BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Godcom

26 comments on Godcom

Godcom

: The Wall Street Journal reports (free link) that TV programmers are trying to exploit this God thing said to be sweeping the nation:

Judging from several comedy and drama pilots now in progress that are already getting close consideration, America’s couches will be turning into pews.

A splashy drama called “Book of Daniel” is in development at NBC, a unit of General Electric Co., while Viacom Inc.’s CBS is building a supernatural thriller around a character described as “a brilliant physicist with strong religious beliefs.” News Corp.’s Fox, meanwhile, has “Briar + Graves,” which the producers describe as “The X-Files” goes to church….

“We try in the entertainment business to find veins of interest to tap, and religion is a huge one that is currently very underserved,” says Kevin Reilly, president of entertainment at NBC, which is set to begin airing “Revelations,” a six-part apocalyptic miniseries, next month.

Also weighing heavily on programming executives’ minds is President Bush’s re-election. In addition to giving religion a starring role, several shows this development season are set deep inside “red” states and feature ultraconservative characters in the mix. In fact, Walt Disney Co.’s ABC is looking at “Red & Blue,” about a conservative grandfather.

An essential rule of entertainment: If a show (or magazine or any media effort) starts with a creative vision that clicks, it will succeed. If it starts merely trying to pander to a demographic or a trend in polls, it’s likely to fail. But network programmers never learn that.

Having that said, a religous reality show would be a hoot. Churches are filled with drama, politics, what the American TV audience loves best: humiliation. I can’t wait for ConfessionalCam.

: See also my post yesterday: Jumping the shark for Jesus

26 responses to “Godcom”

  1. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    You said:
    “If it (a show) starts merely trying to pander to a demographic or a trend in polls, it’s likely to fail. ”
    How do explain Fox News, in light of this, since it makes no pretense of being representative of all points of view, and was the dominant network during the Republican Convention? Just curious.

  2. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    Also according to the elites Passion was supposed to bomb and Alexander was supposed to make millions. The Rick Warner book “Purpose of Life” is selling like hotcakes and “The Left Behind” series has made millions–a book that upon first publication only had 15,000 jackets printed because the jackets would cost as much as the book and it was doubtful it would sell. Boy, was the publisher wrong.
    Follow the money. God sells.

  3. BumperStickerist Avatar
    BumperStickerist

    After CopRock, that animated Fish/Police show, Small Wonder, — there’s nothing that can be aired by television that would be unwatchable. And given the cancellation of God, the Devil, and Bob *And* Good v. Evil, the judgment of television of television programmers is up for question.
    God can be integrated into almost any show or genre. Here, in no particular order, are some ideas:
    “Fawlty Belfry” – Punctillious Rector tries to manage his small parish composed of offbeat eccentric types. Hilarity ensues
    In the spirit of Mel Brooks ‘Robin Hood’show – why not ‘Life of Brian – The Series’, mildly sacriligious take on religion highlighted by a series of near-miss encounters with Jesus. Hilarity ensues
    Or you can just rehash old shows which had a religious theme:
    “The 21st Century Flying Nun” – Hot, yet wholesome, chick flies around. Hilarity ensues
    “Father Dowling – The Early Years” – Find out how Father Dowling became the scourge of ne’er-do-wells.
    That’s 2-4 hours of quality God-related television just waiting to happen.

  4. Derek Avatar
    Derek

    One problem here: imagine if some writer, director or actor somehow got insulted or therwise got sidewise with theaudience? A Christian fatwa would be put out against him as has been done against abortion-providing doctors and anyone else.
    And, bumperstickerist,focuses mostly on fiction possibilities. Some ideas for reality-TV shows:
    Stoning for Jesus. Audience gets to vote on which infidels this week should be publicly stone.
    American Idolatry. Contenders explaing why their God is the only true god, and work to convert TV-viewing audience. Extra points for anyone managing to legally impose their god on someone else.
    Queer Factor. Contestants have to swap for homes for a weekend with homosexual couple, in domestic settings. Hilairty ensues.
    The Faith-based World. Has-been and discredited ministers—Jim Bakker, etc.—live together in a house with 24-7 camera picking up the hilarious action.
    Endless possibilities.

