I Wish I Could Forget This Show

A couple of weeks ago, when NBC Entertainment President Ben Silverman was discussing whether or not the network would renew Friday Night Lights he uttered a phrase which I hope to hell will come back to haunt him: "We're NBC. We've got a reputation to protect." Friday NBC cancelled one of my favourite shows on the network, Las Vegas and seems to be desperately shopping for another network partner to help pay for Friday Night Lights... or something. Meanwhile on Friday night, occupying the time slot previously occupied by Friday Night Lights (which won't be doing any more episodes this season at least, and maybe ever) is one of the shows that Ben Silverman is "protecting" the reputation of NBC with. It is called Amne$ia and after watching it I wish I had it. Amnesia that is; that way I could forget this steaming pile of ... something awful.

Amne$ia is a game show... allegedly. In essence you have a contestant who is asked questions about what I guess I'd call the trivia of his life. The show ran in three phases. The first is a lightning round in which the contestant has to answer up to seven questions in a minute and receives a thousand dollars for each correct answer. Next – in the first episode at least – someone from the contestant's past is brought on. The contestant is sent to a "sound proof booth" while host Dennis Miller interviews the person about particular events in the contestant's life, but not in too much detail of course. Once the interview is finished the guest is seated and the contestant asked a couple of trivia questions related to the person who has been brought out. It might be a question like the room number of the classroom where the contestant's father taught the contestant science. On the other hand the contestant might be asked to pick out the doormat of the family home where he left the house key for his brother from a selection of about a dozen mats. (The contestant in this case left the house key under the mat for his brother and then left a note on the door telling his brother that the key was under the mat.) A total of three guests are brought on for the contestant, each generating two or three questions. The amount of money for each question tied to a guest goes up with each guest. The first guest's questions are worth $2,500, the second guest's $5,000, and the third's $10,000. Once the questions tied to the third guest are asked, the three guests are each handed an envelope. In each of these is a question. This time around if the player gets the question wrong the value of the question is subtracted from the amount of money that the contestant has won. The contestant chooses one of the guests and Miller asks the question. The first question is worth $25,000, the second $50,000 and the third $100,000. The player can stop before any of these questions including the first. If the player loses all of his previous winnings, the game ends and he leaves with nothing.

This show is awful. In my book the game shows that work are the ones that are well paced, build drama effectively, and have a certain consistency about them. Having a good host helps a lot too but I'll get into that one shortly. Amne$ia fails on the first three counts. The pace was horrible, in that the entire episode was given over to a single contestant and the only point at which he could lose any money was in the last five to ten minutes. That pretty much cut out the idea of building dramatic tension too. There was no sense of jeopardy for the player which in turn meant that there was very little reason to ether identify with him or feel sympathy for him. Finally this show was all over the map stylistically. I mean I could see some of what they were intending. The lightning round was meant to build up the player's bankroll while the subsequent rounds seemed to be meant to make him work for the money. Part of the trouble was that while the stories that this contestant's three guests (his father who was also his former science teacher, his brother, and his wife) were asked about were amusing they stopped the action of the game dead and did so for little real purpose.

The single bright spot of this show was the host, Dennis Miller, and even then I am so ambiguous about him that I have a certain amount of difficulty putting it into words. As a host he's good at talking to both the contestant and the guests, and has moments of wittiness when it comes to the normal game show conventions like the use of lights and dramatic musical stings. That said, there's a certain "smug jackass" quality about Miller that makes me feel at least like he thinks he's smarter than everyone else and is just dying to let us know the fact. At times it seems as if he's only doing this for the money and the opportunity to show us all his innate superiority. Of course I've always felt this way about Dennis Miller so I can't really say I'm that surprised.

Perhaps the worst thing that could possibly have happened to Amne$ia was to debut it on the particular Friday night they chose. The show followed 1 vs. 100, which itself was on opposite a night time edition of The Price Is Right. These two shows illustrated the weaknesses of Amne$ia with an almost cruel clarity. The Price Is Right has always been fast paced and consistent. It may fall a little short in terms of dramatic tension but the turn-over in contestants compensates for that; each commercial break brings a new contestant in what amounts to a self contained story. There's always the risk of losing everything in the show until you come to the showcase. Drew Carey never comes across as superior to the contestants in either this or his other game show, The Power Of Ten. Carey always makes it appear that he is on the contestant's side. 1 vs. 100, which aired the last show of its current season tonight (more's the pity) doesn't have the contestant turn over that The Price Is Right does, but even with the modifications that were made to the show for this season (a number of permanent mob members rather than replacing everyone who gives wrong answer; setting plateaus in terms of prizes – contestants aren't paid an amount per mob member eliminated as last year but must eliminate 10 mob members to reach a new prize level) the show delivers a lot of dramatic potential. The format is consistent and the risk of failure for the contestant is quite real, particularly as the questions become more difficult. Host Bob Saget has contestant banter down to an art form which I suppose can come across as somewhat "plastic" but works for the show. There's no real sense that he feels superior to contestants although, he sometimes seems a bit more aloof from them than Carey does. By comparison with either of these to shows Amne$ia is an utter and complete failure.

There is something inherently unfair about the fact that Amne$ia will most likely run to the end of this season while neither Las Vegas nor Friday Night Lights will get a proper ending to their seasons – or in the case of Las Vegas (but hopefully
not Friday Night Lights) a proper series wind up. At their worst, either of these shows is far more entertaining than Amne$ia. The single point in which Amne$ia beats them is that it doesn't cost as much to produce, which I suppose is an important point for a network like NBC in terms of programming on what we are consistently told is the worst night for viewership on TV now that Saturday has basically been reduced to a dumping ground for movies and repeats (although programming scripted shows on Friday doesn't seem to effect CBS all that much). My great fear is that this drek will draw good ratings and become a regular series for next season. This show deserves to be not to be lauded but to be cancelled after one episode. Even if it doesn't find a place on next year's schedule, its presence on the NBC line up as anything more than a "strike baby" tells us something about Ben Silverman and his vision for network TV that I don't really like. If this is what Silverman considers "protecting" the reputation of NBC, I have to wonder what exactly he thinks that reputation is.

Short Takes – February 21, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TV Shows On DVD – February 19, 2008

I made a rather conscious decision at the start of the Writers Strike not to promote new DVDs of TV shows on what seemed at the time to be the very sound grounds that if people held off on buying new DVDs until after the strike ended the writers would be paid at an improved residual rate, and besides it would hurt the movie studios. Of course the first part of that idea came a cropper when the WGA dropped the demand for improved DVD residuals just to get AMPTP to the bargaining table, but the principle remains valid and I stuck to it. But now of course the strike is over so...

As always, the source material for the list of DVDs comes from TVShowsonDVD.com but the comments are all mine.

6teen: Snow Job
6Teen is a Canadian-made animated series about six 16 year-olds working – or slacking off on – part time jobs in the Galleria Mall somewhere in North America. The episode Snow Job was a one hour special to wrap up the show's second season in the same way that the one hour special Dude of the Living Dead wrapped up the first season. The DVD appears to only have a one hour running time – the length of the special – rather than the three half hour episodes that are contained on regular season DVDs from the series. Also, this DVD only appears to be available in Canada at present.

Peanuts: It's the Easter Beagle, Charlie Brown
I've seen the "Easter Beagle" special described as a bit of a let down on the part of the producers in as much as it borrows ideas from the Halloween Special (the Easter Beagle is equivalent to the Great Pumpkin) and the Thanksgiving one (Peppermint Patty and Marcie's kitchen mishaps), but really, who cares? The DVD also contains the Arbor Day special (wait, there was an Arbor Day special) and a featurette called In Full Bloom: Peanuts at Easter. Best of all this is the second in a series of remastered rereleases.

Class of the Titans Chaos
This is another show that I've never seen, which goes to show just how little I watch Canada's Teletoon Network which produces the show. As nearly as I can tell this DVD is only available in Canada. The disk apparently contains the first three episodes of this series about the descendants of various heroes of Greek mythology brought together by the ancient Greek gods to combat the menace of the escaped Titan Chronos.

Coach: The Third Season
I was never a huge fan of Coach. It just never held my interest, although there were members of my family who loved it. Basically, all I can tell you about this season is that by the end Hayden (Craig T. Nelson) and Christine (Shelley Fabares) are engaged even thought the broke up earlier in the year.

