Poll Results - What Show SHOULD win the Emmy as Outstanding Drama Series?

Our final Emmy Poll, and I wanted to get it out no so I can do a round-up of the Poll Results tomorrow. We had ten votes cast which is down from fourteen last year, but is at least up from the eight votes we had last week for the Comedy category. In a tie for fourth with no votes are AMC's Breaking Bad, Showtime's Dexter and HBO's True Blood. In third place, with two votes (20%) is last year's winner in this category, AMC's Mad Men. In second place, with three votes (30%) is the CBS drama The Good Wife. The winner in this category however, with five votes (50%) is ABC's Lost, which ended earlier this year.

There is one thing that rather surprises me about voting in this category, and that is that True Blood didn't get more – as in any – votes. I've never seen the show, though there are several episodes from earlier seasons on the DVR thanks to Space: The Imagination Station here in Canada (new episodes air on HBO Canada but the specialty channels do buy older season of shows that air on HBO... and Showtime if I'm not mistaken), but I expected that as with many of these cult type shows, it would have a rabid following that swarms a site that mentions there show. It wouldn't be the first time that happened here, notably in the Actress in a Drama category back in 2007 when there was a sudden surge of votes in a 36 hour periods, all but one for Patricia Arquette in Medium. But this time around my readers showed no love at all for the vampires and their lovers. Breaking Bad is another show that doesn't get much love around here. It's an excellent show but I wonder if most of the support for the show is channelled through Brian Cranston's truly outstanding portrayal of the good man who is turning bad as he sinks into the world of drug manufacturing and distribution. Dexter is another show which I think that, if it is honoured at all in this year's awards, will be honoured with an Emmy for its star rather than with a win for the series as a whole.

Turning to the shows that received votes in this poll, I'm going to dismiss The Good Wife in the category, and probably unfairly I am going to give the same reason that I did for Breaking Bad and Dexter. The Good Wife has an outstanding cast and looks at something that we are seeing increasingly in recent years, the politician's wife who has to stand by her husband when his personal indiscretions erupt into the public arena. That said, I think that if Juliana Margulies wins the Emmy as Outstanding Actress in a Drama there are, probably unfairly, going to be those who see it as the show's reward particularly if Christine Baranski picks up the Emmy in the Supporting Actress category.

Turning to the other two shows, I'm going to say that personally I think Mad Men will get it again this year, and I think it should (I don't vote in these polls; if I did Mad Men would get my vote). While the central figure in Mad Men is the conflicted Don Draper, played by John Hamm, there are plenty of stand-out characters and the show has a lot of depth. I guess I just love it. And I really don't care too much for Lost. That's a personal prejudice however. I stopped watching the show after the way the network suits and the producers handled the third season. It had an arrogant quality to it. Can't blame the show for that but you can blame the network executives and the showrunners. That said of course, I think it is highly likely that the show could challenge Mad Men this season. Not only did the show leave the air this season, but the truth is that it left the air on a high note unlike this year's other high profile Drama that ended this season, 24. I'm convinced that it is going to come down to Mad Men and Lost and I absolutely would not be surprised to see Lost win it.

Toby provided our only comment this time around: "I'm a "Lostaway" at heart and they really tried to answer as many questions as they could (an impossible task!) while at the same time providing something a little different in the storyline. (A shame that a BBC series beat them to the same conclusion by two days.) But it was appointment TV, one in which it held my interest so well that I wouldn't allow my family or friends to call me during the hour...." That's high praise from just about anyone, and I can see how, if someone made it over that "hump" in the third season, the show would become appointment Television. My problem is that I didn't make it over that hump and because of it I was never really able to catch-up (not I confess that I really had any great desire to). If I'm going to fault the series on that it is that if that third season had been done better, or maybe more responsibly, I'd have hung around abd become as engrossed with it as you obviously were.

No new polls for a few days, though I should be able to do a "what shows will be cancelled first" type poll that won't become irrelevant when a show is dropped before the poll ends. Tomorrow I'll be summing up the poll results for this year's Emmys and giving my own opinions as to which shows will win, no matter whether I think they should. Then tomorrow night I will not be liveblogging the Emmy's because I don't feel like running back and forth between the TV and the desktop computer. Instead I'll post a summary after the business is over.

New Poll – What Show SHOULD win the Emmy as Outstanding Drama Series?

Here's the final poll of the 2010 Emmy series of polls. As always I want you to vote for the show that you think should win the Emmy for Outstanding Drama Series, rather than the show you think will win. Of course the two might not be mutually exclusive. And as usual, if you have reasons for believing that a show should win, post them in the comments section. As I've mentioned in the previous "Poll Results" posting I do like to quote comments in the blog when I get them, as long as they aren't spam for Taiwanese porn sites or offers of generic Viagra. I love publishing legitimate commentary and trying to establish a discussion; it's the old zine publisher in me.

Deadline for this poll is Saturday August 28^th, only because I need to get an "Emmy Poll wrap-up" piece written on Sunday.

Poll Results - What Show SHOULD win the Emmy as Outstanding Comedy Series?

Back to a Sunday poll result thanks to the inevitable circumstances beyond my control (I had to spend Saturday afternoon mowing my brother's lawn – he and my sister-in-law and my nephew are on holiday). Beyond that, because this particular poll didn't exactly set the world on fire in terms of votes cast – and with six votes cast we were down from last year's count in this category when we had seven – I had a sneaking hope that maybe we might get a couple of more votes here, but I guess not.

So as I've said, we had eight votes cast. In a tie for third with no votes we have HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm, FOX's Glee, Showtime's Nurse Jackie and NBC's 30 Rock. In second place, with two votes (33%) we have The Office from NBC. But the winner for this category with four votes (67%) is Modern Family.

I think this is probably an accurate assessment, although if I were to look into the minds of the Emmy voters (a scary prospect to be sure) I'd be guessing that they'll stick with their "insider" mentality and vote for 30 Rock. Skipping over 30 Rock which others have assured me has slipped in the past season, the other shows which got no votes are a mixed bag. For example I am not convinced that Nurse Jackie is actually a comedy, and I'm fairly convinced that Glee is in this category because the Academy can't believe that a show with music can fit into the Drama category. Actually I think that it is as much Comedy as it is Drama, and that generally gets a show slotted into the Comedy category so maybe that's not such an inaccurate choice. Curb Your Enthusiasm has a strike against it for being a cable show – the Emmys tend not to reward comedies from cable networks and for the most part cable networks don't do comedy well.

Turning to the two shows that received votes, The Office is the old established veteran, a show with proven pedigree and an excellent choice. Except that it has been stated that this hasn't been the best season for The Office, just as it hasn't been the best season for 30 Rock. Admittedly a bad season for either The Office or 30 Rock would be considered an excellent season for lesser series. On the other hand the other show that was nominated – Modern Family has had an excellent season, something that was proven by the nominations for five of the six adult actors on the show. Modern Family takes a fairly pedestrian and well worn premise – the family comedy – and expands it by expanding the definition of family. Instead of the husband wife and kids, with the requisite funny neighbours/in-laws, Modern Family has three different perspectives on families; the gay couple with an adopted child, the older man with a younger woman and her child from a previous relationship, and the "conventional" husband wife and two kids family. It works.

We had two comments on this category (which means that 1/3 of the people who voted also commented; if the voter turnout were higher this ratio would be exciting). First up we have this comment from Toby in support of Modern Family: "I've gone with 'Modern Family'. The mockumentary premise sometimes gets violated, but it's all in service to the humor. And so many great characters, especially Cameron and Phil and young Manny...." The characters are one of the big points of this show. As I've said the strength of this cast is shown by the nominations for every adult actor on the show except Ed O'Neill, which is regarded as one of the great oversights of this Emmy season. Casting is important, but giving actors the material to work with is what sets the top shows apart.

The other comment is from Ben who commented on an earlier poll: "First off, I thank you for quoting me a few posts back." No problem. When I get comments for polls – at least ones that don't redirect to Taiwanese porn sites or other spam, which seems to be a growing problem – I like to run them. I like to see the reasons why people vote the way they do. "I'm voting for The Office. The show may be having growing pains, but it's fundamentally one of the strongest shows on TV. Given the chance I'd have voted for Parks and Recreation, but that's another story." I'm not sure that you can say that a show that is in its sixth season can be described as having "growing pains" but I can see that the show, like any show, can have an off season in spite of having the same writers and the same cast. And yes the show is fundamentally strong. The question for me is whether it should win this time with a show like Modern Family or even the incumbent 30 Rock. As far as Parks and Recreation, I'm going to again hide behind my general antipathy towards comedy as a reason for not watching the show. I have had good reports about the series after what some regarded as a rocky start. Think it is probably more worthy of a spot on the ballot than Nurse Jackie but then that's my own personal prejudice rearing its head.

New poll, the last in the current Emmy Polls, will be up in a few minutes.

New Poll - What Show SHOULD win the Emmy as Outstanding Comedy Series?

