Networks Are Taking the Proper Approach

Given Hollywood’s mostly deserved reputation as a place rife with venality and self-obsession, there is no small element of surprise in making the observation that the television industry has largely gotten it right in toeing the delicate line drawn by the terrorist attacks that occurred four weeks ago.

Sunday’s cancellation of the nighttime Emmy Awards, coming mere hours after U.S. and British forces began to wage a military offensive in Afghanistan, represented the latest demonstration of self-restraint and levelheadedness by the entertainment business--forgoing a major self-promotional vehicle at least in part out of a sense of propriety.

Much has been made of whether the TV industry should have proceeded with the Emmys at all, while others (including “Saturday Night Live”) lampooned the ostensible goal of transforming one of Hollywood’s typical orgiastic displays of celebrity into a more stately and subdued affair.

Yet ripe as the television business is for satire and second-guessing, Nielsen Media Research ratings and independent audience surveys appear to reinforce that the major networks have done about as well as could be expected in gauging public sentiment under the circumstances--and that the public has a strong desire to consume its usual assortment of TV confections, albeit with a heightened interest in news.

The latest support for this conclusion comes from Frank N. Magid Associates, a firm that provides research and consulting services to the entertainment industry.

A Magid survey of 1,000 U.S. adults, conducted from Sept. 24 to 27, not surprisingly found that most Americans said they were watching more news and wanted to be kept abreast--even if that meant breaking into regular programming--of the latest developments.

Yet roughly two-thirds of those polled also stated that the terrorist attacks had not fundamentally changed what they want to see on television.

Those surveyed said that they intend to continue watching their favorite programs, and that they don’t feel guilty about viewing what might appear to be trifles despite the dire nature of recent events.

Mike Hais, a senior analyst at Magid, suggested that people compartmentalize their viewing habits, accepting television’s dual role as a source of entertainment as well as information.

“What they were looking for from television were the same things they had always wanted,” Hais said of the study.

The Magid survey does suggest that the precise mix of those elements may change, perhaps placing more emphasis on serious news and thoughtful drama.

Roughly a quarter of respondents also agreed with the idea that fictional accounts of terrorism, hijackings and other potentially sensitive material should be excised from TV plots.

Nearly a third felt such depictions should be toned down or rendered less sensational.

In short, the survey’s findings roughly mirror the strategy broadcasters have pursued since the attacks.

Programmers provided more news, running extensive coverage without commercials for several days.

They gradually reintroduced regular entertainment programs.

They reacted--and in some instances overreacted--to mitigate scenes that might be considered callous by even obliquely evoking images of the terrorist strikes.

They temporarily tabled competitive considerations to stage a joint disaster-relief telethon.

And by postponing the Emmys, they recognized the need for timely and extensive news coverage as events warrant.

Prime-time ratings data also illustrate that people remain hungry for their favorite programs as a means of getting back to normal, as seen in record ratings for such established series as “Friends,” “Everybody Loves Raymond,” “The West Wing” and “Law & Order.”

At the same time, many new programs have struggled.

“‘Normal’ means watching shows you always watch, not new shows,” said Magid Senior Vice President Jack MacKenzie.

This isn’t to say that television has been free of sensationalism, misguided self-promotion and excess.

As one small example, consider the newsmagazine “Extra,” which ran an on-air promo last week implying the show could help viewers to recognize if they have terrorists living next door--the sort of shrill, lowbrow enticement such shows and too many local newscasts employ in their desperate flailing to corral viewers, betraying more commercial zeal than common sense.

Nor is it entirely clear that what people say will actually guide their viewing choices in the days and months ahead.

After all, if self-reported accounts were the sole basis of determining which programs galvanize the public, “Masterpiece Theatre” would be far more popular while “Jerry Springer” and wrestling would have long ago been chased from the airwaves.

Most industry observers agree that it is too soon to draw any sweeping conclusions about a tidal shift in public appetites--among them, if the mediocre ratings generated in recent weeks by unscripted programs, such as ABC’s “The Mole” and CBS’ “The Amazing Race,” indicate that abundant video of real-life tragedy has diminished interest in so-called reality programming.

That theory will receive its most formidable test this week, with the premiere of CBS’ third edition of “Survivor.”

Still, the programming discipline and financial sacrifices displayed by broadcasters thus far reflect a sense of public service and corporate citizenship that have too often been lacking on the major networks, which, in less precarious times, have exhibited a far greater commitment to the bottom line than any such ideals.

So whether the Emmys are formally presented this year or simply shipped out minus the standard pomp and circumstance, if those within the TV industry can sustain the level of conscientiousness brought to bear in recent weeks, they will be able to say when the next awards roll around that they have truly achieved something worth honoring.