Cops: 20th Anniversary Edition
I've seen it argued – quite convincingly – that this is the first real reality show. Another series that has never really done it for me, I suppose because it has a sort of "trailer trash" quality that doesn't really work for me. As the title says though, it's been on the air for twenty years so they must be doing something right for somebody.

Father Ted: The Holy Trilogy
The whole thing. All three seasons of this series which has an almost legendary status among people who've seen it (guess what; I'm not one of the people wh has seen it). There are commentaries for each season (or series as the Brits call them), interviews with the writers/creators, and some other extras.

He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, Vol. 1
This will likely come as near sacrilege to a lot of you but I have in fact seen episodes of this series... I just never liked it. When it comes down to it, the series was really one giant animated commercial for the Mattel toys and I don't recall them really selling all that well. Another thing is that the series was produced by Filmation, a studio which frankly produced disappointingly limited animation. The fact is though that for reasons that I readily admit that I don't understand this series resonates with a lot of people, most of whom saw it when they were kids and retain the memories. And after all, childhood memories are the real driving influences behind nostalgia.

Lillie
This is a rerelease of the thirteen episode 1978 ITV miniseries about the life of Lillie Langtry. Langtry, an actress and singer who was the mistress of Edward VII (among others), captivated society in the late 19^th Century with her beauty and wit, and numbered among her admirers Oscar Wilde, James Whistler and Judge Roy Bean. Francesca Annis (who portrayed Lady Macbeth in the Roman Polanski film of Macbeth) is perfectly cast as Lillie Langtry and it is a much commented upon aspect of her performance that she ages from a teenager to near her death at age 76. A truly great performance.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Season 2, Part 1
There have been several different versions of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles both produced and released on DVD that it is hard to know which is which. This set is from the first version of the show, which ran from 1987 to 1996. This version of characters is lighter and more fun-loving than the version created for the original black and white comic books but it is probably true that that quality is what made the characters as popular as they became. The presentation in this DVD is different from most in that the episodes are presented in the correct order and on a season by season basis. This is something that I wish was true of far more releases of animated series.

Walker, Texas Ranger: Season 4
Another admission – I was a regular watcher of Walker, Texas Ranger. Now admittedly, when I watched the show it was frequently a case of ridiculing Chuck Norris for his repeated use of his spin kick, a move which by this time seemed to be the one martial arts move that he could still do (which may be the reason why it was used so often). It was a revelation later to see Sammo Hung's speed and inventiveness on the Martial Law series – Sammo would have kicked Walker's ass in a fair fight. I also commented on the fact that Walker's truck was repeatedly shot by hundreds of rounds of automatic weapons fire and not only didn't have anything vital (like the radiator) hit but never even had a bullet hole. I did all that, but I have to confess that I frequently got caught up in the action. Of course I can't tell you the details of season 4 because quite frankly seasons of Walker are pretty much indistinguishable from each other with the only differentiating features usually being the arrival and departure of supporting characters, and quite frankly that didn't happen all that often.

Retro-Larson

There was a period in the late 1970s and the 1980s when you couldn't turn on the TV without seeing a Glen Larson Production. The list of shows that he created or was executive producer of is like a hall of fame of the sort of TV that the '70s were, well infamous for (the sort of shows though that the Parents Television Council pines for if their most recent TV Trends is to be believed). They were escapist fantasies with various gimmicks and if they "borrowed" from some hot trend, well so much the better. Larson's shows included Alias Smith and Jones (borrowed from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid), Sword of Justice, B.J. and the Bear, The Misadventures of Sheriff Lobo, Buck Rogers in the 25^th Century, The Fall Guy, and Battlestar Galactica. Larson would do everything for these shows: he produced them, directed them, wrote them and even composed the themes (he actually started as a musician, a member of the group "The Four Preps").

Perhaps the most memorable of Larson's creations is Knight Rider, the story of a man and his talking car (the car of course was smarter than the man most of the time). Supposedly the concept for the original version of Knight Rider came from Brandon Tartikoff, who were discussing the problem of handsome leading men who couldn't act with an assistant. Tartikoff jokingly came up with an idea he called "The Man of Six Words." According to the Knight Rider entry in The Complete Directory of Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, the man would wake up in a woman's bed and say "Thank you," would chase down the bad guys and say "Freeze," and after the almost victims thanked him would say "You're welcome." In between the car would do all the talking, presumably voiced by a better, if less photogenic, actor. Larson apparently took this basic concept and refined it to become the original Knight Rider. The handsome leading man, in this case David Hasselhoff, had more than six words of course (although there are some who think that keeping him to six words would have been just fine) but the car – the Knight Industries Two Thousand a.k.a. KITT – was still voiced by the better actor in William Daniels. The series ran for four seasons, and spawned a couple of made for TV movies as well as the series Team Knight Rider.

Of late NBC seems to have started on a retro programming kick for both itself and at least one of its cable networks. It began with a revised version of Glen Larson's Battlestar Galactica. This version of the series which had originally run for a single season in 1978-79 took the original concept of a refugee fleet running from an alien menace and not only updated it but took a far more serious tack with the show. The Sci-Fi Channel version emphasised the sense that things were not normal within the fleet, that these people were fleeing from a genocide, something one never really had a sense of in the original version. The success of Battlestar Galactica led to NBC trying Bionic Woman, a remake of the Lindsay Wagner series of the mid-1970s. This series was unsuccessful in part I suspect because while the original was hardly great drama, unlike Galactica there were relatively few ways in which it could be improved. The net result was that there were some surface changes – Jamie Summers wasn't a tennis player turned teacher, she was a bartender – but most of the plots centered on the character as a novice secret agent and that ground had already been covered better by the original. Still, while preparations were going ahead for Bionic Woman NBC announced that they would be reviving yet another series from the old Universal library (since NBC and Universal are now part of the same company), Glen Larson's Knight Rider.

The new version of Knight Rider – which I'm sure NBC-Universal hopes will become a series – is amazingly uncomplicated by any efforts to modernize it or make it "more relevant" or realistic. And when you think about it, that's probably a good thing. I mean we are talking about a talking car here. Also wisely, they have decided not to ignore what had gone before. There's a brief guest appearance by David Haselhoff at the end of the TV movie, and in the early scenes we see disassembled parts from the original KITT, so there's a tip of the hat to the past, but the producers don't dwell in it. They also don't dwell too much in such irrelevancies as plot. The producers basically spent two hours creating a chase picture with the secondary purpose of introducing characters for a relaunch of the Knight Rider franchise.

The story – such as it is – focuses on a group of mercenaries working for a shadowy Black Water style group that is trying to capture Charles Graiman (Bruce Davidson – slumming) because he holds the key to something called "Prometheus." As nearly as I can tell "Prometheus" is some sort of device that can take over control of computers the world over or something equally nasty. In the "wrong hands" – that is to say the hands of anyone except the United States of America – this has a potential to start wars and other bad stuff. All of which leads one to ask why in the hell anyone would build the damned thing in the first place. But let's face it "Prometheus" is just a MacGuffin; something to motivate the characters but with no other real purpose, as Hitchcock described it. To get the data on Prometheus the mercenaries burst into Graiman's home and threaten his life and that of his daughter, who is at Stanford. Unfortunately for them, Graiman drops dead of an apparent heart attack. Equally unfortunately for them, Graiman has completed work on the new KITT, the Knight Industries Three Thousand (Val Kilmer – career in the toilet). The new KITT has been pre-programmed to do three things. First it has to pick up Graiman`s daughter Sarah (Deanna Russo) at Stanford and protect her from the four mercenaries. Naturally, despite the fact that KITT is the fasted thing on the roads and can turn on a dime and give you nine cents change and the bad guys are driving a van, they still get there ahead of the car which means that the car gets to pull off a daring rescue and the chase is on. KITT decides to lose the mercenaries – who by the way are types that used to be described as "straight out of Central Casting"; a nerdy white guy (you can tell he's a nerd because he says the word "algorithms"; Kevin Christie), a beefy Black guy who is the muscle of the group and doesn't talk much (Kevin Dunigan), a young Asian guy with long hair and a definite fondness for guns (but in this one he exhibits no ability for the martial arts; Jack Yang), and the older white guy who is the brains of the operation and the only reason why these guys have any hope for success (Greg Ellis – this role is a big step down from playing Amador in the third season of 24). Naturally enough KITT evades them.