Okay, we're in the home stretch, with just this category and the Outstanding Drama Series to be voted on. As always please vote for who you think should win the Emmy for Outstanding Drama Series. Not necessarily who you think is going to win but who you think is most deserving of the win. I really want to hear your reasons for voting for the show tha you vote for, if only because it makes a major break from Taiwanese porn and (the latest) male enhancement products. I can honestly say that I've never had a complaint in that department, so I refuse to take part in their little games to improve their position on Google Searches.

This poll will run until August 21^st.

Poll Results - What Show SHOULD win the Emmy as Outstanding Reality-Competition Series?

I didn't poll this category last year, preferring instead to look at the Reality-Competition Host category. That was a mistake, and I admitted as much last year. As a result I don't have anything to compare the voting turnout with. Anecdotally I think that with eight votes this category is having a downturn of interest, but I can't be absolutely certain.

As I said there were eight votes cast, and they all went to just two shows. In a three-way tie for third place we have ABC's Dancing With The Stars, Lifetime's Project Runway, and the show that has won in this category every year that it has been on the Emmy ballot, The Amazing Race from CBS. In second place with three votes (38%) is FOX's American Idol. Finally the winner with five votes (63%) is Bravo's Top Chef.

Now the fact of the matter is that the only shows on this list that I watch are Dancing With The Stars and The Amazing Race and as I've stated many times before, The Amazing Race is one of my favourite shows and certainly my favourite Reality Competition series. I can't speak to the quality of the other three shows. I have heard that both Project Runway and American Idol have had less than stellar seasons. Supposedly Project Runway suffered in the transition from Bravo to Lifetime. In the case of American Idol there's a sense that the drama at the Judges table – the replacement of Paula Abdul by Ellen Degeneres, and now the announcement that Ellen herself is joining series star Simon Cowell in leaving the series (and that Kara DioGuardi might be leaving as well) – might be overshadowing the talent on the show. American Idol is slipping in the ratings, not that that really means much to the Emmy voters.

As far as the two shows that I do watch is concerned, Dancing With The Stars is an enjoyable series and invariably delivers an audience. As with all such series – and in my mind this sort of show is essentially the same as The Apprentice or Hell's Kitchen or even Top Chef and Project Runway; the early stages weed out the less capable cast members. The difference is of course that the fact that the public votes on who goes home means that the incompetent sometimes end up staying longer than you would suppose. As for The Amazing Race the show not only brings the world to its viewers, it manages to give ample doses of local colour and interest while still maintaining a certain amount of imagination in the preparation of its challenges. And even though it is thought by some that the past two "seasons" of the show were less than the best that they've delivered, that still puts it ahead of most reality-competitions shows (and maybe more than a few scripted shows). That's why I think that it's a permanent Emmy favourite and a show that is going to be hard to unseat.

Top Chef is a show that I used to watch occasionally. I don't anymore. I'm a big fan of Hell's Kitchen, so it may be a surprise that this show doesn't really do anything for me. Maybe it's because this show has a lot more to do with the artistic side of cooking rather than examining the business of working in and running a restaurant. Whatever the cause it frequently seems to me as though the chefs on Top Chef are continually producing "signature dishes" and artistic presentations that would be very hard to duplicate on a consistent basis. And that doesn't even mention how it sometimes seems to me that the whole show is some sort of gigantic product placement.

Now I'm going to tell you something that will surprise you. You're choice is wrong. Don't feel bad; My choice is wrong too. Worst of all – because it is why you, gentle readers, and I are both wrong – the Emmy voters made the wrong choice as well. Because as far as I'm concerned the Outstanding Reality-Competition series of the past year wasn't even nominated. That would be Survivor. If you want to break it down further, into one of the show's two seasons this year, I would say that the show should be judged on the Heroes vs Villains, which early on featured the "demented Hobbit" (Russell Hantz) against one of the best strategists that the show has ever produced (Rob Mariano) And later on produced one of the most satisfying results, when the alleged "floater" – Sandra Diaz-Twine – beat Hantz who received no votes at all...and sill insisted that he should have won if it weren't for some flaw in the way the game is set up. The Heroes vs Villains season was a truly outstanding bit of Reality-Competition programming. I'm not sure why it wasn't nominated. Maybe it was the episode they submitted but I think it is equally possible that those people who voted for who will be nominated for the Reality-Competition Emmy have a certain disdain for most shows in this form, including Survivor – in short they're being snobs about it – and that might just explain a lot about what gets nominated.

New poll up in shortly.

New Poll - What Show SHOULD win the Emmy as Outstanding Reality-Competition Series?

We turn now to the series awards. This category is always one of my favourites (because it has only ever been won by one of my favourite shows!), the Reality-Competition series award. As always please vote for who you think should win the Emmy for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama. Not necessarily who you think is going to win but who you think is most deserving of the win. If you've got reasons for picking the actor that you've chosen, please please please feel comment in this thread, the official place on this blog to give reasons for why you chose who you did or to debate with other readers about whay they're wrong and you are right. I really want the conversation, and I know that this is one category where my friend Toby's contribution will be along the lines of "nothing at all" – as in "If you can't say anything nice about something say nothing at all." (Because Toby is too much of a gentleman to say what he really thinks – something along the lines of "Reality sucks!!!") Deleting Taiwanese comment spam is getting to be a habit. One that I'd like to break.

To get us back on a schedule that I'm more comfortable with – and because next Sunday is my birthday – I'm going to make the deadline for this one Saturday August 14^th.

Poll Results - Who SHOULD win the Emmy as Outstanding Lead Actor In A Drama?

We're back again with the poll results. We've had another good turnout although the total number of votes cast was down significantly from last year. This year eighteen votes were cast, while last year there were twenty-six votes. The poll was up longer last season than this season however that doesn't explain precisely why we had fewer votes. There was a major push of voters on the second day last year, when I was tracking this material (to decide on how long the voting would run) but I can't really tell you if that holds true this year. I guess I just find it curious.

As I said, there were eighteen votes cast. In sixth place, with no votes was John Hamm from AMC's Mad Men. In fifth place, with two votes (11%) is last year's winner in this category, Bryan Cranston, the star of AMC's Breaking Bad. In a three way tie for second place, with three votes each are Kyle Chandler from NBC and DirecTV's Friday Night Lights, Hugh Laurie from FOX's House, and Matthew Fox who played Jack in ABC's Lost with three votes each (17%). But the winner, with seven votes (39%) is the star of the Showtime series Dexter, Michael C. Hall.

Let me start off by saying that I fully expect Brian Cranston to win the Emmy again. Sorry, but that's what I think is going to happen. The Academy seems to love Cranston's portrayal of a man who is – or was – basically good descending into the evil of drug manufacture, and becoming increasingly corrupted and evil in the process. Cranston gives a bravura performance.

I gave up on Lost long ago so I don't know if Matthew Fox's nomination was based entirely on merit or whether it was because he was the nominal lead actor in a big ensemble on a show which was both popular and critically acclaimed and had a huge influence on the industry...while it was on. Remembering what I can of Fox's performance during from back when I was watching the show, I'm inclined to believe the latter while admitting that the former is a vague possibility. There are better actors on Lost, two of whom are nominated in the Supporting Actor category. I was frankly surprised that John Hamm didn't get a vote for Mad Men. While he probably won't win, Hamm's portrayal of the outwardly confident, successful and aggressive – all to the point of arrogance – but inwardly conflicted and insecure Don Draper is far better that what I've seen Fox do, and better than some of what the other nominees in this category have done. There are those that would argue that this includes Hugh Laurie. There are those who have said that the character of Dr. House is mostly always the same, and therefore not really deserving of a nomination. There are, they say, episodes where the show breaks out and that in those episodes Laurie tries to do something different but for the most part he doesn't change. They forget that the Emmy nominations aren't based on a whole season of work but on episodes submitted by the actor and/or his agent. And those outstanding episodes of House where Hugh Laurie really shows his acting chops are the episodes that get submitted. Finally we have Kyle Chandler, getting the nomination he should have had when Friday Night Lights debuted rather than as it heads into its final season. Chandler's portrayal of Coach Taylor is spot on, a man who is by turns a firm but loving father and husband, a tough task master, a giving mentor and friend, and someone who even though he tries his best doesn't always triumph. It's a great role. I still can't get over the feeling that there will be people voting in this category who will look at this and say that the nomination was his award.

Which brings me to Dexter, a show that I don't watch, and to Michael C. Hall, an actor whose other work I am only slightly familiar with. The cynic in me might say that he has a better than average chance because of his recent illness, while I haven't seen the show I am given to believe that Hall's performance in Dexter, in which he makes the audience relate more to a serial killer than to his victims, is perhaps worthy on its own. I just have my doubts as to whether it will win.

