Let’s Call It Pay-to-Be-Viewed

NEWS ITEM: ABC will auction off a panel seat on its late-night program “Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher.” Bidding via the Internet starts Friday at $500, and the money raised will go to an animal sanctuary.

*

This stunt immediately brought two thoughts to mind: first, that it establishes the distasteful precedent of allowing people to purchase exposure on TV shows; and second, it’s somewhat ironic anyone would pay to sit across from Maher, since based on “PI’s” guest list--often a panelist you recognize surrounded by three you don’t--there are plenty of celebrities you couldn’t pay to do so.

Still, the notion of letting people purchase a moment in the spotlight started the wheels turning. A prevalent trend involves ordinary people thrust into unusual situations, and some people will do just about anything for a taste of fame.

At the same time, networks are looking for new revenue streams and find it increasingly onerous to stand before the press trying to justify the programs they put on the air. Many appear to approach question-and-answer sessions with TV reporters and critics--underway in Pasadena as part of the Television Critics Assn. gathering--with the sort of enthusiasm usually reserved for a prostate exam. And reporters, quite frankly, can get pretty tired of listening to the same manicured responses.

Taking these together, the idea seems so simple: Spice up these proceedings by auctioning off the opportunity to stand in for a network executive during a press event.

“Experience the high-stakes excitement of being a real-life network executive!” the press release would exclaim. “Drink unwatered open-bar cocktails and enjoy shrimp (the big ones, mind you) and cracked crab. Remember, networks spare little expense schmoozing the press, even when they are pleading poverty with talent guilds and preparing to lay off their own employees.

“You’ll also get to spend time with reporters and have them follow you around a hotel barking questions your way. Hang around with journalists from prestigious publications, such as the New York Times and Fortune magazine, who will listen intently to your every word. Any way you slice it, this boils down to big fun!”

To someone who has never been seen on “Entertainment Tonight” or “Access Hollywood,” this would be a tremendous adventure. That characterization hardly applies to network officials, who currently occupy a rock-and-a-hard-place seat between corporate bosses with a win-at-all-costs mentality and journalists seeking explanations for lowbrow programming.

It’s also worth noting that the volume of entertainment journalism has grown exponentially in recent years thanks to Internet sites, radio services and other relatively new players crowding into the picture, making interplay between the press and programmers more unpredictable. While reporters and columnists from more traditional outlets generally bristle at this encroachment, at times even questioning from those sources seems subtly different in tone, calculated less to glean information that can be relayed to consumers than to see how much its target can be made to squirm.

Fox network officials, for example, couldn’t say much that wouldn’t sound a trifle disingenuous in regard to lustily diving into so-called reality programming after disavowing the genre’s more titillating side in the wake of its special “Who Wants to Marrya Multi-Millionaire?” last year.

As the questioning persisted, Fox’s representatives still felt obliged to be reasonably polite in fending off reporters, a limitation the winner of the “Be a Fox Executive” sweepstakes wouldn’t face. Instead, he could employ refreshing honesty in addressing questions regarding the propriety of “Temptation Island,” a show that tests romantic loyalty by tempting couples with slinky singles.

When a reporter asked, “Are you happy having chosen to put it on?” the stand-in executive--making his first and final press tour appearance--could say, “Am I happy that it’s generating a ton of publicity, which will probably help the ratings? You bet. Am I happy that I have to talk to you about it right now? Heck no. And by the way, what’s up with your hair?”

Similarly, the WB network announced plans a year ago to develop several shows with African American performers or writers, conveniently at the height of debate regarding television’s dearth of racial diversity.

When confronted about what happened to all those projects, as WB officials were over the weekend, the high bidder in the “Look at Me . . . at the WB!” contest could say, “What happens to 80% of all shows in development, Einstein? They stink and are never heard about again. At least it sounded good and gave you a story at the time, didn’t it?”

Given that so many people are intent on achieving such recognition--as evidenced by the thousands of applicants to take part in “Survivor II” and its ilk--these press conferences would provide a Rupert Pupkin-esque moment of glory for winners, much like the protagonist in Martin Scorsese’s “The King of Comedy.” The press, meanwhile, would have quotable comments, and network executives could reap the publicity benefits without enduring a verbal drubbing themselves.

In short, this is a concept with something for everybody, and in case any networks are wondering, it’s available for the right price. We realize the networks are sweating out a soft advertising market and those potential strikes, so just to be politically correct, we’ll open the bidding at $250.

NEWS ITEM, PART II: The grass-roots group Viewers for Quality Television has folded its tent, citing a lack of funds and declining participation.

While this was always a well-intentioned organization, one of the problems with promoting “quality” viewing is the implication that viewers for quality are somehow distinct from cave-dwellers who keep TV’s detritus on the air. Even NBC President Bob Wright recently intimated as much, quoted this week as saying the audience for NBC’s acclaimed Emmy-winning drama “The West Wing” would be less apt to watch the network’s World Wrestling Federation-run XFL football league.

Human nature, however, suggests this isn’t necessarily the case--that people can possess a taste for smartly written drama and still savor a little trash now and then.

By that standard, viewers couldn’t be presented with a clearer choice on the “quality” barometer than tonight at 9, when the options include an original episode of “The West Wing” and the debut of Fox’s exercise in waste management, “Temptation Island.”

What’s notable, based on a very informal survey, is a lot of people--some of whom, he says fidgeting nervously, even work here--want to see both and may tape one and watch the other. As with anything else, tastes vary not only from one person to another but within the same person at any given time. These desires are by no means mutually exclusive--just as many moviegoers likely saw the Oscar-winning “American Beauty” one weekend and the pastry-defiling “American Pie” the next.

In light of this schizophrenia, it might be tempting to merge the two impulses--perhaps have a provocatively dressed woman waltz into the fictional President Bartlett’s office on “The West Wing” and attempt to seduce him, which would be a sure-fire ratings draw. Then again, the producers might find themselves accused of imitating an earlier “reality” show--one the newsmagazines and all-news channels once carried almost nightly.

*

Brian Lowry’s column appears on Wednesdays. He can be reached by e-mail at brian.lowry@latimes.com.