Do you remember coming back from your first semester at college and running into a kid you used to go to high school with who decided to use college as an excuse to totally reinvent him or herself? Like he was the class dork and in three months he's all of a sudden a death-metal anarchist? Or she dated the basketball team (the varsity, junior varsity, AND the freshmen) and now she dresses like Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman?There was always something disturbing about it. Not so much that they had changed -- everyone has a right to change -- but because what they now were was different from the template you had made for them. When the universe doesn't act like you expect it to, you get uneasy; it's a natural reaction. I couldn't help but feel that way this week, when I watched A&E's new show Parking Wars.
I'm not going to debate the relative merits of Parking Wars. As a reality show goes, it's pretty standard: stressed-out people dealing with stressful situations while over-the-top editing and music ratchet up the stress even further. If you were a fan of the similar shows about airports and casinos, then you'll enjoy Parking Wars.
What I don't understand is what a show about meter maids is doing on a channel that's ostensibly devoted to "Arts and Entertainment." Parking Wars is the final nail in the coffin of whatever pretensions A&E had of being a high-brow network.
(And don't say, "But Jay, the name of the channel is the Arts and Entertainment channel. Surely, Parking Wars falls under the banner of Entertainment!" Yeah, but the Arts in front of that Entertainment implies we're going to get something a little different than a slopped together show about Philadelphia meter maids. Going to the Arts and Entertainment channel and finding Parking Wars is like going to a place called the "Fine Dining and Dancing Hall" only to find a roast beef buffet and a strip club.)
A&E is the latest in a long line of cable channels suffering from what I call channel drift. I define "channel drift" as the condition a cable channel finds itself in when it loses its original, stated purpose, and starts moving towards more mainstream (and usually less distinctive) programming. There are plenty of examples of channel drift: A&E, VH1, TLC, MTV, and Bravo, just to name a few.
So far as I can tell, there are three contributing factors to channel drift:
1) Cultural pretensions (most prevalent in: A&E, TLC, Bravo). For as much as people pretend that the term "Lowest Common Denominator" applies to everyone but them, it's a pretty all-inclusive term. We all like to think that we're the intellectual exception to the Idiocracy rule, but chances are, we aren't. Art -- real art, not pretend art -- is rarely appreciated outside of a small cultural elite. (And when I say, "cultural elite," I don't mean "everyone registered democrat," as Rush Limbaugh uses the term; I mean the neck-bearded, beret-wearing types that quote Joyce's Ulysses not just because they're trying to bed a hot lit major, but because they actually read it.)
The fact of the matter is, most of us ARE low brow. I know I am. Despite a degree in English, I'm currently devouring five Star Wars books for every real novel I read. I used to feel bad about that, now I'm just curious whether or not Jaina Solo is actually going to kill Darth Caedus.
A little bit of art never killed anyone (with the exception of Jacques Sauniere). But when a network decides it's going to be the home of serious, intellectual enlightenment, it's setting the bar way too high for itself and almost guaranteeing that ratings reality will soon set in, sending the channel drifting from its original purpose. A ratings grab here and a rating grab there and all of a sudden a network that once called itself "The Learning Channel" is running a show about people building motorcycles. I guess that's kinda sorta learning, but it's not exactly Quantum String Theory, is it?
2) A need to be profitable (most prevalent in: MTV, VH1). All channels need to be profitable, I get that. But, there's a difference between "we're just glad we're here" profitability and "we've been a cash cow for five years and we need to keep that up" profitability. The difference is in expectations.
Here's what I mean: when MTV first started, it was an experiment. Since everyone figured it was doomed to failure, all it needed to do to succeed was NOT fail. Massive profits weren't necessary; so long as MTV paid the bills, the people running it could be happy. Because of this, the channel was allowed to follow its muse, which, in the case of MTV, was actually music.
As time went on, however, MTV started to turn a profit. A real profit. The kind of profit that attracted suit-wearing, cigar-smoking, baby-blood-drinking, big-time business interest. Once MTV became a corporate entity, it not only needed to repeat past success, it had to top it. Thus, a music channel with a reality show as its top rated program became, almost overnight, a reality channel that sometimes has music on it.
