FCC to Curb TV Violence? Good Luck!

So it looks like the FCC wants to step in and regulate the amount of violence on television. Particularly between the hours of 6am and 10pm, when "children are likely to be viewers". Good luck fellas. And so long Looney Tunes, Tom & Jerry, The Three Stooges, etc.

What I'm getting at is that this is a futile and misguided crusade. What's considered violent? Obviously, there is a distressingly large amount of murder and assault to be found in prime time and increasingly during the day time. But what about a show like CSI where you don't necessarily see the crime but get to witness first-hand the extremely graphic autopsy/forensic investigation? And what about those programs I mentioned above? Those shows are specifically aimed at children and they contain an overabundance of violent images.

So does the nightly news come to think of it. Will the FCC keep the networks and cable news outlets from showing us scenes from the war in Iraq, or from countless other conflicts across the globe?

Armed with good sense, a remote, and a DVR I can do a pretty good job on my own of controlling what my daughter sees on TV. Where I need help is in getting rid of all the talk about intercourse and erectile dysfunction we have to listen to while watching a baseball game together on a Saturday afternoon.

Of Amazing Races, Bogus Award Shows, and Other Random Viewing Experiences

YIELD TO THE POWER OF THE AMAZING RACE
I'm a newcomer to The Amazing Race, but I'm hooked. I like this show because it doesn't get caught up in all the usual reality show melodrama; well, at least it doesn't most of the time. Eric and Danielle got yielded again this week, a perfectly legal tactic used by one team to slow another team down. As the two stood stewing and spewing, I sat scratching my head as to why they, and Eric in particular, took it so personally. It's almost as if he thinks all the teams are in this together. Dude, it's a competition, of course people are going to do what they can to win. It's like considering someone a traitor because they skipped you in "Uno". Does this guy sit at a poker table and cry foul when the other players don't show him their cards?


ONLY IN TV-LAND
In the past I've mocked the whole idea of the TV-Land awards as just another ridiculous self-congratulatory way to drum up viewers. However, this year I figured I should at least try to watch since I started blogging about television and all. Wow! I didn't even make it past Kelly Ripa's monologue.


STUPID AGENT MAN
Again last night 24 went the Alias route of making the hero(es) do stupid things in order to fill a plot hole or try to cover bad writing. Luckily, though the whole night wasn't a loss, and in a way it would have been interesting if the whole season focused on the "fallout" of the day's events. Have the nuke go off during the premier, catch the guy by hour five and spend the rest of the day cleaning up the mess.


HEROIC RESTRAINT
Last night I chose to watch 24 instead of Heroes. I did record it though so I hope to watch tonight. The couple seconds I did see however looked pretty fantastic.

"30 Rock" Gets 'That Sweet Cuyahoga Glow'

Last night's episode of 30 Rock was fantastic! So why aren't more people watching it? In the overnight Nielsen ratings for Thursday it pulled a 3.3/5. I know it's on against Grey's Anatomy and all, but I can't imagine that those two shows are competing for the same demographic. (I would never even consider watching Grey's, and I haven't since being turned off during the first ten minutes of the pilot.) When you factor in that The Office (30 Rock's lead-in last night) pulled a 4.0/7 for a re-run it gets even harder to understand. Both shows share a similar understated sense of humor, terrific writing, and great acting.

30 Rock is consistently funny week after week. The writing is stellar, just witness last night's ode to Cleveland for example. Or the recent multi-episode arc involving Tracey Morgan's character trying to find backers for his Thomas Jefferson biopic while on the run from "The Black Crusaders"; a secret group of celebrities fighting black exploitation and stereotyping that includes, among others, Bill Cosby and Gordon from Sesame Street, and who apparently meet quarterly in the skull of the Statue of Liberty. (If you missed last night's episode you can check out it at http://www.nbc.com/Video/rewind/full_episodes/30rock.shtml)

Thankfully, the show's already been renewed for next season. I just hope it can drum up a little more business so they don't pull the plug. It really is probably the second funniest show on television right now; behind The Office of course.