We had two comments last week. Unfortunately – well you know what I mean – they weren't about this week's category but about last week's, the Lead Actor in a Comedy category. Judith writes: "I agree that Parsons gives a fine performance. Big Bang Theory is a big hit here in NZ, mainly because of Sheldon!" True. Sheldon is pretty much universal in his appeal as a comedic character. On the same topic, Ben writes: "Either Carell or Baldwin would be acceptable. Carell leads a great cast. If there's a problem with 30 Rock it's not with Jack or Liz, but with the fact that the writers haven't done much with the other characters. But Baldwin is excellent." I think that part of what helps Alec Baldwin is that he was primarily regarded as a dramatic actor for a long time; someone who did occasional comedies, but did drama, often serious work and not just the sort of action-adventure stuff that a lot of actors get tagged with. Baldwin is an actor who does comedy well rather than a comedian who acts. It's quite a valuable asset. Since I've never really watched 30 Rock, I can't fully comment (actually I take that back, I watched the first episode, but I found the Tracy Jordan character played by Tracy Morgan to be too annoying for me) on your assessment of the past season. I have to wonder how far you can go in bringing up the other characters without losing focus on the leads. In other words to what extent do you push this towards being an ensemble show. In something like Friends or Will & Grace it was easier because of the relatively small core cast but here it think it could be a bigger problem.

Ben continues: "That said, I do think Parsons deserves to win. He gives such a unique charm to his character. Of course regardless of how many viewers like him, you're probably right that he won't win." I think that Jim Parsons has a thin line to walk with Sheldon. It's not so much that taking him "out there" too much will destroy the charm that Sheldon has, although that is of course a risk, but there is the possibility that if the character is taken too far it might be seen by some as some sort of insulting stereotype or caricature. I think he manages to walk that line beautifully.

New poll up shortly – or maybe not so shortly, depending on when my brother comes to pick me up for dinner.

I Was A TV Addict

In lieu of a full Weekend Videos segment, which I've put on hold while I'm doing the Emmy polling, I thought that I might give you this, which I stumbled upon while looking at something else; a classic Wayne & Shuster bit from 1959: "I Was A TV Addict."

This piece is an audio piece only from an album (maybe their only album) they apparently did around 1960 which features four of their greatest routines, including, "Shakespearean Baseball," "Rinse the Blood Off My Toga," "Frontier Psychiatrist," and this one. I distinctly remember seeing this bit on a series of black & white Wayne & Shuster retrospective shows that Frank Shuster had on CBC shortly after Johnny Wayne's death. Pretty funny stuff, but unlike the other three routines on this album it's probably not something that could be updated over the years as necessary.

And trust me, if they could've they would've. Wayne & Shuster were into recycling long before blue box programs. I don't know how many versions of "Shakespearean Baseball" I've seen. Details might change, like the ultimate destination of Wayne's destination after he's hit on the head, but the basic script remained the same. If all they ever did was recycle the same material they'd have been tired and unsuccessful, but for the most part they interleaved the recycled material with new stuff.

It isn't easy to find too much Wayne & Shuster material online or for sale for that matter. Between their estates and the CBC there isn't much out there outside of a little bit of material they did in the 1970s and '80s, which wasn't their best era. There's one retrospective DVD out there and that's it. A lot of this has to do with the contract that ACTRA forced on the CBC years ago which makes it prohibitively expensive in terms of royalties to be paid to the actors and their estates to actually air old radio and TV shows. This pretty much explains why there is precious little in terms of Canadian Old Time Radio or TV on the air anywhere.

Anyway, for your entertainment and elucidation, I Was A TV Addict."

Wayne and Shuster - I Was a TV Addict
Uploaded by hearingemsay. - Explore more music videos.

New Poll - Who SHOULD win the Emmy as Outstanding Lead Actor In A Drama?

We wind up the Outstanding Acting categories with the Lead Actor in a Drama category. As always please vote for who you think should win the Emmy for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama. Not necessarily who you think is going to win but who you think is most deserving of the win. If you've got reasons for picking the actor that you've chosen, please please please feel comment in this thread, the official place on this blog to give reasons for why you chose who you did or to debate with other readers about whay they're wrong and you are right. Don't let Toby carry the conversation part of this all on his own. You don't have to of course but I am so tired of deleting Comment Spam for Taiwanese porn sites they add nothing to the conversation and I really would like to see people some discussion. It doesn't even have to be intelligent discussion J.

This poll will be up for a week. I will have the results and the next poll up on August 8^th.

Poll Results - Who SHOULD win the Emmy as Outstanding Lead Actor In A Comedy?

I'm a day late with these results, which has allowed three more votes to be cast. I spent most of Saturday afternoon installing a new screen door on the back of my house, and most of the rest of the day recovering from the job. It was hot out and that door was heavy. So was the one it replaced.

There were nineteen votes cast which is actually down from last year's total of twenty two votes, but is still the highest number of votes that we've seen this year. But what is really impressive is the margin of the winner's victory.

So to the results. In a two way tie for fourth place, with no votes are Larry David from HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Tony Shaloub from Monk on the USA cable network. In fourth place with one vote (5%) is Matthew Morrison from ABC's Glee. In third place with three votes (16%) is Steve Carell, the star of NBC's The Office, while in second place is another NBC star, Alec Baldwin from 30 Rock with four votes (21%). But the winner, with eleven votes (a whopping 58%) is Jim Parsons from CBS's Big Bang Theory. I think the poll is right, in that I think that Jim Parson's performance as Dr. Sheldon Cooper really is the outstanding performance by a lead actor in a comedy by a long shot. After last year however, I'm afraid the person who should will again be robbed.

Turning to the two "also-rans" in this category who failed to earn a vote, we have one actor from When it comes to the Tony Shaloub nomination, I have seen some early episodes of Monk although that was some time ago, and I've been told that the show has slipped in quality over the years. I don't deny Tony Shaloub's talent. What I do know is that Shaloub being nominated seems to be a reflexive action on the part of the Television Academy to the point where, as I've said before, I wonder if he'll get a nomination next year despite the fact that the show no longer airs. I suppose that it's possible that he could win this time around because the show is ending it's run. As for Larry David's nomination, since I've never seen show I can't say anything constructive about it or his performance.

I can't evaluate Matthew Morrison's performance however it seems to be fairly rare for a freshman show to be nominated for an Emmy unless it is outstanding. There have been those who have questioned whether this show really belongs in the Comedy series category. The problem is of course that if it doesn't belong there, where does it belong? Since I've never seen it, I don't know. I'm also not sure to what degree Morrison's nomination is based on Glee being the past season's hottest new show, at least in terms of critical buzz at least (NCIS: Los Angeles and The Good Wife had higher ratings than Glee).

Turning next to the second and third place finishes, taken together, it is difficult not to call them the favourites in the category, even though both The Office and 30 Rock have had off seasons (or so I've been told). Steve Carell's performance as Michael Scott is inevitably good, even if the character is someone who is totally clueless – or maybe because the character is totally clueless and Carell just does such a good job portraying him as totally clueless. Whatever the case, even though you don't actually root for Michael there are sometimes moments when you feel something for him. Just that little bit of sympathy is what it takes. As for Baldwin, well, it's hard to argue with someone who has won the last two Emmys in this category for the role of Jack Donaghy and was nominated for the role in the show's first season. I have a suspicion that Jack reminds many members of the Academy of the various network weasels they've met over the years, but Baldwin manages to bring a great deal of comedic talent, not to mention a bit of his own reputation, to the role. But again, I don't really watch either of these shows.

The Big Bang Theory is a show that I watch, and a big part of the enjoyment that I get out of it is as a result of Jim Parson's portrayal of Dr. Sheldon Cooper. If there is an indispensable character in any sitcom it is Sheldon. The show would be just another comedy about a group of friends without Parson's portrayal of the highly eccentric – to the point where some viewers come to believe that Sheldon suffers from Asperger Syndrome – condescending and self-centered character. In most cases these traits would make Sheldon a totally unsympathetic character which people would reject. In Sheldon, these traits are part of the charm. Beyond that Sheldon has a sort of vulnerability that builds sympathy despite the character's traits. Parson's deserves a lot of credit for bringing these traits out, particularly when you consider just how different the character is from his portrayer (Parson's plays the piano and is a sports fan; I don't know is Sheldon plays the piano, but while he's knowledgeable about Football at lest, he's totally inept at sports and doesn't really see any point in them). Friend of the Blog Toby O'Brien provided our only comment again this week (or at least the only one that didn't lead back to Taiwanese porn), and it is one that agrees with my own sentiments: "I went with Parsons because it has to be a fine line to walk making that character funny and not (too) uncomfortable for the audience. And Parsons handles it expertly."

As much as I want Jim Parsons to win in this category, I fully expect the Academy to reject the performance that is clearly the funniest and reward either Baldwin or Carell for their work. It's the safer, or maybe just the more elitist, way to go.

New Poll up in about an hour.

