Short Takes – July 30, 2007

Well this at least I'll be able to get out on time – or at least right now it looks like I'll be able to get it out on time – which means I can finally get back onto something like a schedule. Writing to deadline was never a strong suit of mine, even at the University of Saskatchewan. Now let's get on with the week's news and my opinions.

This is News?: All of the network news divisions seem to be out to redefine their prime time News shows and their News divisions. NBC is devoting a considerable portion of their Dateline NBC shows to the To Catch A Predator shows (a concept that I truly abhor – see below), while CBS long since converted their show 48 Hours (which I liked) into 48 Hours Mysteries (which I don't). However the News division which has adopted the most "flexible" definition of "News" is undoubtedly ABC. A couple of years ago (IMDB says 2004 but my records say the summer of 2005) ABC had a "documentary" called Hooking Up that was supposed to be a documentary about women looking for love and finding dates/relationships online. This pseudo-documentary came from ABC News. Now, ABC News is producing a "documentary" called 6 Degrees of Martina McBride in which aspiring country music singers who can prove some sort of "connection" to Country superstar Martina McBride in six moves or less – a la the 6 Degrees Of Kevin Bacon game – will get a studio session with McBride and the best will get a recording deal. The special airs on July 30, and it's a vaguely interesting subject (but I'll be watching Hell's Kitchen. According to an article in the Chicago Tribune ABC News Division executive producer David Sloane said that the show is "a serious examination of business school management theory." It's all part of Sloan's philosophy about News: "My definition [of news] is limitless. I think we constantly have to explore different places at the table for news. Just like you guys [in newspapers]. You have a front page. You have a [features] section. You have an entertainment section. You have a page 47. You have page 3. I think we're looking for new ways of engaging the viewer. I'm really all about that." In my book, while 48 Hours Mysteries and To Catch A Predator at least have the patina of news, Sloan's advocacy of shows like 6 Degrees of Martina McBride blurs the lines between News and Entertainment to virtual non-existence, and from a network that lauded the legacy of Peter Jennings this is disappointing to say the least.

Musical showrunners: Well not quite – that assumes that the people involved are swapping jobs in some sort of bizarre daisy chain which isn't what's happening here. What has happened is that Rob Thomas, who was creator and showrunner for Veronica Mars became showrunner for ABC's Miss/Guided when Veronica Mars was cancelled, left his new show after a month. The reason given was "creative differences." Apparently Thomas wasn't entirely happy with the decision to make the show "more of a straight-ahead comedy." The other departure is former Angel co-creator David Greenwalt, who left the CBS show Moonlight after two months in which every role except the lead had been recast. According to the Hollywood Reporter Greenwalt's departure is due to "personal, health reasons."

Comebacks, of sorts: Three shows and an actor to be exact, although the nature of the returns are not necessarily in the form that they previously held.

• ReBoot was a groundbreaking computer animated series from Mainframe Entertainment which ran from 1994 to 2001 (and was one of my favourite series). The series had trouble finding an American network and when it did occasionally ran into censorship problems. Mainframe, now known as Rainmaker Entertainment after being acquired by Rainmaker Income Fund, will be producing three feature length films to relaunch the franchise. One thing that I find vaguely worrying is that Rainmaker will be working with the website Zeros2Heroes to allow fans of the show to choose between five "completely new takes on the ReBoot world" as created by five previously unknown writers.
  
• Another show that will be returning as films will be Futurama. It was announced at ComicCon that the show will return as a full-length high-def movie called Bender's Big Score that will be sold on DVD. This will be followed by a further three films. The four movies will then be split into four half-hour episodes each (16 in total) to be aired on Comedy Central.
  
• Also at ComicCon, Joss Whedon revealed that Anthony Stewart Head will be returning to the role of Rupert Giles in a movie for the BBC called Ripper. The project had actually been planned as a miniseries during the latter period of Buffy The Vampire Slayer's run but it was apparently difficult for the parties involved to come to an agreement. In 2005 Whedon had said of the project, "it's something I really want to get off the ground, but the ground is kinda sticky."
  
• Finally (and this is a strange one) Rory Cochrane will be returning to the cast of CSI: Miami playing his original character of Tim Speedle. You may recall that Speedle died in an episode of the show's second season, at Cochrane's request because he disliked the "daily grind" and wanted to do more film work. However he later expressed his displeasure in the way that Speedle was written out of the show; his pistol misfired because he hadn't been diligent in cleaning it. A CBS spokesman confirmed to E! News that Cochrane will be returning to the show. There was no explanation of how the character will return except in this remark from the CBS spokesman: "He will be reprising the role of Tim Speedle and it's not a flashback. He will be interacting with his old partner and friend, Eric Delko (Adam Rodriguez)." This has led to a lot of speculation of how the character can return after having his brains spilled over a jewelry store floor; one popular theory is a faked death and witness protection. However there may be a clue in the CBS spokesman's statement – "He will be interacting with his old partner and friend, Eric Delko." It doesn't say that he'll be interacting with any of the other characters on the show. This lead me to think that seeing Speedle will be a symptom of Delko own brain injury, suffered when the character was shot in the season which ended this past May. It makes as much sense as any other theory.
  

To Catch A Predator sued – twice: NBC's Dateline NBC has a major sensation with their To Catch A Predator episodes, but they may have gone too far. The show and NBC have been sued by the family of Louis Conradt who committed suicide after being confronted by police and NBC journalists at his home in Terell Texas. According to a Reuters report on the suit, Conradt had been targeted after he arranged to meet a "13 year-old boy" at a house in Marshall Texas. However Conradt did not actually go to the house. The "13 year-old boy" was in fact a member of the private vigilante group Perverted Justice posing as a child. When Conradt did not appear at the house, police and members of the NBC team travelled to his home, Conradt admitted them and then shot himself. The lawsuit, brought by his sister Patricia Conradt on behalf of his estate claims that the NBC team "steamrolled" local authorities to arrest the retired district attorney. To quote from the article, "The lawsuit said police and members of the Dateline crew traveled to Conradt's house 'with neither a search warrant nor an arrest warrant' that met legal standards. Both police officers and other members of the party were wearing cameras ... very large cameras, on the cutting edge of technology, that normally are worn only by television reporters,' the lawsuit said. 'They were met by (Conradt). He told them "I'm not gonna hurt anyone" and shot himself. Then a police officer said to a Dateline producer, "That'll make good TV." Death was an hour later,' it said."

This is not the first suit faced by NBC in connection with the To Catch A Predator series. According to The Smoking Gun former NBC producer Marsha Bartel has sued for wrongful dismissal after she was fired by NBC News less than six months after she became sole producer of the series. Bartel's firing came after she complained that the show violated journalistic ethics in a number of ways and many of NBC's own journalistic guidelines. These included the financial relationship between NBC and Perverted Justice that represents a "financial incentive to lie to trick targets of its sting", and that "Perverted Justice does not provide 'complete transcripts from its trolling operations,' so network officials 'cannot independently verify the accuracy' of the group's transcripts." She further stated in her suit that NBC has covered up various things about the To Catch A Predator stings including leading sting targets "into additional acts of humiliation (such as being encouraged to remove their clothes) in order to enhance the comedic effect of the public exposure of these persons", and police officers acting improperly when working with the NBC crew including "goofing off by waving rubber chickens in the faces of sting targets while forcing them to the ground and handcuffing them." When Bartel complained about controversial statements made by Perverted Justice founder David Corvo she was told by higher ups at Dateline NBC and NBC News, "We all know they're nuts." Bartel is seeking at least $1 million in her suit.

I may be alone in this but I find this whole To Catch A Predator concept to be a dangerous step down an incredibly dangerous slope. This is dangerous in so many ways. Start with this one – by partnering with Perverted Justice, NBC isn't reporting the news they are creating the news and doing it in such a way that violates virtually every journalistic standard. This isn't like the FOX series Cops which has documentary crews riding along with police officers, this is NBC subsidizing a private organization using potentially unethical means to target people. Does NBC's involvement taint the court process for the people that are caught – you know the ones who actually expect to have an untainted jury pool and a fair trial. The details of the Conradt case are even more egregious. The fact that he did not visit the "sting house", regardless of the reason – he apparently intended to go but his sister came to visit before he was going to leave – makes it questionable whether the police could have obtained either an arrest warrant or even a search warrant. In the normal course of events – like if this were a police sting rather than one set up by a private organization at the behest of a TV network – the procedure would probably have been to set up another meeting at a different time and location. But because of the involvement of the TV show and its limited time in the region – and no doubt because Conradt was a prominent member of the community that NBC and Perverted Justice wanted to out as a pedophile because of his prominence – little niceties like warrants and burden of proof were set aside. Based on comments in other forums, a lot of people don't find this particularly troubling, and a lot of people seem disappointed that more of the alleged pedophiles caught by Dateline don't take the route Conradt did (and some seem to think that they should be given some "help" with the process). For myself, between the questionable legal situation, the violation of journalistic ethics, the apparent targeting of some people because of their prominence in the community (the way they went after Conradt), and the financial relationship between NBC and Perverted Justice, I find this whole concept smarmy and more than a little disgusting. The sooner it is driven off the air the better.

