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.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
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 @ 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 @ 12:05PM
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 @ 12:09PM
Laura said...
I remember when Bravo came out....they had no commercials, and they only showed film festival and indie films (back when they were truly indie films), offbeat random British movies (the ones that looked like filmed stage shows) and BBC stuff. A&E ran lots of BBC TV because if it's got a British accent and they're wearing vintage costumes, it's gotta be highbrow.
Part of the problem is that those niches have been filled and in better ways that Bravo and A&E were doing. Sundance Film Channel fills the indie niche. BBC America does BBC programmes.
And as for channel drifting today, Sci-Fi's ECW is a gimme (wrestling? really?) I would also like to nominate TV Land's new reality series about High School reunions. What does that have to do with vintage 60s and 70s programming? TV Land should stick to it's theme...maybe even reach back further into the likes of "My Little Margie" and forgotten TV shows of the 50s that would stun today's audiences with how far we've really come....
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
1-21-2008 @ 12:20PM
Patty said...
Channel drift is also occuring on Soapnet. The Sunday movie night does have some soap stars in movie roles but in my opinion that doesn't count as a soap opera. I am not fond of their reality series either even though they are soap related.
Reply
1-21-2008 @ 12:23PM
Adrienne said...
I miss the old A&E. I loved watching America's Castles, Biography, and things imported from the BBC. I realize that Biography has it's own channel now, as does BBC America, but we don't ALL have high-end cable or satellite. I refuse to subscribe to satellite until they offer my local stations in HD, and I just refuse to pay for HD cable at all. I give enough money to Cox Cable as it is. I would rather watch paint dry than anything on A&E. Ten years ago, it was one of my most-watched stations. The same can be said of TV Land, which has dropped Classic TV almost completely, and almost even The History Channel. As fun as it is, Ice Road Truckers has little do with history... yet.
Reply
1-21-2008 @ 12:29PM
ac said...
How about the Travel Channel showing poker and Most Haunted? That has nothing to do with travel. That's a sign of drifting too.
TV Land showing movies and the George Lopez show is more channel drift.
And while I do enjoy Cash Cab it doesn't fit with what the Discovery Channel's programming is supposed to be.
Reply
1-21-2008 @ 12:30PM
hessian said...
Just wait. THE WEATHER CHANNEL is for sale and NBC/Universal is very interested in the property.
Yep, the same dolts responsible for killing TRIO and putting wrestling on SCI-FI could very well be bringing you your forecast as presented by The Weather Girls. "It's raining men!"
If you don't think GE's salivating over the opportunity to nudge TWC into a hyper-green, all-global-warming-all of-the-time, buy-your-GE-compact-flourescents-now propaganda machine, you've got another thing coming.
http://its-over-tv.blogspot.com/
Reply
1-21-2008 @ 12:37PM
lucyfan62 said...
It's been mentioned but I have to add my two cents about TV Land. That used to be a destination channel for me because I liked watching classic TV shows from the 50s through the 70s. Sure they still play them, but mostly in the morning or afternoon and overnight. Primetime now is movies, endless M*A*S*H marathons, and reality shows. Besides adding JUST SHOOT ME - which could really be on the, um, "new and improved" Nick at Nite - they're adding the once-cancelled reality show HIGH SCHOOL REUNION! What does that have to do with classic TV?!?!? The show with the "classic TV stars" working at their TV characters' jobs for a day at least related to their programming, but HIGH SCHOOL REUNION certainly does not! It's a shame they've lost their way, because there really isn't another place on TV for classic shows like THE JACK BENNY PROGRAM or BURNS AND ALLEN (just to name two of my favorites) and a lot of these shows are not available on home video either (the aforementioned shows do exist on horrible public domain DVDs, but only a few episodes of each). TV Land does still play some 50s and 60s classics, but I've totally lost interest in the channel as they seem to have lost interest in what got them on the air in the first place.
Reply