The Uphill Struggle to Bring Quality to TV Programming

Most critics and TV reviewers complain about how few good programs there are on television. But I am amazed that there are as many good programs as there are, knowing, as I do, what it takes to get any program on the air.

Those producers who actually wind up with a successful prime-time network series, TV movie or special have usually weathered an ordeal as difficult as trying to become the next President.

From thousands of ideas submitted to each network each year, only half a dozen to a dozen new shows premiere in prime time each season on each network, and only two or three survive to a second season. The odds are about the same for TV movies, miniseries and specials. There are far more ideas, writers and producers competing than there are available time slots.

What makes the process of getting a show on TV so difficult--and keeping it on if it’s a series--is that every project is made by committee. The committee consists of an array of executives, producers, writers, stars, lawyers, business affairs and financial watchdogs, agents, managers, technicians and editors. Some business and financial members of the committee have mandates that restrict or alter the creative process. Some committee members don’t understand or support the vision of the creator or writers. And some committee members are less creative or talented, but don’t know it.

Those producing prime-time network TV programs have to navigate between keeping the integrity of the original idea or story, and satisfying various network departments such as casting, legal, budgeting, and broadcast standards, which monitors accuracy, taste and acceptability of content.

The most difficult challenge is trying to produce the best program possible within the financial constraints of what the network or other money sources will pay. But even after satisfying all the network requests and requirements, there are still continuous creative differences to be resolved between various opinionated, outspoken and often excitable members of the production team.

Making television programs by committee may not be the best way creatively, but that’s the way it’s done in television. I often admire the lone artist who sits before a canvas and creates a painting guided only by imagination and talent, with no interference from anyone else.

The executive producer and producer of a series work with more than 100 creative and technical people, plus studio and network executives, to produce and deliver each episode on budget and on schedule--episodes that need to satisfy the network brass, sales people, advertisers, publicity and promotion people, and those who make the show. The critics and reviewers will then either praise or skewer the program and, finally, millions of viewers will watch (hopefully) and judge for themselves. If the viewers don’t like it, that series, which took about a year to create, sell and launch--amid turbulence and chaos--will be gone and forgotten by everyone except those who created it and worked so hard to try to make it succeed.

Producers emerge from many careers and professions. Often they are/were actors, directors, writers, lawyers, agents, managers, development executives and sales or business people. And producers exhibit all types of taste, ideas, personal goals and degrees of social responsibility.

Some producers will try to sell any idea they think they can sell. The show or the story is just a commodity, a means to an end, which is often to achieve wealth or power. Other producers will try to sell only those ideas or stories they are absolutely passionate about; their lives and their souls depend upon getting that project produced. But whether driven by money or artistic fulfillment, it takes a tenacious, obsessive, often fanatical commitment to weather the competitive storm and get the project on television.

I believe that quite a few television producers want to elevate the quality of commercial television with thought-provoking, uplifting, meaningful programs--exploring the human condition through drama, comedy or nonfiction to inspire viewers toward positive actions and choices. But many of these producers find that they are psychologically defeated or are forced by prolonged economic deprivation to sell or produce any program that will finally be bought by a network--however shallow or insignificant compared to their original goals.

But in spite of these hardships, some producers are able to survive and prosper, creating and producing programs or films that are popular, financially successful (in varying degrees), and considered by viewers and critics alike to be high-quality, enriching television (“MASH,” “Hill Street Blues,” “thirtysomething,” “The Wonder Years,” “Family Ties” and many more, past and present).

I call producers of these types of programs “mission” producers because they have a mission to be distinctive, to stand out, to say something important through comedy, drama, movies, documentaries or reality shows. Whenever you see the names of these executive producers--Marion Rees, Norman Rosemont, Steven Bochco, Gary David Goldberg and Joshua Brand & John Falsey, among others--you will almost always be treated to a series or movie that is truly special and memorable.

The creators and producers of prime-time programs on CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox know that these networks are not mandating suppliers to provide audience-enriching programs in order to get on the air. Network executives are seeking any ideas that will be popular and will appeal to the largest number of viewers--whether the ideas are worthwhile or insipid. In most cases, the number of viewers and their age group are more important to the advertisers and the networks than the program’s depth or the contribution it makes to our personal lives or to improving our society.

Critics want more high-caliber television programming. Some viewers want the same. But the majority of viewers don’t seek out so-called “meaningful” programs very often. If they did, then PBS, A&E;, Bravo and the Discovery Channel would be the most-viewed networks. It’s certainly easier to sell programs whose only goal is to entertain and allow viewers to relax and forget their troubles. In fact, that’s why most people watch TV--for pure entertainment.

But, I know from personal experience, it is possible to produce programs and films that are commercially successful and that give viewers something worthwhile, too. These programs will never dominate commercial network TV, but networks and producers can strive to provide an abundance of excellent, enriching programs that exist along with the rest. The opportunity to produce some of those meaningful programs is what keeps me excited and happy to be a commercial network TV producer.