KITT's next task is to find Mike Traceur (Justin Bruening from All My Children). Mike is an ex-Army Ranger, who is also a failed race car driver. Currently Mike is living in Las Vegas with his mechanic and best buddy Dylan. The first time we see Mike he's in bed with a beautiful woman... and joined by a second beautiful woman. Obviously he'll have to be the man with eight words ("thank you" being said twice). Mike has a big problem – he owe $90,000 to some guys whose idea of debt collection consists of taking the debtor's best friend out into the Nevada desert and leaving him there, presumably not in a condition to make it back to the highway. Then twenty-four hours later they'll do the same thing to the debtor. Naturally Mike's solution to paying off his debt is to take every last dime he can raise and go play poker against a guy who looks a lot like Phil "The Unabomber" Laak. It is at the casino – the Montecito of course (note to Toby, this puts Knight Rider in the same universe as Crossing Jordan as well as Las Vegas). It is at the Montecito that Sarah catches up with Mike. The two of them grew up together and had a relationship in the past but for reasons we'll eventually discover he left her (the idiot). Naturally enough the bad guys catch up with Sarah at the casino, and naturally enough the combination of KITT and Mike are sufficient to stop them. But mostly it's KITT who does it; he sets off the fire alarms, opens locked security doors and so on – Mike just fights older mercenary guy and finds that his Army Ranger skills are meagre compared to the bad guy, who fortunately for Mike doesn't wear a cup thereby making him vulnerable to a knee to the family jewels.

KITT's final instruction is to turn himself over to the FBI represented by brilliant loner agent Carrie Revai. We know that she's a loner because she's partnered with the most ineffective FBI agent ever, who she soon ditches. Carrie has headed up to Graiman's isolated compound to identify the body (because remember they can't get in touch with Sarah) and besides she suspects murder. At the compound she meets up with the local sherrif. She quickly identifies the body as not being that of Charles Graiman but a body double. Charles, we discover has taken off through the woods to an even more isolated house, which happens to belong to an old friend named Jennifer, who just happens to be Mike's estranged mother. Now here I was half expecting it to be revealed that the reason that Mike had dumped Sarah was because he had learned that Jennifer and Charles had been involved and that Mike and Sarah were half-siblings. But no, we discover that the reason that Charles sent KITT to Las Vegas pick up Mike before going back to San Francisco to turn himself (yeah, I'm thinking of the car as a him, get over it) in was because Mike is actually the son of Michael Knight (I feel like there should be a trumpet call or something at this revelation).

Charles and Jennifer have to flee from her cozy cabin of course because she's totally off the grid – no phone, no computer (how can she live like that!!!!!). They eventually go to a motel where they call KITT to come pick them up. They also call the agent Revai which is a bad move because the local sheriff is in league with the bad guys. So naturally everyone ends up at the motel, where Jennifer nearly shoots Mike and the whole lot of them get captured by the bad guys. But are our heroes stopped. Of course not there's still one more chase left. Jennifer foolishly tries to come out shooting and ends up shot but before she dies, she manages to pass some sort of weapon over to her son. Then, after three of the mercenaries (and the sheriff) leave with Charles, and the one who remains prepares to execute Carrie and Mike they overpower him with whatever it was that Jennifer passed to Mike. KITT, Mike and Sarah take off after the mercenaries and Charles. Now this would normally be a mismatch but somehow nerdy mercenary has managed to hack into KITT's computer systems (because he's had all of ten minutes to do it in and no help from Charles, and really no reason to do it because he believes that the mercenary left behind will be bringing KITT and Sarah – but not Carrie and Mike – to meet them). He intends to take control of KITT so Mike is forced to turn the car's systems off which eliminates all the superpowers the car has, like auto-repair. KITT gets shot up and bashed up pretty good before mike finally figures out that if they can get ahead of the van and block the road and then turn KITT's systems back on the van will crash into the car and, in total violation of the laws of motion and a few other laws of Newtonian Physics, will stop the van without so much as pushing the car that it hits a millimetre down the highway. The end... well except for a coda at Jennifer's funeral where Mike meets Michael and talks him into "making a difference" by taking up the responsibility of driving KITT. If I were Mike what I'd want to know is why the old man deserted the mother and child before the kid was five, but hey, that's just me.

What to say about this? The acting was adequate although I had the definite feeling that there were people in this that were doing it for the money. I mean let's face it if you're Val Kilmer (who was brought into the project when Will Arnett pulled out because he did voice ads for General Motors and the new KITT is a Ford Mustang) this has to be a pretty nice payday for very little real work. As the voice of KITT, Kilmer is a worthy successor to William Daniels (and if you've heard the 80 year-old Daniels's voice of late you will understand at least in part why the change was made). No one else really stood out. It's only fitting because the real star of the show was the car. This time it's a 2008 Ford Mustang GT500KR. For the purposes of the show (only!) the car has self regeneration and damage repair, is solar powered (though it does need gas, primarily when driving at night – well duh) with gas mileage of 167 miles per gallon, has artificial intelligence, GPS and military satellite access and guidance, has a top cruising speed of 191 miles per hour, and can disguise itself as any other car... as long as that car is a Ford Mustang.

The writing can best be described as workmanlike for what it was. It certainly wasn't cutting edge, and I'd go so far as to say that it old fashioned. There were a couple of nice nostalgic touches, such as when Jennifer asks Charles if the new KITT is another Trans Am, or when the smart older mercenary mentions "an urban legend" about a car and driver that fought crime. Still, despite touches like having Mike in bed with two women when we first meet him, or having FBI agent Revai being a lesbian (she comes home after a bit of early morning surfing to a naked woman who she has obviously picked up the night before), the writing comes across as old fashioned. I think that may be the biggest problem with this revival, it's old fashioned and there's no real need for it. Like it or not (and the PTC most assuredly does not like it) TV has progressed beyond talking cars. Battlestar Galactica is successful for the simple reason that it took only the most basic premise of the original series and made it darker and more realistic. I'm not sure there's a way to make Knight Rider darker and more realistic nor do I think there's a real need to. If the powers that be at NBC are smart (I know, oxymoron) they won't turn this new Knight Rider into a series regardless of the ratings for this TV movie. While I think the ratings for this will be good I can't see the public watching an ongoing revival for more than a few episodes out of a sense of nostalgia. Leave us with our memories of the original series instead and renew Friday Night Lights, or even Las Vegas instead.

Who Does The PTC Hate THIS Week – February 14, 2008

Light week from the PTC but as you can see below there's something they're going to be upset with next week. On the personal front, my mom got out of the hospital today. She's looking forward to having something good to eat. She forgets that I'm doing the cooking.

This doesn't happen often but I now have a chance to scoop the PTC! On the Thursday February 14^th episode of the Today Show Jane Fonda was discussing her role in The Vagina Monologues and how she had initially resisted taking the role when she said "the c-word" according to TVNewser, which has the NSFW clip on this page. For the sake of clarity I will use the word restricted from old comic books for resembling the word in question – squint at your own risk. Speaking with Meredith Viera Fonda said, "I hadn't seen the play — I live in Georgia. Then I was asked to do a monologue called 'CLINT', and I said, 'I don't think so. I've got enough problems.'" Viera later apologised saying, "Before we go to break, in our last half hour we were talking about The Vagina Monologues and Jane Fonda inadvertently said a word from the play that you don't say on television. It was a slip, and obviously, she apologizes and so do we. We would do nothing to offend the audience, so please accept that apology." The Midwest and Pacific feeds of the show had the word replaced with silence and a photograph placed on screen when Fonda says the word so that lip readers won't be offended. The apology is retained.

What is it with these relatively hot post-menopausal actresses on morning shows?! First we had 62 year-old Dianne Keaton dropping the F-Bomb on Good Morning America and then we have 70 year-old Jane Fonda saying "CLINT." What's next, Sally Field going on The Early Show on CBS and mentioning the product of bowel movements? Anyway, you know that the PTC is going to be over this one like white on rice – they wanted NBC fined when Helen Mirren said she nearly fell "tits over ass" trying to make it up the stairs at the 2006 Emmys – but it's another case of those pesky fleeting obscenities on live broadcasts. So naturally they'll complain about the Second Circuit Court and how the FCC needs to press the appeal to the Supreme Court and Congress need to pass a no hope bill that will give the FCC the power to fine anything it wants to just so long as they can justify it by calling it obscene. But that's just my guess.