Who does the PTC hate this week?: Well, certainly not the FCC. The PTC has a press release making a very big deal of their appointment to the FCC's Consumer Advisory Committee. The fact that the release is dated July 26, 2007 is a bit misleading given that they were appointed to the committee when it was rechartered in early June (link is to a PDF file). The purposes of the committee – stated in the recharter document – are (1) Consumer protection and education (e.g., cramming, slamming, consumer friendly billing, detariffing, bundling of services, Lifeline/Linkup programs, customer service, privacy, telemarketing abuses, and outreach to underserved populations, such as Native Americans and persons living in rural areas), (2) Access by people with disabilities (e.g., telecommunications relay services, video description, closed captioning, accessible billing and access to telecommunications products and services), and (3) Impact upon consumers of new and emerging technologies (e.g., availability of broadband, digital television, cable, satellite, low power FM, and the convergence of these and emerging technologies). The committee has 28 members including the PTC including groups as diverse as the AARP, Appalachian Regional Commission, Communication Service for the Deaf, Communication Service for the Deaf, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, League of United Latin America Citizens, National Association of Broadcasters, and The Seeing Eye, Inc. Of course you won`t find any of this out in the PTC press release. It stresses items that the Consumer Advisory Committee isn`t even involved in: "The Parents Television Council represents 1.2 million parents, grandparents, and citizens who are concerned about the content on television and in other entertainment media. The PTC's voice will result in a positive impact for all Americans as we are distinctively positioned to provide opinion and insight into how consumers think about a wide range of communication issues facing our country."

Speaking of content, the PTC has added new content to their weekly best and worsts: Misrated! In this section they go after shows that they feel have been inaccurately rated by the networks in an effort to get innocent children and adult to see and hear smut and violence. This time around they have decided that the ABC summer series Greeks (which normally airs on ABC Family on cable) is misrated. Despite the fact that the series is rated PG-14 the PTC feels that "Parents relying on the TV Ratings or the V-Chip to protect their children from graphic sexual content would have been let down, because this TV-14 episode did not carry either the "S" or "D" descriptors." Their complaint focuses first on a scene where on character (Casey) confronts another character (Rebecca) about sleeping with her boyfriend (Evan). I won't reprint the dialog that the PTC shows in their release, not because it is "smutty" but because it is extensive. There is also a scene in which Casey receives a video message on her cell phone which shows Evan and Rebecca apparently having sex. This is how the PTC describes the scene: "Although the screen that Casey is viewing the video on is small, it is clear what is going on and the clip is rather intense. The video depicts Rebecca on top of Evan, without a shirt, with a clear instance of Rebecca thrusting while kissing Evan." This does not sound too unlike some scenes in mainstream movies or even some TV shows. However the PTC insists that this show is mislabelled: "Though the rating is TV-14 indicating that it is not intended for viewers under the age of 14, parents of teens would have been caught off guard by the intense sex scene between Rebecca and Evan which was not signaled by the presence of an "S" descriptor. Parents would have also been unprepared for the heavy sexual dialogue (with no discussion of risk, responsibility or consequences) because the episode carried no "D" descriptor. The TV-14 rating alone did not give parents adequate information to judge the appropriateness of this episode for their teen." The problem with this argument is that the "intense sex scene" is not seen clearly but is only visible on the screen of the cell phone. As for the dialogue, the bit that the PTC quoted was downright innocuous, with the most explicit statement coming after Casey accuses Rebecca of having sex with Evan but before knowing that he is Rebecca's boyfriend: "I did. Rush night, and it was amazing..." That's it. If there was more intense dialogue, the PTC certainly didn't record it for posterity.

I will pass over this week's Broadcast Worst of the Week only because the PTC, apparently having no new targets to overanalyse, has chosen to declare a rerun of My Name Is Earl to be the worst of the week. Instead, let us look at the Cable Worst of the Week which is the MTV series Scarred. According to Wikipedia "On each episode of Scarred, several real-life risk-takers share the stories of how they were scarred or injured while attempting dangerous stunts on, primarily skateboards (but, occasionally, in-line skates, skis, snowboards, and bikes). The show features a segment called "Scar Stories", which broadcasts videos caught on the scene of individuals dramatically injuring themselves to a great extent, (the wound often leaving a scar), hence the show's name." The Wikipedia article also notes that the show, "like many shows in the same genre, such as Jackass, provides a warning to audiences that they should not attempt the stunts or send in home videos." The PTC takes the opportunity of the return of the show for its second season to go through the five video sequences in the episode in aggressively describing each of the accidents in gory detail. This is one of the shorter descriptions: "Jared gruesomely cuts his face after his skateboard pops up into his eye. His eye is bloodied and bruised and his face is shown with blood pouring out, as Jared's friend exclaims enthusiastically, "Holy [bleeped 'f*ck'] dude, your whole face is a bloody [bleeped 'f*cking'] mess! Holy [bleeped 'sh*t'] dude! Your [bleeped 'f*cking'] eye is [bleeped 'f*cked'], dude…your eye is, like, popping out of your head!" The PTC sums up its review by stating "It is difficult to know which element of Scarred is most repugnant: that MTV considers such programming entertainment; that by showing it, MTV is actually encouraging other teens to mutilate themselves in hopes of getting on TV; or that every cable subscriber in America is forced to support this show through their cable fees."

Setting aside my personal view on shows like Scarred and Jackass, neither of which is to my taste and indeed Scarred sounds like an incredibly stupid show, I would like to tackle the whole assertion that a show like this is "encouraging other teens to mutilate themselves in hopes of getting on TV." Certainly it's a common accusation about this show and Jackass but how is this different from someone setting up a situation in which he gets injured in order to appear on America's Funniest Home Videos – assuming of course that such things occur on either show. In my opinion it seems to be a matter of degrees. The truth of course is that in this era of relatively inexpensive video equipment, and the usually exhibitionistic nature extreme sports types their accidents are likely to be recorded for posterity. A quick and by no means extensive search on Youtube for "Skateboarding Accidents" produced a listing of 1,440 videos. And it's not as if kids have ever needed the possibility of appearing on a TV show to do stupid things – when he was about 9 my brother Greg did a pretty good job of abrading his face when he tried ramp jumping something on his bicycle. So yes, a show like Scarred sounds quite repugnant to me and if it were to be taken off the air tomorrow I probably wouldn't shed a tear, but I am not the intended audience. And, not only does MTV "considers such programming entertainment" but so does that intended audience, an audience that also watches professional Wrestling and Ultimate Fighting. And yet again, people need to be reminded that this is a show that has advertisers. "Every cable subscriber in America" is not supporting this show with their cable fees, advertisers are, and if the show was not attracting an audience those advertisers would take their money and go elsewhere and hte show would be cancelled. But of course that wouldn't "prove" the PTC's point.

Short Takes – July 24, 2007

Apologies are in order. I meant for this to be longer, earlier, and more interesting. The longer and earlier were harmed by a bit of a problem that's developed with the fingers of my right hand; I suspect it's arthritis, and me without any of Granny Clampett's (well strictly speaking Granny Moses's) Rheumatis medicine. It's made typing a bit of a pain literally. I have a system, really I do, but implementing it has been a bit hit and miss.

Given that this is the time when the professional critics head for Los Angeles for the semi-annual Television Critics Association press tour there's more than a little news out there, but in most cases the news tends to be in the form of who is in what (Katee Sackoff – yay – and Isaiah Washington – not so much of a yay – have both been signed to play recurring roles in Bionic Woman; just an example) and promotional material. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't love to be down there (all I need is someone to pay me for writing this stuff in dollar amounts large enough to pay the costs of two or three weeks in Los Angeles every six months), but the fact is that a lot of what the TCA press tour is about is the attempt to spin the stories about the networks and their new and returning shows. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Oh, by the way, don't forget to vote in the poll!

The new host of The Price Is Right is...: Drew Carey. One of the only good things about this problem with my hand is that I'm able to feed you this bit of fresh news. Carey, who is hosting the new CBS prime time game show The Power Of 10, revealed that he had finalized the deal to host The Price is Right during his appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman on Monday night, although since the show is taped earlier in the day it was actually completed Monday afternoon. According to Carey he was notified that the deal had been completed less than fifteen minutes before his appearance on the Letterman show. Drew Carey will probably do all right as the host of The Price Is Right. On the plus side, he has had experience hosting a live or live to tape show both from The Power Of 10 and earlier with Whose Line Is It Anyway? In addition he's personable and has something of an everyman vibe about him. On the downside he's not as polished as Barker was and hasn't shown that much experience in dealing with the mass audience on a personal level. The biggest strike against him may be that he's a comedian and sometimes has something of a sarcastic bent to him. The thing about The Price is Right or almost any game show is that you have to take it and the contestants seriously. It's going to be interesting to see how Carey adapts to his new job. The pressure is going to be on him, not unlike the way it was for Katie Couric, to live up to the standards of his predecessor while still making the job his own. But I don't expect Drew Carey to be under the same sort of constant and hypercritical scrutiny that Couric has had to endure.

