World’s Wildest Retreat?

News Corp. President Peter Chernin confessed at a media conference earlier this month that the company’s Fox network had grown too reliant on so-called “reality” programs, comparing the genre to “heroin” Fox injected when in need of a quick ratings fix.

The same day, a classified ad ran in The Times for “Now or Never,” a Fox special seeking “people with fears or phobias” who could be surprised at work, home or in the studio, then challenged to “face their fears” (of rats, flying or crowds, for example) on national television to win cash.

A mixed message? Fox maintains it’s not, but rather part of an ongoing process seeking to redefine “reality” on the network while shying away from the most critically derided recesses of its old playbook.

The success of ABC’s quiz show “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” and MTV’s “The Real World,” combined with the sullied reputation of video clip shows, is spurring a general shift away from real-life footage of mayhem, executives say, and toward what’s being dubbed “entertainment reality.”

This approach ranges from formats that producer Erik Nelson characterized as “deranged game shows”--get-rich contests such as CBS’ “Survivor,” which will strand a group of regular people on a deserted island near Borneo--to hidden-camera concepts using technological advancements to take “Candid Camera’s” milieu in edgier new directions.

How much this departs from specials and series featuring real-life video, such as Fox’s “When Animals Attack” and “World’s Wildest Police Videos,” remains to be seen; still, executives are going out of their way to distance themselves from such “shockumentary” forms, which former NBC West Coast President Don Ohlmeyer once chided as being “one step short of a snuff film.”

Although these programs are inexpensive to produce and often garner high ratings, many advertisers shun them or at least balk at matching sitcom and drama rates. Fox Entertainment President Doug Herzog suggested the network paid a less tangible price for being identified with material that a UCLA Center for Communications Policy study of TV content referred to as “the equivalent of auto-accident programming on network television.”

“From an image standpoint, there’s been damage,” he said.

Herzog maintains there is room for reality shows on Fox but stressed that the network’s goal is to find programs “that won’t send advertisers and affiliates screaming in the other direction.”

*

As proof, Fox recently scuttled plans to broadcast the crash of an unmanned jet airplane in the desert--a premise that drew fire from aviation officials and environmentalists as well as derision from TV critics. Fox also made a last-minute switch in November by yanking “Celebrities Out of Control”--a special featuring “caught on tape” footage of outraged stars--after running a TV Guide ad for the show.

“The idea is to wean ourselves off of the stuff we’ve been doing way too much of the last few years. . . . Whatever’s worth doing is worth overdoing, and we’ve overdone it,” Herzog said.

That said, Fox clearly has gaps to fill in a season where its new comedies and dramas have almost uniformly failed in the ratings. As a result, officials admit that this self-imposed 12-step program doesn’t mean the network will entirely forgo outlandish-sounding concepts.

A case in point, beyond the aforementioned “Now or Never,” would be “Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?,” which is currently soliciting women who will compete to wed a rich bachelor. Fifty finalists will vie for that honor in a two-hour special tentatively scheduled to originate from Las Vegas in February, culminating with the “winner” and the still-unidentified groom tying the knot on the air.

Sources say several producers passed on the project--conceived by Fox’s specials department, under Executive Vice President Mike Darnell--just as a number were leery about affixing their names to the plane crash stunt.

“It has a sort of pageant feel, combined with some game show elements,” said Don Weiner, one of the special’s producers. “We’re dealing with real people looking to find a mate. We wanted to present people that the public could relate to. We didn’t want to present Shaquille O’Neal as our bachelor and 50 Las Vegas showgirls.”

If such staged events appear to be in favor, producers say real-video shows--copied by local newscasts and syndicated magazines--have worn out their welcome, requiring networks to come up with kinder, gentler alternatives.

Nelson, whose credits include Fox’s “Busted on the Job” and CBS’ “World’s Most Dangerous Animals,” has seen the winds shift and begun focusing on comedy-oriented reality fare.

“I think it is possible to do an advertiser-friendly reality show as long as you carefully choose your topics,” he said. “There’s a way you can have your cake and eat it too. What you’ve got to hit with the viewer is ‘Oh my God, I can’t believe they’re doing that.’ If you can do that without demeaning people, you’re home free.”

*

What might qualify as demeaning or even dangerous, however, is in the eye of the beholder. Weiner stated that he wants “Marry a Multi-Millionaire” to be “serious” and “classy” but conceded some might not agree.

“I expected that we would get a lot more grief than we have,” he said.

Despite the fact that each major network will roll out a game show in January, executives say they must innovate and find new wrinkles on traditional formats. Moreover, programmers fear game shows ultimately can’t distinguish them from the myriad channels available in the same way “ER” or “Ally McBeal” does.

“Anybody can make a game show. They’re cheap,” Herzog noted. “We have to do better than game shows to go forward.”

As for harder-edged reality shows, even if Fox makes good on its pledge to reduce the dosage, few believe the most virulent strain will be eradicated. Low-cost programming continues to be vital to TV networks, as evidenced by UPN’s upcoming “I Dare You: The Ultimate Challenge,” a stunt-oriented series that will feature daredevil Evel Knievel as a commentator.

Yet while such programming is necessary from an economic standpoint, many in the TV industry still seem to view these shows like the embarrassing relative they must reluctantly invite to family gatherings.

“These are always the bench-warmers,” Nelson said. “They’re the lowly foot soldiers of sweeps. I’m not even sure they get ‘broadcast.’ They ‘escape.’ ”