  5. Hubris Avatar
    Hubris

    …*And* Good v. Evil…
    G vs E rocked, man.

  6. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Ruth: How do explain Fox News, in light of this, since it makes no pretense of being representative of all points of view, and was the dominant network during the Republican Convention? Just curious.
    Stop speaking from prejudice, Ruth. Because of its prevalent debate/counterpoint format, FoxNews represents *far* more views than most network news programming these days. Network programming, even leaving the left-leaning aspect out of the equation, is far more homogenized until that brief time on Sunday morning when divergent viewpoints are allowed to speak. In fact, FoxNews even puts on people *more* authentically liberal and left-wing than many mushy liberal journalists.
    Divergent views are allowed constantly on Fox. It is the fact that *allowing people to speak* means allowing the viewpoint of people that you hate violently to be elevated to at least the same plane as standard liberal fare (and sometimes make mincemeat of it) makes you furious and a first-amendment hater. Stop making yourself sound like a Nazi!
    Having said that, JJ is right in that insincere attempts to pander to the religious will fail. However, some attempts may not be insincere. There seems to be a resurrection of Little House on the Prairie coming from Disney on TV that will probably be a hit with families.

  7. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Derek, you really have no idea what true modern Christian faiths are all about do you? You just like to speak of them as some sort of radical terrorist group within the US. Your shrill posts are just dripping with condescension to those who are Christian. After reading your posts in other threads it would seem to me that you are just a biggot.
    And I agree with Carsonfire and Jeff, any attempt by Hollywood to pander to the religious will fail. Their idea of religion doesn’t coincide with people who are actually religious.

  8. Alan Kellogg Avatar
    Alan Kellogg

    “My So-Called Afterlife”

  9. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    By some unfortunate change to my cable provider, I no longer receive CNN, instead only Fox. So yes, divergent views are indeed allowed on Fox, but there’s absolutely no doubt in any conscious being’s mind of the pandering the network offers to the right. Usual procedure is set up an absolutely slanted discussion, so “why are they attemtping to ban christmas” or some such stupidty. Then find a really stupid liberal to participate or put two conservatives on against one liberal.
    Hell, it’s a free market and there’s obviously a big audience out there for it. But let’s stop playing games about exactly where Fox stands.

  10. Hunter McDaniel Avatar
    Hunter McDaniel

    The likely result is something not very religious or not very entertaining. Maybe both.
    Frankly, I’d just be happy with a few shows that aren’t obsessed with sex and where evil and cynicism aren’t glorified. Doesn’t seem like too much to ask.

  11. BumperStickerist Avatar
    BumperStickerist

    well, Mike, I think there is a market for reality-based religion-themed shows. Derek’s examples are over-the-top but something like:
    1) American Cathedral – Go Inside the Workings of a (insert denomination here). The show would be a revelation (so to speak) as a lot of people aren’t aware of the logistics and requirements to running a largish place of worship.
    2. Amazing Grace – An ‘On the Road’ like look with an avuncular retired pastor who finds and shares examples of everyday miracles in our midst.
    3. The Norwegian Bachelor Farmer – Joe Millionaire type of show without Joe or the Millionaire angle.
    Jurgen, a large 30ish, bachelor farmer of the kind described on Prarie Home Companion seeks a woman to fulfill God’s words, especially the ones about cleaving.
    Hilarity, of an awkward nature, ensues!
    4) Hot Dish – sure, it sounds like an E! gossip show, but this is EWTN, not E! – Hot Dish, the show for women by women, who are going to meet at the pot-luck next week. Covers casserole recipes, cleaning ideas, how to raise kids in a society which seeks to corrupt their souls, and casserole recipes – especially ones that involve tuna noodle and what toppings you can use on the dish, like crushed up barbeque potato chips.
    Unfortunately, such a show would be a perfect comeback vehicle for Kathy Lee Gifford which is the sixth sign of the Apocalypse.
    There are also game show possibilities for religion-friendly programming:
    Bell! Book! Candle! – A ‘Three-Strikes You’re Out’ game show/test of biblical knowledge.

