Feedbag: CBS, 'Gossip,' 'Grey's,' ratings ageism
Q: So what CBS shows are going to be canceled to accommodate their new dramas? -- Diane
A: Far too early to say, and it’s not like CBS has a lot of gaping holes. I'd look at Sunday’s “The Unit,” which is pulling modest numbers for an hourlong drama. Tuesday's "Without a Trace" fumbles its lead in. "Friday’s “Flashpoint” could be a question mark, but CBS seems pretty high on it. I suspect CBS will bring back Thursday's “Eleventh Hour” even though it’s such a low-buzz show I’ve never heard anybody actually talk about it; I’m not entirely convinced it exists. The Wednesday comedy hour is a question, too, which brings us to our next --
Q: Another unanswered question that probably plays a role here: Does CBS stick with its Wednesday 8p-9p comedy block? If it is married to that idea, it seems pretty clear that "Old Christine "cannot carry that hour. -- Robert
A: I like the idea of CBS keeping the comedy block. They have a two-hour sitcom powerhouse on Mondays; trying to expand its comedy lineup continues to seem smart. The 8 p.m. hour on Wednesday can serve as a testing ground for shows when CBS doesn’t want to risk swapping out proven winners on Monday night. And as far as "Christine" goes, yeah, it's weak, but it's not like ABC or NBC is doing any better.
Q: How come more isn't being made of ABC switching the "Scrubs" time slot? Wasn't this a huge point in ABC bringing the show in-house, away from NBC, who tried it out in numerous time slots, upsetting Bill Lawrence? Just wondering what your take is. -- Dan
A: You mean switching from Thursday nights to Tuesdays? ABC probably didn’t want an intentionally silly medical show (“Scrubs”) airing next to their unintentionally silly medical show (“Grey’s Anatomy”).
Q: "Grey's" is nothing BUT backstage drama. -- Sam
A: That’s not a question. But at some point you have to wonder if showrunner Shonda Rhimes, not the actors, bears some responsibility for having a working environment that keeps producing such tabloid-friendly headlines.
There’s also another part of this equation: Tabloid and gossip reporters cover shows like “Grey’s Anatomy” and “Desperate Housewives” like soap operas because the shows are soap operas. Since readers of US Magazine and People watch these soaps, their reporters delve deep into their backstage drama and focus on any tip or quote that reflects the same type of drama shown on the show itself.
David Caruso could be a tyrant on the set of “CSI: Miami” and nobody cares. You can throw a tantrum on the set of “Bones”; all is good. Nobody expects actors on cop shows to solve crimes in real life, but they want their soap stars to be bickering divas.
So one reason “Grey’s” seems to have such outsized personalities and backstage drama is because the press and fans want it.
Now, if you really want to get philosophically stoned on celebrity reporting philosophy, think about this: Would “Grey’s” actors behave the way they do if fans and press were not interested in such behavior in the first place? There is no spoon, etc.
Q: What’s with all the repeats of “Gossip Girl”? -- Jen
A: The CW is airing three weeks of repeats because they started their season early when trying to get out ahead of the highly competitive broadcast premiere week. Now, what would be smart is if the network concluded the season early too. That way the CW avoids the crunch of competitors' May season finales, just like it avoids having its premieres compete with September premiere week, and it wouldn't air as many momentum-stumbling repeats. The problem is that CW stations want the network airing original episodes during the May sweeps, so the network’s hands are tied (unless they opt to buy extra episodes).
Q: I apologize in advance at the tenor of my remark, but I found your article today incredibly upsetting. First the networks sell pairs of eyes. They also don't give away viewers over 49 for free, which is the impression I get when I read your articles. Just today, you made it sound like everyone was a winner, when in reality only CBS is having a good year. 18-49 is only PR spin, and I dare you to do the research to prove me wrong.
To tell you the complete truth, I canceled my subscription to THR in part because of the rabid ageism I found in your column. It is a journalist's job to go beyond the PR and the spin and get to something resembling reality. Instead, all that can be found in your columns is an extravagantly enthusiastic promotion of ageism. I did see your headline today because it was on the imdbpro.com site, and I was shocked once again at the complete distortion of the truth of your article.
It's very sad, but that's the reason why The Hollywood Reporter is going belly-up. Thank you for your time, and I hope I'll see some improvements in your reporting in the future. -- David
A: Consumer publications lean heavily on total viewers because it's more easily gettable than a rating. It's also, as you point out, more fair. I agree -- how many people viewed a program should be the standard. And there's always articles coming out saying how adults 18-49 is fading in importance. Still, the adult demo is what the major broadcasters target for advertisers. And that -- more than the total viewer number -- is what decides whether a show lives or dies. You need to decide one measurement for a horse race -- or to decide a headline -- and the adult demo is still the most important to the industry. Usually the highest-rated show is also the most viewed, so this emphasis often makes little difference. CBS tends to be the exception, since they have shows popular with older viewers. I try to point out when there’s a split outcome and will try to do it more in the future.
PREVIOUS: Feedbag: 'Brotherhood,' 'Heroes,' 'Hustle,' 'Arrested'
| Permalink
|
Comments (7)
|
If you wish to only receive the morning ratings, get the Hollywood Reporter's 