You can't remain true to a vision when ratings and profit are dragging you in another direction.
I call this the Ronald Miller rule. If you remember, Ronald Miller was Patrick Dempsy's character in Can't Buy Me Love (the movie where the school's biggest dork pays the school's hottest girl to date him, figuring he'll get popular by association). When he was a dork, he could be himself (a self that improbably wooed super-hot cheerleader, Cindy Mancini). But once he got a taste of the big-time, hanging with the popular kids, he started doing anything he could to maintain his popularity, even going so far as to smear his former best friend's house with dog poop.
(And yes, this is just a long way of saying that I do, indeed, think that executives at MTV smeared Martha Quinn's house with dog poop.)
3) Vagueness of initial purpose (most prevalent in: Bravo, A&E, VH1, TLC). Think about The Weather Channel for a moment. It doesn't come any simpler than that. It's pretty much guaranteed that at any given moment of the day, turning on The Weather Channel will result in seeing something weather related. Programming a channel like that is so easy even the guy who greenlighted Cavemen could do it. Same goes for things like The History Channel (documentaries about Hitler, occasionally other shows); ESPN (sports, Steven A. Smith screaming about things); Sci-Fi (Battlestar Galactica, and, er, I might be mistaken, but I believe that's the only show on that network); and Lifetime (horrible shows commissioned by PSYOPS experts to break down the terrorists).
Channels like that maintain their identity precisely because their identity is so easily identifiable.
Networks suffering from channel drift have an identity that's muddled at best, impossible to discern at worst. Bravo, for example. Just what the hell is Bravo? I mean, I love Top Chef as much as the next comfortable-in-his-sexuality fella, but why is it on Bravo? Does the name Bravo somehow imply that it should be programming food-based reality shows? When you first heard that there was going to be a Survivor-type show about chefs, was your first thought, "Well, that's obviously a show for Bravo"? Of course not!
I defy anyone, including the executives AT Bravo to tell me what the identity of that channel is.
VH1 isn't any better. It's gone through so many makeovers in its two decade history it makes Jenny from Forrest Gump seem stable by comparison. Remember when it showed videos? How about when it was aping the mid-90s incarnation of A&E by running the Biography-styled Behind the Music? Howsabout when it started devouring pop-culture like it was a Langolier with Pop-Up Video and the I Love the <insert decade here>'s? One wonders how long its latest incarnation as "celeb-reality" peddler will last and what will replace it. My own vote is for "Dadaist anti-television," though you could argue that Rock of Love is the first foray into that territory.
--
Channel drift isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm not arguing that channels should cement themselves in one format and stick with it forever. I'm also not arguing that a channel shouldn't take a chance on an idea that is outside its stated identity. (There's no guarantee that Top Chef would have found a place on its natural home, the Food Network. If Bravo hadn't channel drifted, we wouldn't have Padma and Chef Tom to enjoy. That's a world I don't want to live in.)
I do, however, think that channel drift adds to the disturbing volume of White Noise that the average consumer of entertainment is currently drowning in. Our cable box has become a junk-drawer: completely disorganized, with the stuff we actually want hiding where we least expect it. On top of that, because we have a hard time finding shows where we should expect them to be, it forces the networks to scream even louder for our attention, both in their advertising and in the obnoxious content of their programming.
So, if channel drift isn't necessarily terrible, but I am, in theory, against it, what is my solution? Here's my idea: any channel that produces a show completely outside of its wheelhouse can do so only if it starts each episode of that show with a short introduction from the network's president explaining why it's airing there instead of where it belongs. This will actually serve to reinforce that network's identity by acknowledging that the show doesn't fit with its regular schedule. And, if too many shows on a network start to air with an introduction, it will become embarrassing for the network and force it to figure out a new identity.
Yeah, okay, there's no chance of this happening, but you can't accuse me of being one of those columnists who point out a problem without offering any solutions. I offer plenty of solutions, just no practical ones. Before you ask, yes, I have considered running for public office; I have just the kind of forward-looking brand of BS that America needs!