The PTC has determined that the January 29^th episode of House M.D. is the Broadcast Worst Show of the Week. According to the PTC (adding TV critic to the group's resume): "House, M.D. has always contained graphic imagery and sexual dialogue, but the program also featured suspenseful storylines and witty banter, which gave the show its appeal. Now in its fourth season, the series has become stale and formulaic, and thus increasingly more dependent on sexual themes and gore." Funny that no one else has mentioned that the show has become "stale and formulaic." I mean most episodes tend to follow a pretty basic formula – thereby making it "formulaic" I suppose – but stale? Never! The problem that the PTC complains about in this episode is there are two storylines in this episode, "both involving promiscuous women." Ah, but it's more than that really, it's that the two women are fairly open about it...or are they. The first storyline involves a single woman who has had a double mastectomy, despite not having breast cancer, because of a genetic predisposition to the disease. She is also completely open and truthful with her daughter, about everything (well not quite everything which is a major plot point in the episode but doesn't affect what the PTC has to say about the episode), including sex. Here's what the PTC has to say about this part of the episode: "The mother openly sleeps with several partners and shares that aspect of her life with her daughter. As Dr. House attempts to diagnosis the woman's illness, he sits down with the young girl and asks her to describe her mother's sex practices. He asks the eleven-year-old, 'Saddle, bronc, or doggy… that's sex talk.' As if the question wasn't horrible enough, the writers have the girl respond, 'She used to like to be on top. Now she likes to be on her stomach. That way she doesn't have to see them looking at her scars.'" As I mentioned, the woman (played by the beloved by this blog Janel Maloney) is totally open and truthful to her daughter about all aspects of her life (well as I said, almost all aspects). The PTC is almost as scandalized by the young actress played the daughter and being "forced" to be exposed to such "offensive" material: "Leaving TV fantasyland one has to acknowledge that in filming this episode, an actual little girl was exchanging graphic dialogue with an adult man about sexual positions. Is this really acceptable?" I suppose that for the PTC this is graphic. This plot concludes when House discovers that while the woman has had a double mastectomy she still has breast cancer. There's a complicated explanation but the short reason is that she has breast tissue on the back of one knee. In what is a frankly gross scene, House syringes some milk from that tissue and shoots it into the mouth of the daughter. As I said it is a pretty gross moment, but that is also the reaction of everyone in the roof including the House's three new fellows.

The other storyline involves a young woman who is a patient at the Clinic who is being treated by House for a rash. If you watched the episode, you'll know that House assumes that the young woman is a prostitute because she is wearing a St. Nicholas Medal, and St. Nicholas is the patron saint of prostitutes (he is also the patron saint of "Children, sailors, fishermen, the falsely accused, pawnbrokers, and repentant thieves"). Actually he "logically" deduces this by eliminating the categories she doesn't fit. As I recall the scene the woman doesn't confirm or deny his assumption but undeniably does flirt with him. From this, the PTC also assumes that she's a prostitute; she is the other promiscuous woman of the PTC's introductory paragraph. Well here's what the PTC says about that plot: In the second plot, another woman is an implied prostitute who comes to see Dr. House for a rash on her neck and chest. As House probes her symptoms, he asks her if she has had contact with a donkey, engaging in a line of questioning that would lead one to believe she performs in a sex show involving animals.

House: 'Do you do a donkey show? I'm not curious. It matters.'
Woman: 'It's a donkey or a mule. I can never remember.'
House: 'Wow that's a creepy smile. I bet the donkey's is even creepier... Antibiotic cream for you and a love glove for Francis. You'll both be fine.'
Woman: 'You should come see the show. I think you'd like it.'
House: 'Sorry, I hate Westerns.'"

So here we have a young woman who House assumes is a prostitute and who the PTC states at the beginning of the article is one of two "promiscuous women." To be fair, the PTC does mention that "She does nothing during the conversation to dispel Dr. House's assumption that she performs a sex act on the donkey," (emphasis mine), and it is revealed at the end of the episode (when House goes to see her show – she gave him a handbill which presumably revealed to him if not to us what she was really doing) that she is in fact playing the Virgin Mary in a Christmas pageant. The woman is flirtatious rather than promiscuous, although one suspects that the PTC finds the two states to be close enough not to matter. Maybe this helps explain why their conclusion for this episode is uncharacteristically weak for the PTC: "The graphic sexual dialogue and themes make this episode inappropriate for prime-time television, and earns House the distinction of being Worst of the Week."

The Cable Worst of the "Week" is the same episode of Nip/Tuck that has topped the PTC's charts for three or four weeks now, and the Misrated show is the same episode of Cashmere Mafia as last week. That leads us to the PTC's TV Trends column titled "TV Writers On Strike But Sex Continues" and I personally find it to be a rather weak effort as well. The basic premise of the article is summed up in the introduction: "As the TV writers' strike drags on, prime-time broadcast TV becomes ever more mired in an endless cycle of reruns and "reality" shows. When the strike began the networks held back a few episodes of their programs, and some are showing them now. Others had programs that were always intended to premiere at midseason, and some such shows are now being aired. Unfortunately, the programming appearing in the last week is not substantially different from that which has gone before." Pretty wimpy right? The article then gets down to examples, of which they can come up with two. The PTC's obsession with NBC's supposed obsession with strippers and "the nearly full-frontal nudity of a later Las Vegas episode"
(the scene in the strip club where the entirely overdressed stripper lifts her top so two patrons who are betting on the colour of her nipples – but not the audience at home – can settle the bet; this is hardly "nearly full-frontal nudity") continues. This time they picked on Friday Night Lights which had a scene in which Riggins takes Matt Saracen to the town strip club on a Wednesday afternoon. The PTC has considerable praise for the show saying, "Friday Night Lights has been lauded for its positive portrayal of a small-town high school football team. Unlike programs like the CW's Gossip Girl, which features ultra-wealthy teens hopping from bed to bed and using drugs, Friday Night Lights portrays its teenagers and their families in a genuine fashion, with its characters confronting realistic problems – and facing realistic consequences for bad decisions." In the episode Riggins takes an emotionally fragile Saracen to the local strip club (because it's Wednesday and Riggins always skips on Wednesdays). Believe it or not, this is an important scene and not just a reason to show strippers – who by the way are wearing even more than the strippers that the PTC was complaining about on Las Vegas. Matt is in emotionally bad shape, feeling that everyone who means something to him abandons him, but it's something that Riggins isn't aware of. The PTC doesn't even get that. Here's what they write: "While some teens certainly drink, and some may visit strip clubs, it is a sign of the coarsening of TV (and the increasing acceptability among entertainment industry insiders) that the program felt it necessary to include such material. Given the obsession with strip clubs seen across the NBC network, the inclusion of this scene could very well have been intended to 'spice up' a heretofore down-to-earth program. One can only hope that the program retains its more realistic focus and does not succumb to NBC's apparent desire to feature strippers on as many shows as possible." See what I mean about "not getting it?" Everything to them is gratuitous, and represents a "coarsening of TV."

The other show that they discuss in this article is the same episode of House that was mentioned earlier in this piece. There are a couple of additional comments that the writer of this article adds in. First about the daughter knowing about her mother's preference in sexual positions: "The idea of an eleven-year-old girl being privy to the intimate details of her mother's sex life is more than a little disturbing, but is typical of House." Yeah, I know, it's the same old ground and who cares about characterization? But what gets me is that this writer considers the secondary plot, with the woman at the clinic, "far worse." After describing the setup to the scene they say, "House responds with his typically brusque and graphic manner, deducing that the woman is a prostitute, and furthermore that she has sex with animals." They make sure to repeat the dialogue of the scene, presumably to show how "shocking" it is and then adds, "Most people wouldn't find bestiality a subject for humorous banter with their physician. But then, most people don't have lives that resemble the programming on Fox." But here's the amazing part; somehow it isn't the fairly mild discussion of possible involvement between the woman and the Donkey that offends the PTC, it's this: "As a final fillip, House later sees the woman at a church play, where she is portraying the Virgin Mary…riding a donkey. Even more offensive, if possible, is the fact that this episode was clearly intended to air at Christmas, but was delayed by Fox because of the writer's strike." Excuse me, but even more offensive? I'm afraid I don't know where "offensive" registers on this one. Does the "fact" that it was supposedly meant to air at Christmas make it offensive? Is it the fact that a supposed prostitute is playing Mary? I saw the scenes in question and I saw them not as offensive – certainly not on the young woman's part – but more as playful banter and maybe just a bit of role-playing on her part that ends just as soon as House is given the flier for the show that she's doing.

