Emmy Awards and the Demise of Television as We Know It

Amidst the ticket stubs and litter-strewn garbage on the infamous red carpet, I watched Monday as the production grips and gaffers hustled to dismantle the dreams and the disappointments of the 61st Annual Emmy Awards. Through their methodical breakdown and equipment removal, one burning question remained in my mind.

Snapping pictures of the disassembly, I wondered if I was actually witnessing the demise of the institution of television. Certainly we have seen the decline of network ratings for years with the advent of cable and pay per view. When Walter Cronkite moderated the moon landing, and television was at its peak, an estimated 500 million people worldwide watched that broadcast. When the Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan over 73 million people watched. (Remember at that time, the number of households that owned television was significantly less than today.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most watched_television_broadcasts#United_States

February 28th, 1983 105 million people watched the M*A*S*H Finale. This was over 60% of households that had television. Even American Idol, at its most viewed show on May 21st 2003 was 38 million people: a whopping 462 million less than the lunar landing. If you look at a few examples contributing to the erosion of viewership, it is hard to argue against the shift in television habits.

There are certainly many more choices today and that affects the ratings of television shows. I can hear radios collective on-air gulp at the advent of the motion picture. I can feel the motion picture business "group quiver" when the little black box arrived. The invention left studio executives wondering if anything else would remain in the theaters besides remnants of candy and buttered popcorn.

So, does television, with the advent of Internet, cable and mobile content simply disappear? It seemed to be a reoccurring theme at Sunday's Emmy Awards. Who knows really what is going to happen. Yet, in somewhat of a desperate state, we see more and more lowest common denominator shows. Years ago a Victoria's Secret television show would have been laughable. It's true, when the infamous catalog arrived at Studio office, one hundred doors closed in unison, with catalog in hand, yelling "Hold my calls."

Another example of the lowest common denominator approach was at the Emmy's. During the nominations for Best Family Programming, an animated Stewie from Family Guy asked his dog Brian who he is voting for and when the dog lists another show that he is going to vote for, Stewie beats him up. It was violent and bloody and years ago, that would have NEVER made it on the air. I watched the audience's reaction near me, and no one was laughing. In fact, a few heads were shaking in disbelief. Yet this type of writing has become a common occurrence in television. When sex and violence stop being used as a centerpiece for the audience grab, we might get some creative juices flowing again. Well-written, clever shows that don't use a body to sell the storyline -- unless of course that is the storyline -- which then begs the question, do that many people focus on sex for that much time in a day? Err, then again...

Legitimate, illegitimate, fear or truth, all of these shifts in technology and acceptable content have largely given the audience, the user, and the consumer more choice. That is the good news.

The bad news is these tectonic shifts have highlighted cost concerns, and helped to dumb down the fare that is created in broadcasting. Yes, there is more choice and more competition yet this has resulted in less creativity and quality. You have heard this before; the lowest common denominator has become the easy tool for writing because sex, misfortune and violence sell.

We can blame the additional choices that consumers have for the demise of television or take a deeper look at why so many people have stopped watching television. I must admit the production of this years Emmy's was terrific. The best I recall in years, thought it might be just be another example of too little, too late.

 

 

Follow Michealene Cristini Risley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@mcrisley

Comments

[raker]

Family Guy is a funny show, but that clip stunk.

I watch very little network programming. I loath the "reality" shows that are all about the breast implants and tattoos and artificial conflict. Love Amazing Race, though. I hate the junky programs aimed at teenagers (Have you ever seen Heroes? It is breathtakingly bad) and programs aimed at seniors (Have you ever seen Leno? It is breathtakingly bad.) I hate Emmy programs that give awards to junky popular shows in hopes that this will attract more people to watch the Emmy Awards show. That leaves 30 Rock and Cash Cab. Love them both.

[reviewingthesituation]

I've often wondered what the writers for "Two and a Half Men" could do if they wrote about something other than two sexually immoral men, their sexually immoral mother and a sexually immoral teenager (all creepily involved in each other's sexually immoral lives) plus a string of sexually immoral sex partners? Maybe they'd write something clever.

[pangursperson]

Judgy much?

[Michealene Cristini Risley - Huffpost Blogger]

There is a difference between judgy and disciminating... : )

[Tallulah Morehead - Huffpost Blogger]

I love my DVR. I never watch ANYTHING live. I ALWAYS FF through commercials.

But commercials fund the TV I'm watching. It bodes not well for network TV when its business model is failing, as TV becomes a lousy advertising medium, since there is no reason to watch ads at all anymore.