Schedule changes at NBC: You know what they say about an old broom seeping clean? Well Ben Silverman hasn't exactly swept the NBC schedule clean of the shows that his predecessor as head of the NBC Entertainment Division announced but he did shake the schedule up a bit. He started by moving the new series Chuck from the second hour of Tuesday night to the first hour of Monday as a lead in for Heroes, making Monday night "Science Fiction Night" (Chuck, Heroes, JourneyMan). Next, he extended Biggest Loser from one hour to ninety minutes and put a half-hour version of The Singing Bee on from 9:30 to 10 p.m. (Eastern). The Singing Bee, which had a very successful debut two weeks ago and had been scheduled to alternate with 1 vs. 100 on Friday night. On Friday night, 1 vs. 100 has been shelved and replaced by the second episode of Deal Or No Deal. The game show will serve as the lead-in for Friday Night Lights, which has swapped with Las Vegas, which moves to Friday's third hour.

On the whole I think that this tinkering has been an improvement to the NBC schedule. It gives Friday Night Lights a more accessible time slot with a stronger lead while allowing the comedy-drama Las Vegas to play around with more adult storylines (although the PTC will likely insist that Friday Night Lights is too smutty even for the second hour in much the same way they did with Las Vegas). The Singing Bee will probably do better in its current format as a half-hour show than it would have done at an hour. My one reservation here is that the later time slot puts it up against the last half hour of the Dancing With The Stars results show. The Singing Bee could very easily work as the first show of the night, particularly up against ABC's Cavemen. Finally, by moving Chuck to the first hour of Monday night Silverman has not only established a clear theme for the night but installed a show that probably going to be "friendly" to the "family" audience – youth oriented – in a time slot where it will be effective. There's a lot less contrast in having that show leading out a themed night than serving as the jump between Biggest Loser and Law & Order: SVU. About the only show that is really screwed by these changes is 1 vs. 100, a show that I personally enjoy more than either The Singing Bee or Deal Or No Deal. Best of all this is not the sort of mass schedule modification that Kevin Reilly engaged in last year to "save" Studio 60 from the combination of Grey's Anatomy and CSI, which was immensely destructive to NBC's line-up and didn't even accomplish its main goal. This is more along the lines of surgical tinkering with a sense of logic to it.

Who does the PTC hate this week?: Well the PTC positively loves the US Senate Commerce Committee for "protecting children from indecent content on television." The Committee passed a Bill (do committees actually pass bills?) to institutionalize the ban on any use of "profanity and indecent images" that the FCC attempted to enforce, including the notion of fleeting obscenities that was struck down by the Second Circuit decision. As the PTC writes in their press statement, "We applaud the Senate Commerce Committee, and especially the bipartisan leadership of Senators Rockefeller, Inouye, Stevens, and Pryor, for putting the interests of families above the self-serving interests of the broadcast industry." They further go on to say that "It is clearly in the interest of children and families that nudity and inappropriate sexual content -- such as the infamous Super Bowl strip show -- should not be shown on television before 10 pm. The public interest was clearly served by today's bipartisan Senate action, and we now call on the full Senate to vote on this measure before the August recess." What the PTC misses in its self-congratulatory rhetoric is the quite serious question of whether any such bill would be able to withstand challenge on constitutional grounds, which after all was a major point of the Second Circuit Court's decision. But no, they don't seem to believe that the Television industry has the simple right to sue for redress against arbitrary actions or to seek a clear and consistent definition of what constitutes acceptable behaviour. Note in this excerpt how they define the industry's efforts as "absurd," that the FCC's ruling was an example of "common sense," and how they make it a point to downplay the validity of the Second Circuit's decision by pointing out that it was only two judges: "Through their lawsuits asserting the 'right' to air profanity during the hours when children are in the audience, and the absurd notion that a striptease during the Super Bowl is not indecent, the broadcast networks continue to show they are not responsible stewards of the public airwaves; but as licensees, the responsibility is theirs. The FCC's authority to enforce common sense decency standards, which were recently stripped by two judges in New York City, must be restored. Today's action is a significant step in the right direction." Of course if the two judges had been a majority in favour of their position, the PTC would have said that they were more than enough and would deny any attempt by the industry to appeal to the Supreme Court, an option which the broadcasting industry does not deny to the FCC.

The fact is that the FCC decision overturned by the Second Circuit was not an example of "common sense decency standards" because it went against previously established precedent on the handling of such situations which had been the standard of behaviour for thirty years. Indeed the FCC has contradicted itself since their decision on obscenities by saying that it was in fact acceptable for stations to air Saving Private Ryan with the language uncensored despite the fact that it was an example of scripted obscenities rather than "slips of the tongue" or incidental uses of words like "fuck" or "shit" during something like an awards show. This in and of itself is representative of an inconsistent standard on the part of the FCC. If the words are acceptable in Saving Private Rayan then why not NYPD Blue?

The Cable Worst of the Week is Rescue Me. The Cable Worst of the Week is almost always Rescue Me. And it is almost always Rescue Me for the same reason every time. Details change but the essence lingers on. Allow me to summarise the PTC's complaints in the stylings of Mr. Charles Brown: "Blah blah blah 'graphically and crudely'. Blah blah blah 'hand job.' Blah blah blah, 'eye-popping view of Tommy and Janet sexually healing their ruinous relationship.' Blah blah blah 'nymphomaniac former nun.' Blah blah 'sex during church services.' Blah blah 'penchant for pornography.' Blah blah blah 'salacious slate of programming.'" After that there is of course the usual condemnation of the "fact" that "all cable subscribers are forced to subsidize such programming." I put quotes around the word 'fact' because the PTC insists on using the word "subsidize" which my dictionary at least defines as "to aid or assist with a grant of money or by guaranteeing a market."And while I suppose that the existence of FX as a cable network where shows are – for now at least – unrestricted by the regulations that the FCC imposes on over the air stations might be defined as "guaranteeing a market" the implication of a subsidy is that the product or the manufacturer would not continue to exist without the payment of the grant of money. The only way in which cable subscribers are "subsidizing" Rescue Me is by making FX a profitable corporate entity and the degree to which they do that is subject to scrutiny given that FX sells advertising time of the channel. Certainly it is unfair to say that cable subscribers are subsidizing the program when, at the same time, the PTC condemns advertisers who put their commercials on the show. In fact it might be more valid to say that cable subscribers who pay for FX are subsidizing the commercial-free Fox Movie Channel since the fees paid for FX go into the coffers of News Corp which owns Fox Movie Channel.

Broadcast's Worst of the Week is Big Brother. They state that "In the first two episodes this season sex and foul language dominate" and it seems as though the PTC has feels the need to be more explicit about the language in their press release than the show ever was. The PTC's normal method of dealing with obscenities – and they have a far larger list of such things than most people – is either to give only the first and last letter or to use the initials, like "the S-word" or "the F-word." Here's what the PTC press release on Big Brother being the worst of the week said: "Foul language on the two episodes included poorly bleeped words such as 'asshole,' 'shit,' 'tits,' and eleven instances of the word 'fuck.'" Of almost as much interest as the fact that the PTC used the actual words in their press release is their reasoning for condemning the program (well one of them; we'll get to the other shortly). They acknowledged that the words were bleeped, including the ones which have been used on TV before, but it's not good enough for them. The show should be condemned because the bleeping of the words in question does not meet the PTC's standards for such things!

Ah, but that wasn't the only reason for the PTC to be down on the show. There was it seems explicit sexual references on what the PTC is now describing as "the traditional Family Hour." These references came from "flamboyantly homosexual housemate Joe," and dealt with his accusation against his former boyfriend Dustin. "Joe openly and unapologetically announces that he has contracted the disease from implied unprotected sex with Dustin. Dustin adamantly denies that it was he that gave Joe the STD." I'm sure of course that the PTC would just as rigorously condemn any statement by a heterosexual houseguest about contracting gonorrhoea from a former long term relationship, but they seemed to take inordinate glee from pointing out that it was Gay people having unprotected sex.

The PTC finishes their comments on Big Brother with the almost ritual condemnation of the TV ratings system. According to the PTC "With a TV rating PG-L, no parent could rely on the V-Chip to protect young viewers from such content. Both episodes were unconscionably aired promoting promiscuous and crude behavior in the homes of unsuspecting families." According to Wikipedia, PG-L refers to "mild coarse language." The other "descriptors" at this level are V-moderate violence, S-sexual situations, D-suggestive dialog. The PTC has acknowledged that the strongest language used by the "houseguests" was bleeped, even if it wasn't up to the PTC's standards (they also omit the fact that CBS "fuzzed" the mouths of houseguests when necessary to protect lip-readers). And given the reaction of people both inside the house and outside to Joe's repeated comments about the STD that he claimed Dustin gave to him, it can hardly be seen as "promoting promiscuous behaviour." I would be interested in knowing exactly the PTC would rate any episode of Big Brother using the V-Chip. But of course they will not say what they think would be acceptable, because of course the V-Chip and the ratings system doesn't work.

Short Takes – July 17, 2007

After the length of time that it took to crank out the last Short Takes I was tempted to make this one a PTC only column to get it done on time. And really this post is pretty much that, only not quite because there are a couple of things that I wanted to talk about.

Gizzie probably going away: The Grey's Anatomy relationship between George (T.R. Knight) and Izzie (Katherine Heigl), which in typical modern media fashion has been given the vaguely obscene sounding designation Gizzie (and if you don't get why that's vaguely obscene sounding, I won't explain it to you – I can be embarrassed by such things) may not survive into the next season. According to Mike Ausiello in TV Guide the George and Izzie storyline may be ended because "A source close to ABC tells me that George and Izzie polled 95 percent negative, leading one of the 200 or so participants to conclude that, 'Gizzie will be dropped.'" Which of course is how all decisions in literature are done; by polling 200 people. Like it or not we the audience aren't the final arbiters of the directions that story lines proceed in. If we were, Gone With The Wind would probably have ended with Rhett Butler knocking on the door of Tara and saying "Frankly my dear I made a mistake when I left you."

