Would Spock Have Canceled ‘Good & Evil’?

We are what we create. So it was inevitable that Thursday’s death of “Star Trek” creator Gene Roddenberry would move many in the media to mention that he made television “boldly go where no man has gone before” or that he himself has now been “beamed up.”

That “Star Trek” was one of television’s most original, compelling and enduring series is a legacy that hardly needs restating.

One element of the “Star Trek” legacy, however, is often ignored: that long-range popularity and profits for TV series are not always reflected in initial Nielsen ratings.

Let’s remember that “Star Trek” barely survived its first of three seasons on NBC in 1966-67, and that it became a mega-hit only later, in syndication. Nor was it the only series that ultimately rewarded patience after a tenuous start--”60 Minutes,” “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” “Hill Street Blues,” “Cheers” and “Designing Women” being just some of those that found bright light after initially encountering darkness.

But yes, we are what we create. Having clipped attention spans with their fast-food programming strategies, the networks are terrified that restless viewers will become channel-switching demons if not continually shocked, titillated or riveted by something on the screen. Yet in deciding the fates of programs, network executives themselves continue to display impatience and hair-trigger hastiness.

With ABC, NBC and CBS battling Fox and cable for viewers in the present soft economy, moreover, the potential increases for new series getting quickly zapped, the way viewers zap programs with their remote-control devices. This is the equivalent of a quarterback being panicked into throwing an interception under a big rush from opposing linemen.

ABC, for example, verifying that it lacks not only the patience of Job but perhaps also the logic of Spock, last week canceled “Good & Evil” after giving the new comedy only five airings to prove itself against very tough competition.

It doesn’t matter whether others who sampled “Good & Evil” found its family cosmetics empire as funny or its cast as comedically adroit as I did. What does matter is this: As noted by series creator Susan Harris, ABC sentenced “Good & Evil” to an electronic firing squad by giving it a 10:30 p.m. Wednesday time slot where it immediately faced an awards show plus the baseball playoffs and World Series. ABC compounded that mistake by making no move to test the series at alternate times.

Unfairness? The same principle would apply to “Man of the People” and “Pacific Station,” should those worthy new Sunday-night comedies never return from the hiatus that NBC is putting them on because a few outings produced puny ratings. Ditto for the hiatus-bound new CBS comedies “Teech” and “Princesses,” although the latter is possibly beyond redemption after the withdrawal of one of its three co-stars, Julie Hagerty.

Ratings for “Good & Evil” were undeniably bad; the comedy ranked 77th among the 101 prime-time series that have been broadcast this season. It may be that the series, which ABC says will air at least once more, would never have found an audience sufficient to satisfy the network. At this stage, though, that’s an unknown.

It may also be that contributing to ABC’s decision were attacks on “Good & Evil” by advocates for the visually impaired, who were outraged by a slapstick character on the series (played by Mark Blankfield) whose recent blindness renders him a destructive bumbler.

If that was a contributing factor, then double shame on ABC, for the protests themselves are outrageous in their assumption that the Blankfield character ridicules blindness. Instead, he is only one of many farcical components of a series that is obviously not meant to be taken seriously.

Would anyone ever be led to believe that his broadly played pratfalls and near-lethal white cane were at all representative of the blind? You might as well argue that Teri Garr’s scheming, unethical, amoral character on “Good & Evil” gives a bad name to all cosmetics executives.

It’s one thing to advocate more and fairer portrayals of disabled people as being part of mainstream life, and that actors with disabilities be given a shot at playing them. It’s quite another to demand that, to correct old stereotypes, TV characters with disabilities forever be as dignified as LeVar Burton’s blind space traveler on the syndicated “Star Trek: The Next Generation.”

That is science fiction.

Unfortunately, a story going around about Paramount’s syndicated tabloid series “Hard Copy” may not be.

There are news reports of “Hard Copy” reporter Eames Yates offering $500,000 on behalf of Paramount to the woman accusing William Kennedy Smith of rape. The money would buy her cooperation in making a film about the event.

An alleged reporter acting as middleman for his parent company’s movie offer to a woman whose story he’s covering? Yates has declined to comment. If the reports are true, however, then the “Hard Copy”-fostered myth that it has any news credibility at all is forever put to rest.

And speaking of credibility--or lack of it--new author Ollie North is on the media circuit in a big way, working the crowd, touting viewers on his just-released version of the Iran-Contra affair. And once again, selling himself.

North has been working his way down the national TV hierarchy, starting with ABC’s “Nightline,” moving on to CNN’s “Larry King Live” and then to “Donahue.” Like the ice cream man, he’ll soon be appearing in your neighborhood.