Here's the PTC's conclusion (with one bit of correction by me). "The strike continues [not anymore it doesn't]…but the effects of Hollywood's writers and their love of extreme sex, violence, profanity and irreverence continue to be seen on all our television screens. Lucky us." Yes indeed, lucky you PTC, because if they didn't engage in what few people outside of your organization consider "extreme sex, violence, profanity and irreverence" you'd have to find something real to do, either as jobs or an avocation.

Update: Did I call it or what. While I was writing this...well actually while I was napping during writing this the PTC put up a press release on the Jane Fonda incident on the Today Show. I said that "naturally they'll complain about the Second Circuit Court and how the FCC needs to press the appeal to the Supreme Court and Congress need to pass a no hope bill that will give the FCC the power to fine anything it wants to just so long as they can justify it by calling it obscene," and sure enough, here it is:

We also ask the two federal court judges in New York whether they are proud of the legacy they have ensured for themselves by paving the way for material like this to come into our homes. Hopefully American families will not let them have the final word, and that the Congress will move quickly to vote on the bill pending before the Senate which would clarify the FCC’s authority to deal with this growing problem.

The Triumphant Return of Short Takes – February 13, 2008

For all intents and purposes the WGA strike is over, so at last I'll have news to report that isn't strike related. But not this time.

Contract details: The actual terms of the contract are available online. Jonathon Handelman for The Huffington Post has a summation and evaluation of what it all means that's really quite interesting and points out wins and losses for the Guild. Here are some of the more interesting points:

• Jurisdiction on New Media: The Guild agreement will be in place for derivative New Media material – for example online material for shows seen on traditional media. For material produced exclusively for New Media Guild jurisdiction comes in once one of a number of budgetary ceilings are met ($15,000 per minute, $300,000 per program or $500,000 per series order). These seem high but are in line with what the Directors Guild of America agreed to. Compensation for derivative New Media is relatively low but more than they've been getting – in many cases that would be nothing. The high thresholds for New Media exclusive material combined with having the compensation for that be negotiable is a bigger problem.
  
• Residuals on New Media: If New Media productions are used on Traditional Media then residuals for television programs apply. New Media exclusive programs that run more than 13 weeks (for ad-supported streaming) or 26 weeks (user-paid downloading, for example iTunes), residuals will be paid.
  
• Residuals for New Media reuse of TV series and movies paid based on a percentage of Distributor's Gross rather than Producer's Gross – this is a very good thing since Distributors' Gross is higher than Producers' Gross and less subject to the sort of creative accounting that Hollywood is infamous for. This applies to Electronic Sell-Through (things like iTunes) and ad supported streaming. Here's where it becomes tricky. Compensation for ad supported streaming of TV is based on 26-week periods. In the first and second year of the contract the rate is fixed and would pay between $1300 and $1400 per year. In the third year of the contract the writers would be paid 2% of the Distributor's Gross, but the Distributor's Gross is capped at $40,000 for hour-long shows and $20,000 for half-hour shows per 26 week period, meaning that the maximum that writers can earn per episode is $1600 per year. Equally problematic is an initial window of 24 days for first season show, reduced to 17 days for other shows, in which residuals won't be paid. This is of course the period of greatest viewership of ad supported streaming material.
  
• Limited "Most Favoured Nation Status": If the Screen Actors Guild gets a better deal than what was negotiated with the Writers Guild in specific areas, the Writers will get that deal. Two things make this problematic. First the specific areas are the New Media provisions of the contract – if SAG improves its provisions on DVD residuals, which they will be focussing on, the writers don't benefit from that. Second, this was a handshake agreement and not written down.
  

On the whole it doesn't seem to be a terrible deal, and it does seem to mark a step back by AMPTP in some areas, particularly Distributor's Gross. There is a school of thought that says that a good labour deal is one in which no one is particularly happy. In that case this is probably a good deal. I just wonder if some of the provisions – the high ceilings on new media to grant WGA jurisdiction, the long initial window on ad supported streaming, and the cap on the amount of Distributor's Gross, will make this a better deal for the Producers than the writers. I'm also left to wonder if the Writers will be willing to "go to the mattresses" (a wonderful phrase from writer Mario Puzo in The Godfather) again in three years to improve on this deal. Time alone will tell.

Backdoor cancellations and renewals:
Michael Ausiello has produced a mostly comprehensive list of shows and when we'll be seeing new episodes, if ever. Now I don't vouch for the complete accuracy of Ausiello's list simply because I don't know if the networks – which of course have final say on everything related to the renewal of shows – have come up with it, but there is some interesting stuff here. The list of shows can basically be split into four groups: shows where new episodes will be shot for this season; shows which won't have new episodes until next fall; shows whose status is "to be determined" which I assume means that they'll either make new episodes for this season or hold it over till next fall; and shows described as "No new episodes expected. Ever." That's cancellation to you and me. In addition to Ausiello's list I've added some more shows from other sources So here is the status of the shows as I write this (apparently this literally changes hour to hour for the TBD shows and presumably shows he doesn't have listed):

• New episodes for this season:
  30 Rock, Back To You, Big Bang Theory, Boston Legal, Brothers & Sisters, Cold Case, Criminal Minds, CSI, CSI: Miami, CSI New York, Desperate Housewives, ER, The Game, Ghost Whisperer, Gossip Girl, Grey's Anatomy, House, How I Met Your Mother, Law & Order, Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit,
  Lost, Medium, Moonlight, My Name Is Earl, NCIS, Numb3rs, The Office, One Tree Hill, Reaper, Rules Of Engagement, Samantha Who?, Saturday Night Live, Shark, Smallville, Supernatural, Two And A Half Men, Ugly Betty, Without A Trace.
  
• No new episode until the Fall:
  24 (January 2009 actually), Aliens In America, Chuck, Dirty Sexy Money, Everybody Hates Chris (they shot the complete season before the strike), Heroes, Life, Men In Trees, New Adventures Of Old Christine, Pushing Daisies.
  
• To Be Determined:
  Bones (unclear whether additional episodes will be produced for this season), Cane (No new episodes this season, future beyond this season TBD), Friday Night Lights (no new episodes this season, future beyond this season TBD), Las Vegas (Ausiello says no new episodes for this season but the San Jose Mercury-News says "Has probably rolled the dice for the last time.", October Road (future beyond the existing pre-strike episodes uncertain), Prison Break (future beyond the existing pre-strike episodes uncertain), Private Practice (Slim chance that it could return with 4 or 5 new episodes this season but will be back in the Fall for sure), Scrubs ("Four pre-strike episodes remain. Four additional episodes will likely be shot; unclear whether they'll air on NBC or go straight to DVD"), Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (future beyond the existing pre-strike episodes uncertain), The Unit (No new episodes this season, future beyond this season TBD), Women's Murder Club (no new episodes this season, future beyond this season TBD).
  
• No new episodes expected. Ever. (aka cancelled): Big Shots, Bionic Woman, Carpoolers, Cavemen, Girlfriends (No additional episodes expected, although a special one-hour series finale is being discussed – this was planned),
  Journeyman, K-Ville, Life Is Wild.
  

No huge surprises on the cancelled list, well perhaps with the exception of Journeyman. Life Is Wild was a good family show of the sort that people like the PTC say the public is clamouring for to counteract all the sex and violence on TV but the ratings weren't just in the toilet, they were swirling after being flushed. It was rare when the show managed a million viewers. Me, I blame The CW's programmers for putting it up against everyone else's family friendly programs, like Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, The Amazing Race, and Sunday Night Football.

According to MediaWeek, "Viewers can expect to see ABC bring back new episodes of its highest-rated, veteran scripted shows this spring, but not its three, already renewed freshman Wednesday night shows that won't be back until the fall, or its average-rated series for which a decision has yet been made for next season." The article adds, "Boding well for the return of the fence-sitting scripted shows on ABC [Men in Trees, Boston Legal, October Road, Women's Murder Club, Cashmere Mafia, Eli Stone] and the other broadcast networks, however, is that it is questionable about how many new scripted shows can be developed and ready for the fall, unless the official start of the season is delayed. This may result in front-end 13 episode orders for some series that normally might not have strong enough ratings to return."