Money talks, Art walks: It seems that part of the plan for this coming season of 24 involved shooting in Africa. It was such a major part of the storyline that the decision by studio executives not to shoot in Africa meant a three week delay in production because the entire story for the show's seventh season had to be thrown out. According to Ausiello again, the network found that the idea of shooting in Africa too expensive, and the show's producers couldn't find anywhere in the greater Los Angeles area that looked like Africa. Apparently these picky producers never heard the statement from a old time network executive who, when asked to sign off on an extensive location shoot, said (in a quote generally ascribed to Ronald Reagan) "A tree's a tree."

Some differences between Americans and Canadians: Denis McGrath did what a lot of broadcasters used to do during the summer and put on reruns in his blog last week while he was struggling with some real world writing. One of these typically long posts – Denis is a very opinionated guy and he does go on (and on), although it's almost invariably strong and thoughtful ranting – had some nuggets about the differences between Americans and Canadians when it comes to TV. The article – Getting Schooled – is Denis's responses to an e-mail interview from a journalism student named Nicole. Here are a couple of major points. I won't touch on most of the points though if you're interested in Canadian TV it is a must read. To the question of the differences between writing shows for Canadians and Americans Denis responds that Canadians are on the whole less insular than Americans, and that shows which use irony do better with Canadians than they do with Americans. There's truth in this idea that Canadian and American tastes don't always mesh, though I'm not really prepared to quantify it the way Denis is. I do know that even in the last year of its run, when Americans writing in rec.arts.tv were screaming for its cancellation, Caroline In The City was in the top ten (and maybe the top five) in the Canadian ratings. Similarly, Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip was never as unpopular in Canada as it was in the States. Then McGrath adds:

On a more practical level, the differences have to do with social pressure. Because the religious right isn't quite as militant or influential in Canada, you can portray things that you simply can't in the USA: teenagers can have sex on TV here, without immediately getting pregnant. If they do get pregnant, they could actually have an abortion, not be forced to keep the baby or have a magic miscarriage. Degrassi actually had lots of trouble getting some of their shows past the N, though it's their most popular show. Shows that aired here and were no big deal were too hot to handle down south. That's telling. The Sopranos
runs on CTV here unbleeped. Dropping an F or an S bomb won't be thought of as bringing the whole of western civilization to a halt.

He forgot to mention nudity but it falls into the same consideration as "dropping an F or an S bomb." You can show bare breasts – and not just nipples either but the firm round and fully packed object – without anyone demanding fines or that your license be pulled. And they've been doing it for decades –the first bare breast I saw on conventional TV was in the early 1970s. Movies can be shown uncut, but tend not to be because Canadian TV networks get their TV prints from the studios who cut them to shreds so that they can be broadcast in the USA.

But it's in response to a question on the impact of American TV on Canada that McGrath makes a telling point.

We're the only country in the world that receives U.S. network feeds in their entirety on our cable systems. So their shows are all on at the same time as in the USA. No other country has this burden, and it is a burden, because in many ways we really are what Hollywood would like us to be: an extension of the U.S. domestic market.

The USA is the largest and most successful exporter of culture the world has ever known. And we're right next door. In other countries, people love U.S. shows, but they also love their own cop shows, their own lawyer shows, or family dramas, or soaps, or talk shows. Canada is an anomaly in the sense that most of our top 20 shows are American.

What makes it even stranger is that you'll see lots of Canadians stand up and wave the flag for Canadian music, or Canadian books, -- hell, they'll get all misty eyed at Hockey Night in Canada
and the 'I Am Canadian' beer ad, but they're more than happy to watch another nation's values and obsessions on TV every night.

And of course he's right. Just ask a Canadian about his Miranda rights sometime – a concept that doesn't exist in Canada because our constitution and our legal protections are different here. It's part of why I almost never review Canadian shows, and part of the reason why I constantly rail at the Parents Television Council for their efforts to treat every viewer like a "pre-tween" child. Because what shows up on American TV is what I'm spoon-fed by Canadian television networks – except for the CBC who have problems of their own – even without cable systems sending an unadulterated stream of the stuff into my home. And yeah I watch it, in part because the Canadian networks arrange their schedules to make it hard to see Canadian shows or even to know that they're on, but also because, too frequently my choice isn't between a Canadian cop show and an American cop show but between an American cop show and an American lawyer show. So sue me for wanting the PTC and the FCC to stop making all TV into pap suitable for a 9 year-old but come close to criminalizing (due to huge FCC fines) programs suitable for adults.

Who does the PTC hate this week?: Anyone who disagrees with a " broadcast decency amendment" to the "Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill" – in other words a bill that otherwise has absolutely nothing to do with broadcasting but which is necessary to pass. The amendment was proposed by Kansas Republican Sam Brownback, who just happens to be a member of the PTC's advisory board; imaging that. PTC President Tim Winter stated "If Senators are sincere about support for what Brownback's amendment would accomplish, why would they oppose it? The Senate – and the public – are not in a position to wait around for the other committees to act. The recent 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that allows the f-word and s-word to be aired at any time of the day combined with the upcoming September hearing on the Janet Jackson case dramatically underscore the importance and urgency of this issue. The Senate must not adopt the "wait and see" attitude that it did for two and a half years following the Janet Jackson incident – the entertainment industry's lawsuits do not permit it." Remember of course that the PTC denies the legitimacy of any appeal against what it sees as its victories – most of which come from a regulatory body (the FCC) rather than the courts – and this amendment is an attempt to, as good old Barney Fife would put it, "nip it in the bud – nip it!" There is so much wrong with this effort that it is difficult to know where to start on it. What Senator Brownback is attempting is familiar to online Poker players as the same tactic used to pass the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 as part of the SAFE Port Act, a necessary piece of law that had no connection with Internet Gambling or the Internet at all. The Brownback amendment is an attempt to make FCC policy as defined by Kevin Martin into rule of law and pre-empt any attempt by the television networks to obtain legal definition of boundaries. The Brownback amendment is an attempt to reinstate legislatively what the Second Circuit called an "arbitrary and capricious" policy. It is a perfect example of the "social conservative" agenda.

Opposition to the Brownback amendment has come from some interesting quarters including the United States Chamber of Commerce which sent a letter to the Chairman and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, expressing a view which disagrees with the PTC's position on the amendment. In the letter they state that "It is important to note that while the decision affects the FCC's ability to find broadcasters liable for the airing of fleeting or isolated expletives, it does not impact the FCC's ability to assess fines of up to $325,000 per utterance in cases where multiple or repeated expletives were aired in violation of FCC rules. Therefore, the only effect of the amendment would be to unreasonably subject broadcasters to a $325,000 penalty for the random utterance of an expletive at a live sporting event, convention, or performance." This of course is a point that the PTC and FCC chairman Martin are desperate to make people forget. It is their claim that any use of the "f-word and s-word" is by the very nature of the words not only obscene but in the case of the F-word can only be seen in a sexual context, and that by overturning the FCC decision on fleeting obscenities the "liberal" 2^nd Circuit has permitted writers to fill their scripts with those words. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also states in their letter that "Senator Brownback's amendment on 'excessively violent video programming' is fatally flawed because it fails to acknowledge that descriptions or depictions of violence on television are protected as free speech by the First Amendment of the Constitution," and that "The amendment is also unconstitutionally vague and overly broad. It appears to cover everything from fictional violence to war coverage to sporting events. The resulting regulatory uncertainty would needlessly harm the ability of the broadcast industry to supply the type and variety of television programming sought by the American television viewer. Indeed, the amendment could severely distort the market and alter business models by forcing programming and all associated advertising onto alternative media platforms, such as the Internet."

The Chamber's letter also cuts to the heart of the difference between economic conservatives and social conservatives – because I'm sure that at its philosophical heart the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a conservative organization – and that is the need for government to regulate. In the second paragraph of its letter the Chamber states, "Government regulation over broadcasting should be kept to the minimum and exercised only to the degree clearly required by the public interest. Parents currently have the tools necessary to protect their children from inappropriate content.... Moreover, two-thirds of all U.S. households do not even include a child under 18. Therefore, there is not a public interest justification for further government regulation of the broadcasting industry." They state this point again in the next to last paragraph saying that, "Moreover, the amendment would constitute government intervention where there is not a market failure. If a show does not achieve high enough ratings, it is removed from the schedule. At the same time, parents have the tools needed to protect their children." But of course the PTC has argued and continues to argue to anyone who will listen that the tools that parents have (and the letter specifically mentions the V-chip) not only don't work but are worse than useless, and that parents need government to intervene in order to protect their children (and, though the PTC doesn't come out and say it, themselves). This is in stark contrast to the TVWatch survey that the letter quotes that states that "92% of parents agree with the statement: "Government involvement in curbing the amount of violence on television is okay in theory, but at the end of the day, the best way to prevent a child from seeing content deemed inappropriate is a parent in the home...not a politician in Washington."

