ESPN Rex: The Worldwide Leader in Eye-Gouging Viewers

While trying to watch ESPN's coverage of Barry Bond's triumph over AT&T Park's shallow right-field wall, I couldn't help but think back to an article I meant to comment on a couple weeks ago. Newsweek ran a piece questioning ESPN's journalistic integrity in light of its increasing coziness with the professional sports leagues and their various members. I thought the article was pretty fair and, for me at least, it really touched on a number of things that have led me to all but banish the worldwide sports leader from my favorite channel roster. I'll still tune in for the occasional baseball game or special event, but most of what the boys (and girls) of Bristol U are selling, I'm not buying. (The obvious exception of course being Mike in Mike in the Morning, but that's really a radio show with a video feed.)

I've totally given up on SportsCenter, especially after this morning's tired exercise. What used to be an entertaining box-score rundown has, over the past six or seven years, turned into an athletics-based Access Hollywood, focusing less on the games and more on the athletes, providing viewers with rumor, innuendo, way too many "anonymous sources" and details I don't care about. Not only that, but it's obvious the producers are pushing it towards the MTV demographic. I personally can wait to see what story is coming up next, I don't need the "helpful" rundown on the side distracting me further from the program's main content along with the scrolling banner and unnecessarily loud (perhaps just plain unnecessary?) background music. I'm obviously no longer the type of viewer SportsCenter is courting, so I will bid them adieu and get my scores from the web.

The same goes for other past favorites like Baseball Tonight. I think Devin Gordon (author of the Newsweek piece) is spot-on when he maintains that the network relies far too heavily on "underqualified ex-jocks to fill its analyst ranks". We're not talking about public policy or anything else that really requires open debate, so why do I need to listen to not just one, but several second-string athletes "break things down" and argue their points with excruciating redundancy and little added insight?

I like to mark the network's downfall from the moment they did that live behind-the-scenes SportsCenter broadcast a few years back. While it was an interesting and enlightening event, it really did, on a certain level, display the hubris of the network as well as the the runners of it's flagship show. This was an organization at the top of its game, one that had recently become a pop-culture icon. These guys were cool and they knew it. That always spells trouble. Since that broadcast it feels like everything at ESPN has been done for the sake of cool, thus substance has suffered and in my opinion at least, things have been trending downward, like they do for the star of any Greek tragedy when his waistline begins to exceed the dimensions of his britches. If that is in fact what they wear under those togas.

"I Get Good Advice From The Advertising World"

A while back I commented on what I thought - or rather, think - is the somewhat misguided fear on the part of advertisers toward DVRs. I mentioned that I am more apt to watch commercials while watching a recorded program than I am while watching live TV. While fast-forwarding through ads I often stop and go back to watch those that are able to catch my eye. When an ad break comes on during live programming however, I simply change the channel until my well- honed commercialometer tells me my original show is back.

Those times when I do pull a u-turn, it is often to catch a trailer for a film I'm interested in or starring an actor I like. Turns out I'm not alone. There is now data that suggests that quite a few viewers do the same thing.

The data comes from TiVo, who is now measuring what commercials are viewed - both in live and time-shifted contexts - and how often. Since it only measures it's own users, not the rest of us DVR lovers who get our equipment from the local cable company, it's safe to assume the actual numbers are even greater.

While some might grimace at the prospect of commercial ratings, TV the way we know and love it cannot exist without subsidies from advertisers. Some people may consider it a necessary evil, I consider it just plain necessary. Thus, I think anything that will keep advertisers calm and pumping money into my primary vice is OK. Besides, as the article tagged above states: "In some cases, according to the data, commercials score higher ratings than do the shows they are on."


P.S. Guess the song from which the title of this post comes and you will win....well, nothing actually, I'll just be impressed.

Emmy Reading This Correctly?

I'm not sure anything I've watched during the past season toyed with my emotions the way reading this year's list of Emmy nominees did earlier today. It was like my brain was playing Twister with me, calling out one new color after another before I could possibly get my left hand on green.

First there was anticipation: would Lost - after last year's snub - get its due this year with a nomination for Outstanding Drama? Then there was curiosity: there's an Outstanding Choreography category? That was followed by a sense of 'who knew?': there's an Outstanding Commercial category. Next there was self-doubt: "Am I reading this correctly? I must have missed the mentions of Planet Earth." (I did, it picked up 7 nominations). Then the fireworks began, starting with a feeling of satisfaction: 10 nominations for 30 Rock, 9 for The Office; which quickly turned into tempered indignation: Lost getting only 4 nods, but in the right categories and for the right reasons; and finally downright contempt when, after I finished the list, I realized Elizabeth Mitchell's name was nowhere to be found.

Now, I'm grounded enough to know that none of this is really that important. After all, more often than not its nothing more than self-congratulatory Hollywood nonsense. But the same could be said of any industry's awards. Does anyone outside the field really care who the best plumbing supplier in greater Montpelier is in any given year? No, but the pipe pushers in Vermont do, and while I don't get to see how good those guys are at hawking hose I do spend an inordinate amount of time watching television. I have some favorite shows - and guilty pleasures - as well as some absolute must-not-watchers (Grey's Anatomy) and I am able to recognize quality work when it is put in front of me. In that context, I don't feel so ridiculous in my reactions to this morning's announcement.

