Many producers and writers have maintained that a concentration of media ownership has led to a decrease in diverse and experimental television and that the new rules would make the situation worse because fewer outlets would be available and open to creative program ideas.
They can't be serious. Do they remember how bland an uninteresting TV was the in the 1970s? They should notice that our choices have increased since deregulation.
That, deregulation opponents said, has placed creative direction in the hands of far fewer executives. And, they said, network executives, with parent companies hungry for profits and uncomfortable with risk, are less likely to take the chances that independent producers do.
Those who are hungry for profits will starve if they are uncomfortable with risk. Remember the wave of prime time game shows in the last few years? Who Wants to be a Millionaire was a big risk and a hit. All the other networks jumped on board with their version of the game show and they failed. ABC eventually failed, because instead of risking other ideas they ran their first hunch into the ground.
"It's hard to challenge the premise that `All in the Family' would never be scheduled on a network today," said Tom Werner, a partner in Carsey-Werner-Mandabach, one of the more prolific independent production companies. "I'm not even sure `Seinfeld' would get on. It would look too quirky."
That's silly. There are shows as cutting edge and controversial on today. Malcolm in the Middle turns the sitcom typical family upside down. Good shows like Sex and the City and the Sopranos exist regardless of the networks. There are so many channels that need so much programming that independent producers are producing 10 or 20 times the amount of material than they were 20 years ago. People get hung up on the 4 networks, but they will continue to lose market share. Everything is different now, but people want to live in that old comfortable world.
No comments:
Post a Comment