The PTC's Broadcast Worst of the Week is a show which was on the list a couple of weeks ago and which was cancelled even before that; The Loop. The PTC cites "multiple instances of casual sex, infidelity, and strong sexual innuendo" as reasons for naming it as the Worst of the Week. The storyline they describe has Sam, wearing a fat suit after a complaint from some passengers on the airline for which he works, being seduced by his boss's girlfriend who he was meant to spy on because she was suspected of being unfaithful. The PTC takes a certain pleasure in detailing a "graphic scene is shown of Sam receiving implied fellatio and moaning in the airplane lavatory." The big thing though is the conclusion that the PTC emerges with: "The Loop represents some of the worst and most inappropriate programming for the family hour, unapologetically polluting prime time with raunchy sexual themes. The Loop is exactly the type of program that parents should guard their families against." Set aside inflammatory adjectives like "polluting" and the reference to the non-existent "Family Hour" which only the PTC believes still exists. It's that last part of that last sentence that counts: "...parents should guard their families against." The PTC's entire point in their lobbying is that parents don't/can't/won't guard their families against objectionable programs so that an organization like the PTC has to do it for them by lobbying and pressuring government to do the "right" thing – the right thing being defined by the PTC, rather than by parents themselves who know their own families and know what they themselves want and don't want their kids to see.

The PTC's Cable Worst of the Week (all the Cable Worst of the Week links go back to the current WOTW so you may not see this) is Kathy Griffin's My Life On The D-List (on Bravo) which the PTC says, "started as a mock-umentary, chronicling Griffin's pseudo-celebrity misadventures. But now the show documents her climb to A-list fame. Not only has Griffin performed in Carnegie Hall and garnered an Emmy nomination, she may just become the newest addition to ABC's The View." This may come as a news flash, but none of that puts her on the A-List or even rising to the A-List. Still, that's not the PTC's objection, though they warn ABC to "look over this comic's raunchy and crude reality series." What caught their attention in this particular episode is Griffin's appearances as hostess of the "GayVN Awards" (which is an off-shoot of the Adult Video News – AVN – Awards). A the PTC puts it, "If you aren't familiar with the GayVN awards, they highlight 'acting' accomplishments within the homosexual pornography industry. Homosexual Porn Oscars, if you will. A niche market, yes—but one near and dear to the heart of Kathy Griffin." The review then describes Griffin picking out her wardrobe for the show, which given that this is Kathy Griffin we're talking about, was probably done with an indescribable edge that doesn't come across when read on the printed page. But greater anger seems to be derived from the venue for Griffin's appearance, the awards show itself. Now I have no doubt that the PTC would be just as irate if Griffin had been hosting the main AVN Awards, which are more oriented to the mainstream side of porn (though they don't object to Gay porn there either) but because it's the GayVN awards, there's a bit of a patina of homophobia. The highlight this moment in particular: "An unnamed presenter and presumable porn star, gives this introduction before handing out one of the gala's many awards: 'Best all-sex video. That would be that slap on it, spit on it, stick it in the ass kind of video you love to see.' The crowd's reaction? Effusive cheering." After noting that Bravo airs the episode "at noontime and even at eight in the morning" they add, "It's clear that BRAVO pushes this indecent content in pursuit of ratings. What's less clear is why all cable subscribers — whether they watch it or not — are forced to subsidize it every month." Setting aside the fallacy that cable companies "subsidize" shows that don't perform well in the ratings – and it is a fallacy – the material that the PTC describes in their review hasn't shown me any indication of "indecent content" except that the appearance was at an awards show that honoured Porn – Gay porn at that – and I'm not entirely sure that the objection isn't primarily due to Gay Porn being the focus of the awards.

Short Takes – July 10, 2007

It's funny how this regular feature has sort of migrated. I meant it to be something to run on the weekends but somehow it keeps moving further and further into the week. Of course since it's summer it really doesn't matter all that much, but if I start thinking like that I start wondering if any of this matters and of course the answer is "No it really doesn't" and it gets all sort of weird and philosophical. I guess all I can really hope for is that by the end of the summer this will have migrated back to the weekends.

Goofy Censorship: I don't normally refer to Entertainment Weekly or its website but their TVWatch is the only TV specific news feed available through iGoogle which is one of my home pages. I sometimes comment on their recap pages and as a result I've become aware of their comment censorship. When someone typed "Ding-Dong, the girls are gone" (related to On The Lot) what appeared on the page was "Ding-****, the girls are gone." It gets better though. In the comments for Big Brother, where one of the houseguests is named "Dick" – or as he wants people to call him "Evil Dick" – when you type his name in the comments section it is printed as "****" or "Evil ****". Very strange.

Reilly good news: Okay, I couldn't resist the pun, but it is good news – at least right now – for Kevin Reilly. Reilly, you may recall, was unceremoniously fired as President of the NBC Entertainment Division after three years of trying to ameliorate Jeff Zucker's long history of mistakes, a project made more difficult by Zucker's meddling ways. Reilly was fired just weeks after signing a big contract renewal with the network and days after the somewhat lukewarm response from advertisers to the shows that he presented at the Upfronts. Now, less than two months after Reilly left NBC he is the new President of Entertainment at FOX where he replaces Peter Ligouri who becomes Chairman of FOX Entertainment. In fact it was Ligouri who made the move to FOX attractive to Reilly. The two men had previously worked together at News Corp's F/X cable channel, in positions that pretty much mimic their new responsibilities. At F/X Reilly was responsible for developing such shows as Nip/Tuck and The Shield. At FOX, his duties will include destroying new shows that he was responsible for approving at NBC and serving as shepherd for a number of shows that he had nothing to do with getting on the air. The question that Reilly's appointment raises almost immediately is whether he will continue his policy of pushing quality programming that he advocated at NBC and which may well have been responsible for his replacement there. There's some worry on that front, given FOX's tendency to cancel programs very quickly and often replacing them with low cost reality shows. Then there's the record of people holding the job of President of Network Entertainment at FOX. Except for Gail Berman, who held the job for five years, the network averages a major executive change roughly every two years. This includes Ligouri, altouh his major move is up rather than out.

Who does the PTC hate this week?: A while ago our local police force finally joined the last half of the 20^th century and began air patrols over the city of Saskatoon. I don't think they actually bought a plane but are leasing a Cessna or something similar. It doesn't really matter. What does matter – at least in the context of this is that the plane frequently flies at night. Most people don't notice because they're asleep. Indeed, as you know from looking at the time stamps of many of my posts on this blog I'm awake late into the night and until recently I had never noticed the airplane. However there are a vocal group of complainers for whom any sound seems to be sufficient to rouse them from their sleep and keep them up to a point where they are apparently dangerous at whatever job they hold. They are vocal in their opposition to the police flights. To the very notion that the flights actually make the police more efficient in catching criminals they respond that no matter what the flights accomplish in crime fighting, it's not worth it because they are losing sleep and it makes them dangerous and less efficient at their workplaces. The plane complainers are a small group – possibly no more than a literal handful – but as I said they are vocal group. They write letters to the newspaper demanding that the airplane be grounded forever, and that police aerial patrols be banned, and they appear before City Council demanding that "something" (like grounding the plane and banning the patrols) be done to save their sleep. But they don't say it's "their sleep" they say that it is the sleep of everyone in the city that is being disturbed by the police aircraft and that presumably we are becoming a city of sleep deprived zombies. That's how I feel about the Parents Television Council; a small group that speaks with a very loud (and frequently obnoxious) voice claiming that they are speaking if not for everyone then for a far larger group than they actually represent - in the case of the PTC, all parents, and indeed all "right" thinking people (and no that wasn't a political "right"). They are defending "us" against "evil" authority in the form of the networks, the cable companies and obviously left-wing judges who think that it's alright to say bad words on TV (bad words, of course being defined by the PTC – remember they wanted to fine ABC when Helen Mirren said that she nearly fell "ass over tits" at the Academy Awards).

So who does the PTC see as a threat to our very existence this week? On the Broadcast side it's the CW's summer burn-off – which has already finished being burned off by the way – Hidden Palms. The PTC strikes out at Hidden Palms this time – since you'll recall that they also made the pilot the worst of the week for depicting a father's suicide and the effect it had on his teenaged son who witnessed it – because of sex. Specifically because one of the characters, high school junior Cliff, had sex with older women including his "best friend's mother." Of course the PTC gave us detailed, if out of context, descriptions of Cliff's "activities." "Before the opening credits had finished, Cliff was shown in bed with two different women. The first scene featured Cliff emerging from under the covers with a much older woman, implying that he has just performed oral sex on her. Suddenly, Cliff jumps out of bed to go meet another girl. The woman he is with seems disgruntled by his behavior, but Cliff tells her that she can't be upset since she has only given him 'one booty call in nine months.' Cliff makes his way to teenager Nikki's house and we find him once again under the covers with a girl. It is implied that Cliff and Nikki have just had sex.... Later in the show, Nikki walks-in on Cliff once again having an intimate exchange with the older woman (Maria) and becomes upset. Cliff apologizes and promises himself to Nikki. The show concludes with Maria meeting Cliff in his bedroom and once again seducing him into having sex. Cliff's mother walks in the room to discover them in his bed." Ah but it's the "nine months" remark that really has the PTC "hot and bothered": "High school junior Cliff is having sex with his best friend's mother – and he acknowledges doing so over nine months previously, meaning that Cliff was clearly underage when the act occurred. The CW is not only accepting but actually glamorizing statutory rape. Is this behavior we want to encourage teens to view as normal or even acceptable?" That of course is a huge logical jump without any knowledge of the background of the event. The implication of the term "statutory rape" is that the older person was the "aggressor" and from the description of Cliff and his sexual antics it seems far more likely that Cliff was the persuasive one in this situation and that the older woman who "has only given him 'one booty call in nine months,'" was the one who was seduced by Cliff. As for its impact on the attitude of teen viewers, since the ratings appear to be low even by CW standards, one should perhaps ask what the impact is of a show that virtually no one – regardless of age – is watching?

