David Kronke was appointed Mayor of Television after a bloodless coup in 2000. Since then, he has improved infrastructure, championed greater educational opportunities and fought for reforms that have utterly erased corruption and incompetence from the television industry. Since Mr. Kronke has ascended to power, Television is a far better place. If “According to Jim’s” renewed, the terrorists win
An address by Your Mayor on the floor of the Senate, on Thursday, June 28, 2007:
Mr. President, I rise today to offer observations on ABC’s recent, inexplicable renewal of the sitcom “According to Jim.” In my judgment, offering Jim Belushi further comedic employment has lost contact with our vital national security interests. Our continuing absorption with Mr. Belushi is limiting our diplomatic assertiveness amongst the great People of Television and elsewhere in the world to present material that can actually be considered “amusing.” The prospects that the current “comedic surge” strategy will succeed in the way originally envisioned by ABC Entertainment President Stephen McPherson are very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic comic debate. And the strident, polarized nature of that debate increases the risk that TV’s involvement with Mr. Belushi will end in a poorly planned strategy for reinvigorating the genre of the situation comedy that undercuts our vital interests in American viewership. Unless we recalibrate our strategy regarding “According to Jim” to fit our domestic comedic conditions and the broader needs of U.S. national security, we risk entertainment policy failures that could greatly diminish our influence in the region and the world.
The current debate on “According to Jim” has not been conducive to a thoughtful revision of our TV-sitcom policy. Our debate is being driven by faulty, ratings-fueled calculations and understandable fatigue with bad news – including deaths and injuries to Americans who have been faithful to this program since its inception in the year 2000. We have been debating and voting on whether to fund American showrunners controlling Mr. Belushi’s wacky antics and whether to place conditions on such funding. We have contemplated in great detail whether ABC’s success in achieving certain comic benchmarks regarding Mr. Belushi’s ostensibly amusing pratfalls should determine whether advertiser-supported funding is approved or whether a programming-oriented withdrawal should commence.
I would observe that none of this debate addresses our vital interests any more than they are addressed by an unquestioned devotion to an ill-defined strategy of “staying the course” where ABC is concerned, whether the network needs returning comedies to bolster the chances of success for new alleged sitcoms such as “Cavemen” and “Carpoolers.”
Commentators frequently suggest that ABC has no good options when it comes to programming sitcoms. That may be true from a certain perspective. But I believe that we do have viable options that could strengthen our position regarding primetime comedy programming that can reduce the prospect of further reality-TV-based terrorism and other calamities.
But seizing these opportunities will require Mr. McPherson to downsize Mr. Belushi’s presence on the primetime schedule and place much more emphasis on diplomatic options that increase the number of sitcoms that include actual jokes in their episodes. Thank you, and God bless the People of Television.