New Poll – Who SHOULD win the Emmy as Outstanding Lead Actor In A Comedy

For our third Emmy poll of the season I thought we would stick with Comedy, specifically Outstanding Lead Actor In A Comedy Series. The task is both simple and self-explanatory. From the choices listed all you need to do is vote for the one that you think should win the Emmy for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy. Not necessarily who you think is going to win but who you think is most deserving of the win. If you've got reasons for picking the actress that you've chosen, please please please feel comment in this thread, the official place - on this blog anyway – to explain why you think a particular person should win this Emmy. You don't have to of course but I am so tired of deleting Comment Spam for Taiwanese porn sites they add nothing to the conversation and I really would like to see people sharing opinions and discussing them.

This poll will be up for a week. I will have the results and the next poll up on July 31^st.

Poll Results – Who SHOULD win the Emmy as Outstanding Lead Actress In A Comedy?

Well, we have a result in this week's Emmy poll, and after wading through all the Chinese porn site – sorry Taiwanese porn site – content spam content spam, we even have comments on both this poll and the previous poll, from friend of the Blog (and damned fine blogger himself) Toby O'B. Which is good, because with my general antipathy to most of the comedies on TV today, I'm not sure that I can say much about the nominees and winners in this category.

Turning to the results, there were eleven votes cast, which is more than double last year's five votes and a significant improvement (of course). In sixth place, with no votes cast we have Julia Louis-Dreyfus from CBS's cancelled comedy The New Adventures Of Old Christine. In fifth place with one vote (9%) is Toni Collette from the Showtime series The United States Of Tara. In a three way tie for second place we have Lea Michelle from FOX's breakout series Glee, Edie Falco from Showtime's Nurse Jackie, and Tina Fey from NBC's 30 Rock. Each actress has two votes (18%). However the winner of the poll is Amy Poehler from NBC's Parks And Recreation with four votes (36%).

About the winner Toby writes, "I'm going with Amy Poehler. She took what could have been just Michael Scott in a skirt and instead made Leslie a more rounded character - i.e., one that I can actually like!" Having never seen the show (or for that matter any of the shows on thel ist – like I said, I hardly ever watch comedies, to the point where I wonder why Kayley Cuoco from Big Bang Theory and Alyson Hannigan from How I Met Your Mother aren't nominated for anything, because they're the only comedies that I watch on a regular basis)) I can't comment in an educated manner on Amy Poehler's character or her performance. I do think that Toby has hit on a key aspect for the success of just about any sitcom character and that is to make the character likable and well rounded, in short someone root for or at least feel some emotional connection with. We may not know them or anyone like them but we can at least identify with them a little and may be even feel some sympathy with them.

Identifying with someone is a key point as well, which may be why I think the voters in this category may well vote for Tina Fey again despite what was, I'm reliably assured, a weak season for 30 Rock. I'd suggest that just about every creative person who votes in that category see themselves in Liz Lemon, battling a network executives who haven't got a creative bone in their body (and that may be why they'll vote for Alec Baldwin – they don't identify with Jack Donaghy but they know people like him and enjoy the over-the-top (one hopes) nature of Baldwin's performance, though how over-the-top they think it is might be open to question).

Oh, and by the way, Toby's other comment was on the Outstanding Actress in a Drama category, which he made in the Results post for that category: "I'm the cock-eyed optimist. I'd like to think that the Academy will finally acknowledge the work Connie Britton has done on such a full-realized character." I'd like to see that as well, but I have a suspicion that, for this season at least, the Academy will take the usual "the nomination was their award" attitude towards Britton and Kyle Chandler.

New poll up in a few minutes (after I have my lunch).

Comments on the Indecency Decision – The PTC’s And Mine

As you might expect, the Parents Television Council's reaction to Monday's Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the FCC's current indecency policy is unconstitutional because of its vague nature was hardly supportive of the decision. Far from it of course, they pretty much raked the Court over the coals for daring to try to even consider that the FCC's power in this area should be questioned. I find that the best way for me to express my views on the matter is to take from PTC President Tim Winter's statement on the court decision and then offer my own take on how Mr Winter's statement is at odds with my position (and the actual facts of the situation at least as I understand it).

Mr. Winter began his statement by saying that, "A three-judge panel in New York once again has authorized the broadcast networks unbridled use of the 'f-word' at any time of the day, even in front of children." Setting aside the fact that Mr. Winter uses the mane "Mew York almost as though it was a pejorative – as if being from New York is somehow out of touch with the "real America" – the claim that this decision authorized the "unbridled" use of certain profanities, including but not limited to "the f-word" is most likely inaccurate. This is an issue that I intend to delve into later.

He continued: "The Court substituted its own opinion for that of the Supreme Court, the Congress of the United States, and the overwhelming majority of the American people." This is another example of Mr. Winter's gift for hyperbole, particularly the idea that the Court's opinion is somehow different from that of "an overwhelming majority of the American people." I am not sure what sort of evidence this statement is based upon. Tim Winter offers no statistical proof that the Court is substituting its opinion for that of the "overwhelming majority of the American public," I suspect because such statistical evidence doesn't exist. Mr. Winter simply assumes that he and his group of "over a million members" are representative of the majority of Americans. As for the notion that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is substituting it's opinion for that of the Supreme Court, it is patently absurd. It was the Supreme Court itself which sent the case down to the Circuit Court level – Remanded it to them – to specifically consider the First Amendment implications of the FCC's current Indecency policy. Far from substituting their opinion for that of the Supreme Court in this decision the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is doing exactly what the Supreme Court required them to do when it remanded the case back to them to examine the First Amendment concerns. The Supreme Court did not examine those concerns when the case appeared before them initially because the original decision by the Second Circuit Court concerned itself with the question of whether the FCC 2004 change in policy was done in a "capricious and arbitrary manner." The Supreme Court limited itself exclusively to that aspect of the question.

As to the "opinion of Congress," as the background section of the Second Circuit's decision pointed out Congress's involvement in this matter is limited, at least as far as I can see. Congress passed the initial law that stated, "whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years or both" (Section 1464 of Title 18 US Code). And in 1960 Congress authorized the FCC to impose civil forfeitures for violations. And of course we know that Congress authorized the increase of fines for violations, as defined by the FCC, to the present levels. From my point of view Congress gave the FCC the authority to enforce section 1464 and determined the punishment. They had no part in determining what precisely that policy would consist of, whether it was the 1972 "seven words only" standard effectively set by the Pacifica decision or whether it is the current standard.

Mr. Winter continues: "Today's ruling comes as absolutely no surprise, given the hostile tenor of the judges during oral arguments. Members of the Second Circuit panel entered the courtroom that day wearing their intentions clearly on their sleeves." Not having been in the court I cannot comment on "tenor" of the judges during oral arguments, or whether or not they were "wearing their intentions clearly on their sleeves." I would like to suggest however that if their interrogation of the lawyers for the FCC was rather vigorous or rigorous it might be because they were seeking clarification on various points that they were familiar with, having previously adjudicated on this matter. (This was the same three judge panel – judges Rosemary Pooler, Pierre N. Leval, and Peter W. Hall – that rendered the previous decision in this matter). They had a working knowledge of the matter.

Again from Mr. Winter: "What does come as a surprise is the rationale of the opinion, which is devoid of reality. The Court's illogical analysis would require the overturning of virtually every law on our nation's books for lack of clarity." Three points. First the question under review by the Court is not a law, which is created by passage through a legislative body, it is a policy or set of rules which is set by a government agency. Second, the challenge is not to Section 1464, or indeed to the decision in Pacifica, it is to whether the policy which the FCC has adopted is sufficiently clear that a reasonable person would consistently know what was and was not actionable. Third, it is untrue that "virtually every law on our nation's books" would be overturned for lack of clarity. Most laws are written in such a way that a reasonable person does know what is and is not actionable. The current FCC policy is not.

"The broadcast decency law, which our nation's Highest Court has upheld, is clear: broadcasters must refrain from violating community standards of decency during hours when children are likely to be in the audience. The indecency law doesn't prohibit broadcasters from airing indecent material; it only requires that indecent material air outside the hours when children are likely to be in the audience." Uh not quite. First, there is no specific Broadcast Decency Law. There is, as mentioned Section 1464, but it is the FCC itself that established the rule concerning the time of day in which "indecent" language may be used. From the relevant part of the FCC website: "Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio – that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action." That part is clear, and that is the part that prevents what Tim Winter has called the "unbridled use of the 'f-word' at any time of the day;" the part which means that we will never hear Gordon Ramsay unbleeped unless we're in Britain (or Canada, but only if the show is one of the ones that he did in Britain). What we are dealing with and what the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on was whether the policy which defines indecency is sufficiently clear.