As for the worst cable show of the week, the PTC returns to an old favourite Paris & Nicole in The Simple Life on the E! Network. In the episodes in question, the "girls" (aka "skanky hos" though that may be offensive to skanky hos – you can tell I don't like Paris & Nicole) are counsellors at "Camp Shawnee" which, like most of the things in the reality show isn't real – the facility is a real camp but as the Wikipedia article on the show puts it, "The campers are not the camp's real campers, and at least one of the counselors, Hunter Cross, admits he is an actor who auditioned for the role. Also, the camp nurse is an actress according to IMDB." The series premiere earned the PTC's ire for among other things, enemas. In this episode, which was the series finale, Paris and Nicole are helping to run a "love camp." According to the PTC, "Guided by Dr. Diana, the girls helped five couples reconnect. And by reconnecting, E! meant a hearty mixture of sexual innuendo, graphic body waxing and sex toys." There is a discussion of the anus as an erogenous zone and a couple who have been married for 43 years talk about how much he likes her boobs and how much she likes a certain "position." The PTC article culminates with the usual railing against the "forced subsidy from cable television subscribers" which is apparently used to prop up the show. And of course this is a huge load of what Norman Schwartzkopf (remember him?) once called "bovine scatology." Comcast, which owns E!, is a business, and as with all businesses is run with a sharp pencil (and if you want proof of that, just look at the history of programming on their G4 network – it makes one weep). The bottom line with them is the bottom line; they are not a charity. If the audiences for The Simple Life weren't there, advertisers wouldn't buy time on the show and paris & Nicole would be out on their anorexic little bottoms faster than you can say rehab. In other words E! doesn't "prop up" The Simple Life, the show pays its own way without the "forced subsidy from cable television subscribers" which most of the rest of the world calls fees. And here of course is the big one: not every show on E! is The Simple Life. Shocking, I know, but true. There might even be some that the PTC might actually approve of (though heaven alone knows what they might be). Given that the structure of Cable Television is what it currently is – and as I've said before I do support the concept of cable choice, and wouldn't have E! or its Canadian doppelganger Star on my TV line-up if I had the choice even though it isn't costing me more – the simple answer is that if you disapprove of The Simple Life turn the TV off or watch a channel that you do want to see.

Short Takes – July 5, 2007

Summertime, and the livin' is easy. Well not noticeably so but you know how it is. My mother got back from Vancouver (bringing my nephew back to his mother) after spending a week with my brother, his fiancé and her son and parents. She said that Greg sent something back for me with her – it turned out to be my tax information (he did them for me because I didn't have a printer until after the income tax season ended). The weird thing was that not only wasn't I disappointed, it was way more than I expected.

A belated Happy Fourth of July to my American readers – well USAian, since Canadians and Mexicans and everyone else south of the Rio Grande are also "Americans" but you get my drift. As usual, I watched 1776 rather than the totally botched presentation of the Boston Pops 4^th of July concert that CBS will be putting on. I loved it on A&E but when they moved it to CBS the quality of all three went way down. I had planned to get this out sooner but stuff kept getting in the way. Not that there's much to report beyond the usual PTC stuff but let's try.

Washington week in review: Isaiah Washington continues to try to apportion blame for his no longer being on Grey's Anatomy. You may recall that he first blamed ABC for firing him after he had done everything (and more) that the network told him he needed to do to stay on the show. The words "law suit" were even uttered. Then he blamed the media – always a favourite for actors and embattled politicians. Next he blamed T.R. Knight, or at least said that Knight should have been fired instead of him. Apparently (and no I don't get this line of reasoning) Knight should have been let go because he was offended by Washington's use of the derogatory term, and because he was angling for a raise. Most recently Washington has decided to blame Grey's Anatomy star Patrick Dempsey. He told Larry King that he got into the infamous fight with Dempsey after Dempsey wanted to delay shooting a scene until Ellen Pompeo arrived on set. Washington told Dempsey that he didn't need Pompeo and "I can act," which supposedly sent Dempsey into another zone. "He became unhinged, sprayed spittle in my face. I'm asking him why is he screaming at me. ... He just becomes irate." He says he used "the word" not as a homophobic slur but that it "implied 'somebody who is being weak.'" – presumably Dempsey. So far Washington hasn't blamed any of the female members of the Grey's Anatomy cast. Nor has he put the blame on the person who really deserves it – the man in the mirror. The whole matter would have blown over if Washington hadn't made the incredibly stupid decision to deny using "the word" by actually using "the word". Isaiah Washington needs to "ferment son bouche" stop digging a deeper hole for himself before he ends up doing dinner theatre in Arkansas.

Casting news: Dana Delaney will apparently be cast as Bree's "long lost sister," a passive-aggressive conservative Republican woman who used to live in the neighbourhood and is married to a much younger man. Reportedly the producers are looking at Nathan Fillion, the 36 year-old Canadian actor who starred in Firefly and Miss Match to play the 51 year-old Delaney's husband. Fillion most recently starred in Drive and may be getting a reputation as the new Ted McGinley for the number of series he's been in that died quick unnoticed deaths but remember, Firefly and Drive were on FOX while Miss Match was produced by 20^th Century Fox. Maybe Fillion just has to keep away from projects associated in any way with Rupert Murdoch.

Recasting news: Also known as "the pilot was sold, now let's get rid of the cast who were in it." I'm not sure how much of this is a result of Newtork weasels sticking their snouts into projects that have been already sold but it seems that after pilots are sold there comes a sudden spate of recasting which leads to people who worked well in the pilot being replaced for no apparent reason. Just consider the following:

• Marrin Dungey, who played Dr. Naomi Barrett in the backdoor pilot of Private Practice is out; Broadway actress Audra McDonald in.
  
• Brett Cullen (Governor Ray Sullivan in The West Wing), who played the father in the pilot of The CW's Life Is Wild is out; D.W. Moffett from Hidden Palms and For Your Love in, playing the father.
  
• Mae Whitman (Ann Veal on Arrested Development) out as Becca Sommers on Bionic Woman out; no replacement announced but the character will no longer be deaf.
  
• Amber Valetta out as Coraline in Moonlight; Shannyn Sossamon (Kira on Dirt) in.
  
• Shannon Lucio (Lindsay in The O.C.) out as Beth in Moonlight; Sophia Myles in.
  
• Rade Serbedzija (Dmitri Gredenko on 24 this season) out as Josef, Jason Dohring (Logan from Veronica Mars) in.
  

At least two of the cast changes on Moonlight relate to the arrival of former Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Angel producer David Greenwalt as Executive Producer/Showrunner. The replacement of Serbedzija with Dohring is particularly jarring since Serbedzija is an older Eastern European type guy and Dohring is – you know – neither of those things. I suppose that making Josef a "young, mischievous hedge-fund trader" rather than an old-school vampire who is mentoring the lead character in an uneasy alliance is meant to attract a hip young audience as well as being in keeping with the notion that vampires don't age, but for me there's something to the notion of having someone who looks and sounds as if he could have been best buds with Vlad the Impaler acting as the lead character's mentor rather than some guy who looks like he should be going to Grad School regardless of how long ago he went through the change. I also don't get what the reasoning could be behind changing the Becca character on Bionic Woman from deaf to hearing, since none is given. Is it because deaf people aren't supposed to be attractive, or audiences can't relate to the deaf? Which is obviously why I am neither a Network Executive or a Showrunner

Who does the PTC hate this week?: Well obviously they hate TV violence, so it's no surprise that PTC President Tim Winter was at the Senate Commerce Committee hearings on Violence on Television talking up the organization's position on the badness of violence on TV. He cited the PTC's study which claimed that e TV season which concluded last year was the "most violent that the PTC has ever recorded – averaging 4.41 instances of violence per hour, every hour, during prime time, or one instance every 13½ minutes – an increase of 75% since the 1998 television season." A little later we'll see just how restrictive the PTC's definition of violence is, but first let's look at the trends that the PTC is seeing. Winter told the Committee, "In addition to the marked increase in the quantity of violence, we are seeing several other disturbing trends. First, the depictions of violence have become far more graphic and more realistic than ever before, thanks in part to enhanced computer graphics employed in television production today. Second, there is an alarming trend for violent scenes to include a sexual element. Rapists, sexual predators and fetishists appear with increasing frequency on prime time programs. Third, we are now seeing the main character – the protagonist the audience is supposed to identify with – as the perpetrator of the most violent acts. And lastly we are seeing more children being depicted as the victims of violence." Which is worrying if taken entirely at face value but I'm not entirely convinced that you can. The appearance of "rapists, sexual predators and fetishists" does not necessarily mean the actual depiction of their activities, and certainly not in graphic detail. The PTC cited a number of examples including episodes of NCIS and CSI. They also cited two FX cable shows – The Shield and Nip/Tuck – for special recognition, even though both shows are scheduled for times later than those when the PTC's supposed concern – children – would normally be watching. But of course the PTC has long ago ceased to be truly concerned with protecting the children and is actually focussed on deciding what everyone should be allowed to watch regardless of age or the time that the show appears.

