COMMENTARY : Fox Entertainment Group Is Nipping at Networks’ Heels : Television: The rules of the network game are being changed by the emerging “fourth network.” NBC, ABC and CBS see problems over programming, ratings, advertising, syndication.

The thought of the fox in the hen house makes scary images. And it can serve as a giant metaphor for the Fox network and what it’s doing to the other three broadcast systems that were there first.

Executives at ABC, CBS and NBC may not be as much scared as they are muddled over the voracious little Fox, which is undertaking 10 new series in the autumn and expanding its programming to five nights on its way to a full week. This was apparent during a series of sessions over the past two weeks with national TV reporters in their summer visit to Los Angeles for briefings on the fall season.

Fox is changing the rules of the network game, in terms of program content, ratings competition, advertising dollars and even the future of the syndication business, that land where the bigger bucks live.

One of the major battles of the fall, for example, is 8 p.m. Thursdays, currently in the possession of Bill Cosby and NBC. Fox has decided to pit its hottest series, “The Simpsons,” against “The Cosby Show.”

The implications are vast. For one, the networks now may be forced to make quicker decisions on marginal shows, what with this new hot breath on their backsides. Bob Iger, the chief programmer at ABC, related that on a couple of occasions last season, ABC finished a hitherto-unknown fourth place.

“That’s a cold shower in the morning, boy!

“Make that call to New York (for the previous night’s ratings) and you realize that you hear three names mentioned and you’re not on the list!

“All of a sudden, you’re fourth (in that time slot)--you know, taking up the rear. ABC in fourth place. Shock.”

In addition, Fox, with spicy counter-programming such as “Married . . . With Children,” has stirred controversies about the changing tastes of television. With “Married” climbing into the upper echelons of the ratings, the other broadcasters may be sensing that they likewise may need some racy programming to defend against this intrusion in their domain.

It has gotten dicey, especially when Brandon Tartikoff, NBC’s master programmer and one of the fiercer competitors in town, grumbled that Fox was pandering to “the worst aspects of the American television audience.” Not only did the comment raise anew the debate about dissolving tastes on TV--that anxiety never seems to go away--but it also constituted a breach of the usual respectful manner in which Hollywood executives deal with one another, at least in public.

Fox executives dodged the shots in their meeting with reporters. Peter Chernin, president of Fox Entertainment Group, was asked for his response and said that he didn’t have any except that “I don’t think that he (Tartikoff) meant it.”

Jeff Sagansky, president of CBS Entertainment, under fire for matters of questionable taste in some of his new programs, was asked his thoughts about Fox: “My only opinion is that I wish I had a few of those (shows). I’d take ‘The Simpsons’ and you probably wouldn’t have to twist my arm too much to take ‘Married . . . With Children.’ ”

During NBC interviews, taste also raised its head with Robert C. Wright, president and chief executive officer of NBC. A reporter reminded him of a similar meeting with writers a few years ago regarding “sensationalistic content” of NBC shows, specifically Geraldo Rivera’s notorious special on satanism. At that time, Wright referred to “a double standard,” saying that people rent R-rated movies or watch them on cable but have a different expectation for the broadcast networks.

The new question: Isn’t Fox getting away with “a lot of things that you (NBC) might have trouble with?”

Wright agreed but said that the different standard is with local stations. “The images that have been carefully created and developed over 30-40 years at the NBC-affiliated station level are vastly different from the images that have been created at the Fox local-station level,” he said. People have “different expectations” of the stations affiliated with the reigning networks than they do of the Fox stations, which tend to be much newer independents.

“They don’t do news, by and large,” Wright went on. “They don’t have a lot of community service or public affairs. And their image in the community is kind of flashy entertainment to begin with. So they’re not a bad fit for that issue. Not for us, though.”

Daniel Burke, president and chief executive officer of Capital Cities/ABC, saw serious financial problems posed by “Fox’s emergence” because of most of its affiliates are the top-rated independent in their respective market.

“And as they fill up more of that independent’s broadcast schedule, that leaves a less buoyant market for off-network syndicated programming,” he said, referring to shows that aired initially on the networks and then are sold to local stations for reruns. “And as network programming costs rise and there’s less and less hope of substantial return in the syndicated market, it can ultimately make a significant contribution to economic problems for everybody involved.”

That is, TV producers typically don’t cover their production costs with the “license fee” paid by a network and count on syndication to push them into profits.

So what Burke was saying was that Fox may be taking its bite out of the bottom line. And that’s the most painful bite of them all.