No Matter How TV Treats Viewers, They Always Come Back for More

Every year, network programmers flit about like skittish party hosts, having spent a lot of the company’s money to throw a big shindig without much certainty whether anyone will show up.

As the onset of the TV season approaches, fretting over low public awareness for new programs finds its way into trade newspapers, while critics invariably lament the rampant mediocrity of the latest batch of network series--though perhaps, this year, with more fervor than most.

Yet somehow, millions of you find and sample new programs each fall, proving what many in their heart of hearts would rather not admit.

Namely, you love television and keep coming back no matter how many times it disappoints you.

How else to explain the swallows-returning-to-Capistrano faithfulness exhibited each fall by millions of you, the quite-ready-for-prime-time couch warmers.

Put in the context of network track records quality-wise, this by itself is pretty remarkable. After all, would you keep patronizing a restaurant where the food was lousy most of the time, on the outside chance they may have something delectable to offer the next time around?

And just taking that analogy a step further, wouldn’t you be a little bit perturbed if you finally did find something you liked at that restaurant, then went back to discover it was no longer on the menu?

Such indignities are common for loyal TV watchers, a vast and eclectic pool of viewers that includes lots of college-educated types who won’t readily ‘fess up to it.

Last season, lest you forget, hordes of you showed up for “Stark Raving Mad” and “Daddio” as new additions to NBC’s “Must-See TV” Thursday lineup, despite the annual parade of indistinguishable white yuppie comedies that night, among them the now-defunct “Veronica’s Closet,” “Suddenly Susan,” “Fired Up” and “Jesse.”

A few million of you even took the promotional bait and gave looks to new comedies such as “Love or Money,” “Oh, Grow Up” and “Action,” none of which survived until Christmas.

On the flip side of the equation, consider a group of fans who found a new show they did like, CBS’ “Now and Again.” A core contingent of folks got completely hooked on the series, which ran 22 episodes, ended in a cliffhanger and was then canceled, meaning the lead character will remain eternally on the run from the Feds, sort of like an old “Twilight Zone” episode.

While it’s early to make any bold pronouncements, viewers are nevertheless coming back for more this season. Millions tried James Cameron’s murky “Dark Angel” last week, apparently undaunted by Fox’s past litany of incomprehensible sci-fi series, from “The Visitor” to “Harsh Realm.” The CBS sitcom “Yes, Dear” opened to respectable numbers, even though its stars, Anthony Clark and Mike O’Malley, are principally known for two forgettable NBC sitcoms, “Boston Common” and “The Mike O’Malley Show”--the latter having received a blink-and-you-missed-it two-week run last fall.

UPN’s “Girlfriends” and NBC’s dramas “Deadline” and “Titans” have also exhibited promise ratings-wise, despite mixed reviews and in some instances outright pans. And all four of CBS’ new dramas have attracted strong initial ratings, including its revival of “The Fugitive”--a somewhat ironic response, when you come to think of it, since Dr. Kimble will never catch the one-armed man as long as a big audience keeps tuning in each week to see him do it.

A gut reaction might be to ask how viewers can be so gullible, their memories so short. If a personal relationship was this unreliable, with someone letting you down so frequently, any self-respecting women’s advice columnist would tell you to drop the stiff like a hot potato.

Still, there is an explanation. While critics are compelled to watch everything, the average viewer isn’t looking for any more than one or two new series to add to his or her current repertoire.

Maybe one of your shows got canceled. Maybe you’ve grown tired of another. Or maybe the promo guys have done their job and you’re curious enough about a new series to give it a look, willing to make room for another hour or half-hour each week if it’s truly worthwhile.

Fortunately for the networks, TV viewers seem blessed with a cavalier attitude when it comes to gambling their time--willing to sift through TV’s rubble to find its occasional gems. If you must hire a baby-sitter and pay $20 bucks to catch the new Oliver Stone film, you might scour reviews and consider previous stinkers in deciding whether to venture out. If it takes 20 minutes watching “Dark Angel” to see if “Titanic” director Cameron is the king of TV, too--knowing you’re a mere flick of the remote away from salvaging the evening--hey, why not?

This readiness to test-drive programs is obviously good news to the networks, but it only goes so far. Sure, you’re TV addicts, but you also have so many options pleading for your time and attention you need not endure any series that doesn’t thrill you right out of the blocks. In other words, the attrition rate for some of these programs in their second and third weeks could make George W. Bush’s proposed tax cuts look modest by comparison.

The mere fact people keep coming back for more, however, reinforces the perception much of the audience is still the networks’ to lose--a reminder of how deeply ingrained episodic television remains in our leisure-time psyche. Even Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph I. Lieberman, for all his assaults on the entertainment industry, professed his love for the tube in a December 1998 commentary for The Times.

“Many of us ‘culture warriors’ are, in fact, loving critics who enjoy watching television, who appreciate the contributions it has made to our society over the years and who recognize its immense power to enlighten and inform,” he wrote. “When I express concerns about television’s influence on our culture, I usually preface my remarks by professing with some pride that I am a child of the television age.”

That said, with so many toys at their disposal, children of the TV age will also balk at returning to programs that don’t live up to expectations, one reason you won’t see networks popping any champagne corks just yet. No one wants to hang around at a party that’s a crashing bore, which may not bode well for the future of “Yes, Dear” or, for that matter, this week’s second episode of “Gore vs. Bush.”

*

Brian Lowry’s column appears on Tuesdays. He can be reached by e-mail at brian.lowry@latimes.com.