ABC VS. CBS VS. NBC VS. FOX VS. WB VS. UPN VIEWERS - AND QUALITY PROGRAMMING - LOST IN HAZE OF NETWORK INFIGHTING.

Byline: David Kronke Television Writer

The broadcast networks have a lot to worry about - stemming viewer attrition, luring younger audiences away from cable and coping with TiVo- style technologies.

What they don't seem to be worried about is helping (or even keeping) viewers - offering dysfunctional scheduling and a slew of copycat shows.

What the networks are good at, though, is acting like brats. Network television has never been a gentleman's pursuit, but the sort of bad behavior we're witnessing by executives these days is a new low in infighting and backbiting.

For instance, ABC and NBC accused Fox of poaching ideas for reality series and rushing them onto the air ahead of them. Fox, of course, denied the charges, then quibbled over whether its shows are ``copies'' of its competition's and admitted to withholding particularly dodgy shows from its critics' scalpels. ``Some shows we know are going to get criticized, not because they're bad, but because of the kind of show they are, and so sometimes we won't let those out,'' says Fox reality guru Mike Darnell.

CBS desultorily fired two of the co-stars of its phenomenally successful drama, ``CSI: Crime Scene Investigation,'' when they had the temerity to phone in sick on the first day of work after asking for more money, a year after CBS had ponied up a big raise for Brad Garrett when he pulled the same stunt on ``Everybody Loves Raymond,'' the network's biggest sitcom. (The pair were allowed, tails between their legs, to return). ``A contract's a contract,'' CBS CEO Les Moonves declared, after it had long been established that a contract isn't necessarily a contract.

Fox, UPN - and, perhaps, CBS - surreptitiously shoot reality programs with dubious or controversial subject matter, then rush them onto the air with marketing campaigns more artful than the shows themselves. (Of course, given reality TV's new world order, secretive productions may simply be the only way to prevent other networks from ripping off unscripted concepts.)

NBC led the networks in shuffling its schedule unannounced and having programs begin early or run long, wreaking havoc among viewers recording them for later viewing.

The new regime at the once-ramrod-stable WB demonstrated a remarkable ignorance, even indifference, to its own programming. ``I'm not as good with character names as I get older,'' WB chairman Garth Ancier wanly offered by way of explaining his not keeping up with one of the network's most critically acclaimed shows, ``Everwood.'' Asked about another WB series, newly installed entertainment president David Janollari admitted he hadn't watched it.

Fox, after promising at the May presentation of its new schedule to be patient and allow new shows time to find an audiences, quickly canceled two new shows anyway and has been retooling its schedule ever since. And just about everyone seemed happy to let their potshots at the competition devolve into cheap shots.

While all this playground-style posturing no doubt entertains the bemused cynics who cover the industry, it scarcely serves those who really matter - the viewers. Viewers get discouraged when they don't know when their favorite shows will be on the air and how long they'll be on - both on any given night and in a schedule's longer run - or if their favorite characters will be on them. Viewers likewise aren't thrilled with the prospect of having to figure out which new reality show is worth their time and which is a cheap knockoff.

Instead of steadfastly vowing that stability is the hallmark of any successful enterprise, network executives inundated us with insightful repartee, such as NBC's Jeff Zucker opining, ``Quite frankly, (Fox) used to be innovators, and now they're imitators,'' to which Fox's Gail Berman gamely rejoined, ``That's coming to you from the instigator.''

Bob Thompson, founding director of Syracuse University's Center for the Study of Popular Television, suggests that, well, it's one way to call attention to the networks.

``Network battles have become a spectator sport, which to an extent is good, since networks were receding into irrelevance,'' he says. ``All the interesting programming worth discussing has been coming from the test kitchens of cable, so it didn't seem like we cared about the major broadcast networks anymore. So when they start sniping at each other, they're sending a message that there's still fight left in them.

``They're putting a narrative juice on their programming, suggesting we should care if 'Wife Swap' or 'Trading Spouses' does well. They're creating their own little Olympics, focusing attention back on network programming. Our focus isn't there - HBO doesn't have to do this; everyone talks about their shows like they're the 'Mona Lisa' - so this is a way to get people talking about the network shows.''

Certainly, successful ideas are gleefully replicated - just look at the number of (largely unsuccessful) ``Seinfeld'' and ``Friends'' clones inspired by those shows' popularity. This year, the show to ape is NBC's ``Las Vegas,'' about beautiful bodies angsting in exotic settings. NBC itself managed two - ``LAX'' and ``Hawaii'' - but CBS (``Dr. Vegas''), Fox (``North Shore'') and the WB (``The Mountain,'' midseason series ``Rocky Point'') all managed to create similar shows, as well. ABC's ``Lost'' offers the most inventive spin by adding a thriller element, thrusting its lissome characters on an uncharted island filled with carnivorous beasts after a plane crash - paradise, only with the irritant of perpetual impending doom.

But reality programming can be Xeroxed quickest of all: ``You can hear an idea on Monday and be casting (a variation on the idea) by Friday,'' Thompson notes. ``There's no sense of copyright protection on these ideas.''

CBS' Moonves notes that his network sued ABC for ripping off ``Survivor'' with its lame ``I'm a Celebrity - Get Me Out of Here!'' three years ago and lost the suit (Thompson testified on behalf of CBS). ``We showed five minutes of our show, five minutes of their show, showing how scene for scene, dialogue, music, shots, it was a total rip-off. ... Once the courts said we didn't have a case, it became the wild, wild West.''

But Moonves discerns more than simple plagiarism at work here - crafty competitive scheduling is in play, as well. NBC originally announced its reality-boxing series, ``The Contender,'' as competition for when Fox's reality juggernaut ``American Idol'' returned in January. Fox then announced that its copycat boxing show, ``The Next Great Champ,'' would premiere in November. NBC then announced ``The Contender'' would be moved to November, and Fox hinted that ``Champ'' might air even sooner. At any rate, ``The Contender'' will no longer air opposite ``American Idol.''

``Maybe Fox picked up the boxing show truly to hurt the NBC boxing show because they didn't want it to hurt 'American Idol,' '' Moonves sagely notes.

At any rate, all this, Thompson notes, clouds the fact that ``the networks are still looking for that next new idea. Reality was one, but after it rode in like the cavalry, revealed its weakness - you can play 'The Apprentice' for 14 weeks but not for 14 more. But you can play a sitcom for 22 weeks, then play it again and again and again. There's a financial equity in scripted programming that reality hasn't yet provided.

``Where will that next batch of 'Cosby'/'Seinfeld'/'Cheers'-type hits come from? Even CBS' crime procedurals are starting to look pretty long in the tooth - 'CSI' doesn't look like it will have the longevity of 'ER.' In the end, the networks desperately need a good hit traditional series, and there hasn't been a breakthrough idea. Reality can't carry the networks by itself.''

David Kronke, [phone]

david.kronke(at)dailynews.com

CAPTION(S):

2 photos

Photo:

(1 -- cover -- color) Networks behaving badly

Is infighting killing TV?

Daily News Photo Illustration

(2) The participants' personal stories are what will make or break Fox's ``The Next Great Champ.''