COMMENTARY
TV networks should watch themselves for a change

By Robert Bianco
USA Today

By every measure, critical and commercial, this has been a dismal season for broadcast TV. From long-running series that ran out of gas to promising newcomers that were never allowed out of the garage, the seasonal race has stumbled from one disappointment to the next. If network TV were a reality show, the title would be "I'm a Viewer: Get Me Out of Here."

If we're lucky, we're merely in one of TV's periodic creative slumps, and relief is only a hit away. But slumps can sometimes lead to collapse — particularly when the people in charge make the wrong turns. Like, say, sacrificing the industry's long-term health for a quick "reality" fix.

What should the networks do? Here's a 12-step program to save them from sinking — and from themselves:

Salvage what little is worth saving

Of the new series in danger of being canceled, I'd rescue "Arrested Development," "It's All Relative" and "Whoopi" (just because it's willing to imagine a sitcom world beyond sex, dating and parenting). As for the campaign to save WB's already canceled "Angel," if nothing else, the fight will remind networks that good shows still do have loyal viewers.

Stick with what's good

The tone this season was set early on by NBC's treatment of "Boomtown." Here's a show that could have been nurtured into a signature series, as with "Hill Street Blues" and "Cheers." Instead, NBC cut the show's order, reworked it, dumped it in a terrible slot and canceled it after two episodes. A similar fate befell ABC's "Karen Sisco" and Fox's "Wonderfalls"— which Fox gave up on before it even aired. Such treatment sends a chilling message to viewers and the creative community, making it even harder to get an innovative series off the ground.

Stop fidgeting

People expect to find shows in the same time slot every week. Instead, viewers barely know what the networks are showing from hour to hour, let alone week to week. (Does anyone know where, or even if, "Scrubs" is airing these days?) Whatever tactical advantage a network may hope to gain by these constant shifts is pretty much lost when everyone else is shifting at the same time. Unless, of course, the goal is simply to annoy viewers. In that case, it seems to be working.

Behave responsibly

Trash has always been with us and always will be. But the networks used to have the good taste to at least pretend to be embarrassed by it. Now they revel in their bad behavior, promoting each new outing as the grossest, raunchiest or sexiest yet. (Compared to "The Swan," those "When Animals Attack" specials look like the Golden Age of Fox reality.) Perhaps it's time to ask whether the networks and their affiliates, who have been granted access to our homes through government license, should be using that gift to develop programs that trick parents into thinking their daughters are getting married or, worse, turn TV into procurers on an electronic Temptation Island? The idea that power carries with it responsibility may be old-fashioned, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Re-evaluate or restructure

Every season, it's the same deadly dance. Advertisers want young male viewers, so the networks chase after an audience that isn't interested in their shows — and chase away the audience that is. Economically, a business that can't make money from the people who are actually eager to be its customers is a business that makes no sense. And artistically, an art form that allows its standards to be set by teenage boys is an art form — and a culture — in deep trouble.

Beg good writers to return

Four years ago, networks hosted what was, collectively, the finest group of writers ever to work in dramatic television: David Milch ("NYPD Blue"), David E. Kelley ("The Practice," "Ally McBeal," "Boston Public"), Aaron Sorkin ("The West Wing"), Joss Whedon ("Buffy," "Angel") and Marshall Herskovitz and Edward Zwick ('Once and Again"). Now, Milch has moved to HBO; Sorkin has left "Wing"; and Whedon, Herskovitz and Zwick have seen their shows canceled. As of now, only Kelley will be represented on network television next season, and he has been reduced to dragging life out of a "Practice" spin-off. Whatever it takes to bring these writers back — such as letting them do something they're passionate about — the networks need to do it.

Recruit better replacements

The networks give multiple chances to dull, predicable hacks who can be counted on to churn out dull, predictable shows. There must be better writers out there, as the nation's lively theater scene would seem to indicate. If those writers aren't coming to the networks, perhaps its time for the networks to go looking for them.

Find a few good women

Is it any wonder so many female viewers embraced "Sex and the City"? Where else could they turn? Network comedy was once dominated by funny women, from "I Love Lucy" through "Mary Tyler Moore," "Kate & Allie," "The Golden Girls," "Designing Women," "Murphy Brown" and "Roseanne." After ignoring the form for too long, the four networks finally have made a few tentative steps back to female-centered sitcoms with such shows as "Whoopi," "Less Than Perfect," "Hope & Faith" and "Life With Bonnie.' But none has become the kind of reviving hit the genre needs. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with the genre; it just means the networks haven't paired the right stars with the right writers.

Think variety

No, that's not a call for a new variety show, though that might be nice. It's a warning that too many shows look too much alike — and most of those shows look like "Law & Order" or "CSI." So far, the clones have worked, but we can't be far from that one thin mint too many. Ask the people who used to make Westerns what happens when you push viewers into overload. They usually don't just turn against the last clone to arrive; they reject the entire genre it represents.

Clean house at the top

What TV really needs is a mass executive exodus. Among the current crop of network presidents, some have taste, a few have some sense of showmanship, and a few more have some grasp of what works for their network. But only CBS' Leslie Moonves combines all three of these necessary qualities — and even he seems to be overextended as more of the Viacom empire comes under his supervision.

To be fair, as the networks have been swallowed by media conglomerates, network presidents have less power, and less accountability, than they once did. (We'll see if upcoming executive shifts at ABC fix the core problem: There are so many layers of management involved in every decision, it's like a ship with 10 captains and no rudder.) The networks appear to be at war with themselves, with one group of executives supporting a show and the rest doing their best to subvert it. How else to explain the odd treatment accorded "Karen Sisco" or "Wonderfalls"?

So here's a suggestion: Enough with the lawyers, accountants and news wunderkinder. Recruit your presidents from the entertainment world, let them do their job and replace them if they don't.

Keep working on diversity

While the situation is better than it once was, black and Latino audiences still by and large have to turn to sitcoms or cop shows to see themselves — and Asians aren't even accorded that much visibility. It's long past time we saw their lives explored more fully on TV.

Show some respect

Many of the worst problems would disappear if the networks would stop airing shows they know are awful, and stop yanking shows they know are good.

It shows a lack of respect, not just for the audience, but for the history and reputation of the networks themselves.