What Is ‘Family’ TV?

Advertisers had a chance to sit beside television programmers and stars at the Beverly Hilton Hotel last week and engage in one of Hollywood’s most popular exercises--patting oneself on the back--for their decision to champion “family-friendly” programming. Recognizing a can’t-lose public-relations opportunity when presented one, CBS is televising the event, dubbed the Family Television Awards, as a prime-time special Friday.

Yet while the kudos flew freely, the awards themselves--presented by an advertiser consortium called the Family Friendly Programming Forum--only underscored the schizophrenia currently associated with the “family” label, which has become so politicized that any discussion of “family-friendly programming,” as innocuous as that sounds, invariably satisfies no one.

What does “family viewing” really mean, after all, in the context of today’s electronic entertainment mall, where the traditional image of Mom, Dad and 2.3 children gathering around the hearth to watch TV together is gradually being driven to extinction by technological and lifestyle changes?

A truer picture of the current environment--where most homes have at least as many TV sets as occupants and receive more than 60 channels--finds such communal viewing to be an increasingly rare occurrence. With cable networks narrowly catering to specific tastes, it has instead become commonplace for Mom to watch in one room while Dad views sports in another and the 2.3 kids, depending on their ages, consume MTV or Nickelodeon in a third.

Moreover, some of the programs being viewed by families together--from “ER” to “South Park”--hardly fit any stereotypical notion of family entertainment.

As a result, family-friendly programming has become a code term truly understood only by whoever is handling the encryption. To the advertisers who launched the Family Friendly Programming Forum, the goal is wholesome, unobjectionable entertainment unlikely to antagonize a single potential paying customer. Quality shows such as “ER” and “Boston Public”--which dabble in controversial issues, from AIDS to guns to homosexuality--don’t necessarily fit that mold.

At the same time, the advertisers honored “Survivor” as TV’s top “reality” program--a series Charlene C. Giannetti and Margaret Sagarese, co-authors of “Parenting 911,” have urged parents not to let their children watch. In an article for The Times, the writers accused the series of promoting “warped values” and suggested its dog-eat-dog mentality is “poisonous for our young adolescents.” But hey, 29 million people tuned in each week, so it’s a great place to sell athletic shoes.

To others, “family” evokes simpler times, connoting black-and-white programs free of (or perhaps more accurately, relatively lacking in) sexual content, violence and crude language.

Such was the tone last week as the Parents Television Council, flanked by Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), held a news conference to present results of a study regarding prime-time content from 8 to 9 p.m. Given that the PTC’s raison d’etre is to lobby for establishing a “family viewing hour” purged of vulgarity, it’s hardly surprising the report--easily synopsized by its title, “The Sour Family Hour: 8 to 9 Goes From Bad to Worse”--presented evidence to support that crusade.

Beyond politics, the underlying problem with the PTC’s aims is that even programs that ostensibly promote “family values” today raise their own set of issues.

Indeed, the Family Television Awards presentation tacitly reinforced this point, shifting from clips of Tom Bosley in “Happy Days” and Shirley Jones in “The Partridge Family” to the irreverent “Malcolm in the Middle” (its outstanding comedy honoree) and best new series “Gilmore Girls,” whose premise involves a thirtysomething mother raising a child she bore out of wedlock in her teens--a problem those earlier TV parents never had to face.

At one point, Jones could be seen chatting with Jane Kaczmarek, who plays the fearsome mother in “Malcolm”--a baton pass from the free-wheeling ‘70s to the grittier present if there ever was one.

In similar fashion, “The West Wing”--a program that seems a far cry from “The Waltons” or “Touched by an Angel,” yet which in its own way may be just as reassuring--was chosen best drama. Janel Moloney (the cast member designated to represent the show, which seemingly collects new honors every week) said it’s thrilling “to know that parents are sitting down and watching [the show] with their children,” even though that’s only the case, percentage-wise, in a relatively small number of homes.

Given that the “family programming” stamp is pulled in so many different directions, it’s no surprise that the entertainment industry seems adrift in solving the dilemma, from getting parents to attend “family movies” with their kids or view family series in prime time.

Margaret Loesch, president of Hallmark Channel U.S., which adopted the name of its parent company (it was formerly the Odyssey network), this week--noted that for many, the term family has become synonymous with kids programming, a limiting image Hallmark wants to avoid; rather, the goal is to target adults while assuring them they will be presented programs “done with such care and taste that you can have your family watch it with you.”

So it goes for most companies, where “family” is meant to signify general entertainment. It’s unclear, however, just how well that actually works as a marketing niche, when the fastest-growing cable channels target specific interests--from cartoons to golf to food--unlikely to inspire much family viewing.

Even industry heavyweights have struggled with this riddle. The Fox Family Channel has gone through a series of stops and starts from a programming standpoint, and its recent sale to Walt Disney Co.--which has said the channel will be dubbed ABC Family, whatever that means--suggests even the proprietor of one of the world’s most recognizable brand names is concerned about scaring away potential viewers by affixing the Disney name.

According to Loesch, there is a vast pool of adults who don’t necessarily want prime time homogenized but feel that certain content is too salacious, too racy for early in the evening. “They’re saying, ‘Look, I’m not a prude .... But is this really necessary?”’ she noted.

Thanks to such viewers, Loesch maintains, there are opportunities to bring families together to watch big events and selected franchises. Still, actually selling the idea of “family” remains a formidable task, both politically and commercially--one reason, Loesch acknowledged, that she feels fortunate to have Hallmark’s vast resources behind her.

“Otherwise,” she said, “I’d feel like I’m going up against that wave in ‘The Perfect Storm.”’