FOR THE LITTLE GUY -- AND GILMORE GIRL EMMYS CHANGING THE RULES.

Byline: David Kronke Television Writer

Call it ``The Lauren Graham Rule.'' The new two-tier voting system to choose Emmy nominees is designed to help shows and actors such as Graham, who are acclaimed and accomplished yet whose work tends not to get seen by large numbers of voters.

``This is a system consciously looking outside the hot center of popular individuals or programs for those other programs gravitating around the bull's-eye of popularity,'' John Leverence, senior vice president of awards for the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, says of the new voting procedure. ``Lauren is an excellent example of that.''

In the past, academy members submitted their ballots; the top five vote-getters in every category were the nominees. Naturally, given the sheer amount of television being produced, no one in the academy has the time to see every program eligible in major categories.

Graham, who stars as the motor-mouthed mother on ``Gilmore Girls,'' is but one performer whose perennial snubs when nominations are announced has irritated fans, critics and industry observers alike.

This year, another level of voting was added to the major acting categories and for the outstanding drama and comedy series categories. Work of the top 15 vote recipients in the acting categories and the top 10 series vote-getters were then scrutinized by a ``blue-ribbon panel'' of industry peers, who give the nominees letter grades of A, B, or C, with A offering the highest recommendation. The top five with the best grades are then nominated. So now, an actor who came in 15th in the initial round of voting by the general body of academy members could still eke out a nomination based on the panel's response.

``The second vote is based on an immediate experience, what one sees on the screen, as opposed to a voter saying, `Yeah, I think that person's a good actor,' that kind of vague recollection,'' Leverence says. ``We're not reinventing the wheel, just adding another axle.''

When Emmy nominations are announced in a pre-dawn ceremony Thursday in North Hollywood, that axle is expected to help niche shows such as FX's ``Rescue Me,'' HBO's ``Big Love'' and ``Entourage,'' Showtime's ``Weeds'' and perhaps even the long-ignored ``Gilmore Girls'' roll to a number of high-profile nominations.

They'll join a preponderance of Emmy perennials -- ``The Sopranos,'' ``Boston Legal,'' ``24,'' ``The West Wing,'' ``Will & Grace,'' ``Curb Your Enthusiasm'' -- and more recent additions such as ``Lost,'' ``Desperate Housewives'' and ``Grey's Anatomy.''

IN THE HABIT

Among the major entertainment awards, the Emmys are unique in that series and actors are eligible for as long as they're on the air. Often, Emmy voters fall into the habit of voting for the same nominees, to the detriment of up-and-coming series. Recently, ``The West Wing'' won the outstanding drama Emmy for three consecutive years; ``Frasier'' was named outstanding comedy for five. Helen Hunt was nominated in the best actress/comedy category for seven consecutive years, winning in four consecutive years.

``When you have that kind of branding as a person or a show, with a gravitas and track record that accumulates around you as an added attraction for voters, you become a 600-pound gorilla,'' Leverence concedes. ``You've been in the game for a while, everyone knows you, and if even if a voter didn't watch any episodes, they might think, `Bob's been good in the past -- why wouldn't he be good this year? He gets my vote.' While Sam, in a new series, may act rings around Bob, he's not in same recognition league. It's inherent in the psychology of the voter, a certain tropism in the direction of past achievements.''

Bob Thompson, founding director of Syracuse University's Center for the Study of Popular Television, says the new system ``could have a significant effect. You'll know the people doing the nominations are going to have seen everything on there. Anytime you can guarantee that everybody is going to watch all the stuff, you're going to have some change.

``A lot of people have their pet shows that they're going to vote for anyway,'' Thompson notes. ``If you sat everyone down and screened everything, they'd be forced to think, `Wow, that was really good; why haven't I watched that before?' It's not going to revolutionize the Emmys, but it's not insignificant.''

NO CHANGE

Ray Richmond, who covers the TV industry for the trade publication The Hollywood Reporter, isn't so sure.

``I think the rules changes will help minimally, if at all,'' he says. ``The TV academy members who vote for Emmys are typically the older base who are set in their ways. The whole idea of the extra voting layer to get the short list before the nominees was to allow for inclusion of those drama and comedy series and lead actors who couldn't crack the lineup due to obscurity or being on a network that simply isn't taken seriously.

