Things more interesting than the Emmy controversy

Well, just about everything.

But, since it is our duty here to discuss television, we’ll duly note that a larger cloud of suspicion than usual hovers over this weekend’s Emmy ceremony.

You no doubt know the particulars – blue-ribbon panels recruited to help nominees on perennially snubbed, smaller networks botch their job beyond all credibility. Hugh Laurie’s not nominated; Kevin James is. “Lost� named Outstanding Drama last year; this year, zilch. Ellen Burstyn’s sterling 15 seconds of work in “Mrs. Harris� gets a nomination, underscoring that no voters actually watch any of this stuff.

In the current Emmy magazine, academy chairman Dick Askin writes, “I am delighted that our new policies led to first-time nominations in the key categories we targeted. … “This would not have been possible were it not for effective collaboration between our peer groups and board of governors and their mutual desire to improve the voting process.� He sounds absolutely giddy, doesn’t he? But then, leaden prose will do that for a guy. About the ceremony itself, Askin enthuses, “We are confident it will be an exciting show with great talent and highly entertaining production values.�

Bulletin: Every awards show has its unconscionable omissions and risible quirks. This year’s Emmys just decided to up the ante. If the usual roster of safe nominees had received nods, people’d be grousing about that (though no doubt far less vociferously). And the plain and simple fact is that there’s just too much television being produced for any governing body to watch enough of it to make informed decisions about relative quality, so naturally, they’ll go with brand names with which they’re familiar. (You want to know who really got ripped off? “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.� But that show’s hardly on the radar of the people who complain about how limited Emmy’s radar is.)

Anyway, as a public service, in Sunday’s paper, the Daily News is presenting, in a mere 1,300 words, the entirety of Sunday night’s Emmy telecast, sparing you the anguish of having to sit through the three-hour leviathan, unless, of course, that siren-song lure of “highly entertaining production values� is just too great to resist.