When Good Shows Go Bad and Others Just Get Better

I feel like I've been writing a lot about 24 and Lost recently. Well, the trend continues. This week's ep of 24, while different, was not necessarily better than what we've been given since Jack took out Curtis early in the day (this season's high water mark in my opinion). This season's failures were made even clearer to me this morning when I happened to catch the tail-end of a season five episode in syndication. The five minutes I saw of that ep were better than anything that has happened in the last five weeks of season six. My main gripe is in the thin writing, especially as it regards character motivation. I'm just not buying Jack's commitment to Audrey, especially in light of the fact that in the past he has been willing to sacrifice literally anyone in order to protect his country. A point he made crystal clear to The Ricker in this week's waning seconds. I know JB thinks he loves Audrey and all, but where is the Jack that would have told Cheng to go scratch and then went off to find his recently widowed sister in-law?

In my last post I was also complaining about the lack of resolution with somewhat significant characters and story lines. My brother in-law forwarded me the following post from the Ask Ausiello column of TVGuide.com:

Question: Is President Logan dead on 24? The last time we saw him was in the ambulance after Martha stabbed him, and now no one mentions him at all! — Shannon Blake

Ausiello: It appears Logan is going the way of those Russian mobsters on The Sopranos. A 24 source says the ex-prez will not be seen or heard from again this season.

Are you kidding me? Talk about thin writing. What then was the point of even bringing him back in this season? His role in the crisis eventually meant nothing and now we're left to wonder about the former Mrs. Logan too. I suppose then that it's safe to assume will never see Jack's pappy again either which is just utterly ridiculous. I think I might just go to sleep and forget this day ever happened.

Lost, on the other hand, continues to be in peak form. Last night's ep "Catch-22" was solid and while not necessarily mythologically revealing, I think it was a neat way to address that final scene from the season two finale. Remember? Penelope got that phone call in the middle of the night from two researchers, at what we can only assume was the North Pole, who told her they found something. Well, according to the producers the island was visible for an instant when Desmond turned the fail safe key and the sky went purple. So obviously, in the couple weeks since that happened Penelope has sent someone to search for her beloved Des. It's a really cool way to tie things together in my opinion. If you want a great recap of last night's ep check out Jeff Jensen's at ew.com

My favorite moment last night (besides the picture of the old lady on the priest's desk) was Desmond's reaction after Hurley mentioned the parachutist was still breathing, it was really touching when you consider that Des still thought Penny would be under the helmet. The only thing I can't figure out is what he thought she was coming for. Did he expect her to get everyone home, or was he just happy to have her there and they could finally be together outside the reach of her father?

In stark contrast to 24, Lost is a show is defined by it's characters. Fortunately, for its first few seasons 24 had strong enough stories to make up for the fact that every character is very one-dimensional and basically expendable. Now that they are having trouble with plots this becomes even more apparent.

While some might argue that Lost's mystery is it's heart, I would respectfully disagree. The mystery is merely the conduit for understanding the personalities of the castaways, and to those who are tired of flashbacks: THEY ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE SHOW'S SUCCESS. They are a really cool way to show us the characters' motivations for their actions on the island as well as being a supremely economical and fascinating form of character development.

Daylight Savings Time, CTU Style

Some interesting developments in this week's episode of 24. (If you haven't seen it yet, come back later.) This episode was your basic run-of-the-mill season finale. The tone, the action, the happy ending twists, and even the dramatic music as Jack once again saved the day. The only problem? By my calculations there are still six hours left.

It's actually a rather smart, non-plot twist by the show's producers. Wrapping up a going-nowhere-anyway story in order to move on to bigger and badder things may help stem the tide of negative criticism and go a ways towards restoring the show's reputation. Though that doesn't seem promising when you consider the set-up for the remaining hours. In the series' most ridiculous coincidence to date, Scary-Chinese-Diplomat-Man calls just at the moment The Ricker is gazing in wonderment at Jack's one man handy work. (BTW: is it just me or was Fayed's death a little bit of a rip-off of both the first Die Hard and Lethal Weapon 2?)

Anyway, the rest of the season will obviously deal with Jack's going rogue to get Audrey out of the hands of SCDM as well as the repercussions of the attempted presidential assassination. My only gripe, Jack's dad is still gone and now has seemingly nothing to do with the events to come. Plus, last we saw Logan he was flatlining in the back of the ambulance. Will the day end with Jack spitting on his grave, or will we be left to assume Logan's fate for ourselves?

One can only hope the producers have a better vision for the early morning hours than they did for the rest of day. I still can't make sense of Gradenko chopping his own hand off, betraying the only person who can provide him some sort of medical attention, only to die from blood loss stumbling under the boardwalk, where the moonlit surf literally adds salt to his wounds. At least next week's preview looks good. I love Jack telling Pres. Whispers-a-lot that he owes him. Gee, you think?