``The thing is, the academy -- seeks to open up the process to the `Battlestar Galacticas' and `Gilmore Girls' of the world by asking voters to attend a specially convened blue ribbon panel for a weekend -- which is sure to attract the very people who are resistant to change. So no, I don't see a lot of long shots cracking the field, even in this more inclusive process.''

Simply put, Richmond states, ``There remains a disconnect between what the TV academy likes and what critics prefer.

``And the Emmys really are a lot like the real-estate trade in that the three most important factors are location, location and location. What you are often matters less than where you air. A broadcast network and HBO are basically oceanfront. Anything else moves you progressively inland and toward the bad part of town. And if you're on The WB, it's like living in the ghetto.''

CHOOSY VOTERS

Besides, Thompson adds, there's the question of what Emmy trophies truly measure. ``If they're choosing what shows are truly the best by an objective criteria, then you'd have to completely change the voting,'' he says. ``It's never meant to be the best; it's what a jury of peers thinks is best. The Emmys are an annual Rorschach test of the attitudes of the industry itself about what's being made in the industry. These panels, in many ways, are trying to make the Emmys reflect something they've never measured before.''

The academy first employed blue-ribbon panels for some categories back in 1998, in an effort to diffuse the number of big-name celebrities being nominated for guest performances on series. ``One year, we had a situation where a movie star had a cameo and got a nomination,'' Leverence recalls. ``As good as this guy is, he didn't really do anything; he got the nomination for his name recognition.

``A lot of people were doing better work, and they can't make it into this system. We figured out a way to pre-screen stuff for a better opportunity to find legitimately good performances.''

David Kronke, [phone]

[e-mail]

Emmys whiter than TV as a whole

In 1999, an uproar arose when the major broadcast networks unveiled a fall season of new series featuring virtually no minority actors. Since then, the networks and series showrunners have been careful to create programs featuring casts that wouldn't be out of place in a United Colors of Benetton ad, but when Emmy season rolls around, nominees tend to be predominantly white.

This year may prove to be no different. When Emmy nominees are announced Thursday morning, most of the major acting categories will be filled with white actors. The category most likely to feature a plurality of minority performers is supporting actress in a drama, where ``Grey's Anatomy's'' Sandra Oh, ``The Shield's'' CCH Pounder and ``Law & Order's'' S. Epatha Merkerson look to be in the hunt.

Best supporting actor in a drama should include some of the following as nominees: ``Lost's'' Naveen Andrews, ``The Shield's'' Forest Whitaker, ``The West Wing's'' Jimmy Smits and perhaps even ``House's'' Omar Epps.

Elsewhere, ``Everybody Hates Chris's'' Tyler James Williams and Tichina Arnold are possible, if longshot, possibilities in comedy's best supporting actor and actress categories, respectively.

``The kerfuffle of a few years back didn't result in much as far as quality, meaty minority roles; it resulted in a greater number of them,'' says Ray Richmond, TV industry analyst for the Hollywood Reporter. ``And while a couple of solid ones have slipped through the cracks -- Dennis Haysbert on both `24' and `The Unit,' Andre Braugher on the short-lived `Thief' -- more often the black acting community is the recipient of lip service.

``It's been true since the medium began, and it remains mostly so: Prime time is white time. And that's unfortunately reflected in the consistently meager representation of minorities at Emmy time.''

``There was a while there where there were really good dramatic roles for people of color,'' says Robert Thompson of Syracuse University's Center for the Study of Popular Television. ``Now, you've got integrated casts, but no one in the entertainment industry, or TV in particular, has done a good job of creating good, meaty characters. Look at Alfre Woodard (on `Desperate Housewives') -- they don't know what to do with her on that show.''

Thompson notes that, in many series, minority characters ``spend an awful lot of time serving up exposition or delivering a quip.

``Part of the reason that it's been a while since we've seen a really good, meaty minority character on a show,'' he concludes, ``may be because it's been a while since we've had a really good meaty character on a show, period.''

-- D.K.

CAPTION(S):

4 photos, box

Photo:

(1 -- 2) Critical favorites that may be helped by the new Emmy nomination process include Lauren Graham, above, of ``Gilmore Girls,'' and HBO's polygamy drama ``Big Love,'' left.

(3) OH

(4) WHITAKER

Box:

Emmys whiter than TV as a whole (see text)