  12. Derek Avatar
    Derek

    My So-called Afterlife. Great title!

  13. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    I was going to say that Ruth was comparing apples to oranges, as Jeff was writing about entertainment programming, not news programming.
    But after considering it, I think Jeff’s point might be applicable to the success of Fox News as well. Roger Ailes first tried to do “Talk TV” years ago with a format callled “America’s Talking,” which, iirc, shared airtime with another cable channel. The presentation was not very good and the effort was one of many failures in the then emerging cable industry.
    Ailes then worked on the concept for the nighttime at CNBC and was fairly successful, particularly with “Rivera Live” during the O.J. Simpson trial (note that both Jerry and his main O.J. competitor, Greta Van Sustern, are now both at FNC, along with John Gibson, who covered the trial for CNBC).
    Ailes then left to start FNC, where he offered a further distilled version of his original concept — largely personality-driven talk TV with flashy visuals (though I’m sure Ailes would explain that it’s much more than that).
    But I don’t think FNC is designed to pander to the conservative demographic anymore than I think the networks are designed to pander to a more liberal demographic. It would be more accurate to say that FNC was created and is produced by people who are generally conservative (though not strtictly, as broadcast Fox is hardly a paragon of family values) and thus does not treat conservatives as though they have just arrived from Mars. I think conservatives recognize this.
    Similarly, on the (more) entertainment side of programming, I think the audience is generally intelligent to distinguish sincerity from pandering. A show like Touched by an Angel did well; a show like Hello, Larry! did not. I think that’s at least a part of what Jeff was saying when he wrote that if a show starts with a creative vision that clicks, it will succeed.

  14. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Franky: Then find a really stupid liberal to participate or put two conservatives on against one liberal.
    Hell, it’s a free market and there’s obviously a big audience out there for it. But let’s stop playing games about exactly where Fox stands.
    Yes, Franky, *let’s* stop playing games about exactly where *all* the networks stand. The past practice of network news shows has been to allow the “really stupid” conservative to “participate” against a *full panel* of liberals, and only on Sunday morning.
    That used to be the sum total of conservative representation on TV. Nothing else. Zip. Nada.
    Because of the emergence of FoxNews, it has not gone unnoticed that the networks have had to start allowing the smarter conservatives to take part on the Sunday morning shows, instead of the token bozos, and more of them. The emergence of FoxNews has finally forced the networks to stop being Incredibly Biased, and scale down to Mildly Biased. Meanwhile, FoxNews features *far* more balanced panels than the old network panels. The right-left ratio is almost always even, and while it might be offset by one conservative moderator, that is a far cry from other networks, including Phil Donahue’s recent attempt where he tried really hard to return to the 3,4,5, or more to 1 liberal to conservative panel ratio.
    Does FoxNews… if blurred and squinted at… more conservative than liberal? Of course! The hypocrisy… and probably one of the most flagrant I’ve ever seen in my life… is the practice of liberals and the left online to act as if it is somehow an egregious and evil thing for a news station to lean a bit to the right when every single other news network leans solidly left!
    The big pretend game I see on DemocraticUnderground, for instance, is to pretend that ABC CBS NBC CNN and MSNBC *aren’t* left leaning because they’re not *left leaning enough*. Considering that the hated “right winger” O’Reilly has been known to rail against SUVs, it would be just as easy for a hard-right viewer to complain that FoxNews isn’t right leaning enough.
    Another laughable aspect of the FoxNews complaint is to claim that the left’s representatives on FoxNews are somehow inferior. Yet there is always a parade of them, from all over the liberal map, and their sin usually seems to be not an absence of smarts or passion, but the fact that their arguments are based on weaker predicates and fall apart quicker in the midst of *honest* debate. Many of the liberals who go on are liberals in the news, liberals actually involved in debated topics… not just weak-kneed stooges.
    The biggest sin of FoxNews, then, is not being right-leaning; it’s biggest sin is setting up a situation where people on the left can’t win arguments simply by bullying outnumbered competitors, demagoguing to a friendly audience, or simply omitting competing arguments.