The Finest Circumstantial Humor

Yesterday's Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN2 featured a fun discussion between Mike Greenberg and guest host Tim Kurkjian about their favorite sitcoms of all time. Audio for the segment is available here. For the record, Greenberg's number one was Seinfeld while Kurkjian's choice was Get Smart.

This got me thinking about what my list of top sitcoms (or at least favorites) would look like. Without question the two best sitcoms of all time are Seinfeld and Cheers. Seinfeld is quite possibly the best written comedy to ever grace the airwaves (especially those seasons with Larry David at the helm). Cheers had solid writing for all its 11 seasons, but what I think really made it work was the chemistry among all the actors and most of all their comedic timing. Even when a joke was less than stellar (which wasn't very often), the delivery more than made up for it.

After those two, I have trouble with the rest of my top five. I'm tempted to immediately throw Arrested Development, The Office, The Simpsons, and Curb Your Enthusiasm into the mix. But does that have more to do with how fresh they are in my head? What about all those shows from decades past that I know and at least remember loving at the time? That brings up another dilemma. Are those oldies as good as I remember, or is nostalgia clouding my rearview?

Fortunately, we have a number of outlets like Nick-at-Nite, TV Land, YouTube, and sydnication to judge how well many of these shows have held up. Some shows I remember watching religiously when they originally aired, I find almost unwatchable now: MurphyBrown, Frasier, Mad About You, The Brady Bunch, Three's Company. Perhaps these shows were great in comparison to their contemporaries, but for whatever reason these guys just don't stand the test of time. (An aside here- John Ritter was fantastic on Three's Company, but the writing was just too simple and redundant to make the show a classic).

Other shows have aged better, but still don't quite reach the level of classic: Family Ties, The Cosby Show, NewsRadio, Wings, Newhart (the 80's version), Happy Days. Actually, most of these are still really funny, but there's just something there that doesn't quite elevate them to that next level.

Then you have the classics: Dick Van Dyke, Mary Tyler Moore, Bob Newhart (the original from the 70's), The Odd Couple, All in the Family, I Love Lucy, and The Honeymooners. These are all great shows which continue to be funny 30, 40, and 50 years later. They have truly stood the test of time, but only one will make my top five. (A lot of people would add M*A*S*H* to this list, but I have never once actually laughed during an episode of that show.)

For some reason I felt compelled to add The Mary Tyler Moore show to my list. Though I hadn't seen it in a while, I remember it being very well written and acted, and most importantly, hilarious. I thought I would refresh my memory at YouTube, and after watching the two clips below I put it at number three without hesitation.

So my final top five looks like this:

1. Seinfeld
2. Cheers
3. Mary Tyler Moore
4. Arrested Development
5. The Office

Time may change my mind on 4 and 5, but it'll be tough. Think about what these five shows all have in common and you can see why each is a classic in its own right.

Have your own top-five or want debate my list? Leave a comment below or send an email to cathoderadiation@gmail.com.

For more fun, check out the Mike and Mike segment where they play name that tune with TV sitcom theme songs, it's pretty good. Also take a peek at this list of sitcoms from Wikipedia. There were more than a few in there I had completely erased from my memory banks.

News and Notes

Some interesting tidbits from around the web:

--3o Rock was picked up for a second season this week. That's good news. I hope they do the same with Andy Barker, P. I.

--KITT from Knight Rider is for sale. Well one of them anyway; turns out there were at least four. Unfortunately, the model for sale doesn't come with turbo boost or an OnStar connection to William Daniels.

--Comedy Central is offering online stand-up classes. I wish I could think of something funny to say.

--This year's Peabody awards for excellence in broadcasting were announced. I was excited to see the best...cooking...show...ever, Good Eats, get an award. To quote the Peabody judges: "rarely has science been taught on TV in such an entertaining – and appetizing – manner as it is in Alton Brown's goofy, tirelessly inventive series."

--After yet another thoroughly stupid episode of 24, I find myself wondering why I'm still so excited for Monday nights. Dalton Ross from EW has a theory here. USA Today's Robert Bianco just wishes this day would end already.

--Some interesting people are in the running for Bob Barker's microphone. I'm not sure it matters who gets it, I don't think the show will last long without him.

--Finally, news that Comcast is adding the YES Network to it's offerings in Connecticut. Meanwhile, six miles away, I'm stuck with NESN and the #$%^&*@ Red Sox.