NBC wants to change the TV world: The rest of this post is going to be about NBC, a network that has spent the strike period aggravating my colon, and with a colon like mine aggravation is the last thing I want. It would be nice to say that what has been aggravating me has all spewed from the mouth of Jeff Zucker, and to be fair a lot of it has. First off, back in late January Jeff Zucker announced that NBC wasn't going to do upfronts for the 2008-09 season. According to Zucker they wouldn't hold the big announcement event at Radio City, but would use the time "sell the inventory." According to an article in Variety Zucker told The Financial Times, "Things like that are all vestiges of an era that's gone by and won't return." He also stated in another interview with Reuters that, "When people say the upfront, there are two things: One is the dog-and-pony show at Radio City and the second is the way we sell the inventory. The way that we sell the inventory in an upfront selling period is not going to change. Whether we still need to do the dog-and-pony show is completely under review here and you can look for an announcement on that from us very soon." In his Financial Times interview he made this broad statement: "I think there were a tremendous number of inefficiencies in Hollywood and it often takes a seismic event to change them, and I think that's what's happened here," adding that "the development process will change forever."

The next day Zucker announced that NBC would no longer make pilots for new shows. Well to be exact he said there'd be one or two new shows a year that might have a pilot made for them but for the most part shows would be selected in some other manner. Of course he didn't make it clear how the new shows would be picked. Speaking to the New York Times Zucker stated offered a couple of reasons; NBC's own financial status (Zucker: "Sometimes you see the world from a different perspective when you're flat on your back. At NBC Entertainment we've been flat on our backs for the last few years.") and the developing U.S. recession. One point that Zucker made that is very valid is that pilots often have nothing to do with the program that will actually be seen. The money is going into the pilots rather than the shows themselves. In the past couple of years we've seen this with shows like Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip and this year with Bionic Woman which had a stunning pilot which the show didn't live up to. But what replaces the pilot process as a means of selecting what new shows will air? Do you submit story summaries and sample scripts? Do you shoot some sample scenes? And how do you sell shows to advertisers when you don't actually have something real (or on a reel) to show them?

Finally, at the NATPE meeting at the end of January, Zucker stated in a speech that "Broadcasters can no longer spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on pilots that don't see the light of day or on upfront presentations or on deals that don't pay off. And we can't ignore international opportunities, VOD (video-on-demand) or the Web." He added, "It's not about making less programs; it's about making less waste." The model he looks towards, in a way, is reality shows. According to the Reuters article, "NBC will order fewer pilots and start ordering more projects straight to series – 'those that our executives really believe in' – similar to the model for reality shows," although this apparently does not mean that NBC will be out of the scripted program business. It may mean an end – at NBC at least to the traditional September to May programming season, as NBC moves to a year round schedule. The Reuters article stated that Zucker, "admitted that the Peacock will be 'on its own' doing this at first but said its success would be followed by other networks."

Frankly I cringe more than a little when I read things like this coming from Jeff Zucker. Many of NBC's woes are in fact a result of decisions made by Jeff Zucker. If NBC has in fact "been flat on our backs for the last few years," then Zucker can see the person responsible when he looks in his mirror every day. Zucker's decision making process has seen the network throwing money at successful high profile programs (Friends, Frasier) while not developing solid new shows that would eventually take the place of the high profile shows, so that when Friends eventually ended there wasn't an established show to take its place, there was Joey, a show based on the rather dubious premises that people wanted to see one of the characters from a successful ensemble show without the rest of the ensemble.

According to Reuters, Zucker pointed out that "NBC Universal's cable network USA ordered five pilots during the past two years, four of which made it to series and two of which became the top-rated new cable shows of 2006 (Psych) and 2007 (Burn Notice). Yet none of the new scripted series that have debuted on the broadcast networks so far this season can be considered successful, and only two in the previous season – NBC's Heroes and ABC's Brother & Sisters – were hits." The problem is that he doesn't offer any explanation as to why those cable shows were hits or why the company chose the shows it did to have pilots made. The answer would seem to be based on who is selecting the shows to be made into series at USA, but it could just as easily be the nature of cable programming which tends to have shorter runs but a fixed number of episode because cable programming doesn't seem to be as ratings dependent, or be overseen by executives ready to pull the plug at the first sign of a weak rating.

So when Zucker says something like, "things like that are all vestiges of an era that's gone by and won't return," (referring to the upfronts) he would seem to lack a degree of credibility since he in part is one of the people responsible for making the process the way it is. And when Zucker says this: "This system has been around for 20, 30, 40 years and needs to evolve. We're willing to make chances and learn from our mistakes as we go," you have to wonder whether – based on his track record – he's being a genius or a bum. He may be right in that the whole system could probably use an overhaul to make it less costly and more efficient and effective. The real question is whether what Zucker is proposing is the right direction to take whether it is too much of a revolution and not enough of an evolution.

Silverman not hopeful about Friday Night Lights: Or it may be that he just doesn't like Friday Night Lights no matter what he says. Asked about the show by Radaronline he first told the interviewer to watch 30 Rock because it, and not Friday Night Lights was the best show on television. When the interviewer pressed him on it, Silverman said this: "I love it. You love it. Unfortunately, no one watches it. That's the thing with shows. People have to watch them. We're NBC, we have a reputation to uphold. And, man, with this writers' strike ... well, we'll see what we can do. But start watching 30 Rock." Silverman is right at least in part (and no, it's not the part about 30 Rock being the best show on TV). Ratings for Friday Night Lights have been less than spectacular. Part of that can be blamed on putting the show on Friday nights when high school football fans are off watching high school football or other high school sports. And, as I've said enough times about Arrested Development the networks are businesses and can't keep shows on the air that don't draw an audience. Still there is something about his attitude, embodied both by his demand that we "start watching 30 Rock," and by his statement that "we're NBC, we have a reputation to uphold," that makes me really uncomfortable about this guy and his motives. Currently, when you speak of NBC's "reputation" what you're really speaking about is a string of low ratings finishes as a network and an inability to find audiences for many of its shows. Before that – and I suppose I really mean before Jeff Zucker started his reign as head of entertainment programming which led to bigger and better things (for him anyway) – well that part really doesn't matter. I suspect that part of the problem is that Friday Night Lights is a legacy of the previous Kevin Reilly regime at the network, a show which Silverman wouldn't have put on the air in the first place and if he had had his choice would never have renewed for a second season. 30 Rock is another legacy of the Reilly era, but the difference is that

I am not entirely convinced by the way that renewing the series for the second season was a good idea, but that attitude is prejudiced by what I know about the second season and most importantly about the impact the strike has had on the show. If the series had ended at the end of the first season we, the viewers, would have at least had a sense of completion – the Panthers had won the State Championship, Matt and Julie were dating, Riggins's relationships were a mess, Tami was pregnant, Eric had his dream job, and so on. If the series is cancelled at the end of this season, given NBC's statement that they will not be making more episodes this season despite the end of the Writers strike, we are robbed of this sense of closure.

Dumb lawsuit Hollywood style: This one comes from Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily. It was initially reported that NBC would be suing the Writers Guild of America over the cancellation of the Golden Globe Awards Show which was to air on NBC but this has subsequently been amended when it was discovered that Jeff Zucker told the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and Dick Clark Productions that the network would not be joining in their legal action. NBC cancelled the show when it became clear that the WGA would picket any event and that the Screen Actors Guild would honour the WGA picket lines. Initially the HFPA and Dick Clark Productions considered suing NBC over the cancellation but then opted to sue the WGA and asked NBC if they would be interested in joining the suit. There does seem to be a question of exactly when he said no – NBC says it was when they were initially approached but other sources say that it actually occurred after Frinke's initial report which included a bit of rather scathing editorializing about Zucker ("I say that if this happens then the WGA should countersue the NBC Universal midget for impersonating a mogul (and the HFPA for impersonating a legitimate news organization)."). No matter who is initiating the suit, it has to be one of the dumbest things ever. Dick Clark Productions was an organization that was legally being struck by the Writers Guild and even an event as traditionally loosely structured as the Golden Globes requires writers. The cancellation of this event and the threatened cancellation of the Academy Awards are the two vital pieces of leverage that brought AMPTP to the bargaining table. I'm not a lawyer but this suit sounds like it doesn't have a leg to stand on. Then again, given the state of the legal system in the United States, who knows.

Who does the PTC Hate This Week – February 8, 2008

For those of you who are interested my mother's recovery from her surgery hit a few bumps but she appears to be over them now. She was in the Intensive Care Unit a couple of days longer than we – and she – hoped and then was moved to the Special Care Unit, which quite frankly was nowhere near as nice as the ICU (and the nurses as a group were nowhere near as attractive) She'll probably be moved to a semi-private room by on Thursday.