One more statement from Tim Winter: "The FCC ruled that Fox violated the broadcast decency law when it aired the 'f-word" and "s-word' during live broadcasts of the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards shows." True. As we saw in the precious article however, the FCC also ruled that an interview on the Early Show which included the word "bullshitter" violated the broadcast decency law... and then ruled that it didn't because the word was used in the context of a "bona fide news interview." That would seem to indicate that the FCC is not entirely clear of the nature of their own policy, particularly as they stated at the time of the revised decision on the Early Show incident that there was no blanket news exemption from the FCC policy. The FCC, which ruled that the use of the "f-word" and "s-word" during the Billboard Music Awards on three occasions on a live TV show violated the broadcast decency law, also ruled that multiple uses of those same words in a broadcast of the movie Saving Private Ryan which aired before 10:00 p.m. did not violate the broadcast decency law because those words were "demonstrably essential to the nature of the artistic work" while at the same time the stating that the use of those words in the documentary The Blues was not.

The background section of the Second Court of Appeals decision illuminates the progression of the FCC's indecency policy as it progressed from a clear standard – Carlin's seven words – to the present standard. In the period between 1978 and 1987, when the "seven words" standard was adhered to, there was not a single enforcement action taken. The standard was clear. In 1987 the Commission, concerned that under the existing standard "patently offensive material was permissible as long as it avoided certain words," decided to adopt a contextual approach. At the same time however they maintained a policy of restraint. Single, "non-literal" uses of words that might otherwise be considered "indecent" were considered not to rise to the standard set in Pacifica. Repeatedly the FCC ruled following this standard. The Court's judgement cites a number of FCC rulings in which phrases like, "Speech that is indecent must involve more than an isolated use of an offensive word," or "The 'use of a single expletive' did not warrant further review 'in light of the isolated and accidental nature of the broadcast,'" were used. Even the FCC's 2001 "Industry Guidance" statement, which was an attempt to clarify a standard included a statement that "fleeting and isolated" expletives were not actionably indecent. They became "actionably indecent" when the FCC issued its so-called Golden Globes Order, which abandoned both the standard that "fleeting and isolated" expletives were non-actionable and there words such as "fuck" and "shit" could have a non-literal. Restraint had been abandoned.

There is a bitter irony in this abandonment of restraint. The men who wrote the Pacifica Decision were well aware of the need for restraint in applying whatever standard was to be used. Justice John Paul Stevens stated in the original Pacifica decision that "It is appropriate, in conclusion, to emphasize the narrowness of our holding. This case does not involve a two-way radio conversation between a cab driver and a dispatcher, or a telecast of an Elizabethan comedy. We have not decided that an occasional expletive in either setting would justify any sanction or, indeed, that this broadcast would justify a criminal prosecution." In their concurrent decision, Justices Lewis Powell and Harry Blackmun stated that the holding of the court "did not give the FCC 'an unrestricted license to decide what speech, protected in other media, may be banned from the airwaves in order to protect unwilling adults from momentary exposure to it in their homes,'" nor did it "speak to cases involving the isolated use of a potentially offensive word in the course of a radio broadcast, as distinguished from the verbal shock treatment administered by respondent here." It seems that the current FCC policy does seem to have taken the position that the Commission has those rights. They also wrote that, "In addition, since the Commission may be expected to proceed cautiously, as it has in the past, I do not foresee an undue 'chilling' effect on broadcasters' exercise of their rights." The fact is that since the Golden Globes Order the FCC has not proceeded in a manner that these Justices would describe as cautiously, and the result has been a chilling effect on broadcasters.

The notion of "vagueness" is vital in the question of "chill." If there were a total "zero tolerance" policy on every use of "the f-word" and "the s-word" and some of the most explicit words referring to male and female genitalia then that might be sufficiently clear, but we've seen that this is not the case. Those words in Saving Private Ryan (a situation that might rise to the level of "verbal shock treatment" that Justices Powell and Blackmun were talking about) are acceptable; a singular use of one of those words in a live Awards program in the heat of the moment is indecent. A "bona fide" news interview gives one the freedom to use one of these words (but presumably not the use of a number of these words), but the definition of "bona fide news interview" is so amorphous that broadcasters self-censor themselves by not covering events for fear that someone will say a bad word. And we haven't even touched on words that "escape" being censored. "Pissed off" are acceptable despite "piss" being an excretory activity. "Screw you" and "he's full of crap" are fine in spite of the fact that we all know that "screw" in this case stands in for "fuck" and "crap" means "shit." And of course the Second Circuit Court's decision mentions "dick" and "dickhead" as being acceptable. At least for now. Because here's the thing: the current FCC policy is reminiscent of Justice Potter Stewart's famous statement that hard core pornography is hard to define, but "I know it when I see it." Which is fine so long as you have the same person evaluating what is and isn't pornography, or in this case what is and isn't "indecent." The problem arises, as we've seen, when the person or people evaluating things change and bring with them their own standards. "Pissed off" may be acceptable to the current regulators but not to some future regulator. The definition of a "bona fide news interview," which is now so vague that broadcasters refuse to cover some events live for fear of being fined, may change so that virtually any use of the forbidden words is acceptable... or banned.

I am not a lawyer nor do I have any training in law (and I'm not an American so my sensibilities on such matters are shaped by what is legal here in Canada), but it seems to me that the ruling of the Second Court of Appeal makes more sense than the arguments that the PTC and similar groups of "social conservatives" are making against it. In discussing issues of personal rights, as much clarity as is possible is needed. The current FCC policy doesn't meet that standard of clarity and either needs to be scrapped or replaced by a policy that provides a standard of clarity that will not only be understandable for broadcasters but remain clear for years to come, regardless of who is applying that standard. Since I do believe that this case will make its way back to the Supreme Court we shall have to see what the Justices of that body have to say. The current decision is not an attack on the fundamental basis of censorship policy – the Pacifica Decision – because the Court of Appeals felt itself bound by that decision and that it was beyond its scope to overrule that decision. This decision will probably not give Justice Clarence Thomas the opportunity to examine and possibly overturn both the Pacifica and Red Lion decisions – the cases upon which FCC authority in regulating broadcasting rests. Hopefully, when all is said and done it will result in a sensible and comprehensible policy, something which the current FCC policy has long since ceased to be.

New Poll – Who SHOULD Win As Outstanding Lead Actress In A Comedy

This is our second Emmy Poll of the year and the task is both simple and self-explanatory. From the choices listed all you need to do is vote for the one that you think should win the Emmy for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy. Not necessarily who you think is going to win but who you think is most deserving of the win. If you've got reasons for picking the actress that you've chosen, please please please feel comment in this thread, the official place - on this blog anyway – to explain why you think a particular person should win this Emmy. You don't have to of course but I am so tired of deleting Comment Spam for Chinese porn sites – at least I think they're porn sites, regardless they add nothing to the conversation – that I really would like to see people sharing opinions and discussing them.

This poll will be up for a week. I will have the results and the next poll up on July 24^th.

Poll Results – Outstanding Lead Actress In A Drama

We have the results from the Emmy poll for who should win the Emmy for the Outstanding Actress In A Drama, and I have to say that in most respects I'm quite pleased. This poll had a high turn-out, which is unusual for one of these polls, particularly so early – these things usually build up momentum over time – and while we don't have a clear cut winner I think it does reflect what this poll is all about. The thing that I'm less than happy with, and obviously this is me, is that I didn't get any comments explaining votes. All I got was comment spam that was caught in the moderation process. Could we please get some comments next time that actually deal with the subject and don't link me to Chinese women?

Okay, with that out of the way I suppose you want the actual results. There were fourteen votes cast. For purposes of comparison, there were nine votes cast in this category last year. In a tie for fifth place, with no votes, are Juliana Margulies from the CBS drama The Good Wife, and Janurary Jones from the AMC hit Mad Men. In fourth place with two votes (14%) is perennial nominee Kyra Sedgwick from TNT's The Closer. However there is a three-way tie for first place. With four votes each (29%) your preference for who should win the Emmy for Outstanding Lead Actress In A Drama is Glenn Close from FX's Damages...or Mariska Hargitay from NBC's Law & Order: SVU...or Connie Britton from DirecTV and NBC's Friday Night Lights.

I think the winner is going to be Glenn Close. She has won in this category both times that she's been nominated. I can't speak to her performance because I've never seen the series; I've always been unavailable when the show has been on one of the Canadian cable channels. Still it is Glenn Close and I do know the intensity that she puts into every role that she acts in. Mariska Hargitay is a consistent nominee in the category – this is here second nomination – but she's only won once. Last year I wrote that Hargitay, "hasn't changed things up too much in Law & Order: SVU. She's an excellent actress but I'm not sure why she keeps getting nominated." Maybe I was a bit harsh there. It's obvious that she is a first rate actress – she's been nominated every year since 2004 – but I still have to wonder if her performances in each of those year's is worthy of the nomination. Finally there's Connie Britton. I don't vote in these things but if I did, my vote would go to Connie. Her performance as Tami Taylor is a letter perfect portrayal of a harried wife and mother. Tami is at turns loving and supportive, and angry and frustrated. There's a lot of "dimension" in the role that Connie Britton plays and the surprise isn't that she's been nominated in the show's fourth season, but rather that she wasn't nominated in the show's previous three seasons. She's who I think should win...but probably won't.

