Editorial: Ushering in the Reign of Cable Television

By Elizabeth Milo

I remember the 90s fondly: Pogs, Pokémon, boy bands, bleach-blond highlights, and Britney Spears.  Those were the days of midriff-exposing tops and boxer-baring pants, and of new trends like coffee shops and cell phones.  But what I remember as a defining component of the 90s was what was on TV.  This was the heyday of NBC—they had shows on like Friends, Frasier, ER, Will & Grace, Seinfeld, and Mad About You.  They were in the second decade of a 20-year winning streak, and when they coined their Thursday night catch phrase, “Must See TV,” it was true.  Anybody who was anybody was watching at least a couple of the NBC mega-hits, and the best part was it was free.

This year when they announced the Emmy nominations for the 2009-2010 season, I, like any good fan, was rooting for my favorites.  Of course I’m somewhat prejudiced, but I had pretty reasonable expectations about which shows on my short list were good enough to get Emmy nods.  The Office has been reeling in critical acclaim since day one; Glee was a surprise smash hit because of its unique concept and hilarious cast; Hugh Laurie was just fantastic in this past season of House. But there was one Emmy nomination I was hoping and praying for, one actor who I thought was heads above the rest, whose supporting role literally made the show: John Noble. As Dr. Walter Bishop in Fringe, Noble consistently gives one of the most brilliant acting performances on television. I wasn’t naive enough to think the show would actually get a nod—sci-fi isn’t everyone’s cup of tea—but the acting! Ah, the acting.

Did he get the nod? Of course not, but you probably already guessed that.  When I heard the news, I ranted and raved to the few people who would listen to me and act sympathetic, and then I tried to move on. I went back to look at the complete list of nominees (once I could muster the courage), and I noticed something that stopped me right in my tracks on the path to recovery: of six shows nominated for best dramatic series, only one of them was on network television, and that one (Lost) just ended.  In the comedy department, only two of the six nominees were not from a network, but significantly they were from the premium channels Showtime and HBO. Then I spent way too much time tallying all the totals.  Here are my findings:

Out of the 13 major categories, a total of 75 nomination slots, only 37 different shows were nominated, which means on average every show would be     nominated twice. But that was not the case.  The top 7 shows took up 31 spaces, so 9% of the shows garnered 41% of the nominations.

“So what?” you may say, “Those may have been really great shows.”
“Okay, okay,” I say, “but what about this?”:

Each of the four major networks took a fairly even share of the nominations; CBS     had 12, ABC took 12, FOX had 8, and NBC took a surprising 13 (surprising, considering it is consistently in last place in terms of ratings). This total comes to 45 Emmy nods, which means the other 30 nominations went to cable channels. That’s 40% of the nominations going to shows that aren’t free to the general public.  And of those 30 nominations, 9 of them were for shows that are on premium cable channels such as HBO and Showtime.  That’s more nominations     than FOX had!

What seems completely wrong to me about this situation is the lack of opportunity for the general public to view these supposedly fantastic shows.  I’m not head-over-heels about the content either.  Call me old-fashioned, by I find it a little bit icky when we’re celebrating shows where the protagonist, the person you are by definition rooting for, is an undetected serial killer (Dexter), or a meth dealer (Breaking Bad), or an adulterer and male chauvinist (Mad Men). Of course those shows which are all on cable channels don’t have as stringent FCC regulations as the networks do, holding them back from airing whatever content they like.  But beyond whatever social qualms I may have with these shows, it’s the unnatural control of the industry by the academy that really bugs me.  Almost half the shows nominated for Emmys are on channels for which you have to pay, which encourages non-subscribers to sign-up for those channels.  If people see that Mad Men tied for most Emmy nominations with a whopping 6 nods, they will be much more inclined to fork over the extra cash in order to see that show.  The Emmy board is, in a way, controlling the market by encouraging viewers to pay for the privilege of watching shows that they deem exceptional.  Does this seem suspicious to anyone else?

I’m not ashamed to admit that I like television. I have enough other things going on in my life that it doesn’t consume me, but there are a number of shows that I religiously watch. And then there are a handful that I watch whenever I have some spare time and a couple episodes to catch up on. And then there are shows that I’ve had recommended to me over and over again but I never get around to watching because I’m too busy with the first two lists.  Maybe it’s my lack of ability to watch every show that’s passed on to me which clouds my judgment about the state of television. But if the Emmy nominations are any indication, we are leaving behind the dynasty of great, free network television and entering the era of pay-for-your-privilege cable.