Networks Called for Interference

Feeling abused by the monolithic power of the major television networks and studios, an organization of Hollywood writers, producers and directors is hoping to curb what they see as unprecedented network interference in creative decision-making by drafting a bill of rights for people working in those areas.

The Caucus for Producers, Writers and Directors, an honorary organization consisting of roughly 170 members, has taken this step to shed light on ever-greater control network executives wield. The encroachment into their creative turf, the caucus says, has grown more onerous as the television industry consolidates through mergers and acquisitions.

Complaints about such intrusion include network executives vetoing relatively minor supporting actors in a TV movie, mandating where projects are shot or participating in the editing process. One producer recalled a middle-level executive demanding that a segment of music be changed because he didn’t like it.

Caucus leaders harbor few illusions about their position in this David and Goliath struggle, saying their only chance is to shame the networks enough to establish a dialogue on the issue. The effort nevertheless signals the first organized resistance to the increased control networks now exercise over all stages of production and distribution.

“The only thing they will respond to . . . is the suasion created by public embarrassment about the way they do business,” said caucus chairman Jerry Isenberg, a former network and studio executive who now serves as a professor at the USC School of Cinema-Television.

This effort to better define the parameters of producers’ rights occurs at a time of wrenching change in the way business is conducted in television, some suggest to the detriment of what gets on the air. Only one in six of last season’s new prime-time series survived to see a second year, and some within the industry lay part of the blame on greater interference by the networks in creative matters.

Many producers nevertheless remain reluctant to publicly criticize network practices, fearing reprisals in the form of refusing to buy programs from them. The fact some are now speaking out underscores the frustration that has welled up within their ranks.

A portion of the production community--including several onetime network executives--feel the level of network involvement in creative matters has never been worse. Producers contend the arbitrary exercise of power by network executives over who gets to produce, write and direct has homogenized programming in assembly-line fashion, inhibiting the development of risk-taking fare broadcasters need to compete in today’s environment.

“Quality gets diluted by the amount of interference in all directions,” said Fay Kanin, an Emmy-winning writer and former president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Kanin said she doesn’t expect change overnight, but “if we make enough noise, I think we can get it into people’s consciousness.”

The caucus will circulate its bill of rights to the talent guilds representing producers, writers and directors and plans to gradually begin documenting where networks have meddled excessively in creative affairs.

“When I was at the network, we respected producers because we assumed they might know something about that particular project that we might not know,” said Dennis Doty, an ABC veteran who, with partner Gilbert Cates, is producing this year’s Academy Awards. “It’s not that way today. You have people telling you, ‘You can’t have that cameraman. You can’t use that editor.’ ”

Producers have chafed about networks appropriating their traditional authority by dictating minute elements of a production. Sources say networks frequently reject a writer, director or actor based on preconceived notions without considering their body of work.

“It’s pretty bad,” added Fred Silverman, who ran the programming divisions at all three major networks before becoming an independent producer. “There are exceptions if you’re Steven Bochco or David Kelley, but for the average producer or writer, it’s very difficult.”

Amendments in the bill of rights seek to delineate the producer’s role in selecting who works on a project, protecting their ability to shape scripts and put forth a diversity of ideas.

A frequently cited example of abuse involves a producer told he could produce a two-hour prototype for a CBS series, based on a Louis L’Amour novel, only if he agreed to do so in concert with the network. CBS officials then overruled him on numerous aspects of the production, including the director and cast, before finally opting to bury the project.

Industry sources also say it’s become relatively common for networks to reject a proposed TV movie a producer brought them, then go forward with its own production based on the same material.

Networks have increased control as they have become the producer as well as the broadcaster of programming. ABC and Fox are both aligned with major studios in Disney and News Corp., respectively, and NBC and CBS have aggressively sought to keep pace by owning programs they broadcast.

For more than 20 years, networks were prohibited by federal rules from extracting an ownership stake in a program as a condition of putting it on the air. In 1995, those restrictions were phased out. The same year, Disney acquired ABC and Westinghouse bought CBS, as the TV industry rapidly contracted into a few players structured to control all aspects of production and distribution.

Adjusting to meet this shifting business model has fueled acrimony within the industry. Several veteran television producers have given up on the business, saying they are no longer able or willing to endure the dictatorial manner and tougher financial deals associated with producing for the networks.

“The business has changed so much in the last three to four seasons, I think it’s a good thing to redefine who does what and to whom, [because] the balance is out of whack,” said director Michael Zinberg, who previously oversaw in-house production for NBC. “I hope the networks say, ‘Maybe our [ratings] aren’t so strong that a singular point of view is working.’ I hope this starts a dialogue.”

Officials at the major networks declined comment, but network sources say those complaining have watched the industry pass them by and refuse to recognize how television has changed. The networks frequently point to an explosion of new channels offering producers innumerable outlets to sell programming.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, one network executive called the campaign “ludicrous,” saying these producers are honoring a time-honored tradition by blaming the networks for their own failings.

“What they’re really saying is we’re not buying enough of their ideas,” he said.

Many of those within the caucus are of a different generation, having made their fortune when just three networks ruled the landscape in the 1960s and ‘70s. Formed 25 years ago, the caucus has historically lobbied to protect the interests of independent producers on matters ranging from censorship of content to the right to own and profit from programs they produce.

The emphasis on creative rights doesn’t resonate strongly with many younger producers and executives. While the caucus’ membership includes Aaron Spelling, David L. Wolper, Marcy Carsey and the producers of such shows as “JAG,” “Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman” and “Coach,” relatively few of those currently hailed as the industry’s top series producers are listed among its ranks.

One producer who has quit the group characterized its actions as “toothless” and a waste of time, clinging to a past that no longer exists.

“Now that the government has said the networks can do whatever they want, they are going to do whatever they want. It’s all about the bottom line,” he said. “You get used to it, or you do something else.”