Of course what would a Winter appearance before any governmental hearing (and TV camera) be without touching on certain favourite topics that are not directly related to TV violence. These include the Second Circuit Court decision and the Janet Jackson incident – "After the Janet Jackson incident, television executives were quick to come before the Congress to pledge zero-tolerance for indecency. Subsequently they filed a federal lawsuit which would allow them to use the F-word at any time of the day, even in front of millions of children. Sadly they managed to find two judges in New York City who agreed with them. And now the networks are in Court again, this time saying that the Janet Jackson incident was not indecent." – the V-Chip – "recall that when the V-Chip was introduced the television industry denounced it as censorial heresy. That is, they denounced it until they found a way to manipulate what was supposed to be a simple solution for parents. Instead the industry turned the V-Chip into a means for even more graphic content while using it as an excuse to violate the broadcast decency law." – and the industry's efforts to educate people on the V-Chip – "Through efforts like the 'TV Boss' campaign, the industry promised you hundreds of millions of dollars to educate parents on content-blocking technologies, yet all objective data shows that parents still have no constructive grasp over the TV ratings system or the technologies that are reliant upon them." – and cable choice - "And Senators, if you subscribe to a cable or satellite service, you are forced to pay almost $9.00 every year to the FX network so they can produce and air this kind of material. And with tens of millions of Americans forced into the industry's bundling scheme, FX reaps hundreds of millions of dollars each year to produce this material, and that is before they sell even one TV commercial." All of these – with the possible exception of the cable choice issue, although I do wonder how much of the $9 subscription fee for F/X the network actually gets – are examples of the PTC manipulating facts to fit their thesis and using dubious surveying techniques as with their survey "proving" that efforts to educate parents on the V-Chip don't work which was included in a general survey not specifically aimed at parents.

Still what I find most amazing is that the PTC wants this to be a one way street where they can complain without contradiction but any effort by the TV industry to defend themselves either must be barred or is regarded as an act of evil-doers: "As troubling as those content examples are, Mr. Chairman, I am equally dismayed by the seeming contempt the industry has for anyone who would suggest reasonable self-restraint. Recently the CEO of Time-Warner decried this hearing, likening your concerns to Nazi Germany." This is interesting since surely any action that the Senate Committee would require of the networks would not be "self-restraint" but rather legislatively imposed restraint in the form of increased regulation of content. And then there's this: "Every time the public – and our public servants – call for more responsible behavior, the industry refuses to have a meaningful dialog or offer real solutions. Rather than coming before you to address the negative impact their products have on children, they turn the conversation into a lecture on broadcast standards and the Constitution. Rather than acknowledging the scientific evidence manifested in over a thousand medical and clinical studies, they underwrite their own research and point to its differing conclusion. And rather than focusing on their statutory public interest requirements for using the public airwaves, they shift the conversation to entertainment in general and invoke the always-sobering term, 'chilling effect.' But I wonder how 'chilling' things really are if, as we've read in the press, the Fox broadcast network airs a program this fall where an amorous monkey joins a man and woman in a sexual encounter." Because of course the PTC doesn't seem to believe that the protections of the Constitution of the United States extends to Television industry – their attitude on the appeal of the "fleeting obscenity" case came perilously close to saying that the industry should not be allowed to appeal the FCC decision and that the networks were not eligible for the constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal.

In fact although many members of the committee supported increased regulation there are genuine concerns with regards to First Amendment rights. Broadcast and Cable stated that the concerns were bipartisan. Both Ted Stevens (R – AK) and John Sununu (R – NH) raised the issue According to Broadcast & Cable Sununu "said that as 'bothered or disappointed' as he and his colleagues might be by what they see on TV, 'it is very difficult to solve or address with a rule, regulation or law....' Anytime you address the quality, form or content [of programming], he said, 'you run into genuine, important First Amendment questions.'" Broadcast & Cable also reported that Senator Frank Lautenberg (D – NJ) "was concerned about violence, but placed it in a wider context. While he said that TV programming was often vulgar and discouraging and opined of the 'depravity' ruling our behavior, he said regulating that behavior didn't work. 'We tried it once,' he said. 'It was called prohibition.' The key, he said, is finding out how to curb the appetite for such programming--check with the hotels and see what kind of movies people most download, he said – while not violating speech freedoms."

Which brings us to the PTC's Cable Worst of the Week which directly ties into what exactly the PTC counts as "violent content". The show is The Closer which the organization actually praises in the first paragraph of their review. However after that it turns into an attack on the content of the premiere episode. "Unfortunately The Closer's June 18^th season premiere injected unneeded and disturbing graphic violence into a mystery about a murdered family. In the episode's opening, the camera focuses on the dead body of Jenny Anne Wallace, a murdered twelve-year-old. Bloodied stab wounds cover the girl's body. And, to eliminate any doubt about the brutality of the crime, Brenda crouches down and points out: 'There are three visible wounds: one in the back, one in the chest, and one in the throat.'" But of course we aren't seeing "graphic violence," we are seeing the aftermath of violence which isn't shown on screen. The PTC adds "Scenes and descriptions of murder on a show about homicide detectives are to be expected. But there is nothing to be gained in airing the grisly details of a child's murder." In fact there is and it is shown in the clip that the PTC uses to illustrate the "graphic violence" because the characters' reactions reveal something of them. Lt. Provenza (played by Anthony Dennison) is visibly disgusted by the scene and attempts to block the documentary camera shooting the scene. In previous episodes, Provenza has been seen as a callous hard-ass and showing his reaction humanizes him a bit. Brenda's clinical detachment as she examines the body is likewise in keeping with her character. She is reacting on a professional level even though that she will be passionate in her efforts to bring the killer to justice no matter what.

By way of contrast, the show that the PTC labels as the Best of the Week was, amazingly, the finale of ABC's Fast Cars and Superstars, a show in which "celebrities" drive stock cars in a series of racing challenges. I won't go through the description of what the PTC loved about the show – it was more in the way of an episode recap done as breathlessly as is possible on a computer screen or printed page. What was particularly laughable however was the final paragraph: "Fast Cars and Superstars was a huge success. It provided high-intensity, entertaining television that people of any age could appreciate and enjoy." Which of course is why it garnered huge ratings during its run and the admiration of all the TV critics. Oh wait. The critics who bothered to review the show loathed it and the viewers who are supposedly craving this sort of "high-intensity, entertaining television that people of any age could appreciate and enjoy" stayed away in droves. After the series debut, which drew 5.5 million viewers, subsequent episodes lost viewers with the finale drawing 2.15 million viewers and finishing fifth, behind reruns of Reba. This goes to show how out of touch the PTC is with the tastes of the American public. They don't want to see drek like Fast Cars and Superstars and do want quality programming like The Closer or entertaining programming like Hell's Kitchen.

Short Takes – June 26, 2007

Welcome back to your favourite NC-17 blog. Actually I think of that NC-17 in the same way that Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert regarded it when it replaced the X Rating. They hoped that the rating would be applied to films with artistic merit which also included adult themes but not to movies that were pornographic or "dirty". Mostly they wanted a rating that allowed deserving films to get newspaper and TV advertising because most theatres wouldn't book films that they couldn't promote. It didn't work out that way of course – NC-17 replaced X entirely, newspapers still refused to take the ads and films like most of Pedro Almadovar's work either wasn't shown in most North American cities or, once they figured things out, simply weren't submitted to the ratings boards at all. Anyway, I probably won't be using any of the words that got me the NC-17 for a while. Well okay, I'll probably use "dead" and "death" a bit. And I may use "enema," if only because it's sort of a silly word.

We`ll always have Paris: Which I guess is what I`m vaguely afraid of. I mean sure, I liked Paris Hilton in the Carl`s Jr. Ad, but what red-blooded North American male who didn`t have a stick permanently wedged up their backside (by which I of course mean the males in the PTC) didn`t. But mostly I`m like Evil Willow on Buffy The Vampire Slayer – "bored now." But they keep giving her to us. And sadly by "they" I don't just mean the tabloid TV shows and the stupid reality show. No it's now the mainstream news shows. ABC bids $100,000 to get the first interview with Hilton after she got out of the "Big House" after her harrowing 23 days in "Stir," but they get outbid by NBC, the network that piously proclaimed that that the story wasn't newsworthy. Or at least it wasn't until they could spin it in such a way that it was. NBC offered $1 million, and then when it became public knowledge and there were protests from the news division they not only withdrew the bid but proclaimed that the thing was only a rumour. So now we'll see Paris Hilton interviewed by Larry King – and presumably Larry's research staff will read any necessary books for him and provide him with questions that aren't too tough for either of them. CNN claims not to have spent any money to get this interview, and maybe they're even being honest about it, but setting aside whether Hilton got a sentence that other people in a similar situation – except for not being rich or "famous" – would have received (and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that she was treated differently by the judge because of her celebrity) what has she got to say that could possibly be worth a million dollars, a hundred thousand dollars, or whatever "consideration" CNN might be giving her. There is probably a story – even an hour-long news magazine report – on how the justice system treats celebrities (good and ill treatment alike) but this hype around Paris Hilton hasn't done anything like that.