Finally, I think if there's a dark horse out there who might beat out Glenn Close, it could be Juliana Margulies. Her performance as Alicia Florek in The Good Wife. She progresses from having a "deer in the headlights" look in the early episodes of the show, overwhelmed by everything that has happened to her to a more confident and committed woman who isn't going to take any crap from anyone anymore. An excellent performance...but I still like Connie Britton's work better.

New poll up in a few minutes.

FCC Indecency Policy Struck Down

A three judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday struck down the current FCC Indecency Policy on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution by being too vague, "creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here." The decision appears to be unanimous (there is no indication in the ruling of any dissent). The text of the decision can be found here (it is a .pdf file).

In the background portion of the decision the Court discusses the origins of the FCC's power to impose fines and otherwise punish broadcasters from presenting "obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communications." Special attention is paid tho the Pacifica case, and the lower court ruling that overturned the initial ruling, which found the FCC's definition to be "vague and overbroad." That ruling noted that "the Commission's definition of indecent speech would prohibit 'the uncensored broadcast of many of the great works of literature including Shakespearian plays and contemporary plays which have won critical acclaim, the works of renowned classical and contemporary poets and writers, and passages from the Bible.' Such a result, the Court concluded, amounted to unconstitutional censorship." The Pacifica Case went to the Supreme Court which upheld the FCC's ability to censor. Writing for the Majority Justice John Paul Stevens explained that Broadcasting received the most restrictive First Amendment protection, "because of its 'uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans.'" Nevertheless the majority in the Pacifica ruling pointed out that their holding was narrow in scope: '"[N]uisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, – like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard. We simply hold that when the Commission finds that a pig has entered the parlor, the exercise of its regulatory power does not depend on proof that the pig is obscene."' In their separate concurring opinion, Justices Blackmun and Powell wrote that the ruling, "did not give the FCC 'an unrestricted license to decide what speech, protected in other media, may be banned from the airwaves in order to protect unwilling adults from momentary exposure to it in their homes,'" nor did it, '"speak to cases involving the isolated use of a potentially offensive word in the course of a radio broadcast, as distinguished from the verbal shock treatment administered by respondent here." They accepted that the FCC would proceed in a cautious manner which would minimize the chilling effect of the ruling.

Subsequently the Commission did act in such a manner, initially restricting their enforcement to the specific words in the Carlin monologue. In 1987 the policy changed on the grounds that "under the prior standard, patently offensive material was permissible as long as it avoided certain words. This, the Commission concluded, 'made neither legal nor policy sense.'" Instead they adopted a contextual standard. Nevertheless enforcement was still restrained. In various rulings the FCC held that (1) single use of an expletive "should not call for us to act under the holding of Pacifica;" that (2) "Speech that is indecent must involve more than an isolated use of an offensive word;" and that (3) "the single utterance of the F-word not indecent because it was a 'fleeting and isolated utterance which, within the context of live and spontaneous programming, does not warrant a Commission sanction.'" In 2001 the Commission issued a policy statement to put its indecency standard in more detail. In it the FCC stated that "an indecency finding involved the following two determinations: (1) whether the material 'describe[s] or depict[s] sexual or excretory organs or activities'; and (2) whether the broadcast is 'patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. The FCC further explained that it considered the following three factors in determining whether a broadcast is patently offensive: (1) 'the explicitness or graphic nature of the description or depiction'; (2) 'whether the material dwells on or repeats at length' the description or depiction; and (3) 'whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate, or whether the materials appears to have been presented for its shock value.'" One thing that was explicitly stated in the policy was that "fleeting and isolated" expletives were not actionably indecent (emphasis mine).

The policy outlined in 2001 was changed in 2004. Following the 2003 Golden Globes, when Bono of U2 said "this is really, really, fucking brilliant. Really, really, great." The FCC held for the first time ever that "a single, nonliteral use of an expletive (a socalled 'fleeting expletive') could be actionably indecent." They also held that "the F-word" "inherently has a sexual connotation," and "concluded that the fleeting and isolated use of the word was irrelevant and overruled all prior decisions in which fleeting use of an expletive was held per se not indecent." The Commission also held that the broadcast was "profane" abandoning the previous interpretation which defined "profane" in terms of blasphemy. The Commission also abandoned the policy whereby fines would be levied on a per program basis and instead began treating each licensee's broadcast of a program as a separate violation, thereby multiplying the amount the Commission could collect in fines. This occurred at the same time that the maximum fine was increased by a factor of 10, from $32,500 to $325,000.

The next step along the way was the FCC's 2006 Omnibus Order which was a blanket settling of complaints – most of them generated by pressure groups like the Parent's Television Council – between early 2002 and early 2005. Four cases stood out in the Omnibus Order as examples of "fleeting expletives;" the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards, various episodes of NYPD Blue and an interview (with a contestant on Survivor) during The Early Show. The Billboard Music Awards case revolved around two separate speeches in which the words "fuck" and "shit" were used, while both the episodes of NYPD Blue and the Early Show interview dealt with the words "bullshit" and "bullshitter." The FCC claimed that the Omnibus Order would "provide substantial guidance to broadcasters and the public" about what would be considered indecent. The networks and several affiliates appealed these portions of the Omnibus Order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In response the FCC requested a voluntary remand of the court, and later in 2006 produced the Remand Order which reaffirmed its decision on the Billboard Music Awards, but dismissed its fines on NYPD Blue on procedural grounds and reversed its finding on the Early Show case on the grounds that it took place during a "bona fide news interview." The Commission further stated that they "did 'not take the position that any occurrence of an expletive is indecent or profane under its rules,' allowing that expletives that were 'integral' to an artistic work or occurring during a 'bona fide news interview' might not run afoul of the indecency standard." However they stated that there was no "outright news exemption from our indecency rules."

This decision led to a second appeal of the ruling by the networks, in which the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the 2004 FCC policy change on the grounds that the change was "arbitrary and capricious" in that the reasons for the change had not been adequately explained, and further that "the FCC's justification for the policy – that children could be harmed by hearing even one fleeting expletive (the so-called 'first blow' theory) – bore 'no rational connection to the Commission's actual policy,' because the FCC had not instituted a blanket ban on expletives." This was the ruling that was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2009 in a 5-4 decision. However the Supreme Court did not address the First Amendment concerns in the case and remanded the case back to the Second Circuit Court to examine that aspect of the case.

In the Discussion portion of the decision the Court addressed four major issues. In the first section they examined the idea of the "uniquely pervasive presence in the live of all Americans" that Broadcast media in general and Television in particular had which was the basis for the current restrictions of First Amendment rights when it comes to Television. They pointed out that "The past thirty years has seen an explosion of media sources, and broadcast television has become only one voice in the chorus. Cable television is almost as pervasive as broadcast – almost 87 percent of households subscribe to a cable or satellite service – and most viewers can alternate between broadcast and non-broadcast channels with a click of their remote control.... The internet, too, has become omnipresent, offering access to everything from viral videos to feature films and, yes, even broadcast television programs.... ("The number of suppliers of online video and audio is almost limitless."). As the FCC itself acknowledges, "[c]hildren today live in a media environment that is dramatically different from the one in which their parents and grandparents grew up decades ago." The Court also noted that technology, in the form of the V-Chip and the ability to block unwanted channels. However the Court was bound by the Supreme Court precedent – the Pacifica Decision – "regardless of whether it reflects today's realities." However, even though bound by Pacifica, there was room for interpretation. The FCC claimed that the Pacifica decision permits it to "exercise broad regulatory authority to sanction indecent speech. In its view, the Carlin monologue was only the most extreme example of a large category of indecent speech that the FCC can constitutionally prohibit." The Networks on the other hand hold that the decision established the limits of the FCC's ability to regulate; "In other words, they believe that only when indecent speech rises to the level of 'verbal shock treatment,' exemplified by the Carlin monologue, can the FCC impose a civil forfeiture." Regardless of where the actual limit of the FCC's ability to regulate falls, the Court held that the FCC's indecency policy is unconstitutional because it is impermissibly vague.

