies (and presumably TV series as well) that are released to home video by selling versions without nudity, sex and violence - but mostly nudity and sex. The suit, brought by sixteen Hollywood directors including Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorcese, alleged copyright infringement against three companies: CleanFlicks, Play It clean Video and CleanFilms. In a statement after the decision Michael Apted, president of the Directors Guild of America declared that "These films carry our name and reflect our reputations. So we have great passion about protecting our work ... against unauthorized editing. Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor." In his ruling Judge Matsch stated "Their objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies. There is a public interest in providing such protection." Meanwhile Ray Lines, the president of CleanFlicks one of the firms named in the suit stated, "This is a typical case of David vs. Goliath, but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending. We're going to continue to fight." He can believe that all he likes, but the fact remains that by producing unauthorized, edited versions of these films for sale these companies were acting in violation of copyright. Bowdler existed in a time before copyrights and even so he was content to "improve" the works of a man two centuries dead.

What the PTC hates now: In what I think might become a new feature here, I'm going to list a few items that the PTC hates, as found on their website.

1. The rape scene in Rescue Me: they're calling for members to send warning letters to Wendy's, Staples, Visa and Toyota, as well as calling for legislation on cable choice.


2. Circuit City, for advertising on "shows like Nip/Tuck, Las Vegas, C.S.I. and C.S.I.:Miami - all of which contain either brutal violence or explicit sexual content. Other shows sponsored by Circuit City shared storylines that dealt with child pornography, rape, racial slurs and a young child killed by a sniper while on a playground.


3. CBS for not paying the Janet Jackson indecency fine yet - they've even set up a little countdown clock.


4. The "Worst Show of the Week" - America's Got Talent - not because it's a "so good it's bad show" like most of us thing but because "While America’s Got Talent gives every appearance of a being a family-friendly program, on the June 28th episode the highlighted act of the night was a strip tease." Yeah they didn't like Snow White the stripper and forget the fact that the real highlighted act of the night was 11 year old Bianca Ryan. According to the PTC "Should a stripper be competing against an eleven year old for one million dollars?" I'm betting that the eleven year old will be the one who gets closer to the money.

Your All Star Line-up

Now if you've been reading this for a while you'll know that I like reality TV. Not all of it; I'm not into fashion, or talent or shows where you don't compete. Still I generally like reality shows. I'll even admit to liking Big Brother. Well maybe "liking" is a bit too much. Let's put it this way, I wouldn't watch it if it were on during the regular Fall season, and I wouldn't watch it if episodes of Survivor, The Apprentice, or the beloved Amazing Race were on at the same time - in fact I'd probably skip it for reruns of The Amazing Race. Watching Big Brother is sort of a summer thing like buying an ice cream bar from one of those carts on the street (except I don't do that - one of the little crooks tried to overcharge me and then claim he was just joking when I called him on it).

Every year the producers of Big Brother introduce a new gimmick onto the show in an effort to keep it "fresh." You know, bringing in ex-romantic partners, swapping twins in at regular intervals, having "secret" allies (which worked about as well as a one button mouse - everyone knew that everyone else had an ally in the house). In fact the only gimmick they haven't tried lately is going back to the rules that the rest of the world uses, where viewers actually vote for who should have been eliminated. That was so first season. CBS and the new primary producers Arnold Shapiro and Allison Grodner decided that they wanted a show that was more like Survivor and less like what the rest of the world was watching. This year's gimmick is to bring back players from previous seasons as selected by "you the fans."

Well to be absolutely accurate "you the fans" will be voting for half of the new occupants of the house. Of twelve contestants, six will be chosen by viewer vote and six will be picked by the producers. I have a few suspicions and some questions about who the producers will select. Apparently the producers will have to draw their six contestants from the pool of 20. What I suspect is that the producers will try very hard to have at least one player from each season - except maybe the first - and will try to have two players from each season, but that's just a guess on my part.

Anyway here are the people who want to go back to the luxury cell block - where the theme will apparently be "Good versus Evil" - for another summer.

• "Chicken" George Boswell (Season 1) - The only Season 1 contestant selected. He was also the most memorable. Even Eddie the winner wasn't as memorable as Chicken George, and Eddie only had one leg.


• Mike Malin (Season 2) - Also known as "Mike Boogie". He ran an LA Club and was one of the members of the "Chill Town" alliance. I really didn't like him or the "Chill Town" alliance.