I would like your input, though. Have you seen channel drift on networks other than the ones mentioned above? Do you have a solution for it? Do you think that the idea of flow-walking was introduced into The Legacy of the Force series so they can have Jacen go back in time to stop from turning to the Dark Side? Let me know in the comments!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go set my TiVo to record Breaking Bad on the American Movie Classics channel.
The TV Squad Podcast: Linda Purl talks about The Office, we talk spoilers, and more
Ask TV Squad: Ghost Whisperer and more!
The TV Squad Podcast: Bill Scheft of The Late Show, Cake Boss, Mad Men and more
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
1-23-2008 @ 4:22PM
Jefe said...
What?!? MTV had MUSIC VIDEOS?? Actually, they had darned good videos back in the late 70's and most of the 80's...
"Channel Drift" is a good term, and one that I'm adopting as of now. This phenomenon has ruined several cable channels for me, and the unfortunate thing is that, even with ever-expanding choices, no one has stepped in to fill the voids they left. IFC did pick up the unedited foreign film genre, but they're starting to "drift" too. TLC? Never too interested, but it's become a travesty and should be forced to change its name for false advertising. I think A&E remains the biggest disappointment; who would willingly trade the beautifully crafted Sherlock Holmes series, or the original productions such as Hornblower (with Ioan Griffudd) for whatever schlock they're running now (I don't even check their listings in the paper anymore)? Even USA, which is pretty much Law and Order-24/7, aspired to higher things once upon a time; does anyone remember the made-for-cable movie "The Railway Station Man", with Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie? Channel drift is a sad state of affairs for which I can offer no solution..
Reply
1-25-2008 @ 3:01AM
Val said...
Cartoon Network.. live action on this channel is wrong!
Reply
1-28-2008 @ 2:27PM
Laura said...
I completely agree with your channel drift theory. Haven't read all the replies, but I would add National Geographic (Nat Geo as they are billing themselves), NICK.
My oservations are that almost all channels have fallen into a pattern of showing the same show continuosly for hours on end. Bravo! might as well rename themselves to the Project Runway channel or the West Wing channel. Why the heck is it that, with a plethora of material spanning the better part of the last century and 7 years into this one, we don't see a broader spectrum of programming?
There seems to be a deliberate movement to limit what is on most channels to the very very recent past. Can TBS find a movei besides Miss Congeniality to run? Turner Classics is one of the few who try to stay focused and DOES have a memory greater than three years ago. This is slightly tangential, but I agree with Rick Steves, the travel author, who believes there is an effort in this country to dumb us all down. TV is the yellow brick road. The movie NETWORK really says it all.
Reply
2-18-2008 @ 12:58PM
Samuel McConnell said...
At least CourtTV renamed themselves when they noticed it was happening to them.
Reply
4-07-2008 @ 10:33AM
anotherviewer said...
i found this website & this posting by simply entering in the entire phrase, "what the hell happened to Sci-Fi?" into the dogpile search engine. was i surprised that something actually turned up and that it was an intelligent article with good observance going on in the conversation thread.
i have long thought that 'channel drift' as it has been coined is more like channel hi-jacking. no doubt that there is a lowest common denominator, profits & greed as highly relevant suspects, but i think there is also a deliberate lowering of that common denominator and deliberate getting rid of things that do not tow the party line of acceptability in a country where almost anything culturally relevant is being dictated to the public and where the public is being deliberately dumbed down and or lead away from truth or merely entertainment that encourages thought processes that are not approved of.
seriously, i have been wondering why on earth when i could see Bugs Bunny several times a day on several channels why it has been hijacked and hidden away without the same accessibility it use to enjoy. if it were not bought up, locked up and hidden away, aired on the same channels at various times it would still be watched i believe with the same frequency. but Bugs had a different set of values that are not altogether embraced by thought police in this day in age, so he is often seen as dangerous.
the ECW thing is an execs elitist view that what was on Sci-Fi before GE owned it was trailer park crap anyway, so why not throw this crap on there too? nevermind that the decision pissed off serious viewers.