Let's turn our attention to the Parents Television Council. The PTC is extremely upset by the prospect of the Showtime series Dexter being repurposed to run on CBS starting on Sunday night. In an article titled "PTC to CBS: Do Not Air Dexter on Broadcast TV" the Council demands that CBS cancel plans to run the show about a serial killer who kills other killers and promises the wrath of all American parents if the show runs. Literally. According to PTC President Tim Winter, "Dexter introduces audiences to the depths of depravity and indifference as it chronicles the main character's troubled quest for vigilante justice by celebrating graphic, premeditated murder." He also stated (boldface mine), "We are putting CBS, its affiliates, and every potential sponsor of Dexter on notice: Parents will not tolerate this type of disturbing content on the public airwaves. We are asking our members, our grassroots chapters and other concerned citizens across America to contact their local affiliates and ask them to reconsider their plan to air this show. CBS needs to realize that this disturbing program is wholly inappropriate for the broadcast medium." Winter quotes – or rather cites in much the same way that I do – a statement by CBS Chairman Les Moonves in which he "acknowledges the devastating impact of violent media on children," and said, "Anyone who thinks the media has nothing to do with this [the bloodshed at Columbine] is an idiot." Winter then asks, "why are you contributing to this culture of violence by airing Dexter?" The PTC statement concludes by stating that, "The PTC has documented a pattern of adult-themed content migrating from premium cable to syndication on broadcast TV; and we are seeing a migration of graphic broadcast TV content from the 10 pm hour to earlier and earlier times of the day. But Dexter is undoubtedly the worst example of this disturbing trend. This is the first time that such a graphic program has gone from premium cable straight to primetime broadcast television. While parental responsibility is always the key component of a family's healthy media diet, CBS must grasp the magnitude of the harmful role it will be playing by airing such a violent and disturbing program on its broadcast network."

Before we get into the bits of the PTC statement that I've quoted, I'd like to address something that actually appeared in the press release though it was not in the part that I've excerpted here. It is in fact something that the PTC mentions each time the show is discussed or even mentions the show without naming it. It is the description of the lead character as a "hero" or the "hero" of the show. My preference here is for the word protagonist. Dexter is by no stretch of the definition of the word a hero. On the other hand he is the protagonist because the stories are told from his perspective. We don't really sympathise with him. We may on the other hand empathise with him because of the way in which he has been shaped by outside forces. In this the question you truly have to ask is what makes Dexter the character any worse than Charles Bronson's character in the Death Wish movies, or Jodie Foster's character in The Brave One. Maybe it's just a question of degrees in that the other two serial killers (which by strict definition they were) gunned their victims down while Dexter's murders are more personal. And perhaps the fact that Dexter isn't motivated (initially at least) by a desire for vengeance but rather by the character's deceased adoptive father who has turned him into an instrument of justice for those whom the justice system has failed.

Let's take the PTC statement apart for a moment. Winter states that the show, "introduces audiences to the depths of depravity and indifference," and is guilty of "introduces audiences to the depths of depravity and indifference." To emphasise this point the describe his method of killing: "He always uses the same procedures, injecting them with tranquilizers, after which they wake up naked and bound to a table with plastic wrap. Dexter always slices his victim's cheek with a scalpel, and keeps drops of their blood on glass slides as souvenirs. He always explains why he's killing them, in one case forcing his victim to look at the bodies of his own victims by threatening to cut off the man's eyelids. Frequently Dexter stabs his victims before dismembering them. Sometimes he dismembers them while still alive." That does sound pretty gruesome but of course we don't actually know if that is what we'll see on Sunday night because we know that CBS will be editing the show for content as well as to fit within the constraints of broadcast television – in other words commercial breaks. We don't know the details and, more to the point, neither does the PTC. But of course to the PTC what the actual content of the broadcast version of the show is really doesn't matter; they've been protesting the translation of Sex And The City and The Sopranos to basic cable since the moment it was announced that those shows would be shown on basic cable, and the considerable amount of censorship that was needed to bring those shows to that level doesn't matter.

The quote from Les Moonves is quoted out of context. We know this because the PTC included a link in their press release. In fact the article referred to a specific issue, the 1999 decision not to go ahead with a TV version of Donnie Brasco. Here is a fuller quote from the article: "CBS Television president Les Moonves told ad buyers and affiliate representatives in New York that the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, CO last month had provoked a reassessment. 'It's not the right time to have people being whacked on the streets of New York,' he said. While Moonves said that it was not fair to blame the media for what occurred at Littleton, 'anyone who thinks the media has nothing to do with this is an idiot.' He said that when he watched the pilot for the show just days after the shootings, it seemed obvious to him that it could not go forward. 'You cringe not just as a programmer,' Moonves said, 'you just cringe.'" That's not exactly the same as acknowledging "devastating impact of violent media on children." It seems very specific to the Columbine shootings, and the fact is that since the shootings we have learned a lot about both the specific influences on the shooters and the general influences on various schools shooters. The media seems to have comparatively little influence, far less for example than the sense that they are being bullied and need to lash out at their persecutors.

Bearing in mind that CBS is taking considerable care in editing Dexter for broadcast television and will be showing the series at 10 p.m. Eastern, a time when children can be reasonably be expected not to be watching, the PTC's attitude seems more focussed on protecting adults from themselves. Or maybe they are just focussed on the precedent that this will presumably set. The problem for me is that I don't know what precedent this does set, but like Groucho Marx in Duck Soup, whatever it is they're against it.

The Broadcast Worst of the Week returns to an old PTC favourite with an attack on a recent episode of Las Vegas. There are two major plot lines in this episode that the PTC objects to. The first involves a character known as "The Cleaner." He cleans the clothes of married "whales" who visit strip clubs and other places where they shouldn't go. The Cleaner wants to retire, particularly after he is flooded with new clients thanks to a couple of Sam's clients who tell their friends about his service. He says that his grandson is the only person who can really succeed him but the young man is working for a women's rights group to "atone" for his family's line of work. He is eventually persuaded to join his grandfather in the family business, and even develops a new market – women who go to shows like "Thunder Down Under" and get a little naughty. It's a fun storyline and despite what the PTC may believe, not the major story of the episode. Here's what the PTC says about it though: "The January 25^th episode of Las Vegas glorified strippers, and treated as comic fodder unfaithful spouses deceiving their partners and makes a mockery of marital vows." They also objected to a scene at the start of the episode where Sam gets together with her clients at the strip club: "The show opens with an extended sequence in a strip club. One stripper is shown completely topless from the front, with only tasseled pasties covering her nipples. (This was the third instance in two weeks of tasseled pasties being shown on NBC during prime-time programming.) As the peepshow ends, casino hostess Sam offers to help some of the strip club's patrons with a problem. The men have spent the evening with strippers and are afraid their wives will find out due to the state of their clothing." There are a few things to note here. Based on the clip that the PTC provides, it is difficult to tell for sure whether the stripper who is "shown completely topless from the front, with only tasseled pasties covering her nipples" actually is as topless as they claim. They also forget to mention that one of the examples of "tasseled pasties" being shown was when Danny was wearing a pregnancy empathy belly and the pasties were added to the belly's "breasts" as a joke. But let's set that aside for being silly. Let's also set aside the fact that the strippers in this club were painfully overdressed for strippers at a Las Vegas strip club (most real "strippers" wear little more than a smile). No, it is the description of the men as "unfaithful spouses deceiving their partners." There's no evidence in the episode that the men were being unfaithful – that is having sex with someone other than their spouses – but rather were going out and having stupid fun that they didn't expect their wives to understand. That's what made the final scene in The Cleaner's story – where the women come in to have their clothes done – so funny, the wives of the men were out having their own stupid fun by watching male strippers. But apparently in PTC land looking is enough to render you "unfaithful."

The other storyline that the PTC objected to was in fact the main storyline of the episode. In this story Security Chief Mike Cannon and Concierge Piper Nielsen go to a bar to try to lure away a new bartender for the Montecito. Inevitably they get drunk. They also get married though they don't remember it. Let's let the PTC take it from here: "The two seek an immediate annulment as the staff of the casino laugh at them. At one point Mike wonders whether he should commit to Piper, but his best friend Danny quickly reminds him to look around at all the other beautiful women in the world, discouraging Mike's decent impulse to take responsibility for his actions. The show's twisted happy ending takes place at an annulment party Delinda throws for the happy ex-couple. Popular rapper Ne-Yo guest stars and sings at the party, ensuring that younger viewers will understand that it is cool to have your marriage annulled." I suppose this is the part of the episode that, to use the PTC's words, "makes a mockery of marital vows." I think it's an absolutely absurd position for the PTC to take. I wish I could say that it represented a new high in absurdity for the PTC but I don't think I can. There are a couple of things that the PTC might want to be reminded of. First, since I'm not a lawyer (nor have I played one on TV) I had to check Wikipedia to make sure that something I remembered reading about annulments was in fact correct; it was. One of the primary grounds for granting a legal annulment is if, "Either spouse was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the marriage." A drunken person is considered to be incapable of making a rational decision. The PTC's line, that an annulment under such circumstances is bad is incredible as is the statement about Mike taking responsibility for his actions. But what action is he supposed to be taking responsibility for? He got drunk, he got married, he had sex, and for this he should stay married "till death." Only the most irresponsible people would even consider something like that reasonable. But here's the bit that the PTC totally missed...Mike and Piper didn't get the annulment despite having sound legal grounds for one – they're still married.