The second section of the Discussion examined the vagueness of the policy. The Court cited various precedents on what constitutes vagueness ("A law or regulation is impermissibly vague if it does not 'give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited.'") and points out that the US Constitution places a special burden on laws to be clear ("'[A] law or regulation that "threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights," such as the right of free speech, will generally be subject to a more stringent vagueness test.'"). Rejecting arguments put forward by both the Networks and the FCC related to specific justifications of their position on the vagueness of the FCC ruling (most involved Reno v ACLU which ruled the Communications Decency Act to be unconstitutionally vague) the Court turned to specific cases. In the 2001 Industry Guidance, the FCC "explained that an indecency finding involved the following two determinations: (1) whether the material 'describe[s] or depict[s] sexual or excretory organs or activities'; and (2) whether the broadcast is 'patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.'" This lead in turn to a definition of "patently offensive;" "whether a broadcast is patently offensive depends on the following three factors: (1) 'the explicitness or graphic nature of the description or depiction'; (2) 'whether the material dwells on or repeats at length' the description or depiction; and (3) 'whether the

material appears to pander or is used to titillate, or whether the materials appears to have been presented for its shock value.'" The Court agreed with the Networks, who claimed that the policy was impermissibly vague and that the FCC's subsequent decisions added to the confusion as to what would be considered indecent. The Court cited the NYPD Blue episode in which the word "bullshit" was found to be "patently offensive", but noted that the words "dick" and "dickhead" were not found to be offensive, as were phrases like "pissed off," up yours," "kiss my ass," and "wiping his ass." "[I]n each of these cases, the Commission's reasoning consisted of repetition of one or more of the factors without any discussion of how it applied them. Thus, the word 'bullshit' is indecent because it is 'vulgar, graphic and explicit' while the words 'dickhead' was not indecent because it was 'not sufficiently vulgar, explicit, or graphic.'" According to the Court this did not give sufficient guidance of how the Commission would rule in the future. The Court noted that in the nine years following the Pacifica decision, when the "seven words" included in George Carlin's monologue were the specific definition of what was and was not prohibited, there was not one indecency complain for language. The Court argued that at least in part this was because broadcasters knew exactly what was banned. The FCC has argued that while the "seven words" list was ineffective; broadcasters simply found other ways to depict the banned material without using the specific words that were banned. "In other words, because the FCC cannot anticipate how broadcasters will attempt to circumvent the prohibition on indecent speech, the FCC needs the maximum amount of flexibility to be able to decide what is indecent." This creates the vague indiscernible standard that the Court finds unconstitutional. "If the FCC cannot anticipate what will be considered indecent under its policy, then it can hardly expect broadcasters to do so. And while the FCC characterizes all broadcasters as consciously trying to push the envelope on what is permitted, much like a petulant teenager angling for a later curfew, the Networks have expressed a good faith desire to comply with the FCC's indecency regime. They simply want to know with some degree of certainty what the policy is so that they can comply with it."

The Court also looked at the question of those occasions when use of the prohibited, and also found it to be vague. Those cases are during "bona fide" news, and in the case of "artistic necessity," where "fleeting expletives are permissible if they are 'demonstrably essential to the nature of an artistic or educational work or essential to informing viewers on a matter of public importance.'" In determining this the FCC "considers whether the material has any social, scientific or artistic value." In short, the commission sets itself up as an arbiter of what is and isn't art, and what is and isn't necessary or essential to that being of social, scientific or artistic value. Thus the use of words like "fuck" and "shit" in the movie Saving Private Ryan were "demonstrably essential to the nature of the artistic work," but the use of the same words in the documentary The Blues were not. Similarly it is left to the Commission to decide what is a "bona fide news interview" given the statement that no outright news exemption exists. According to the Court this results in a policy that "even the FCC cannot articulate or apply consistently." This was pointed out in the fine for the word "Bullshitter" used during the interview on the Early Show. In the Omnibus Order the word was considered actionable and fines were levied, but in the Remand Order it was considered to be part of a "bona fide news interview" and thus exempt from the policy. The Court pointed out that "With the FCC's indiscernible standards come the risk that such standards will be enforced in a discriminatory manner. The vagueness doctrine is intended, in part, to avoid that risk. If government officials are permitted to make decisions on an 'ad hoc' basis, there is a risk that those decisions will reflect the officials' subjective biases. Thus, in the licensing context, the Supreme Court has consistently rejected regulations that give government officials too much discretion because 'such discretion has the potential for becoming a means of suppressing a particular point of view.'"

The third section of the discussion looks at the question of whether the current policy has had the effect of chilling free speech. The answer is that there is ample evidence that the current policy has indeed had a chilling effect on free speech. The Court cited several examples both on a local and national level. These included several CBS affiliates who refused to air a repeat of the documentary 9/11 because some of the footage included firefighters using expletives and the affiliates couldn't be sure that, following the Golden Globes Order, they wouldn't be fined for airing it. Another example dealt with live broadcasts. In the 2003 Billboard Awards broadcast, FOX had taken the precaution of prescreening scripted remarks and included a delay system to bleep expletives. However Nicole Ritchie, a scheduled presenter, departed from her script and used three expletives in rapid succession. The person in charge of bleeping the remarks caught the first one, but while he was bleeping the first the other two slipped through. The FCC suggested that the network use "a more effective screening system" (according to FOX, implementing an audio delay system for all live programming would cost the network $16 million per year) but the Court noted that short of giving up live broadcasting no system is 100% effective. There is ample evidence that stations are refusing to air news or public affairs programming for fear that they will incur fines, remembering that there is no blanket news exemption, meaning that it feels that this is a discretionary, case by case judgement. There have been cases of stations refusing to cover political debates because one or more of the participants has had a history of using expletives and at least one station has stated that it will not air direct to air news coverage except in cases that "effect matters of public safety or convenience." TV networks have decided not to air episodes of shows that don't contain expletives but which do contain references to other matters related to sex or sexuality out of fears that this material might be defined as indecent. According to the Court, "By prohibiting all 'patently offensive' references to sex, sexual organs, and excretion without giving adequate guidance as to what 'patently offensive' means, the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive. To place any discussion of these vast topics at the broadcaster's peril has the effect of promoting wide self-censorship of valuable material which should be completely protected under the First Amendment."

For the reasons covered in the discussion sections of the opinion, the three judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals – the same three judges panel that had previously ruled that the policy change was arbitrary and capricious – struck down the FCC's Indecency Policy. While stating that they did suggest that the FCC could not develop a policy that would meet Constitutional scrutiny, they did state that the existing policy does fail in this respect.

I'll give my views on this case, together with the views of the Parents Television Council – which reacted pretty much exactly as you'd expect them to react – in my next post. Suffice it to say the PTC and I don't agree on anything in this matter...except maybe that the judges are based in New York, and our opinions of the significance of that is entirely different.

New Poll – Who SHOULD Win As Outstanding Lead Actress In A Drama

Our first Emmy Poll of the year and the task is both simple and self-explanatory. From the choices listed all you need to do is vote for the one that you think should win the Emmy for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama. Not necessarily who you think is going to win but who you think is most deserving of the win. If you've got reasons for picking the actress that you've chosen, please please please feel free to comment in this thread, the official place - on this blog anyway – to explain why you think a particular peson should win this Emmy. (I really want your comments; I get so tired of deleting Comment Spam for Chinese porn sites – at least I think they're porn sites, regardless they add nothing to the conversation).

This poll will be up for a week. I will have the results and the next poll up on July 17^th.

The 2010 Emmy Award Nominations

Ah, the Emmy nominations. A high point in what has so far been pretty much a downer of a summer. While many places have been suffering a killer heat wave, around here (Saskatoon) we've been enduring the rainy season. Over the past couple of weeks at least it has been rare to get a stretch of three days when it hasn't rained. Mostly it had rained – at least a little bit – every day, and some of those have been downright torrential downpours. Basements have flooded despite several million dollars spent to build large containment tanks for the storm sewer system – the tanks filled as fast as the rain fell – and I've seen sewer grates in low lying areas blown out by water. The city's main ballpark – which was relocated to the wrong place about 50 years ago because there an existing concrete grandstand and who cares that the place is low lying and has ridiculous drainage that no company is daring enough to try to correct – has repeatedly flooded, and no sooner do they get it pumped out than the rain floods the place again. My garden is overrun with weeds because the soil is too clay– like and when it's wet I can't get the hoe to penetrate it let alone cut out the weeds. And remember, this is Saskatchewan where things are supposed to be DRY!

But enough of general whining. Let's turn to the Emmy nominations where we can hone down our whining to specific people and shows that do and do not deserve to be nominated. Because inevitably the people who nominate shows for the Emmys get it wrong in at least one show or person who should have been nominated and wasn't and/or was nominated and should have been. I mean I don't mean to criticize – wait, yes I do that's the whole purpose of this Blog after all – but let's face it there are some obvious people and shows that are nominated and shouldn't and others that are obvious snubs. But let's get into specifics.

Outstanding Drama Series

Breaking Bad – AMC

Dexter – Showtime

The Good Wife – CBS

Lost – ABC

Mad Men – AMC

True Blood – HBO

I figure we might as well start off with the big categories, right? Overall not too bad; mostly cable shows, but according to Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner all of these shows were offered to broadcast networks first (I'm not sure I believe that but even – maybe especially if that's true, it's a discussion for another time). I don't believe I can come up with another network series that is particularly deserving of the nomination – Parenthood maybe (I haven't seen it); Friday Night Lights perhaps (or is that just a cable show that appears on Broadcast TV in the summer). However, even though I don't get to see the show, I have been told that Sons Of Anarchy is deserving of an Emmy nod. In terms of the shows that are nominated, I'm going to call it a three way race between last year's winner Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and Lost. Lost might get the nod because it was the show's last but the Academy tends to stick with winners – as in last year's winners – so maybe give it to Mad Men.

