The Rise, Fall of Bold Programming : Television: Daring series dreamed up for the new season have been unable to match the success of ‘The Simpsons.’

How receptive is America to bold programming?

Hair-trigger analysts cited last season’s incredible ratings success of “The Simpsons”--on a Fox network with fewer and generally weaker affiliates than its competitors--as evidence of viewer thirst for brazenly creative programs that swim against the mainstream.

If that were true, then other such series--from “The Tracey Ullman Show” to “The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd”--would have met the same mass success instead of languishing in the ratings.

No. Viewers fell for “The Simpsons” for reasons no easier to define than those for the popularity of, say, “Roseanne” or “Who’s the Boss?” Both have flourished despite being strikingly conventional.

“The Simpsons” is wonderful. It is funny. It is unique. But so were earlier series that flopped in the Nielsens.

Which brings us to the fall season, a most unusual season with not only more new series than ever, but also many more bold ones than usual. And where did these daring series place in last week’s Nielsens?

“Lifestories,” 48th; “Ferris Bueller,” 52nd; “Evening Shade,” 68th; “Cop Rock,” 80th; “Hull High,” 82nd; “Parker Lewis Can’t Lose,” 86th, and “American Chronicles,” tied for last at 92nd. And holdover “Twin Peaks,” arguably the most unusual series in all of TV, ranked 69th.

So does this mean, “The Simpsons” not withstanding, that America automatically rejects bold programs? Again, generalizing about an entire genre is risky, but the answer has to be no.

It’s possible that the above named series would not crack the Top 30 in any season. But here is some speculation about why they haven’t in this season:

The world is in turmoil. The United States seems on the brink of war in the Middle East. The economy is in shambles, the federal government in chaos. Feeling uneasy and unsure about themselves and their universe, Americans are even more conservative than usual now and are in no mood for experimenting, either in their personal lives or in the TV programming they watch.

Searching for stability in those areas they can control, such as their TV choices, they opt for prime time’s Linus blankets, the tried and true. Thus, they recoil from the programs that most challenge them, and, as a result, what little creative vitality there is in TV falls victim to the larger global disorder.

Well, there’s always next season.

All this chatter about PBS using “The Civil War” as a model for future programming strategy is just a howl.

Packaged as an 11-hour “event” over five nights instead of strung out weekly, this extraordinary documentary series drew record ratings for PBS, raising hopes at the network that with a regular strategy of “event” programming it could score like this all the time. Yes, maybe turn “The Frugal Gourmet” into an “event.”

Earth to PBS! Earth to PBS! Programs of magnitude can’t be mass-produced and delivered on an “event” assembly line. Has everyone forgotten that an “event” of the stature of “The Civil War” comes along about once a millennium?

And by the way, isn’t there a down side to this PBS emphasis on blockbusters at the possible expense of smaller programs that may be less widely popular, but are just as important?

Bravo for the Motion Picture Assn. of America’s new NC-17 adults-only rating. The system for rating theatrical movies has long needed refining.

What this points out, however, is the desperate need for a television rating system. Not a system like the Nielsens that measures audience size, but one that labels program content, ensuring that viewers aren’t surprised or jolted by the unexpected. And the rating system should apply not just to TV movies, but to all programs.

Here are some ideas:

* YFA-10. You’ll Fall Asleep in 10 Minutes.

* DB. Don’t Bother.

* X-1. X-ray Vision Needed to Find a Single Joke.

* W-3. Written by Three-year-olds.

* CGYN. Could Give You a Nosebleed.

* IYLTSDI. If You Laugh at This See a Doctor Immediately.

* WGMWW. Wear Gas Mask While Watching.

* TSTKDIAO. Talk Show That Kitty Dukakis Isn’t Appearing On.

* KPN. Keep Pillow Nearby.

* SAWU-60. Set Alarm to Wake Up in an Hour.

* RKC9NWNSD. Rare KCAL Channel 9 Newscast With No Story on Disney (its parent company).

What is absolutely the worst commercial on the air, hands down, no contest, nothing else even close?

The Sports Illustrated spot offering a phone that looks like a sneaker as a giveaway with every subscription. Sports Illustrated has a tradition of revolting TV commercials, but now has outdone itself.

This is the commercial in which mindless yuppie after mindless yuppie is just amazed that there could be such a thing as a sneaker phone. Really, huh? Really, huh? And it’s free? Really? It’s free? Really? And it’s really a phone and not a sneaker? And I talk into it like this? Gosh, really? And it’s free?

Is this an obnoxious marathon or what? Forget about talking into a sneaker, these clods couldn’t even tie one.

What is the second-worst commercial? Any commercial with John Madden in it. Talk about overexposure, enough of this guy already. The caveman act is so old it has whiskers.

And the third-worst commercial? Any commercial with Bo Jackson in it. Jackson is one of those people who become celebrities without anyone quite knowing why. There are better baseball players and better football players, and surely there are athletes with more charisma in front of a camera.

What Jackson has, besides a shrewd agent, is a catchy name, as in Bo knows . . . . Would he get these commercials endorsements if he had another name? Horace knows? Mortimer knows? Nahhhhh.

Bo knows this column should now end.