What is the Deal with Network Television?
By Jan A. Larson
The final episodes of the two long-running NBC sitcoms, Friends and
Frasier, aired last week. I would like to offer my comments as to how
these two productions added to the tapestry of American television history,
as many pundits have, but unfortunately I can't. I never watched them.
Actually, I did watch about one half of one episode of Friends eight
or nine years ago. It only took those 15 minutes for me to realize that
this was another shallow, inane, pointless piece of drivel that would
only steal precious minutes from the lives of all who dared watch, leaving
nothing of value in return.
My mother warned me to choose my friends carefully, and those six losers
didn't make the grade.
I may have watched Frasier three or four times in its early seasons.
I really enjoyed Kelsey Grammer's performances on Cheers, but once he
got himself screwed up on drugs, I determined that he wasn't worth my
time. I'm glad that he's gotten himself straightened out, but his show
just never did it for me. As with Friends and all too many network sitcoms
today, just too much of the same insipid nonsense.
The quality of network television has been in freefall for the better
part of the past two decades. The explosion of 24-hour cable networks
has put the "big three" networks under pressure to maintain
ratings and, as a result, they have resorted to an apparent attempt
to appeal to a class of television viewers of which I am not familiar.
I really don't know anyone that goes out of their way to watch anything
the networks broadcast these
days.
About the only network show that I view with any regularity is the
Late Show with David Letterman. I've been a Letterman fan since he debuted
with his morning variety show over 20 years ago. His stunts and irreverent
comedy remains cutting edge even after many years.
The same cannot be said for the remaining vulgar, imbecilic tripe that
passes for "comedy" on the networks these days.
Of course the current "concept of the day" in network programming
is the so-called "reality show." The only thing real about
these shows is that some people really are that
shallow, self-centered, calculating and stupid. I'm sure many viewers
of these programs derive pleasure in knowing there are people dumber
than they. Personally, I don't find the
affirmation of that fact worth several hours of my time each week.
The 30 minutes of left-leaning news offered daily by the big three
networks seems inconsequential by comparison to the vast amount of news
available 24 hours per day on cable. Even without the ideological spin
that is not uncommon on the network news broadcasts, 30 minutes simply
isn't enough time to present the news of the day in sufficient breadth
and depth to make it worthwhile for many people today. I suspect that
each of the networks would prefer to drop the nightly news and fill
that time slot with something more appealing to the masses, but given
their history and competitive nature, it isn't likely to happen any
time soon.
The networks' "news magazine" shows offer occasional worthwhile
programming interspersed with sensationalistic scare stories and insipid
celebrity interviews. I used to be a regular viewer of CBS' 60 Minutes,
but since Andy Rooney decided to spend his two minutes each week spouting
left-wing propaganda instead of complaining about the amount of coffee
in a one pound can, I've crossed it off my "must see" list
as well.
It has come to the point where almost all of my television viewing
is confined to the Discovery Channel, Food Network, the 24-hour news
channels, primarily Fox News and an
occasional sporting event on ESPN.
In 1961, FCC Chairman Newton Minow described network programming as
a "vast wasteland." Nothing has changed.
