Networks learn reality bites back
As genre grows, so does the chance that someone will be hurt.
With scripted hits harder to find than ever, the success of nonfiction skeins such as "Survivor" and "Fear Factor" makes it impossible for programmers to ignore a genre viewers clearly love.
But as last week's now infamous knife-wielding incident in CBS's "Big Brother" house points out, the dangers involved with the genre are far more serious than bad ratings. As the number of reality shows multiplies, so does the chance that sooner or later, somebody will be seriously hurt.
Or, as any media wag within spitting distance of a reporter's notebook will tell you, "Eventually, somebody's going to die on one of these shows."
Network honchos say they're willing to take the risk. Plenty of safeguards are in place; nobody's acting irresponsibly, they say.
Actors have died on movie and TV sets before, they point out. One person perished during an awards show about a decade ago.
"The odds are that at some point, something will happen," one industry insider said. "You hope it's not you, and you hope it's not serious. But these contestants are willing adults."
In the meantime, execs now expect to be battered by reporters and critics convinced they're taking the medium into the gutter with reality series.
NBC Entertainment prexy Jeff Zucker, a media darling for turning "Today" into a juggernaut, is being vilified by some for championing a show where contestants are covered in rats. CBS topper Leslie Moonves will likely get a tongue-lashing from scribes upset about "Brother" when he meets TV crix in Pasadena next week.
Both are big boys, and neither is complaining.
Zucker, for one, seems to welcome the complaints: He believes most critics aren't tuned in to what today's young adult audiences want to see. And in a summer when other webs are hitting historic lows, he'll take the solid Nielsens his trio of reality skeins has been generating.
The anti-reality lobby, fond of painting in broad strokes, often portray network execs as money-hungry lowlifes willing to put just about anything on TV if it means higher ratings and bigger profits.
But the fact is, most webheads -- particularly in an era of vertical integration, where bottom lines are scrutinized more closely than ever by the Michael Eisners and Mel Karmazins of the world -- are inherently cautious folks worried about taking too many chances.
How else can one explain why shows such as "Emeril" get put on the air?
CBS is currently under fire for not knowing every detail of the arrest record of Justin Sebik, the New Jersey man kicked off "Big Brother 2" for last week playfully putting a knife to the throat of a woman while kissing her.
As the Newark Star-Ledger and Daily Variety reported last week, Eye officials and "Big Brother" exec producer Arnold Shapiro did uncover the fact that Sebik had been arrested on a robbery charge. He was never tried or convicted, and the decision was made not to hold the incident against him.
Further probing by news organizations has revealed that Sebik may have been arrested again. The Associated Press, citing a New Jersey court officer, said Sebik was arrested a second time and charged with two counts of assault and two counts of robbery. He was never tried or convicted.
CBS insiders said that Sebik might not have been allowed on the show had the net known of the battery charges. But Eye execs also are baffled as to why court officials seem willing to provide reporters info about Sebik -- yet when investigators working for CBS asked the same officials earlier this year about Sebik, no such info was provided.
The real question is whether such background checks can ever be 100% accurate in determining whether a contestant has something seedy in his past. Network officials now believe the answer is no.
"George W. Bush was governor and almost president before they discovered his drunk driving (arrest)," one web vet said. "The FBI has had spies they knew nothing about for years. If even the best government agencies can't find certain things out; how is a TV network supposed to?"
Zucker said at NBC, "We absolutely err on the side of caution. We do as thorough a background check as possible."
That said, "It's impossible to know every nuance of everyone's life."
The problem for network execs is that the kind of people who want to be on shows like "Big Brother" or "Survivor" don't always have pristine records.
"These shows attract a certain kind of person, someone who's willing to try things, to put themselves on the line," one exec said. "When you're that kind of person, you often get in trouble."
The exec said it's not uncommon for potential contestants to have poor credit histories or DUI arrests.
In the end, however, the players in TV's favorite new games are adults who willingly take the risks associated with spending 39 days in an African jungle or being covered with rats. Television may be giving these folks a forum for their exhibitionist tendencies, but it hardly seems fair to blame the medium for capturing their foolhardiness on tape.
"We take every precaution possible, both in background checks and in the activities we ask (contestants) to perform," one network prexy said.
"But at the end of the day, nothing's certain about life. Ever."
