Is It Bad Shows or More Choices?

Given television networks’ fondness for pithy promotional phrases like “Must See TV” and “TV is Good,” one executive recently joked that a more truthful slogan for his network would be, “We stink less.”

Actually, he used a more colorful synonym for “stink,” but in any event, he’s right. Much of television does stink, and network ratings--by the standards of even a few years ago--aren’t likely to remind anyone of roses either.

As recently as 1992, NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox combined for almost three-quarters of available audience during prime time’s “premiere week.” This season, those four totaled 57%, and even some popular series are exhibiting alarming drops compared to a year or two ago.

Faced with such evidence, the logical assumption is that the networks have screwed up, that programming quality and ratings have plummeted together. Even many TV executives would agree, insisting they can program their way out of this funk, making pronouncements inspired by sources ranging from President Clinton (“It’s the programming, stupid”) to the movie “Field of Dreams” (“If we build it, they will come”).

The image coalescing a mere two weeks into the 1998-99 TV season also demonstrates that the explosion of options provided by new broadcast networks, cable, the Internet, VCRs and satellite dishes has fundamentally changed the landscape, making TV viewers far less forgiving than they once were.

So does the blame rest primarily with network programmers for serving up turkeys, or are they being washed over by a technological tide that no programming--past or present--could hope to withstand?

Clearly, poor programming choices--often dictated by business considerations rather than creative merit--have played a part in the networks’ woes. With near-scientific precision, a show like last fall’s “Hiller and Diller” instantly transformed millions of “Home Improvement” viewers into channel surfers.

In similar fashion, NBC’s Thursday night steamroller is slowing in part because the network squandered “Seinfeld’s” prime by tossing one mediocre program after another into the half-hour behind it, generating also-rans such as “Madman of the People” and “Fired Up” as well as “Suddenly Susan” and “Caroline in the City”--survivors, perhaps, but by no means worthy successors.

The networks have done little to help themselves this season either. The vast majority of new shows offer a strong incentive to reach for a book, or begin flipping idly through the dial, pausing only to identify which Chuck Norris movie the USA network is showing.

Some executives fear that even programs opening with promise won’t be able to sustain that momentum, especially with the pool of writing talent spread thin in a six-network environment, meaning fourth or fifth episodes may be a far cry from the pilot that had critics drooling.

That said, things actually weren’t a whole lot better in the good old days. People idealize the past, looking back fondly on great television shows of the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s while ignoring the many horrid ones that surrounded them--some of which fared quite well ratings-wise, in part because viewers had only three channels from which to choose.

“The Mary Tyler Moore Show” and “The Dick Van Dyke Show” were terrific then and hold up still, but 20 years ago a huge number of people actually sat through “Dukes of Hazzard” and “The Ropers.” Would they have done so if “The Larry Sanders Show,” “La Femme Nikita,” “South Park,” a dozen movies, five news/discussion programs and three live sporting events played simultaneously on competing channels?

“You cannot get away with mediocrity anymore,” said one television writer. “If you go back and look at the series that were big hits, a lot of those were mediocre shows.”

With the vast menu at its fingertips, the public attention span has shriveled. Feeling more pressed for time than ever before has also made some people more selective and less able or willing to bond with yet another TV show.

Christopher Keyser, the co-creator of Fox’s “Party of Five,” summed up the evolving way people interact with television at a recent panel by saying even he--when approaching a new series--asks himself, “Is this a commitment I can really make? I care about 33 characters already on TV. Can I care about 10 more?”

Beyond the issue of sampling new fare, viewers seem to dismiss programs faster than ever and are more reluctant to give them a second chance.

“The toughest thing to do is get people back to a show that they’ve seen,” one network executive said, underscoring the frustration--and fear--this has fostered. “After they’ve seen it once, they feel like they’ve voted in their mind.”

Even airing after a popular series offers no long-term security for new programs, which once prospered largely by default. Indeed, thousands now skip directly from a favorite show to their computer, where they pore over minute details with like-minded fans from across the country in Internet chat rooms--another unfathomable reality in the days when folks blithely watched “Diff’rent Strokes,” then hung around for “Silver Spoons.”

Before the current season began, NBC West Coast President Don Ohlmeyer took exception to attributing declining audience share to failure on the networks’ part. With so many channels now clamoring for attention, he suggested, the world has simply changed.

“For people to think that a business that has developed 200 new competitors is going to remain stable and keep its share of business is a faulty premise to start from,” he said.

Intuitively, this makes sense. People didn’t stop eating chocolate, strawberry and vanilla when Baskin-Robbins rolled out 31 ice cream flavors, but they probably ate less of those three while enjoying the wider variety suddenly available.

To a certain extent, then, it is “the programming, stupid,” or more precisely, the stupid programming. The major networks have scooped up too many unpalatable sitcoms to duck their share of blame--emboldening people to watch a few minutes and decide “Been there, seen that.”

Still, it’s also true that the unprecedented pace of technological innovation during the last two decades means building it doesn’t necessarily mean they will come. First, the networks have to get the audience’s attention, and then, increasingly, wow them with that very first bite.