Ah, another Television Critics Press Tour begins. Various TV programmers try to impress the people who write about them - and, as often as not, take pot shots at each other.
It isn't always pretty. It certainly isn't mature. But it sure is fun.At least for those of us who get to write about it
Now, it's not unusual for ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox executives to make derogatory comments about each other. (Not to mention about each other's networks.) And the execs at all four are often inclined to make snide cracks about network wannabes UPN and the WB.
But as this press tour got under way, we were faced with the amazing, amusing sight of UPN and the WB fighting over - get this - who's No. 5.
"This network is number 5," insisted the always-strident Lucy Salhany, president and CEO of UPN. "Our ratings are better. We showed tremendous increases this year. Our affiliate lineup is better. Our sales arm is going to be terrific . . . I will tell you, we are the fifth network. I don't know about the sixth."
"I don't think there's any question that we're the ones with the identity, we're the ones with the momentum, we're the ones with the plan and we're the ones who are going to step up behind the other four networks," WB President Jamie Kellner calmly pro-claimed.
Like their elder networks, the folks at UPN and the WB are adept at playing with the ratings information and coming up with completely different answers. The WB staff claims to be the fastest growing network on TV - but their figures involve percentage increases, and because their numbers are the lowest, even a slight gain shows up as a bigger percentage.
"On the basis of true ratings growth, we are the fastest-growing network on television," Kellner insisted. "You've got to look at ratings, not at shares."
The UPN team, on the other hand, will happily take you through a big long rigamarole involving share points instead of rating points and arrive at the conclusion that they are growing faster than the WB.
"Sign-on to sign-off, UPN is the fifth network," Salhany insisted for the umpteenth time.
The facts are, as a matter of fact, open to debate. Yes, UPN has a higher average rating than the WB. But UPN does have a stronger station lineup - another point Salhany stressed repeatedly - so the case could be made that the WB is doing more with less.
About the only thing these two can agree on is that they can't agree on much. The WB, currently carried on superstation WGN, is losing several million homes because various TCI systems across the country - including in Utah - have dumped the station from their lineup.
"I think 'GN getting thrown off the TCI systems is a problem (for them)," Salhany said.
Not surprisingly, Kellner downplayed the impact of the move.
"It's really going to have no impact on our ratings," he said.
And there's considerable disagreement over how the two networks distribute themselves. The WB has gone to a lot of time and trouble setting up the still-in-the-works WEB, a system of local cable "stations" that will carry the WB's programming to small markets across the country where there are no unaffiliated broadcast stations.
"The other guy, number six, had to go back and do an unwired network," taunted Salhany, who appeared before critics earlier than Kellner. "Ask about an unwired network," she urged.
"On the other hand, if they want to be a hybrid network and be cable and broadcast, well, God bless them."
The WB's top exec, not surprisingly, maintained that going to cable is the only way to carry a fifth (or sixth) network's signal to much of the country where over-the-air stations are not available.
And Kellner took a shot of his own at the way UPN does business - it uses a good number of secondary affiliates. (A secondary affiliate is a station that is a primary affiliate of another network - like ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox - and runs UPN programming out of its regular pattern.)
"So their program is running at, like, 2 in the morning," he said.
(That may be - well, it is - a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is valid.)
While the folks at ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox disagree, everyone at the WB and UPN agrees that there is definitely room for a fifth broadcast network. Whether there's room for a fifth and a sixth is a matter of debate.
Ask Salhany how much longer six networks can survive and she'll shoot back, "I don't know. I hope just until 4 o'clock today."
Salhany also made much of Viacom's decision to exercise its option and buy half of UPN. (Up until now, United-Chris Craft - which owns Utah's KTVX-Ch. 4, among other things - held all the equity in the United Paramount Network. Only now is Viacom - Paramount's parent - actually investing in the start-up network, giving UPN a $300 million infusion of cash.)
"It's all over. It's done," Salhany said. "And we are number 5. Clearly, we are number 5."
(OK, OK, we get it - you think you're No. 5.)
Ask Kellner the same question and he'll give you a much different answer than the one he gave a year ago - when he predicted that either UPN or the WB would fail.
"I no longer believe that's the case," he said. "I think both of us may survive. It's all up to the patience of the partners."
In other words, it depends on how long Warner Bros. will put up with losing tens of millions of dollars a year on the WB and how long United-Chris Craft and, now, Paramount will put up with losing tens of millions of dollars on UPN.
"But, on the other hand, a broadcast network of any kind is invaluable to a studio. That's why so many studios have them and so many studios want them," Kellner said. "I think we're both going to be around for a while."
NO BIG DEALS: The WB executives, as always, spent a lot of time trying to convince critics that they're major players in the TV game. But they didn't really help build their case with a couple of "major" announcements.
The first was that Tom Arnold - that's right, Roseanne's ex-husband - has been signed to star in a sitcom for broadcast sometime this fall.
This will be the seriously under-talented Arnold's third sitcom on his third network. "The Jackie Thomas Show" failed on ABC, and "Tom" failed on CBS.
(The good news is that there are currently only three other broadcast networks for Arnold to go through.)
The second big announcement was that the WB has signed the production team of Miller-Boyett-Warren - the guys who've brought us insipid fare like "Step by Step," "Family Matters" and "Full House" - to do a sitcom for the fifth-network wannabe, also for this fall.
The only amazing thing about this is that the WB's head of programming, Garth Ancier, actually thought that critics would be impressed with either of these announcements.
SOUR GRAPES? Conventional wisdom among network programmers is that popular sporting events can help you with the rest of your schedule - bringing viewers in and giving you a platform to promote the rest of your schedule.
But UPN President Salhany sees things a bit differently.
"Fox has a lot of sports and it's very hard for them - and it's going to be very hard for them in the future - to establish fall shows because they're pre-empting so much," she said. "And you can only focus on so much."
Now, the fact is that Salhany has an ax to grind - she was fired as the president of Fox Entertainment a couple of years back, and the WB has no sports franchises.
But it's also a fact that since Fox acquired the rights to NFL football and major-league baseball and professional hockey, that network has not come up with a single prime-time hit.
BEAM HIM OUT: When UPN's "Homeboys in Outer Space" premiered last fall, James Doohan was a member of the cast - playing a character that was an awful lot like Scotty, the character he played in the original "Star Trek."
But, before long, both Doohan and the character suddenly and without explanation disappeared from "Homeboys."
Why? Because the long arm of lawyers reaches even into outer space.
"Paramount told Disney that they had a problem. . . . It became a whole legal issue between Paramount and Disney," said Salhany. "And we believe that it was not factual."
The problem came because Paramount, which owns the "Star Trek" franchise," was threatening to sue Disney, which produces "Homeboys," for copyright infringement. Salhany said she got "threatening" letters from Paramount.
"They are very good at writing letters, as opposed to deciding what's funny," interjected Michael Sullivan, the president of UPN's entertainment division.
Salhany and Sullivan maintain that Doohan's character on "Homeboys" was clearly a parody of "Star Trek's" Scotty - and it is true that, in theory, parody is protected from copyright infringement lawsuits.
But "Disney got nervous," Sal-hany said. "I really believe that Disney did not want to face that. They hate to be in that kind of position because it may tarnish them, I guess."
What makes this particularly bizarre is that Paramount was threatening to sue Disney over a show that Disney is producing for the United Paramount Network.
"Most studios have more attorneys than they do (employees) in their entertainment areas, their production areas," Salhany said. "That's why everyone is always suing each other in Hollywood."
On the brighter side, "Home-boys in Outer Space" is a dreadful show and Doohan was embarrassing himself on it - so he's better off in the end.