Here's everything you need to know about the world of television for Tuesday, February 18th, 2025:
A VIEW ON DEI FROM THE LEGAL SIDE OF THE TELEVISION BUSINESS
I've recently written several pieces arguing that the various networks who have opted to dial back or eliminate their DEI and diversity issues were making a mistake. Not just that it’s a morally bad decision, but also it is one that will come back to haunt them. Because if history has taught us anything, it's that bullies never stop after you yield the first time. They're just likely to keep coming back for more.
I published an interview about two weeks ago with a streaming executive who had some thoughts on DEI and "woke TV" and some of their comments sparked a lot of reader feedback, especially from people in the industry, who pushed back on some of the what was said:
This might be hyperbole, but isn't that a variation of the argument made back in the 1950s and early 1960s about having interracial casts on television shows? The networks claimed that having a racially diverse cast would lost them a percentage of their Southern viewers and affiliates. And they decided not to do the thing many of them believed was morally the right decision. And I think it would have been the best creative decision as well.
That is not at all a fair comparison. Deciding that I don't want to greenlight a drama that focuses on the failings of America is not at all comparable to keeping a TV show white-only. I'm just saying that if you come to me with that pitch, you better be prepared to defend it and convince me it needs to be made. Not because of cultural reasons or because that's the way you feel about America. But because that point of view is the only one that makes sense for the project and you have scripts so exceptional that any other qualms I have get washed away.
But doesn't that by default set an unfair bar for these kind of projects? It sounds like you're saying, "You can have a trans character be a prominent part of a show, but it has to be much better than anything else out there."
I don't mean to sound harsh. But welcome to Hollywood. It's always going to be harder to sell a difficult project than one that has a more traditional point of view. This is a business. And that's how things work.
Among other people, I heard from several executives on the business affairs side of the business (although some were working on the corporate law side of the business). I ended up having some interesting conversations, but they all ended up being off-the-record. I was finally able to persuade one executive to make some comments as long as they weren't identified, which is likely the best I'm going to get in this environment.
Here is a part of that conversation:
I know you have some strong opinions about what I wrote concerning the Trump Administration's efforts to roll back DEI and diversity efforts at the big media companies. Tell me what you think I missed or got wrong.
You didn't get it wrong, exactly. But I think you underplayed the legal stakes for the networks. President Trump signed an executive order that forbids American companies from pursuing DEI efforts. And like it or not, that's the law right now. Personally, I don't think it stands in the long run and I suspect some company will fight it all the way up the Supreme Court and win.
But it would be malpractice for any legal advisor at a major media company to recommend the company pursue that option. The downside is so large, not just the negative publicity in some quarters. But we could lose, and that would add whatever unpredictable monetary damages on top of the very large legal bills. The only reasonable thing to do is for the companies to go along and hope for the best in the long term.
I'm not happy about that option. It makes me a bit ill, to be honest. But I don't see another way of handling this.
The obvious follow-up question is "what do you if the Trump Administration ups the pressure on media companies? What do you do if he signs an executive order outlawing the portrayal of gay relationships or insists that all content has to be pro-American?"
(there was a long pause, close to fifteen seconds).
I don't think that's an unreasonable concern. And the truthful answer is that I don't know how we would respond as an industry. It depends on the situation and every company has their own red line with this. We may end up having to go to court at some point. But I would rather do that fighting back against the two issues you cited rather than on DEI. Not just because I think those restrictions would be easier to defend and explain to the public. We would also be able to show the courts "Look, we backed down on the DEI and diversity stuff and they came back for more. What are we supposed to do?
Without getting into specifics, what do you say to a media executive hoping to navigate his company through the next four years of the Trump Administration?
I'm not sure there is a perfect answer for that. To be blunt, if Trump decides he wants to come after you, he'll find a reason. He may target the news division or try and interfere with affiliate renewal negotiations. All we can do is take things one day at a time and pray that we don't step on a political land mine.
Do you have something to add or a news tip for me? Email me confidentially at
NETFLIX SETS PREMIERE DATE FOR ITS FIRST ENGLISH-LANGUAGE MEDICAL PROCEDURAL
Streaming industry journalists have complained for years about the reluctance of streamers to produce traditional broadcast-style procedurals. "Oh, look at how many people are watching Gray's Anatomy on Netflix!," they'll moan. "Why isn't Netflix making shows like this?
The obvious answer was they didn't do it because the broadcast networks were already producing those types of shows and it was cheaper to license a successful series that didn't need additional marketing spending than it was to produce something new in-house. Also, streamers were able to differentiate themselves from traditional linear networks by producing shows that weren't typical of existing programming.
But the global reach of streamers such as Prime Video and Netflix makes that equation a bit different. Procedurals are popular internationally and localized procedurals have been stalwarts on Netflix for years (for example, the excellent The Trauma Code: Heroes On Call). So now it makes sense to try the format with a few English-language shows and see if they can draw an audience.
