IV
TV Industry
Industrial Practices and Structures 25
Entertainment Tonight
Tabloid News
ANNE HELEN PETERSEN
Abstract: Much of the television schedule is taken up by programs that seem like âfillerâ to many critics, but here Anne Helen Petersen shines a light on the often-ignored realm of tabloid news via the influential and still-popular landmark Entertainment Tonight. Petersenâs account highlights how scheduling practices, regulation, and ownership can all have powerful impacts on a wide range of media content.
Until the early 1980s, âfirst-runâ syndicated programmingâthat is, programming created for initial airing in syndication, not rerunsâwas limited to a âghetto of game shows, talk shows and cartoons.â1 Entertainment Tonight (syndicated, 1981âpresent) gentrified that ghetto, changing the way that both television producers and stations conceived of first-run syndication and its potential profitability. Indeed, if you flipped through the channels between the evening news and the beginning of primetime during the 1980s, you would almost certainly happen upon a now-familiar sight: the wholesome face of Mary Hart, reporting on the latest happenings in Hollywood. As the host of Entertainment Tonight, Hart helped popularize a new mode of celebrity gossip in which stories on the private lives of stars and celebrities comingled with reportage of box office receipts and on-set exclusives.
Since its debut, ET has become one of the longest running, most consistently profitable programs on the air. In the 1980s, it readied the way for a profusion of entertainment news programs and venues that now form a major node in the media landscape, from E! to Entertainment Weekly. Yet Entertainment Tonightâs success must be situated amidst a constellation of technological and regulatory changes, from the spread of cable and satellite technology to the gradual repeal of the Financial and Syndication Rules and other anti-monopoly regulations. This essay positions ET within the greater industrial climate of the 1980s, underlining the ways in which the programâs unmitigated success fundamentally altered the landscape of first-run syndication.
Beginning in the days of early radio, the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) blocked Hollywood studios from entering into broadcasting, fearing the consolidation of entertainment media into the hands of few. This practice continued when broadcasting expanded from radio to television, as the FCC blocked film studio attempts at entering into television, station ownership, cultivating âPay-TVâ options, or starting their own networks. At the same time, the FCC was wary of the existing networks, their growing power, and their apparent negligence of the mandate to use the airwaves for the public good. By the end of the 1950s, ABC, CBS, and NBC relied on programming which they owned or had invested inâa practice that may have streamlined profits, but also resulted in a schedule replete with derivative game shows and Westerns.2
The resultant crop of programming, famously deemed a âvast wastelandâ by FCC chairman Newton Minow in 1961, encouraged FCC passage of the Financial Interest and Syndication Rules, otherwise known as Fin-Syn, in 1971. Fin-Syn prohibited the networks from securing financial interest in independently produced programming and syndicating off-network programming. Coupled with the Prime Time Access Rule (PTAR), Fin-Syn also limited the amount of programming that each network could produce for itself (such as news) and freed a portion of primetime from network control. The resultant time slots, dubbed âprime access,â would allow affiliates to program independently, hopefully with shows serving the local interest.
In short, the FCC blocked the networksâ attempt to vertically integrate, barring them from producing the content they distributed. With the passage of Fin-Syn and PTAR, the FCC also hoped to free broadcast hours from network-induced repeats, opening the airwaves to local interests and concerns. In several crucial ways, these regulations served that purpose, but failed to encourage local programming. When tasked with filling the hours vacated by PTAR, local stations usually opted for syndicated offerings from studios or independent production companies, which not only cost less, but brought in higher ad revenue.3 Without Fin-Syn and PTAR, Entertainment Tonightâa show produced by a major studio (Paramount) and broadcast during prime accessâwould not have been possible.
Entertainment Tonight was conceived by Alfred M. Masini, a former advertising executive and the creative force behind the hit music program Solid Gold. Masini came up with the idea for ET by studying what was not on the airâno one was providing âentertainment newsâ in the form of information on box office receipts, upcoming projects, Nielsen ratings, gossip, and personality profiles.4 But the particular brand of ânewsâ that ET was prepared to offer was a commodity that consumers had no idea they were supposed to desire. Indeed, before 1981, âalmost no one, outside of pencil pushers in the business, had heard of televisionâs upfront ad-selling seasonâ let alone attendance figures, production deals, and industry machinations.5
But if ET provided that news, Masini hypothesized, audiences would watch. As longtime ET host Mary Hart recalled, âDo people really want to learn all these detailsâthe weekly TV show ratings, the top-grossing movies? If we present it concisely and regularly, the answer is yes, people do want to learn.â6 Hartâs rhetoric reproduced the implicit message of the program, which suggested that entertainment news, when offered concisely on a daily basis, accrues gravity and importance. In other words, ET supplied entertainment news and figures with such regularity that such information no longer appeared superfluous but necessary to make sense of the entertainment world.7
While Entertainment Tonight was introducing a new genre of programming, it was also proposing a novel model of distribution. ET, like Maisaniâs other hits, was syndicated. For the previous thirty years, syndicated programs had been âbicycledâ from station to station, airing in one market, then sent, via the mail, to another. As a result, the lag-time between production and airing could be weeksâunacceptable for a program promising up-to-date Hollywood news. Paramount offered a solution in the form of satellite technology. In exchange for control of the show, Paramount offered to install and lease dishes to any station willing to air ET.8 The offer resulted in a collection of 100 local stations equipped to receive the ET feed and a reach unthinkable without Paramountâs infusion of capital.9
Satellite distribution also allowed Entertainment Tonight âday and dateâ transmission, meaning the show could be aired the same day it was filmed. This promise of immediacy would prove quintessential to ETâs image. In the early 1980s, the weekendâs box office figures came in at noon on Monday. ET would tape its segment at 1:30 p.m., and the finished product would be seen across the nation within hours.10 As a result, ET even beat the long-established Hollywood trade papers Variety and Hollywood Reporter in announcing figures crucial to the industry. In truth, such immediacy mattered little to ETâs audience, the vast majority of whom had no fiscal investment in the media industry. But the distinction of ET as the âfirst in entertainment newsâ bestowed its viewers with the status of insiders and experts and, by extension, encouraged dedicated viewership.
