|
|
is family programming
Just what is it anyway? Depends on who's talking.
By David Everitt
"Weakest Link" is now an example of family programming. We know this because PAX, a family channel, will be airing re-runs of the NBC quiz show starting in June.
I guess I’m missing something.
I was under the impression that a family show was something you’d willingly watch with your spouse and kids.
I try to conjure up the image of curling up on the couch with my wife and boys to endure an entire half-hour of this stuff. But the image just won’t come into focus.
Okay, I know, the program has no sex and it has no violence. But is that really all there is to this family programming thing? Doesn’t it matter at all that this series may be the most repellent show on TV?
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of those killjoys who goes around moaning that Anne Robinson is a cultural disgrace, some ghastly freak of nature who should be banned from the airwaves.
I’m not so judgmental. I say live and let live. If people want to watch this unconscionable, four-eyed skank, then that’s their business.
But family programming?
I called PAX to see if I could find out the network’s thinking behind this decision. That is, their thinking about how this show fits in with their otherwise wholesome lineup, as opposed to their thinking that this is a way to capitalize on their relationship with NBC.
But I was told that Jeff Sagansky, PAX’s president and CEO, was not commenting on the network’s decision, beyond what he had already said in the press release announcing the "Weakest Link" reruns.
His statement in that release was: "Viewers have obviously taken to this unique, fast-paced and witty program."
Witty?
I don’t know, in my dictionary it says that witty means "having, showing or characterized by wit; cleverly amusing."
What has Anne Robinson ever said that was remotely amusing? I happen to be a fan of insult humor, but there’s a difference between skewering people in a funny way and acting like somebody who should be sent to her room without supper.
Let’s face it, Robinson’s no Triumph the Insult Comic Dog (who, incidentally, doesn’t belong on a family channel either, but I think I’d let my kids watch him before I'd let them watch Robinson; after all, I don’t want them getting nightmares).
And, getting beyond the host’s leaden, dreary ragging for a minute, there’s also the whole business about the contestants deciding at regular intervals which member of their team they’re going to stab in the back and kick off the show.
Now there’s family values for you. And this on a network that anchors its schedule with "It’s a Miracle" and "Touched by an Angel."
If it had been Fox Family that had taken on this show, then it wouldn’t be as surprising. With a Fox channel, the network leads the way in making family programming more edgy.
Tom Halleen, Fox Family senior vice president, differentiates his channel from its competitors by saying, "No other network claims to target the contemporary, mainstream audience that enjoys family programming. You don’t see PAX or Odyssey doing a show like ‘Scariest Places on Earth.’"
So what exactly is the definition of family programming these days, now that "Weakest Link" has been included?
At Odyssey, soon to become the Hallmark Channel, the definition is a little different from Fox’s.
"Our observation when we started this network was that family programming had been defined in our industry as children’s programming," says Margaret Loesch, Hallmark’s CEO.
"The way we position our network, we target adults 25-54, 18-49, with high-quality programming that will appeal to adults but is also appropriate for children. It may not always interest kids, but it’s not inappropriate."
Members of the Family Friendly Programming Forum have tried to define family programming in the simplest, most inclusive way.
According to P&G’s David Cowan, the Forum has engaged in lengthy discussions on the subject and has ultimately defined this genre as multi-generational programming, meaning that it can be viewed by more than one age group in a family.
Differing somewhat from this account, the Forum’s Steve Johnston of Nationwide Insurance says that there has never been much dispute in the organization over how to define this sort of programming.
The definition has always been clear: "It’s programming that you can sit and watch with your family and not be embarrassed."
This idea is echoed by Sam Armando, assistant media director at Starcom, who says that specific concerns about content have faded into the background.
"I’m not sure I know how to define family programming right now," he says. "In the past, the perception used to be that it meant networks filled with shows about moral issues and the correct things to do.
"Now, it seems to have changed to programs that families can watch together. Both ‘Touched by an Angel’ or a game show can be programs that fit that definition."
Getting back to the point, if "Weakest Link" is the kind of show that families watch together, what kind of families are we talking about here? If merely an absence of sex and violence is the distinguishing feature of a family show, then that’s a pretty shallow definition.
"The lines are getting blurred," Armando says, "and until the lines get clear, they’re going to keep pushing the envelope."
But why would PAX, until now the most wholesome of the family channels, decide to push this particular abrasive envelope?
"I’m sure," Armando says, "PAX’ll say about ‘Weakest Link’ that it’s all in good-natured fun."
Good-natured. In addition to being witty. Exactly what show are we talking about again?
Armando is reluctant to say definitively whether he considers the show family-oriented. "I’ll follow my clients’ lead," he says. "If they find it good-natured fun, I’ll go along with that."
By saying this, he might be paraphrasing the real reason PAX is airing the show. Perhaps it all comes down to this: If the series gets good ratings, then there’s no problem.
I asked Hallmark’s Loesch if her network would run "Weakest Link" if it had the opportunity.
"I don’t know if I’d describe that show as family programming," she says. "It’s obviously targeted to adults, and it’s not inappropriate for kids, as far as the host being a little mean-spirited."
But would Hallmark show it?
"I don’t know. Ask me after I’ve watched a few more episodes."
Watch a few more episodes? I don’t envy her that job.
The Forum’s Johnston doesn’t have any clear opinion to express about "Weakest Link" for the simple reason that he hasn’t watched it. He said he’s been more interested in watching the hockey playoffs.
Whether it qualifies as family-friendly or not, he apparently prefers honest, purposeful violence to gratuitous verbal abuse.
I can go along with that.
May 8, 2001 © 2001 Media Life
-David Everitt covers technology for Media Life, writing from Huntington, New York.
Printer-Friendly Version
|
Send
to a Friend
Cover Page |
Contact
Us
