Monday, February 8, 1999
Zealous fans eagerly await yet another awards show
COLUMN: TV Guide event pays tribute to skills of actors like
Chuck Norris
For some sad souls, it’s the week’s only reading material, the
key to one’s daily social engagements and the most eagerly
anticipated mail event on Wednesday. For most, it’s an occasionally
useful slacking tool – a coaster for your beer or something to
write a phone number down on.
TV Guide – that checkout stand staple sandwiched somewhere
between Kathie Lee’s divorce crisis in The Enquirer and Erica
Kane’s last stand in Soap Opera Digest.
As someone who falls into the first category of TV Guide zealots
(yes, I used to collect them like any true, pathetic tube addict),
I anticipated the first TV Guide Awards show with enthusiasm.
Two hours later and I’m going to have to rethink any devotion
that would lump me with "all the fans out there" who Monday night’s
winners thanked so earnestly. A well-intentioned venture, the TV
Guide Awards are the first attempt by the publication to let its
readers (who many deem tried and true television fans) pick their
favorites, in categories ranging from standard prime time
programming to kids shows.
The winners were selected by ballots inserted into TV Guide for
two consecutive weeks, filled out by more than a million readers
and sent in for tallying. But the question is: Do we really need
another freakin’ awards show?
There seems to be a struggle within the TV business to either
legitimize itself as artistic culture or to defend itself as the
people’s preferred entertainment. As it seems that since no one is
really ever going to buy television as highbrow expression (except
Ken Burns’ 70-hour look at the history of Tupperware), the least we
can do is accept that it’s a common guilty pleasure.
While there are always innovative and intelligent programs, the
passivity of its viewers makes TV an amalgam of everything wrong
with popular culture. TV produces kids who’d rather watch the
"Rugrats" than go outside and people who’d rather start the day
with Regis than the morning newspaper.
Yes, we’re lazy. We’re complacent. And dedicated TV addicts like
myself who actually vote for things like this are much, much worse.
So what better way to celebrate our bad taste, poorly managed free
time and unwitting contribution to Rupert Murdoch’s empire than by
blowing two hours on another awards ceremony glorifying the
survival of network television under the guise of doing it "for all
the fans out there?"
Industry awards like the Emmys and the Golden Globes already
exist for the critically acclaimed to publicly receive a pat on the
back from their colleagues for a job well done. Most of the TV
Guide Awards’ nominees and many of its winners, such as "Sesame
Street," "Fraiser" and "ER" are generally held in high regard by
industry insiders and get plenty of opportunities throughout the
year for a collective red-carpet-black-tie-brown-nosing event.
So the argument is, "What about those few deviations?" They must
be an example of what fans really like, which isn’t always what is
critically acclaimed.
A couple of nominees and winners Monday seemed to reflect this:
Chuck Norris nominated for Best Actor in a Drama Series? "Martial
Law" for Best New Show? I’ve never even heard of "Martial Law," and
I watch upwards of 50 hours of TV a week. Repeat after me: Popular
opinion is nothing to be proud of.
Luckily, for the sake of my own dwindling perception of the
average TV viewer, the more head-scratching TV Guide nominees and
winners aren’t at all an honest reflection of the majority.
To vote for the awards, you needed to affix your own stamp to
the provided ballot, so you’d probably have to care enough about
someone winning to slap your own money down for it. I voted twice
so I know exactly who I’m talking about here: psychotic, obsessive,
well-organized troops of superfans, mostly swarming together in the
name of world domination through audience power on Internet
newsgroups and fan clubs. Actually, I just wanted to see David
Duchovny win something.
Does this reflect what the common fan (someone who tries not to
miss "Friends" but will in the event of Real Life) feels is a good
show? Probably not. These are just the most fervent fans, and they
don’t necessarily reflect at all what America is watching ("Martial
Law," for example). Luckily, these examples were rare Monday.
If you really want to know what shows are most popular
nationwide, your best bet is to check out the Neilson ratings. Not
surprisingly, the TV Guide Awards winners for Best Comedy
("Frasier") and Best Drama ("ER") are typically at the top of the
ratings every week.
So if we know what the critics like and we know what’s being
watched the most, why do we need an entire awards show merely to
reflect these trends? I would suspect that celebrity winners are
much more interested in receiving Emmys and Golden Globes from
their "educated" peers and in their shows’ ratings (and their
future incomes) than what a few fans zealously enjoy.
The message from the show itself and from those earnest
acceptance speeches was that these fans are who matter most – they
are ultimately the judge of a series or an actor. As noble as it is
for any industry to want to give fans their say (in the event that
"the little guy" possibly disagrees with critics), it’s unnecessary
with the existence of box office reports, Billboard’s Top 20 and
the weekly Neilson ratings. Fans have their say here in a much more
influential way than they do at any awards show.
Fans also tend to pay more attention to industry awards given by
what is perceived to be a well-informed body rather than their own
peers. Most fans of popular entertainment would rather watch "real"
awards shows like the Oscars than any awards presentation whose
winners are picked by Joe American Consensus, who thought
"Armageddon" was pure genius.
Typically, it is the industry and their picks of quality that
lead to consumer behavior. A series wins an Emmy for Best Drama and
gets better ratings the next week.
That Tim Allen won yet another People’s Choice Award is not
going to get me to finally start watching "Home Improvement."
Besides, the People’s Choice Awards show itself is downright
embarrassing. Ditto the Blockbuster Awards. Oh yes, and toss in the
TV Guide Awards.
The winners were notified in advance, so an average of two
nominees per category actually showed up. The nice gesture of
seating the fans up front and putting the stars in back was
admirable until every winner nearly beat an "I love you!"-screaming
15-year-old girl to death with the gold-plated statue.
In the end, the TV Guide Awards presented the opportunity to
fill a theater with fans who could shriek at their favorite stars
(apparently Brian Austin Green and everyone from "Dawson’s Creek"),
and those in the industry could pretend to be humbled and honored
by their devotion.
Even as the poster girl for the intended audience for these
awards, my ultimate reaction is being irked that they pre-empted
"Ally McBeal."
Erin Carter checks her e-mail obsessively, so please feel free
to write her at emcarter@ucla.edu.
Erin Carter
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]