  15. paul_lukasiak Avatar
    paul_lukasiak

    But I don’t think FNC is designed to pander to the conservative demographic anymore than I think the networks are designed to pander to a more liberal demographic. It would be more accurate to say that FNC was created and is produced by people who are generally conservative (though not strtictly, as broadcast Fox is hardly a paragon of family values) and thus does not treat conservatives as though they have just arrived from Mars. I think conservatives recognize this.
    The idea that Fox is not pandering to right-wingers is laughable.
    What I find most fascinating is that right-wingers are stupid enough to claim that the “MSM” doesn’t provide the “conservative” side, while Fox includes all sides.
    What the wingnuts are apparently too stupid to figure out is that “all sides” can never be presented, and that the issue isn’t whose sides are presented, the issue is whether or not all informed/credible sides are presented, whether non-informed/non-credible sides are excluded, and whether credible and informed opinion is presented as such.
    Fox fails on two of the three criteria — it relies on non-informed/non-credible sources as authorities (hitting a new low by presenting a psychic as an “expert” in the Schiavo story) and allows only the right wing/Republican perspective to be presented as credible. At this point, its probably difficult for Fox to get credible progressives to co-operate with them; just about the only “progressives” that you see on Fox are either masochists (why would any intelligent person want to deal with a Sean Hannity?) or publicity hogs.
    The right-wing sees the media as “liberal” because the media traditionally has endeavored to avoid non-informed/non-credible ideas, and most right wing positions are the result of ignorance and stupidity. There have been numerous studies that show that Fox News viewers are consistently the worst informed about incontrovertible facts than any other group of media consumers. No intelligent person can watch Fox News and not be offended by it.

  16. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    (The right-wing sees the media as “liberal” because the media traditionally has endeavored to avoid non-informed/non-credible ideas, and most right wing positions are the result of ignorance and stupidity.) Yes, that is why no leftwing media would touch the Tailwind lies in 98 or the fake memos of 2004.

  17. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    paul_lukasiak: Fox fails on two of the three criteria — it relies on non-informed/non-credible sources as authorities
    *You* actually rely on the ignorance of people listening to you. You take one segment out of context (on a 24hr news station that obviously fills up some time with fluff — as if fluff is unknown on competing stations!) and hope that others will believe you that it is representative of the entire news day.
    But when FoxNews does a segment on a liberal Democrat who pushes a new draft bill, they have for the debate… the actual liberal Democrat who pushes the new draft bill. When they do segments on a liberal atheist who drags his kid into Supreme Court battles, they bring on for debate… the actual liberal atheist. And not just once, they come on many, many times. Which liberal experts do you imagine are blacklisted from FoxNews?
    Liberals tend to lose lots of arguments on that station, but it’s not because they are subpar liberals. It is because, like you, they try passing off stark fibs, misunderstandings, or simple personal prejudice as debating points in hopes that they won’t be sufficiently contradicted.

  18. carsonfire Avatar
    carsonfire

    Trying to keep up with the various complaints about FoxNews, I double check a few sources… one is FAIR, which claims that FoxNews puts on more conservatives than liberals. While I’m not sure if I’d debate that point (FoxNews “panders” to the right just as NBC CBS ABC CNN MSNBC “panders” to the left), FAIR implies that FoxNews simply has more conservatives because they want to, while Paul L there claims that smart liberals simply won’t appear. So which is it? Smart liberals know better or Fox is blacklisting them? It’s hard to keep up.
    Further, FAIR uses Britt Hume’s Special Report for a “fairness” study… which is astounding since Special Report is *not* one of FoxNews’ debating shows! It is most certainly a news report for conservatives who are fed up with the left wing bias on the other networks, with a panel at the end. Britt Hume is the right’s Dan Rather, but at least Britt Hume doesn’t wave around forged memos!
    If that is “pandering” — providing the right a service denied to them by a media more firmly in the grip of the left — then I suppose it is pandering. But the left has a much larger and glaring “pandering” problem, if that’s the case. The bias of the liberal networks shined through again terribly during the Schiavo case, as they presented warp facts in almost every report and poll — far worse conduct than simply taking out one segment to talk to a psychic.
    (Who was that psychic’s name, btw? John Edwards?)