Outstanding Comedy Series

Curb Your Enthusiasm – HBO

Glee – FOX

Modern Family – ABC

Nurse Jackie – Showtime

The Office – NBC

30 Rock – NBC

Okay, I'm going to state what I think should be the obvious in terms of nominations – where is The Big Bang Theory? Does the Academy regard the show as a one trick pony, that trick being Jim Parsons's character of Dr. Sheldon Cooper? And even though I don't get to see the show, from what I've heard putting Nurse Jackie in the comedy category is stretching the definition of "comedy" to the breaking point. In terms of which show I think will win, despite the recent dominance of The Office and 30 Rock in the past few years I would suggest that the Academy is likely to go with the current critical flavour of the month. In other words Glee.

Reality Competition Series:

The Amazing Race – CBS

American Idol – FOX

Dancing With the Stars – ABC

Project Runway – Lifetime

Top Chef – Bravo

Obvious snub – Survivor, probably Heroes vs Villains. I mean seriously, how could the Academy ignore all of the moments that the show brought us in that season; Boston Rob starting a fire by literally rubbing two sticks together (first time that ever worked on the show), the battle of wits between Boston Rob and Russell (which Rob eventually lost because most of the people he was trying to use to get rid of Russell were terminally stupid and listened to Russell), and the eventual triumph of (relative) good – that would be Sandra, the only person ever to win two seasons of Survivor – over evil – demented Hobbit Russell, who never did get that there was a social side to the game. I've never really been a fan of the Project Runway – Top Chef style competitions (too much of a cookie cutter concept) so one or both of them wouldn't be missed by me. Given the competition I'd say Amazing Race wins again, even with a lacklustre season.

Outstanding Lead Actor In A Comedy Series

The Big Bang Theory – CBS – Jim Parsons

Curb Your Enthusiasm – HBO – Larry David

Glee – FOX – Matthew Morrison

Monk – USA – Tony Shalhoub

The Office – NBC – Steve Carell

30 Rock – NBC – Alec Baldwin

I have this disturbing image that next year Tony Shaloub will be nominated in this category for Monk despite the fact that he's sitting at home in the La-z-Boy and not actually do any acting at all. Shaloub is a talented guy and all but creatively this show has been over for years and the academy refuses to acknowledge the fact, Meanwhile Ed O'Neill hasn't been nominated for Modern Family – the only adult cast member from that show not to get an Emmy nod. Now I'm not saying that O'Neill should get the nomination in this category – the show is very much an ensemble cast with no real "star" – but O'Neill really does deserve a nomination and why not here. As for the winner, I think Jim Parsons has the funniest character but the Academy will give it to Alec Baldwin again – or maybe Steve Carell because he says he's leaving after the coming season.

Outstanding Lead Actress In A Comedy Series

Glee – FOX – Lea Michele

The New Adventures Of Old Christine – CBS – Julia Louis-Dreyfus

Nurse Jackie – Showtime – Edie Falco

Parks And Recreation – NBC – Amy Poehler

30 Rock – NBC – Tina Fey

United States Of Tara
– Showtime – Toni Collette

Why is Julia Louis-Dreyfus nominated for a show that was cancelled. I mean I know that she's a talented comedian and all but still it just doesn't seem right. And as I've said, people whose opinions I frequently resect don't see how Nurse Jackie is a comedy. Of course they regard it as a snub that Courtney Cox-Arquette wasn't nominated for her role in Cougar Town. I'm not sure about that. Her character is funny but I wish they'd have stuck with the idea of an older woman involved in a relationship with a younger man that they started out with. Maybe it's too conventional or too controversial a concept and they were worried about lobby groups like the PTC but it was an avenue to explore. Doesn't matter really; he Emmy will go to Tina Fey.

Outstanding Lead Actor In A Drama Series

Breaking Bad – AMC – Bryan Cranston

Dexter – Showtime – Michael C. Hall

Friday Night Lights – DirecTV – Kyle Chandler

House – FOX – Hugh Laurie

Lost – ABC – Matthew Fox

Mad Men – AMC – Jon Hamm

Nothing I say about who got snubbed and who shouldn't be in this category is going to matter because Bryan Cranston is going to win for Breaking Bad but it is god to see Kyle Chandler finally nominated for Friday Night Lights. I would like to say that the Academy made a big mistake by not nominating John Noble for his role as Walter Bishop on Fringe. They say that playing someone who is in some way insane is one of the toughest things an actor can do, but look at what Noble has done on Fringe this season. Not only has he played our lovably looney Walter from "our" side of the universe, but in flashbacks he's played the sane and desperate Walter who crossed over to save a version of his sone, and the megalomaniacal "Walternate" from the other side. Surely that says something about his abilities as an actor. As for Hugh Laurie, I've seen people suggest that the Academy must have voted not on his whole season of work but on just the series premiere. This betrays a failure to understand how the Emmys work. An actor nominee is judged not on a full season of work but submits specific episodes. So essentially they are selected based on what they or their agent or director or whoever else advises them regards as their best work of the season. Does Hugh Laurie deserve to be there? I don't know; I haven't seen the whole season yet. All I know is that based on his season of work, John Noble deserves to be nominated.

Outstanding Lead Actress In A Drama Series

The Closer – TNT – Kyra Sedgwick

Damages – FX Networks – Glenn Close

Friday Night Lights – DirecTV – Connie Britton

The Good Wife – CBS – Julianna Margulies

Law & Order: SVU – NBC – Mariska Hargitay

Mad Men – AMC – January Jones

Another case where the Academy has finally decided to recognise one of the stars of Friday Night Lights, Connie Britton. Three of last year's nominees are back – Kyra Sedgwick, Glenn Close and perennial nominee Mariska Hargitay. In terms of snubs, I am told – because I don't see the show – that Katey Sagal should have received a nomination for her part in Sons of Anarchy. I am inclined to believe that Glenn Close will win again for Damages, particularly since the series – which has been on FX – might not be picked up for a fourth season without help from DirecTV.

Outstanding Supporting Actor In A Comedy Series

Glee – FOX – Chris Colfer

How I Met Your Mother – CBS – Neil Patrick Harris

Modern Family – ABC – Jesse Tyler Ferguson

Modern Family – ABC – Eric Stonestreet

Modern Family – ABC – Ty Burrell

Two And A Half Men – CBS – Jon Cryer

Most of the performers in this category are new, which is unusual. Only Neil Patrick Harris and last year's winner Jon Cryer are holdovers from last year. Even more unusual is that three of the actors are from Modern Family. As I think I've said repeatedly in the past, Comedies are not my preferred form. I think the likeliest winner will be Chris Colfer, particularly if, as I expect, the three nominees from Modern Family split the vote.

Outstanding Supporting Actress In A Comedy Series

Glee – FOX – Jane Lynch

Modern Family – ABC – Julie Bowen

Modern Family – ABC – Sofia Vergara

Saturday Night Live – NBC – Kristen Wiig

30 Rock – NBC – Jane Krakowski

Two And A Half Men – CBS – Holland Taylor

The other two adult cast members from Modern Family are in this category but this time around I'm convinced that there is only one likely winner and that is Jane Lynch for her breakout performance as Sue Sylvester in Glee.

Outstanding Supporting Actor In A Drama Series

Breaking Bad – AMC – Aaron Paul

Damages – FX Networks – Martin Short

Lost – ABC – Terry O'Quinn

Lost – ABC – Michael Emerson

Mad Men – AMC – John Slattery

Men Of A Certain Age – TNT – Andre Braugher

This is one of those categories that could go just about any way. Aaron Paul, Michael Emerson and John Slattery are holdovers from last season's race when Emerson won. I think Emerson is one of the front-runners this season but given Terry O'Quinn's performance in the final season of Lost ( a show that I haven't watched since its third season – I got tired of the long wait between the first six episodes and the rest of that season, and didn't go back) I would expect him to be the other front runner. Who'll win? I'm almost convinced that it's 50/50 you pick'em between the two.

Outstanding Supporting Actress In A Drama Series

Burn Notice – USA – Sharon Gless

Damages – FX Networks – Rose Byrne

The Good Wife – CBS – Archie Panjabi

The Good Wife – CBS – Christine Baranski

Mad Men – AMC – Christina Hendricks

Mad Men – AMC – Elisabeth Moss

This may be the hardest category of all to pick. Christine Baranski is great in just about anything she does, but the pair from Mad Men, Elizabeth Moss and Christina Hendricks both turned in stand-out performances from the ensemble supporting cast from Mad Men. And then there's perennial emmy nominee (and two-time winner) Sharon Gless. And there's Rose Byrne from Damages, the only nominee in this category from last season to be nominated this year.

Later today I'll post my first Emmy Poll. They will each run for seven days (which I discovered last year is the optimal length of time for a Poll Question). The Primetime Emmys will be awarded in Los Angeles on Sunday August 27, 2010.