Burns & Allen? we'll probably never see it again. it will go out to pasture with Monty Python, Cheech & Chong, The Young Ones, The Prisoner, full uncut Carol Burnett Show, One Step Beyond, Night Gallery, game shows that do not sell to you, My Favorite Martian, Woody Woodpecker, Mary Hartman, Soap, The Smothers Brothers, Laugh In, Love American Style, Three Stooges, Little Rascals, that show about God where James Garner provided the voice, Ren & Stimpy, Edwin Murrow styled journalism, Soupy Sales, Uncle Milty, history that is not obsessed with the sneaky violent prowess of nazis, etc, etc, etc.
you shuck out the bucks to get the channels that show the content you want, and the idiots who own the major networks get jealous that you've abandoned their stale moronic crap, so they buy the channels you ran to in order to ruin them with the same junk you ran from. so you pay more money to run from those and look elsewhere for the entertainment you want & they acquire those channels as well.
i cried when AMC, Bravo, MTV & others started accepting commercial advertising. it became clear who would dictate the schedules. for that matter, i cried when United Online took over Juno, Netzero & others and took the free internet to the grave.
there will always be someone out there who owns & controls what you love who has his price and will sell to the highest bidder. that's the problem. we know that GE-NBC, VIACOM, Rupert Murdock suck, so we reject them. we understand they for the most part do not offer what we want and they dictate entertainment that does not entertain.
the day there is a library of quality channels that exist that are not publicly traded as a corporate entity and are not for sale is the day that the need for threads like this may disappear.
Reply
4-09-2008 @ 1:50PM
ash said...
I found this lovely gem while looking for old history channel programs! How ironic.
I could not agree more with you on this. CartoonNetwork has turned into crap and is hardly worth watching anymore, my beloved History Channel is going reality-tv on me (thinks of Ice Road Truckers and Ax-Men *sobs*) and all I see on the Discovery Channel is Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs (though I do like these shows...).
I crave something dynamic, different, and dare I say, intellectually-stimulating! Not all the "young people" in the world are like those ignorant and shameless youth on MTV!
Reply
1-21-2008 @ 10:39AM
Argus said...
I wasn't able to read the last volume of LOtF... Its just so bad... And so predictable. Maybe if it was all one author and I didn't have to deal with the hideousness of Boba Fett coming up every three books and then Myri Antilles coming up every three books and ugh....
The only way that series can save itself is if Jacen flow walks from the past, fights himself, and then wins, and then discovers that his vision of the future in the first book was correct and now he has to kill Luke. Iiiirony!
Reply
1-21-2008 @ 10:50AM
Sam said...
RE: Bravo: I think Bravo's intended purpose was to be a competitor to A&E. Now that they're owned by the same company, an attempt is being made to differentiate the two.
I also think channel drift speaks to the proliferation of cable television in general. Think about how many people had cable when MTV first started to how many get satellite or cable TV today. Exposure to a wider potential audience means more pressure to make money off that audience.
Reply
1-21-2008 @ 12:05PM
Aberdeen said...
I completely agree. It wouldn't be so bad if there was some basic maintenance of the original identity, but there's nothing. Remember when Discovery had actual science on it? And A&E played shows like Cracker? I won't even talk about the 'music' channels...makes me feel tremendously old!
Reply
1-21-2008 @ 11:14AM
Diane said...
ECW "wrestling" on SciFi.. I think that pretty much sums up Channel Drift
Reply
1-21-2008 @ 11:16AM
bcarter3 said...
A&E hasn't been "Arts and Entertainment" for years. It long ago replaced its original upscale format--British mystery series, "America's Castles," "Biography," and similar programming--with cheap reality shows aimed straight at the trailer park. So now the schedule consists entirely of bounty hunters, tatoo artists, ticket agents, and thugs.
Some art. Some entertainment.
Reply
1-21-2008 @ 11:17AM
Erica said...
About Sci-Fi, you are mistaken if you think that channel sticks to the science fiction premise. Did you know they now air wrestling? They also have their own reality show "Who Wants to Be a Superhero?" Let's not forget the D- "movies" they air on the weekends, that blend the line between bad horror movies and a waste of film.
Reply
1-21-2008 @ 11:22AM
Jay Black said...
You're completely right about Sci-Fi. I had forgotten about ECW and the Who Wants to be a Superhero horror. I should have included it in my "channels that had drifted" section.
