gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek...) (09/14/90)
I was perusing some of the trade journals for the broadcast industry when I came across the August 13, 1990 issue of BROADCASTING magazine (one of the three or four major trade publications of the TV/cable/radio industry). In its Editorials section, usually devoted to political maneuvering in Washington, DC (syndex and the like), there was a comment titled "SET PHASERS ON STUN." In it, BROADCASTING pretty much lambasts the lack of Emmy nominations for ST: TNG in directing and acting. "Considering the show is consistently well acted, has won critical praise and even garnered a Peabody award in its second [actually, first] season, its total absence from these venues strikes this page as curious. It would be perceived as sour grapes or bad manners for the producers of the show to protest the ommission, but they would have grounds for complaint from this vantage." BROADCASTING goes on to ponder why there were no nominations, first speculating it could have been the fact that science fiction gets no respect from within the industry. Or, it could represent a bias against syndicated programming, in favor of prime-time, network/Big Three programs. "A third possibility is that the show has never deserved to be recognized in any of those areas, but that seems to us the least likely of all." Gee, if even the industry flaks notice it, then it's gotta be reaaalll obvious by now...... Food for thought, folks..... -- Roger Tang "There's something reassuringly perverse in a computer science student or professional condemning yuppies at the top of their lungs..." gwangung@blake.u.washington.edu -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by Jim Griffith - the official scapegoat for r.a.s.i. Email submissions to trek-info@dweeb.fx.com, and questions to trek-info-request@dweeb.fx.com