• Bunky Miller (Season 2) - The hairy crying gay guy. I liked him even though he suffered a major problem with decisiveness.


• Monica Bailey (Season 2) - She finished third in this season but besides constantly saying "it is on" may be best known because her cousin died in the World Trade Center attacks.


• "Evil" Dr. Will Kirby (Season 2) - The most memorable member of the Season 2 cast. He lied to everyone and told them he was lying to them, plus he had an incredibly huge ego. I hated him and couldn't see how he managed to not only survive week after week but actually win the $500,000.


• Marcellas Reynolds (Season 3) - Perhaps the only player in the history of the game to be physically assaulted by host Julie Chen. She hit him upside of the head with her note cards because he was stupid enough not to use the first "Golden Veto" to save himself. Since then he's been hosting the post episode online talk show for the series.


• Danielle Reyes (Season 3) - In some ways an extremely good player. She maintained a season long alliance with Jason without anyone knowing that they were working together. Only problem was that her only vote to win came from her one and only ally.


• Lisa Donahue (Season 3) - Winner of Season 3, she was one of the experts at flying below the radar until figuring out what was what. She had a short time alliance with Danielle and eventually won the jury vote because she didn't alienate the other players in the way that Danielle did.


• Erika Landin (Season 4) - At 37 she's the oldest woman to be up for vote. During the Season 4 gimmick "The X-Factor" her ex-boyfriend Robert Roman was also in the house. She developed a serious friendship with former FBI agent Jack Owen.


• Dana Varela (Season 4) - Okay, I confess that I don't remember her or the circumstances of her eviction.


• Allison Irwin (Season 4) - Spent her time in the house using her "sex appeal" to appeal to the male members of the cast. This despite the fact that she was supposedly devoted to her boyfriend Donny. The next year she and Donny went on The Amazing Race to "explore" their relationship. She lasted two episodes on the show which was slightly longer than she and Donny lasted.


• Jase Wirey (Season 5) - First out from the infamous "4 Horsemen" alliance which annoyed the crap out of most of the people in the Season 5 house. Not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, was the victim of a master plan that used the Veto to put him up for nomination without a chance to save himself.


• Jennifer "Nakomis" Dedmon (Season 5) - Part of the surprising part of the Season 5 twist when she discovered a half-brother whom she didn't know existed. She went to the final four before ironically being voted out by her half-brother.


• Dianne Henry (Season 5) - Third place finisher in Season 5 who put here trust in a guy she'd developed an attachment to who decided to stick with his Horseman pal Michael instead of his girlfriend.


• Michael "Cowboy" Ellis (Season 5) - This guy seemed too dumb to live but he somehow managed to survive to the final two and came within one vote of winning; the vote he lost by came from his half-sister Nakomis.


• Kaysar Ridha (Season 6) - Possibly one of the most popular people ever to participate on the show. He consistently polled higher than any other house guest and was seemingly one of the most intelligent players ever. After being eliminated one week he was immediately voted back in...and immediately voted back out by the opposing alliance because "this is our game, not America's game."


• James Rhine (Season 6) - The one thing the two alliances could agree on in Season 6 was that they hated James and finally engineered his eviction for lying to both sides.


• Howie Gordon (Season 6) - One of the leaders of the "Sovereign Six" alliance that came together around Kaysar. He seemed like a happy go lucky guy who was in training to be a Jedi - complete with a light saber. When he had to be he could be rough and the Season 6 house was by all accounts a rough one.


• Janelle Pierzina (Season 6) - A solid player who used he "bimbo" look to mask her tactical abilities. She allied with Howie and Kaysar but numbers weren't on her side.


• Ivette Corredero (Season 6) - A thoroughly annoying little woman with a voice that could calcify your spine and a hair trigger temper. Based on the way that she reacted to the eviction of Eric "Cappy" Littman you would have thought he was her partner and not eventual winner Maggie Aushburn's. In a season when people got very vindictive and angry she was worse than most as hard as that may be to believe.

Just to look at the breakdown of the contestants, there's one from Season 1, three each from Seasons 3 and 4, four each from Seasons 2 and 5, and five from Season 6. The public can vote for their favourites at the Big Brother website until June 28, and there doesn't seem to be any sort of restriction as to the number of times you can vote. No one will know who has been selected until the players enter the house on July 6.