Here's the PTC's conclusion on this episode of Las Vegas: "This episode of Las Vegas is yet another example of the entertainment industry's false depiction of reality, and demonstrates Hollywood's commitment to undermining our culture and desensitizing viewers to the most offensive and harmful of content. Stripping is not family entertainment. Infidelity is not without consequence. Marriage is not an insignificant action, to be entered into nonchalantly. Further showing the industry's contempt for its audience, this episode was rated TV-14 D, with no "S" descriptor, in spite of the graphic depiction of strippers and implied drunken intercourse." The demand for an "S" descriptor because of "implied drunken intercourse" (which consisted of Mike and Piper waking up discovering each other and that, under the sheets, they were naked combined with what to my mind was not a particularly graphic depiction of strippers is absurd. But their other assertions are equally absurd in part because they are true statements perverted by the PTC's bizarre attitude about this show. True, stripping is not "family entertainment" but there is a reasonable expectation that a show that airs at 10 p.m. Eastern and carries a TV-14 D rating is not being regarded as "family entertainment." Infidelity is not without consequence, but I don't see any sign at all of anyone in that episode being unfaithful to their spouses – watching strippers does not equal having sex in anyone's books except the PTC's. And Marriage is not an insignificant action, to be entered into nonchalantly but that is part of the reason why annulments exist as a centuries old legal recourse that even the Catholic Church recognises. The PTC is allowing their hatred of the series Las Vegas to impede on any good sense that they may possess.

There being no new Cable Worst of the Week again this week or a new Misrated, we next turn our attention to the PTC's TV Trends column. A couple of weeks ago the PTC skewered most of FOX's line up while stating that parents looking for "family friendly" shows (as defined by the PTC of course) "couldn't do better" than FOX's game shows. Now, they've come back to skewer at least one of those shows, or as they put it, "Leave it to Fox to tarnish its own silver lining." The show is Moment of Truth, hosted by Mark L. Wahlburg (not the actor and singer but the sometimes host of PBS's version of The Antiques Roadshow among other things), and the concept is fairly simple. Before the show the contestant is hooked up to a polygraph machine and asked a series of questions about themselves. In order to win money the player has to answer truthfully – or what the polygraph machine has determined is truth anyway. The thing is that the longer the person plays (and the more money they win) the more personal the questions become. Needless to say the PTC doesn't approve: "Before the episode is filmed, contestants are hooked up to a polygraph machine and asked 50 to 75 prying and prurient questions, along the lines of, "Have you ever made a sexy video and uploaded it to the Internet?" or "Do you think you'll still be married to your husband five years from now?" The questions become increasingly personal and embarrassing as the game progresses. Potentially, a contestant can win half a million dollars – if they continue to submit to the questioning. In an era when The Jerry Springer Show continues to garner an audience, it is perhaps not surprising that such a deeply offensive and inappropriate concept would attract a few viewers. Less easy to understand is why a network charged with using the publicly-owned airwaves 'in the public interest' would want to air a series designed to appeal only to an audience's crudest and basest instincts." We all know of course that when the PTC wants to express deep disapproval of a show or of the networks that run the shows they bring up the whole question of "using the publicly-owned airwaves 'in the public interest.'" It's like a mantra for them. In this case however they are invoking "in the public interest" not because of a perceived problem of obscenity or violence, but because they feel that the show is in bad taste; it's salacious and asks too many "sexually oriented" questions.

The PTC's objections to the show seem to be all over the place and I can't really put my finger on what they hate about the show. They cite a comment from American series' creator Howard Schultz who says "We won't ask any question that in any way, shape or form can harm a minor child under the age of 18," after which they cite the following as "some of the 'harmless' questions children in the viewing audience witnessed during The Moment of Truth's premiere broadcast":

• "As a football player, did you ever sneak a peek at another player's privates while taking a shower?"
  
• "Have you ever had sexual relations with someone the very same day you met them?"
  
• "Have you ever had a sexual fantasy while attending Mass?"
  
• "Have you ever padded your underwear to look more well-endowed?" (After the contestant answered "Yes," the camera zoomed directly into his crotch.)
  

I suppose that the PTC defines these questions as being "harmful" to children because of the vaguely sex related nature of the questions but in truth these are depressingly mild.

Then again, maybe the PTC is concerned with the show's focus on honesty, to the point where it might even be harmful. Here's what the article says about that: "Even those questions not overtly sexual in nature, far from opening a 'dialogue about telling the truth,' were clearly intended to be deeply hurtful. Contestant Ty was asked if he has delayed having children because he is not sure that Catia, his wife of two and a half years, would be his 'lifelong partner.' Upon Ty's truthful answer of 'yes,' Catia looked devastated. Creator Schultz has even admitted, 'There was a young man on the show and his girlfriend was sitting on the family and friends couch…On the drive home from the show, they broke up. And he has spent the last month and a half trying to get her back.' Apparently, the breakup of a relationship or marriage as a result of the program's questions could not possibly harm children." This is hardly solid logic, but it's about what I expect from the PTC.

The article makes a point of bringing up an incident in the Colombian run of the show (Colombia is one of about 24 countries the series is produced in, along with Britain and Brazil) to "prove" that there is potential for harm here: "The program's potential for harm became a fact in Colombia. There, a contestant on that country's version of The Moment of Truth confessed on the air that she had hired someone to kill her husband – and was rewarded with $25,000 as a result."

The article also makes a statement that I can't find any evidence of: "Tellingly, Darnell bought the concept for The Moment of Truth away from NBC, after that network decided not to produce a game show with so salacious (and potentially damaging) a concept. It says much that Fox is willing to purchase, produce and show a program that other networks refused for reasons of good taste, and which was actually pulled off TV in another country for hosting a would-be murderer." Now it is entirely possible that the show was offered to NBC and rejected; that sort of thing happens all the time of course and among the shows that were rejected by one network only to be picked up by others are CSI (most of the networks thought it overestimated the intelligence of the American public) and Survivor. I sincerely doubt however that the reason that the show was rejected was because it was "so salacious (and potentially damaging)," or for reasons of "good taste."

I will admit that I haven't watched more than a few seconds of The Moment of Truth and that was by accident. I don't watch "judge" shows (my mother is addicted) and I don't watch Jerry Springer or Maury Povitch (okay I watched Povitch last Friday but that was only because the other people in the ICU waiting room had it on while my brother and I were waiting to get in to see my mother after her surgery). But what is it that sets those shows apart from The Moment of Truth? Is it because those shows don't visibly at least reward their participants for appearing? Is it because this show is set up as a game show? Is it because this show is on in primetime? Or is it because this show is on a major broadcast network? I think it is a combination of these things that allows the PTC to summon up its boundless supply of righteous indignation and cloak their distaste for the material in a claim that the show is "harmful to children." I didn't like the few seconds of the show that I saw, but I won't say that it is for any reason other than the fact that it is boring and frankly down-market TV. But given that Springer and Povitch have made fortunes and have been doing their shows for years, there is obviously a market for this kind of thing and while I hate that there is a market for it, I can't fault FOX for trying to trying to tap into it. I just hope that it will be swept from the air by quality scripted programming once the Writers Guild strike ends.

By the way: the PTC winds up their article with an edited quote from New York Time reviewer Alessandra Stanley. I was going to show you what they omitted to make their point but as it turns out the PTC didn't cut a sentence or two, they cut four whole paragraphs! Read Stanley's article and see if the missing material changes what she wrote "Fox is renowned for callous programming. It was the network that put forth Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire? and Temptation Island. But unfortunately, this new series is not quite as innocently ill- intentioned…Ordinarily contestants stand to lose their winnings. Losers on The Moment of Truth don't go home merely empty-handed; they could return to a home filled with hate."