  19. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    EverKarl:
    I didn’t give enough of Jeff’s quote then, which would have been not just “(a show)”, but “a show (or magazine or any media effort)” You might say it’s apples, oranges and bananas.
    PBS has a couple of good shows with a religious viewpoint, The Vicar of Dibley and Father Ted, but like the famous sermon from Beyond the Fringe (“And Esau, he was an hairy man”) they are highly irreverent.
    Also there’s a priest/sleuth whose name (Father Caldwell or something close) I forget, that is often featured on “Mystery theatre”, and The Name of the Rose was well received, but I suppose murderous clergy aren’t quite the desired end of religious drama.
    Of course a lot of the Ten Commandment monuments now being contested on state capitol grounds were originally donated to the states by Cecil B. DeMille to promote his movie by that name.

  20. SDN Avatar
    SDN

    Brother Cadfell on PBS

  21. Jim S Avatar
    Jim S

    Kat says: “Also according to the elites Passion was supposed to bomb and Alexander was supposed to make millions.”. Huh? Both movies were pretty universally panned by critics. This is not the same thing as saying that a movie is going to bomb or be successful, it’s just critics expressing their opinions about a film. Nowhere did I read, see or hear anyone predicting the market success of either film and in fact it’s pretty rare for anyone to make that kind of comment. Just another strange twisting of facts from planet Kat.

  22. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    Jim–critics are nor elites. Hollywood would not spend 150 million for a film without expecting it to at least cover costs. If it were not for Gibson, Passion would not have been produced. So what if the critics panned Passion–Mel got richer.

  23. Derek Avatar
    Derek

    KAt is now a movie critic. At least she can spell some of the names right, here. Makes her an expert.

  24. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    SDN:
    Thanks, I should have taken the time to look it up, didn’t, and appreciate your help.
    Jim S, Derek:
    I believe you have discovered something here, the obverse of the folk wisdom that “Saying it’s so doesn’t make it so.”

  25. Karen Avatar
    Karen

    Great Site
    malignant mesothelioma
    malignant pleural mesothelioma
    mesothelioma
    mesothelioma asbestos
    mesothelioma attorney
    mesothelioma cancer
    mesothelioma diagnosis
    mesothelioma doctor
    mesothelioma information
    mesothelioma lawsuits
    mesothelioma lawyer
    mesothelioma lawyers
    mesothelioma research
    mesothelioma symptoms
    mesothelioma treatment
    mesothelioma types
    peritoneal mesothelioma
    pleural mesothelioma

  26. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    http://accordion.conkram.info
    http://acousticguitar.conkram.info
    http://banjo.conkram.info
    http://bass.conkram.info
    http://bassguitar.conkram.info
    http://bassoon.conkram.info
    http://cello.conkram.info
    http://clarinet.conkram.info
    http://drums.conkram.info
    http://dulcimer.conkram.info
    http://electricguitar.conkram.info
    http://flute.conkram.info
    http://frenchhorn.conkram.info
    http://guitar.conkram.info
    http://harmonica.conkram.info
    http://harp.conkram.info
    http://mandolin.conkram.info
    http://oboe.conkram.info
    http://piano.conkram.info
    http://recorder.conkram.info
    http://saxophone.conkram.info
    http://steelguitar.conkram.info
    http://tambourine.conkram.info
    http://trombone.conkram.info
    http://trumpet.conkram.info
    http://tuba.conkram.info
    http://ukulele.conkram.info
    http://viola.conkram.info
    http://violin.conkram.info