ETâs cost and market penetration were unprecedented. Three months before it aired, ET had already been cleared in 100+ markets, reaching 77 percent of U.S. homes with all advertising spots sold for the year.11 In its first week on the air, ET made good on its promises to affiliates, earning a 12.6 national ratingâenough to make it the highest-rated national newscast.12 But early reviews were not kind. The hosts were âdreadfulâ; the news was âso soft it squishesâ; it was âPeople Magazine without that fine publicationâs depth.â13 One critic deemed it a âpress agentâs dream,â calling out a recent on-set visit to Paramount-produced Grease II as pure promotional propaganda.14 In decrying ETâs intimacy with the industry, critics were in fact criticizing the designed cooperation between the production cultures at ET and the studios. In other words, ET was intended to be a press agentâs dream and serve as a promotional vehicle for Paramount, not an independent journalistic outsider. These functions were not intended to be visible to the average viewer, only the savviest of whom would even realize that the show was produced by the same corporation as Grease II.
FIGURE 25.1. Host Mary Hart, for many years the face of entertainment news.
Over the next decade, critics would continue to criticize ETâs relationship with Hollywood. According to one Time reviewer, âET is a part of the phenomenon it covers, another wheel in the publicity machine it seeks to explain.â15 ET has built a âcozy, symbiotic relationshipâ with celebrities, and â[t]he show has dropped almost all pretense of being anything but an arm of the Hollywood publicity machine,â filled with âfluff indistinguishable from advertising.â16 Such assessments were not inaccurate, but perhaps missed the point, as ET had never aspired to function as a source for hard news or investigative journalism. From the start, ETâs tone has mirrored that of a traditional fan magazine, offering fawning, flattering portraits of the stars and Hollywood delivered by Hart and her various co-anchors in a bright, cheery fashion. While ET would not shy away from reporting on an existing celebrity controversy or scandal, the tone was never derogatory or denigrating. Most importantly, ET did not break such stories itself, lest it risk alienating a celebrity or publicist. The addition of entertainment news and figures helped ET gain credibility and attract a broader demographic, but it did not change the character of the relationship between the program and its subjects.
That relationship, however, was one of ETâs biggest assets. As Variety observed, the program is âa big wet kiss in terms of promotion of projects.â A single appearance on ET could reach double, even triple the audience of a network morning show or late-night talk show.17 Such reach gave ET tremendous leverage, especially over publicists eager to place celebrity clients on the show. ET producers exploited this leverage to exact a host of demands, including exclusive footage, access to stars, and the right to air a film trailer before any other outlet.18 But ET needed celebrities and their publicists as much as they needed ET. âThe reality is that weâre all in bed with each other,â said one top talent manager. âSo nobody can tell anyone off. I need them. They need me.â19
ET attempted to make up for lack of hard content with snappy editing, musical accompaniment, and fast-paced storytelling. Producers livened up its otherwise soft approach with flashy graphics, sound effects, and quick cuts that add âportentâ and attract audience members who are âvideo fluent,â thus manifesting a graphic mode that John T. Caldwell has termed âexhibitionism,â in which stylization and activity take precedence.20 In 1983, a typical program began with seven to eight minutes of industry news, delivered in the style of a nightly news program, followed by a âSpotlightâ on celebrity and an on-set exclusive (a âNever-Before-Seen glimpse behind Johnny Carsonâs desk!â). The show generally closed with an âin-depthâ report on style, an industry trend, or âa look backward at entertainment of the past.â21
From time to time, a longer, more investigative piece or multi-part series would replace the final section. Because ET was shot on video, producers could easily and cheaply manipulate graphics and other visual framing devices (bumpers heading to and from commercials, âNext Onâ previews, logos). The cluttered aesthetic compensated for the otherwise âlowâ production values and, more importantly, guided viewer response and discouraged viewers from changing channels. The carefully orchestrated mix of content, oscillating between headlines and statistics, eye-catching imagery, and slightly longer interviews and features likewise prevented viewer fatigue with a particular segment.
Over the course of the 1980s, ET continued to grow. By September 1983, it trailed only Solid Gold (1980â1988) and Family Feud (1977â1985; 1988â1995; 1999âpresent) among syndicat...