I am glad that I am not the only person to have been APPALLED by the revolting FAMILY GUY clip, although posting that opinion in my Emmy review has given me drubbings from its fans that I'm just no longer hip, if I can't find this grotesque deep-voiced talking baby going all medieval on a talking doggie hilarious. I guess I'm not hip then.

It was like an animated Tarantino movie, and I avoid his dehumanizing violence-porn, isn't-subh­uman-behav­ior-and-wa­r-atrociti­es-all-a-s­lapstick-c­omedy-gas movies. And I would never allow Seth MacFarland anywhere near my kitties.

Animal abuse isn't funny if you're emotionally older than 7.

[Michealene Cristini Risley - Huffpost Blogger]

See that is the thing that DRIVES ME CRAZY! What is hip about abusing an animal for a laugh? I don't get it. We all have seen the statistics about how television and videogame violence de-sensitize us. I would not be surprised if someone actually copied this clip, to be cool.

It would nice if Hollywood started to respect the talent of writers with experience and maturity. Perhaps less of this would happen.

...And my 6 year old would not have thought if funny. : )

[PresidentRobertBooth]

I thought it was rather sad during the Emmy Awards to see the Internet being attacked so often.

Especially when one considers that TV has given the world endless reality shows, endless "person-in­-front-of-­a-nasty-pa­nel-of-jud­ges" shows, TV shows cancelled after ONE episode, credits being crushed and moving at warp speed over the screen, commercial breaks every few minutes, difficult to find shows, promotion of other shows while a show is still being broadcast etc.....

If TV declines, it caused it's own death.

[Michealene Cristini Risley - Huffpost Blogger]

I could not agree with you more. TV cannot blame it's demise on new technologies. quality programming, great writing no matter where it resides, will always find people.

[eeodonn]

Not even a nomination for the best show I've seen in 50 years - The Wire - I'll never watch the Emmys again. And I'm with Ms. Massachusetts. Commercials were a necessity when the consumer paid for nothing but the TV set. At the onset of Cable we were led to believe that our monthly bill would fund the programming and it would be commercial free. Instead, they're getting us both ways and jamming in two or three times as many commercials as there were when the ads funded the program entirely. Enough is never enough for US companies and cable costs have gone out of sight. If I can't tape a show and FF thru the ads on a non-premium channel, I don't watch it.

[3fingerbrown]

I saw a documentary about Louis Armstrong on Ovation yesterday. There was clip from Jackie Gleason's variety show, I guess circa 1960, that got me to thinking. There had been some bad blood at the time among old-school jazz men, led by Armstrong, and the new avant-bop players, whose chief spokesman was Dizzy Gillespie. Gleason or someone on his staff had the idea to bring Armstrong and Gillespie together on the show to play a duet and see if the two trumpet giants could find some common ground. And, boy, did they ever! They played and scatted together with great joy and verve, their styles meshing perfectly. When the number was over, Gleason came out and put his arms around the two men as the audience cheered.

Aside from the delightful incongruity of seeing these three men on the same stage ("Louis Armstrong, Dizzy Gillespie, and Jackie Gleason walk into a bar ..."), what struck me was how classy the whole thing was, and how unique--this was a once-in-a-lifetime moment that could only have occurred on TV. And it wasn't a widely heralded special, mind you, but just another week on Gleason's variety show.

There is nothing remotely resembling the equivalent of this kind of unique and exciting programming on prime-time anymore. The networks used to be about doing what nobody else can do; now they're about doing what everyone else is doing.

[Michealene Cristini Risley - Huffpost Blogger]

You are so right, and there is nothing remotely resembling the type of programming you talk about. There is nothing remotely resembling the kind of talent that you are talking about. I do feel that some of the actors out there, are INCREDIBLY talented, the shows and there opportunities just barely make it below the surface. : (

[Tatiana]

How and why did Two & Half Men win an emmy???
If that's what the meaning of quality programming is, then yes...TV is dead

[MsMassachusetts]

Thank goodness for the invention of the DVR. I tried to watch the Emmys in real time, but my blood pressure was going up at having to endure the many, many commercials. I finally gave up and set it to record the show. I watched it later, fast forwarding through all the stupid ads. That may be one reason TV viewing is down. The percentage of time devoted to commercials has risen dramatically. The situation in my house has changed to the point that my husband and son watch almost zero television. My 16 year old son now spends his leisure time on the computer, and my husband watches football and otherwise is on the computer too. Only myself and my 9 year old watch regular TV. I try to teach her on a consistent basis about how they try to sell us things we don't need on commercials. She is starting to get it. Now they are doing it at the movies, especially kids movies!

[Michealene Cristini Risley - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, I try to teach my kids how to interpret the commercials. Not only are we bombarded, but the volume is so LOUD. I do recall that there is legislation about commercial volume, but I don't know what the status is.