(Though, bad as the movies like Mansquito are, I'd argue they still, technically, fall into the realm of science-fiction.)
Reply
1-21-2008 @ 11:31AM
khamel said...
no reference to abc family? i know they never wanted it to have the word family in the title (Pat Robertson strikes again!) but with shows like Greek and Kyle XY they are really stretching the family moniker.
Reply
1-22-2008 @ 5:41PM
kathleen said...
I can at least go with KyleXY more so than Greek. At least with Kyle he's trying to find a family so to speak.
With Greek, I guess its a family at school?...?...? Okay that's a stretch.
1-21-2008 @ 11:34AM
Bill said...
Beyond profitability and vagueness, there's also just an issue of competition. There are a finite number of good shows to go out there on cable, and with more channels with more overlap between their core concepts, they battle it out for the few good original ideas and syndicated shows. When the Sopranos went up for syndication, it ended up on A&E cause the highbrow crowd likes it. But it could've gone to Bravo which is similarly highbrow, TNT (they know drama), USA (where characters are welcome), FX (I can't really tie it in to "there is no box" because I don't know what it means but Sopranos reruns would make a great lead-in to the Shield), or Spike (it fits with Scarface and the Godfather movies).
So maybe Bravo could fill all their programming if they got all the highbrow stuff, but with all those other channels battling it out, they could either stick to their format and go with their new reality show "America's Next Poet Laureate", or they could air something people might want to watch. Which I guess gets back to profit, but... I have a point buried in there somewhere.
Reply
1-21-2008 @ 11:46AM
Mike said...
As for Sci-Fi, they are definitely starting to drift, but I would say that Who Wants to be a Sueprhero still fits in their mold for the most part. It's a tad more fantasy than Sci-Fi but the two genres share a lot of similarities. The wrestling though... definitely fiction, but absolutely not science.
Bravo has certainly drifted far from it's original purpose, but I think it's one of the only channels you mention (maybe VH1 to a lesser extent) that has clearly defined itself with a new identity. What was once a high-brow culture network is now very squarely aimed at the LGBT market. Sure, Inside the Actors Studio is still clinging on but it's pretty much a vestigial structure now and it truly is only a matter of time before it's gone. Behind the Music stuck around forever when VH1 went through its changes, but eventually it too died, which was very sad. Behind the Music was insanely entertaining.
Reply
1-24-2008 @ 1:17AM
Kelly said...
I still don't know how wrestling fits in with SciFi - I've been afraid to logic it out - but the more fantasy/fantastic shows like Who Wants to be a Super Hero are perfectly in line with the network when you consider that their mandate has always been that they specialize in science fiction, fantasy, horror and the paranormal.
For fantasy in particular, it's worth remembering that the SciFi website actually won a World Fantasy Award, for something published in the Ellen Datlow-run SciFiction.
Looking at what they're doing with SCIFIpedia gives you a good idea of what the network as a whole sees itself as: SCIFIpedia's topics include anime, comics, science fiction, fantasy, horror, fandom, games and toys, UFOs, genre-related art and audio, and the paranormal.
Does it lend itself to airing WWE and other wrestling? Not without some snarky commentary - but at least it's more likely than Law and Order: SVU - which the network has also shown on occasion.
I think the "problem" here is that media conglomerates are faced with situations where a show is bumped from its normal home, so they look at their holdings and try to figure out where they can stick it so they still receive those ratings. Which is to say, networks are starting to mean less than companies.
1-21-2008 @ 11:50AM
Arc|Angel said...
It is worse in Canada. In one week our Western channel (Lonestar) had The Matrix movies, Demolition Man, and Tango and Cash as its evening movies.
The latin channel (which is in spanish) is now showing Soprano's in English and last night was showing Out of Sight.
Reply
1-21-2008 @ 12:17PM
Mike S said...
I only watch A&E HD for CSI:miami which looks great in HD.
I remember when MTV was great for music televsion (84-90).
VH1 Classic brings back the old memories.
CourtTV is now TruTV which drifted to reality and police videos.
TNN drifted to Spike when it left all the Southern and Country shows in the dust.
Reply