A second look at the nominees reveals some well deserved recognition as well as some head-scratchers. Among the highlights and lowlights:

It was great to see both Michael Emerson and Terry O'Quinn (Ben and Locke respectively) of Lost get nods for Outstanding Actor, albeit in the supporting category. I think a case could be made for either or both of them to have landed a lead spot, perhaps taking Keifer Sutherland's place in that category. While Sutherland's work is usually pretty compelling, this iteration of 24 left him very little to work with and he felt like more of a supporting character in the last two-thirds of the season.

It was good to see Heroes get some respect - 8 nominations including Outstanding Drama - though it may be a little undeserved. A good show, but very uneven in it's first season, it started to coalesce into something greater than its parts just before it completely imploded with a disastrously disappointing finale. I agree with the suggestions that this nomination may be lip service to those of us who like serialized dramas. Mark Harris has a great article about this and other aspects of the nominating process at EW.com.

Top Chef is in the running for Outstanding Reality Competition, though it will have trouble against perennial favorite The Amazing Race and another Bravo standout, Project Runway.

Alec Baldwin is up against Steve Carell in the Lead Actor - Comedy category. Though I love Carell's continually oblivious performance, Baldwin was a major reason the audience kept watching 30 Rock until the show eventually found its footing and established itself as the best new comedy of the season.

Not to drift too close to fanboydom, but most of my discontent stems from how Lost was treated by those who do the nominating. It was a stellar season (yes, from start to finish) and the second best ep of the season, "Through the Looking Glass", rightly received nominations for writing and directing. How the series didn't make the cut for Outstanding Drama however boggles one's mind, especially in light of the fact that the season finale was quite possibly two of the best hours of primetime television I have ever seen. I like Heroes, but Lost is a far better enterprise. Though maybe both should be in the final list, at the expense of the glorified soap opera that is Grey's Anatomy.

Additionally, I am gobsmacked that Elizabeth Mitchell's portrayal of Juliet on the series was completely overlooked. She should have at least gotten a nod for Supporting Actress if not Lead. Her work was simply fantastic. In each episode she appeared she was asked to play a range of emotions in order to conceal the fact that she is at least a triple agent whose sole allegiance in the end is probably only to herself. I can't imagine anyone who voted for this category seeing any of her performances and not putting her at the top of the list. It's criminal to say the least.

At least, as viewers, we have the next two months to regain our composure. At which time the polka dotted plastic rug will reappear to remind us that the voting process makes no sense, and more often than not seems to be based more on soundbites and hype (read Harris's article) rather than merit. Well, merit wins the technical categories, but we don't get to see those. They apparently don't make good television. Oh the irony!

Law & Re-Ordered

Some shakeups are coming to the Law & Order set this fall, and while the net effect is yet another Y chromosome on the cast, the changes being made might help restore at least some of this old warhorse's former glory.

For starters, Jack McCoy (Sam Waterson) will be stepping up to the big chair, as Fred Thompson's presidential ambitions mean the end for his character, District Attorney Arthur Branch. It will be interesting to see McCoy move into the role of sage after 13 seasons as the driven, no-holes-barred, right-hand man; though I do slightly wonder how this promotion will be explained. Through the years, McCoy has made a lot of political enemies; of judges, defense attorney's, etc. for some of his "unorthodox" methods. I would think he would have at least some trouble getting elected DA.

To fill the ADA vacancy, Dick Wolf & co. have chosen British actor Linus Roache, most well known (at least for me) for his role as Thomas Wayne in Batman Begins. His scenes in that film - slight though they were - make me feel good about the producers' choice.

So does the addition of Jeremy Sisto, who has been tapped to replace the underwhelming Milena Govich as Detective Green's partner. Sisto was most recently seen in NBCs short-lived Kidnapped but is probably best known by some for his role on Six Feet Under.

L&O's future was up in the air as recently as a couple months ago, due to sagging ratings. Frankly the show has seemed uneven since Jerry Orbach's departure three seasons ago. While I love much of Dennis Farina's work, he didn't seem to quite fit the style and mood of this particular series, and this was probably part of what led to his early exit after two seasons . Last year's addition of Govich as Det. Nina Cassady was mishandled as well. Her character was written somewhat poorly and her performance was equally uncompelling.

If these new characters are fleshed out a little better than the additions of recent-past, the show might be able to win its appeal and get off death row.

Sein On For '30 Rock'

Zap2it.com is reporting that Jerry Seinfeld will be guest starring in the season premiere of 30 Rock. He'll be playing himself. No word as to whether George will be in tow asking to get paid what Ted Danson makes, but I think this is good news for the show, which is entering it's sophomore season this fall. Hopefully, Seinfeld's appearance will drum up some viewers that can then be hooked by the show's subtly hilarious writing and spot-on performances. This is a great series which needs to see a ratings boost this coming year if it wants to stay alive.

The full story can be found on zap2it's website.