Netflix just announced a new premiere date for its first-ever English-language procedural, which is produced and co-showrun by Carlton Cuse and Zoe Robyn. Pulse premieres globally on Thursday, April 3rd and here is the logline:
As a hurricane barrels towards Miami’s busiest Level 1 Trauma Center, third-year resident Dr. Danny Simms (Willa Fitzgerald) is unexpectedly thrust into a promotion when beloved Chief Resident Dr. Xander Phillips (Colin Woodell) is suspended. Amid the worsening storm and an onslaught of trauma cases, the hospital goes into lockdown, and Danny and Phillips must find a way to work together - even as the bombshell details of a complicated and illicit romance between them begin to spill out. The rest of the ER is left to process the fallout of their relationship while balancing their own challenges, both personal and professional, as they work under the pressure of life-or-death stakes. Because for this tight-knit group of doctors, saving their patients’ lives is often less complicated than living their own.
Season one has ten episodes and the series was shot in Miami and Albuquerque, New Mexico. I haven't seen screeners yet (and even if I had, they would be embargoed). But here is a first look at some photos of the show.
WHY IS NO ONE IN HOLLYWOOD FIGHTING BACK?
Out of every Hollywood analyst, reporter and hot take freelancer covering the industry right now, the opinions of The Ankler's Richard Rushfield are often the ones that are closest to my point of view. More than once, I'll read something he wrote and think "wow, this reads like some rant I could have cranked out!" And increasingly, I am beginning to suspect the biggest difference between Richard and myself is that he owns a piece of The Ankler and seems to spend a lot of time attending industry events around the world. While I work for myself and sad to say, my boss has a budget that mostly limits travel to the closest Kohl's.
Regardless, I wanted to highlight Richard's piece from today, which focuses on the myriad of ways that Hollywood has screwed up:
A couple of weeks ago, Nielsen announced its streaming numbers for 2024. One astounding point leaped out at me: Little House on the Prairie, a show that went off the air 40 years ago, before anyone in “the demo” was born, got people watching 13 billion minutes of its catalog last year. On Peacock, which barely exists in the great streaming game’s viewership.
Thirteen billion. That is, I believe, more than any current show on TV. It’s more than mega-hits Moana or Super Mario Bros. Yes, it’s got a bigger catalog, but still! It’s been off the air for 40 years.
Seeing that, my first thought was, this is the hit Peacock has been grasping for since it launched. And here it is: a family friendly, easily replicable formula that could lift a network single-handed almost out of the basement, or at least guide its path. Surely, I assumed, NBCU must be racing to leap on this success.
Sure enough, just a few days later, I read the announcement that a new rendition of Little House based on the original novels was in the works . . . at Netflix.
I’m sure there was some very good reason for Peacock to let the rights to its megahit — one of NBC’s signature classics — get away. The bidding got out of hand. The numbers didn’t add up. Maybe Peacock is going to remake the show based on the rights to the series and feels it doesn’t need the books.
I kind of don’t want to know, because whatever the good reason was, it’s not good enough. Ankler Rule #1: This is a business of hits. Peacock has been waiting for one for years now, and it had this, a show that is at the core of the whole NBC brand, and they let it — or even some piece of it — slip away.
I completely agree with Richard,
ODDS AND SODS
* I wrote a review of the Investigation Discovery special Who Is Luigi Mangione, and it is just as terrible as you might expect.
* I am really looking forward to the new Cartoon Network animated series Iyanu, which was produced in Nigeria and which draws on Nigerian culture and folk stories. Here's a look at the trailer.
* This piece on upcoming SNL hosts from The Hollywood Reporter is so weirdly inept. It has today's date on the byline and a headline that hypes March's SNL hosts. But it's clearly a piece that was written late last summer. Because it discusses SNL "opening its landmark 50th season," and tours the show's first post-election host. Even worse, THR sent two back-to-back "Live Feed Alerts" for the story, one of which touted the December hosting choices.
* Season two of Am I Being Unreasonable? premieres Wednesday, March 12th on Hulu.
TWEET OF THE DAY
WHAT'S NEW TONIGHT AND TOMORROW
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18TH:
Court Of Gold (Netflix)
Exterior Nights (MHz Choice)
George Lopez: Muy Católico (Prime Video)
Offline Love Series Premiere (Netflix)
Renovation Aloha Season Two Premiere (HGTV)
Rosebud Baker: The Mother Lode (Netflix)
The Fox Hollow Murders: Playground Of A Serial Killer (Hulu)
Tiny House Nation: Memory Lane Series Premiere (fyi)
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19TH:
Death In Paradise (Britbox)
Good Cop/Bad Cop Series Premiere (The CW)
My Family (Netflix)
Spartans: A True Story (Hulu)
Win Or Lose Series Premiere (Disney+)
SEE YOU ON WEDNESDAY!