(By the way, once upon a time I used to like Larry King. That was when he was the King – so to speak – of late night radio and operated out of Washington. He worked well with callers – except for anyone calling in to criticise Psychiatrists, who were immediately labelled Scientologists and cut off – and had interesting guests. These days, operating out of Los Angeles, he has his lips so firmly attached to the backsides of anyone in Hollywood that there are still some parts of the United States where he could be arrested for unlawful sexual activities. And he still doesn't read the damned books.)

Couric-watch: Which network has seen its evening news audience drop more since Katie Couric debuted as the host of the CBS Evening News. If you said "Well duh, that would be CBS," You would be, well duh, wrong (come on, you didn't think I'd post something like this if the answer was the obvious one did you). According the Nielsen ratings, as reported by TVNewser, the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric has lost 287,000 viewers from the same time last year. That's a drop of about 4%. The NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams has lost 533,000 viewers over the same period, a drop of 5%. It is almost twice as many viewers as CBS lost (185.71% to be exact) but then CBS obviously had a smaller audience to begin with. And while it can be argued whose fault that is, the one thing that is abundantly clear is that you can't blame Couric for having a smaller audience before she even arrived.

FOX – the clone network: A funny thing seems to happen when some networks come up with a reality or game show idea; FOX comes up with an idea that's almost exactly the same. Sometimes they even get it on before the network that came up with it in the first place. ABC brought Supernanny to American audiences, but FOX had Nanny 911 on the air three or four months earlier. ABC had Wife Swap; FOX came up with Trading Spouses and put it on the air before the ABC series. The similarities between the two shows were so great that ABC sued FOX for copyright infringement. And now Fox is doing it to NBC. One of the "highlights" of NBC's new fall line-up was a show called The Singing Bee in which contestants have to sing a song and remember the lyrics accurately after the music stops. The "bee" part comes in because the format is supposed to be like a Spelling Bee with eight people from the audience competing against each other. The show was supposed to start airing in the Fall, sharing a Friday time slot with 1 vs. 100. Except, FOX announced a new series called Don't Forget The Lyrics. In Don't Forget The Lyrics contestants have to sing the correct lyrics to songs of various genres. Oh there are "differences" – the FOX show doesn't use the Spelling Bee format. Instead a single contestant sings at various levels with the difficulty of the song increasing as the prize amount increases. So you can see, they're totally different shows. As I said, NBC planned to debut The Singing Bee in the Fall but when they got wind of FOX's plan to start Don't Forget The Lyrics on July 11 from 9:30 to 10 p.m. Eastern, that plan went out the window. NBC will debut The Singing Bee on July 10, with a second half hour episode appearing on – wait for it – July 11 from 8:30 to 9 p.m. Eastern; in other words an hour before the debut of Don't Forget The Lyrics. I love this, if only because if both of these shows suck as much as I anticipate (and to be honest devoutly hope) they may kill each other off before the start of the Fall season which will give 1 vs. 100 (a show that I really do like) a straight run.

Who does the PTC hate this week: Boy the stuff you miss when you skip a week. Before I get to that though, I want to remind all of you of the single issue on which I agree with the PTC, which is unbundling cable services and allowing consumers to choose which channels will be seen in their homes. This came up because Representatives Dan Lipinski (D, Illinois) and Jeff Fortenberry (R, Nebraska) introduced a new bill called the "Family and Consumer Choice Act of 2007" which would allow consumers to pick and pay for the channels they want. Of course the PTC and I totally disagree on why this should be done. I just don't want to pay for TV channels that I only see when I'm clicking through the channels to get to the shows I want to see. I don't particularly care for most music channels so why should I pay for Muchmusic, CMT, or MTV Canada. And if I save money by not watching those channels maybe I'll spend the money on other channels I want to watch but can't afford at present. The PTC on the other hand sees "pick and pay" as a way to punish the evil entertainment industry. Almost as soon the PTC's press announcement finishes praising Lipinski and Fortenberry (praise that consisted of most of the first paragraph) it spends eight paragraphs talking about the evils bestowed on the poor, innocent American public by cable and network TV (despite the fact that Lipinski and Fortenberry's bill probably wouldn't negate the FCC's "must carry" rules that were further strengthened by the US Supreme Court in 1997). Here's a little bit of the overheated rhetoric of PTC Governmental Affairs Director Dan Issett:

Last year, Congress acted to increase the maximum possible fine for violation of broadcast decency law, but the reaction from the entertainment industry was to file suit, claiming that the 'F-word' and 'S-word' were appropriate to air during prime time television, and that – of all things – a striptease in the middle of the Super Bowl was somehow not indecent. Clearly, the entertainment industry has lost its way, and is failing to live up to its legal obligation to broadcast in the public interest.

Last week, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision inexplicable to Americans families: that the 'F-word' and 'S-word' should be ok to be broadcast on the public airwaves at hours when tens of millions of children are in the audience. While we're a long way from the end of the judicial process in that case, and Congress may weigh in yet again, one thing is clear – if the entertainment industry really want to give parents 'complete control' of their televisions, as it says it does, then it would endorse the concept of cable choice.

And then there's his conclusion:

We commend Congressman Lipinski and Congressman Fortenberry for their excellent leadership on this critical issue, and we thank Chairman Martin for his thoughtful and forthright determination that parents must be given more and better tools to control the graphic sexual and violent content that comes into their homes. It takes real political fortitude to side with families and stand up to the millions of dollars the entertainment industry spends to buy influence in Washington. But make no mistake - the American people are grateful that this legislation is being offered today.

My viewpoint? If the vast majority of the "American people are grateful that this legislation is being offered today" it isn't because it will keep them from seeing the shows cited in the PTC's press announcement – Rescue Me from FX, South Park on Comedy Central, and the cleaned up version of The Sopranos that airs on A&E. It will be because it will save them money and maybe allow them to rid their TVs of multiple shopping channels and religious networks that they never watch. It is also a fact that the "American people" will vote with their pocket books and if the cable industry is smart – and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they aren't – they package their product in such a way as to make picking and paying for individual channels the least attractive option, and packages with a mixture of channels based around an apparent theme the most attractive. Those packages are what most people will buy.

I confess that one of the reasons why I look forward to Hell's Kitchen is because of the fulminating (a particularly appropriate verb for any pronouncement from the PTC – one always gets the impression that an over-abundance of righteous indignation on their part will lead to a massive explosion) they engage in when his show airs. Last week's Worst of the Week was no disappointment. The PTC had this to say of Ramsay (who "clearly plays the role of the Devil in Hell's Kitchen) and the show "What makes this show so bad for family viewing is that it is presented as "reality," when in reality no one would endure the Nazi-like persecution Chef Ramsey dishes out. In that sense, this show is unlike all other reality shows, as it tells young viewers that this type of behavior is what one can expect to encounter in life, and that obscene language, backstabbing, and vile personal attacks are acceptable in the workplace." Well setting aside the assertion that Gordon Ramsay is somehow Hitler-like, the fact is that Ramsay's own early training made Hell's Kitchen look like a stroll in the park. Marco Pierre White was notorious for his rages and bullying – indeed White's recent biography has a picture of Ramsay in tears after being screamed at by White making a mistake. Ramsay's behaviour in his working kitchens as depicted in the documentaries Boiling Point and Beyond Boiling Point is exactly as seen in the show. But perhaps the most telling proof that people will "endure the Nazi-like persecution Chef Ramsey dishes out" is that his restaurants have an astounding 85% retention rate for staff since 1993. (I'd ask Orac for the loan of the brain eating Hitler-zombie, but of course this is the PTC and the poor critter would starve looking for brains among that bunch.)

This week the PTC's Worst of the Week is the FOX series The Loop. This is a series that the network is burning off – airing the episodes during the summer – and doing so in a way that is reminiscent of a high powered industrial incinerator. FOX ordered episodes of this series as a midseason replacement after a brief run in the 2005-06 season but then changed their minds, first cutting the order from 13 to 10 episodes, then not running it at all during the main season, and finally running two or three episodes in a single night instead of one a week like even the weakest series being run in the summer. In other words it's business as usual for FOX where the network weasels are particularly obtuse. And yet the PTC treats it with far more respect than the network does, viewing it as "one of the crudest shows on television" terrible threat to the (non-existent) "Family Hour." The episode in question is called "The Window" (except that it isn't – the actual title is "Windows" which shows the usual PTC level of accuracy). The PTC quotes five "vulgar examples of sexual innuendo and dialogue from this week's episode," including "Sam: 'Did my package come?' Sully: 'No, but mine did.'" I'm not even sure I understand what that means out of context – and all of the quotes in question are out of context – let alone why I should regard it as vulgar. They finish their hatchet job review by saying "The Loop is has a simple formula: place the main character in a random conundrum, litter the script with taboo sexual dialogue and situations, and put it on the air in the family hour. The writers of this program show no regard for younger viewers or families who may be watching their program." I'm not going to defend this show as not being full of sexual innuendo; even though I haven't seen it I have seen reviews by people who have and either hate the sexual content and think that the show is getting what it deserves, or enjoy it and think that the network is treating it shamefully. But you know as well as I do that this series could air in any hour of primetime and the PTC would be condemning it as filth, all in the name of protecting the children.