The Theory of Emmy Positivity

Someone recently complained to a colleague that yours truly is too unremittingly negative, which is probably true. The assumption has been that a little properly directed negativity helps balance the gushiness spewing from the likes of local KABC-TV “entertainment guru” George Pennacchio or bubble-headed E! network host Jules Asner--a cascade of froth that any five cranky columnists would be hard-pressed to dilute.

That said, in an effort to turn over a new leaf (or just to look at the brighter side of one), it seemed fair to offer a few helpful, proactive observations regarding the Emmy Awards as well as the organizations responsible for handing them out: the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, based in North Hollywood, which orchestrates the nighttime Emmys; and its New York counterpart, the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, which presents the daytime, sports and news awards.

Of course, doing that first requires delineating where things are fouled up, but with any luck positivity lurks below. (Besides, being positive is tricky, and one must walk before he can run.)

For starters, it’s time that everyone laid off the awards themselves, as each year’s prime-time nominations invariably give way to an Emmy-worthy round of whining.

The latest moans began shortly after this year’s nominations were unveiled Thursday, emanating from those behind the WB network’s “Gilmore Girls” and “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” (the latter is bound for UPN), who actually invoked the idea of “reverse ageism” to explain why academy voters didn’t recognize their series.

Beyond the fact that these decisions are subjective, it’s worth noting that the Emmys, like anything else, are in part a popularity contest. By that measure, a quick scan of Nielsen Media Research data found “Buffy” and “Gilmore Girls” at 104 and 113, respectively, among 137 prime-time series broadcast during the last season--delivering a smaller audience combined than “Bette,” “The Fugitive” and “The Michael Richards Show,” which were all canceled.

Of course, these programs do fine with those under age 25, but they face an obvious handicap in this race unless Emmy voters start letting the kids fill out their ballots. On the flip side, it’s doubtful that “The West Wing” cleans up in Teen magazine polls, and given the rampant ageism practiced in hiring older people, even raising the issue of “reverse ageism” is borderline offensive.

So, feel free to keep complaining, but only if you are determined to look like spoiled, pathetic losers.

In similar fashion, the major broadcast networks continue to chafe at HBO’s “It’s Not TV, It’s HBO” slogan and the horde of nominations amassed by the pay channel, whose advantages include R-rated creative freedom, lavish budgets, huge marketing campaigns aimed at voters, and producing fewer installments of hit series (only 13 episodes a year of “The Sopranos,” for example, compared with two dozen of “ER” or “The West Wing”).

These charges of an uneven playing field may indeed by true. Unfortunately, no one really cares except the executives grousing about it. To everyone else, these programs all spill out of the same box, and anything of high quality that emerges from TV’s creative maze is laudable.

Yes, the Emmys are imperfect, as are all awards shows. Yet if it’s a choice between slightly stodgy Emmy voters and most of the alternatives--such as the 80-some-odd journalists who dole out the Golden Globes--the old gal looks pretty good, warts and all.

As for the academy itself, injecting new blood into the organization would be easier if those involved stopped running things under a veil of secrecy. That would be a marked departure for a group approaching its upcoming election the way the College of Cardinals handles choosing the pope.

The Times previously documented at some length infighting within the academy, but a separate issue involves its tendency to sweep issues under the rug. The latest case in point is the election for new officers, which pits writer-producer Bryce Zabel against the UCLA Center for Communication Policy’s director, Jeff Cole, for the position of chairman--a voluntary post that will nevertheless be instrumental in charting the academy’s future.

Seeking to preempt concerns about a lack of hands-on production experience, Cole sent a letter to governors detailing his qualifications, including a description of a three-year stint more than two decades ago under director John Rich, where he “ended up running the company with him

The trouble is, Rich--whose credits include “All in the Family” and “Maude”--has another version of events. In a subsequent letter to governors, he said Cole served as an intern, calling Cole’s characterization of his role “off the charts in hyperbole and inventiveness.”

When he read Cole’s letter, Rich said in an interview, “I must confess, first my jaw went slack, then I went ballistic .... I would never allow him to talk to a writer unless he was delivering something.”

Although this is hardly reason to call in an army of lawyers to argue about hanging chads, one would at least think that academy governors might want a more formal explanation than the follow-up letter Cole distributed--in which he stated that the two simply remember things differently and that Rich “viewed anyone who ever worked in his company, other than himself, as an intern”--before casting their votes. At this point, however, the matter is passing without any public discussion other than candidate statements scheduled for Aug. 1, a week before the election.

Fortunately, the West Coast academy still looks far better than its Eastern counterpart. After the two underwent a bitter split in 1977, the New York academy experienced years of mismanagement under its late president, John Cannon, whose recent death has rekindled talk of reuniting the two groups.

If a full-blown merger of the academies is too much to ask, those steering the Eastern branch should acknowledge they have credibility problems and seek an arrangement with the West Coast--perhaps creating an alliance affording them a measure of autonomy while bringing the Emmy under one somewhat less leaky roof.

Finally, the networks themselves can play a part in polishing up the Emmy by paying a reasonable sum when the academy renews its broadcast deal for the nighttime awards next year.

As it stands, the West Coast academy receives a fee of roughly $3 million a year from the four major networks, who share the awards on a rotating basis. That’s a puny fraction of what award showcases such as the Grammys and Oscars currently garner despite respectable Emmy ratings.

Because self-interest is the name of the game, the networks should know they’ll benefit from prying open their pockets, since increasing the telecast fee is preferable to having the academy traipse around hat in hand pleading for money. Instead, the networks can allow the organization to preserve its dignity, sponsor programs that enhance its prestige and ensure that the Emmy--gilded in 53 years of history--remains worth winning.

Admittedly, this column appears to have stumbled a bit on the road to niceness, so perhaps being cheery isn’t as easy as it looks. If everyone adheres to these suggestions, however, the Emmys will produce fewer groans and less grumbling in the years ahead. And regarding that, at least, I’m positive.

*

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