As the World (of TV Execs) Turns

Like sands in the hourglass, so go the heads of our TV networks--an ongoing soap opera that causes its own inevitable drain on the product turned out.

This comes to mind as television critics begin assembling in Pasadena to interview network executives and stars. At this twice-annual event, executives trot out their new series, concoct alibis for what leaked into the mineral water to ruin the last batch and go to great lengths explaining why the future should be brighter.

Since assuming her current job 2 1/2 years ago, ABC Entertainment President Jamie Tarses has been the reluctant belle of this particular ball. Yet after enduring speculation in 1997 about whether she would retain her position, Tarses, at the ripe old age of 34, has graduated from debutante to elder stateswoman. She now has seniority among her peers, with every other broadcast network having named a new entertainment president since she began--three of those in the last two months.

That Tarses has outlasted so many others is a testament to perseverance (ABC hasn’t accomplished much ratings-wise) and testimonial to the near-constant state of churn that now characterizes the TV industry.

In part for that reason, the people who ostensibly decide what we see don’t seem to be having much fun anymore, despite their high-profile role as “gatekeepers” of the airwaves and booth-in-the-back corporate perks. Peeking behind that revolving door may even provide insight into the often-asked question, “Why is so much on television so bad?”

Those who currently hold the title network entertainment president have ascended to that post at a time when their influence has become more nebulous, obscured by the massive corporate behemoths in which they now reside. While never exactly mom-and-pop stores, television networks like NBC, ABC and Fox have become cogs serving the massive machinery of General Electric, the Walt Disney Co. and News Corp.

In such an environment, factors having nothing to do with quality or taste help determine what programs an executive orders and the public ultimately sees--or, more often these days, ignores.

An entertainment president may present a new prime-time lineup, but those with a keen eye can see the gloved hands of Disney’s Michael Eisner, News Corp.’s Rupert Murdoch and GE’s Jack Welch pulling the strings.

Sources say ABC, for example, has set aside a certain number of slots in its development roster specifically for series provided by Disney, just as the other networks endeavor to own more of the programs they broadcast. Networks air specials promoting movies from their sister studios, merchandise product tie-ins and televise games featuring studio-owned sports franchises.

Small wonder that critics frequently question motives, wondering as they scan similar-looking sitcoms if the right deal--as opposed to the best program--landed a coveted time slot.

Because it takes roughly a year to develop, produce and schedule a TV series, new executives have little impact over what the public sees right away. Even so, it’s not uncommon for rumors to surface that they will be removed before the first lineup generated entirely under their stewardship premieres.

Facing less job security than an NFL football coach, executives seek to impress their bosses. Unfortunately, they often do so by hurling money at problems, signing up big-name filmmakers whom they can’t even get on the phone, or the producers of a past or present series hit--people often spread too thin to equal their earlier achievement and too rich to care.

Television executives are also being asked to do more with less. There will be less money to chase such talent as TV’s economics constrict. With more networks joining the hunt, it’s easy to be lured into an extravagant agreement that doesn’t pan out, which by itself can hasten an executive’s demise.

If these companies now function in ways detrimental to what they air, external forces have changed as well. Advocacy groups have become more organized and sensitive. From “Ellen” to “Nothing Sacred” to “The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer,” pickets form outside studio gates voicing cries of immorality, religious persecution or racism at a moment’s notice--cries that would be more compelling had such responses to any chance-taking program not become so predictable.

Executives also find themselves under closer scrutiny as the media digs deeper into the process. The fascination with Tarses stemmed in part from her age (then 32) and gender, a novelty that has worn off since she became the first woman named to run a network entertainment division.

Minorities are woefully underrepresented in executive suites, but women have made steady strides. The new presidents at CBS and the WB network, Nancy Tellem and Susanne Daniels, are women, as is ABC-TV Network President Pat Fili-Krushel--in essence, the boss of Tarses’ boss.

Ageism remains a dicier issue in a business in which one of 1998’s top stories involved a 32-year-old writer and actress who lied about being 19. Today’s network presidents didn’t have to go that far, but they can doubtless hum “The Banana Splits” theme: Five of the six are under 40, with Daniels, at 33, the newest kid on the block.

Even when put out to pasture, former network heads usually stay in the game, merely stepping to the left or right. They become producers or go to work for studios, peddling programs to their successors--occasionally the very people who helped engineer their ouster.

Such rituals appear peculiar from the outside, sort of like one of those Merchant Ivory films, in which the rules of behavior are so strict no one can do what they really want, and everyone looks unhappy. If this were a TV movie or series pilot, only HBO would buy it.

ABC’s Tarses declined to be interviewed for this story, understandably preferring to avoid putting the spotlight on herself again. Still, shortly after arriving at ABC, she outlined the network’s decision to keep executives on shows they developed in a way that sums up what all this means not only for TV, but the people who watch it.

“From the executive side, I believe in accountability and responsibility and pride of ownership,” she said. “And if someone starts a show, they should see it through. If you are passing it off, there’s an opportunity to assign blame if it doesn’t work.”

Greater stability certainly might result in a little more success and less blame to go around. Not that there’s anything wrong with blaming the old regime. After all, if recent history holds true, the odds are pretty good anyone at a network today will be “the old regime” soon enough.