Ripped From the Airwaves

In an interesting development, it turns out that if Law & Order star and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson does in fact run for president, NBC will have to pull any episodes of the popular procedural in which he appears. Unless they want to provide equal time to his opponents. A prospect, according to "The Washington Post", they are not about to consider.

For a looong time, the FCC has enforced the so-called equal time doctrine to ensure that for any free air time given to a candidate by a broadcaster, an equal amount be given to his or her opponent(s).

Most of the time I believe this usually involves debates, interviews, etc. (I don't think paid political ads count), but there is precedent involving a candidate whose airtime comes in the form of acting (professional as opposed to political):

During the 2003 gubernatorial race in California, television stations dropped all Arnold Schwarzenegger movies out of fear that showing them would require them to give countless hours of free airtime to all 134 other candidates for governor.

Stations also dropped "Bedtime for Bonzo" and other Ronald Reagan movies during his campaigns for governor of California and president.

NBC won't be hurting too much if they have to drop some reruns of L&O, they can always put a Fear Factor reunion in it's place. The article goes on to speculate however, on something far more intriguing:

The FCC rules have never been applied to cable channels, though several legal experts said cable often abides by an equal-time guideline in the hopes of avoiding a legal case that would set a precedent.

Thompson's situation could spark such a case...The TNT cable network shows several hours of "Law & Order" reruns every day and often holds all-day marathons. If that continues while Thompson is running for office, one of his rivals could seek to apply the equal-time rule to cable TV.

The part about setting a precedent is important. If such a situation did arise and the FCC were to step in to resolve the matter, it might give them a legal foothold to start holding cable networks to the same standards as over-the-air broadcasters on a much broader scale. That's slightly scary for a number of reasons I won't get into right now. Let's hope Mr. Thompson reconsiders his decision after he realizes it's easier to fight fictional crime than a real war.

Stewart/Colbert '08

Much has been said about the impact The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have on political discourse and engagement in this country, especially among younger viewers. What I find fascinating however, is how willing these shows are to interview people that most network talk shows or even cable news programs wouldn't go near: authors of interesting (read: not self-help) books. I would venture to say that these two shows are responsible for exposing a decent segment of the public to ideas and works we might not necessarily be exposed to otherwise. Not only that, but they do it in an exceedingly engaging fashion.

What got me thinking about this was Jon Stewart's recent interview of Stanford Professor Phil Zimbardo regarding his new book. The interview was captivating because both Stewart and Prof Zimbardo were thoroughly engaged in their discussion; both brought something to the table. As I began to think more about it, it turns out that this is often the case on this show, and on The Colbert Report, though in that instance it is for a slightly different reason. By pretending to be the Alpha-O'Reilly, Colbert gets to ask questions no one else would dare, and often he gets pretty honest answers.

I had a similar viewing experience with Conan one recent evening. When he was talking to a couple celebrities, I was bored, and it looked like he was too. But then Neal Degrasse Tyson came on plugging his book "Death By Blackhole" and it seemed to light a spark in Conan. Since both men are generally very dynamic it turned into a really interesting interview. As a result, I'm a heck of a lot more likely to go buy his book than I am to go see the movie/tv show/whatever the other guy was plugging.

Contrast such situations with the by-the-numbers interviews you see on the morning talk shows or the cable news channels. When they aren't wasting time interviewing celebrities, the hosts are generally asking questions not meant to elicit meaningful dialogue, but rather to allow the interviewee to just say what they came to say. In the case of Katie Couric, it's even worse because all her questions are usually some form of "and isn't true that" or "don't you think that", followed by what the other person actually thinks. She is in essence answering the question as she asks it. But I digress.

Some people (mostly those who take themselves too seriously - yeah I'm looking at you O'Reilly and Geraldo) see no value in what Stewart and Colbert bring to the table every night. Well, hundreds of thousands would beg to argue, including me. Granted I wouldn't want someone's sole source of news to be either of those shows, but at least they are dealing with issues the mainstream media doesn't think we would be interested in. You could watch a month of the Today Show and not get one interview as interesting as when Stewart interviewed former UN Ambassador John Bolton a couple weeks back.

Stewart and Colbert "bring it" every night, in every meaningful way. If "real news" interviewers even appeared to be half as interested in their guests as these guys, it might make for much more compelling television. Of course, it would also help if they found interesting people to interview.