Will Emmy Be the Loser in Rules Change?

Ever been tinkering with something--maybe a backyard sprinkler or an electrical outlet--and realized that despite your best intentions, you’re really doing more harm than good?

Thomas O’Neil, who has literally written the book on the Emmy Awards, fears the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences--the organization behind TV’s premier back-patting ceremony--has done exactly that in attempting to fix the Emmys.

Like the television industry, the Emmys have experienced growing pains adjusting to the demands of a 200-channel universe. Trying to locate the gems amid a tide of TV programming is a thankless task, one inevitably prone to second-guessing.

It hasn’t helped that unlike other awards shows, the Emmys have relied on an arcane procedure in which final winners were chosen by “judging panels” that spent a weekend holed up at the Beverly Hilton Hotel screening the contenders.

A few months ago, the academy decided to amend that process, this year allowing panelists to watch tapes at home. The goal is to include more voters in the judging and let those most active in the TV industry participate, since the knock has been that most of the judges are retirees with ample time on their hands--a group less likely to embrace edgy, risk-taking fare, causing the awards to become stodgy and predictable.

Although a change in the voting had long been discussed, it finally happened in the wake of what can only be called “The Sopranos” fever--a fast-spreading condition that inspired critics to make the sort of pronouncements normally reserved for papal processions.

The frenzy peaked when New York Times film critic Stephen Holden went slumming in the TV mosh pit long enough to proclaim the show “the greatest work of American popular culture in the last 25 years,” which prompted a dead-on “Saturday Night Live” parody that imagined Holden saying, “I’m afraid to look away from the screen while it’s on for fear that it will disappear, and I’ll be forced to kill myself.”

When “The Sopranos” was denied last year’s Emmy for best drama, coupled with repeat wins in most of the lead acting categories, critics began grumbling about the need to overhaul the Emmys. As academy Chairman Meryl Marshall diplomatically put it, there seemed to be “a disconnect between the audience at the awards and the choices.”

Few would disagree that the Emmys might benefit from an infusion of new blood. Yet O’Neil contends the judging panels have effectively kept politics out of the balloting, helping little-seen shows receive acclaim that contributed to their longevity while providing a truer gauge of merit than other entertainment honors.

“They’re giving up the one thing that gives the Emmy its special luster when you put it aside television’s other awards,” O’Neil said.

As outlined by O’Neil, the panels were the brainchild of “The Twilight Zone” creator Rod Serling, who came up with the scheme in the 1960s to bring irate officials at ABC--a perennial ratings also-ran consistently overlooked at the Emmys--back into the process.

“He decided to be gutsy enough to say, ‘Everybody can vote, but you actually have to see it,’ ” O’Neil said. “There’s nothing wrong with home viewing. The thing the academy is forfeiting is Serling’s guarantee to the underdogs.”

Past underdogs have included such shows as “Cagney & Lacey,” “Hill Street Blues” and “Cheers”--low-rated programs that parlayed their Emmy wins into increased viewing, at a time when their survival was far from a certainty.

O’Neil’s concern is that the new method could suffer from an age-old problem--namely, people voting based on reputation and popularity as opposed to watching programs and deciding who deserves the awards.

In his book “The Emmys,” O’Neil quotes former Los Angeles Times television critic Cecil Smith, who once wrote that the Emmy system is “the most intelligent used by any entertainment medium” and the only awards “where the judges actually vote for the things they have seen, not just things that they have heard about or read about or the waiter at the bistro told them about.”

Citing that logic, O’Neil wonders if the rules change will freeze out smaller networks, as ABC once felt, and programs such as Chris Rock’s 1997 comedy special--a hilarious expletive-laden hour that might have been hard-pressed to win its Emmy had voters not been compelled to sit still and give it a chance.

“The whole key will be if any underdogs prevail,” O’Neil said. “If they don’t, then the experiment will fail.”

Part of the Emmys’ perception problem is endemic to television, where series continue year after year, with only the occasional sterling newcomer--such as “The Sopranos” or this season’s White House drama “The West Wing”--to shake up the mixture.

*

The Oscars, of course, are presented an entirely new round of candidates each year, but even there, the tendency is to return to familiar faces. Consider Meryl Streep--like Katharine Hepburn, a 12-time nominee--who would probably garner a bid for an American Express commercial. (“Do you know me? I may change my accent in every film I do, but in shops and restaurants around the world, people always understand this.”)

As for the Golden Globes, often perceived to be more “hip” than the Emmys, the 80-some-odd members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. invariably seem to select their nominees based on who will provide the most telegenic and free-spirited broadcast--which may explain all those nominations for Jim Carrey and Robin Williams, including the latter’s role in “Patch Adams.”

In short, awards ceremonies are by their very nature political, which explains why studios buy all those “For your consideration” ads in the Hollywood trade papers, even for actors and films (“Best actor: Bruce Willis in ‘Armageddon’ ”) that have less chance of being nominated than a comet does of landing squarely on the Shrine Auditorium.

According to Marshall, revising the Emmy rules will simply provide a more representative view as to which programs and performers academy members deem worthy.

“People will receive the cassettes at home instead of having to come to the hotel. That is the only variation,” she said. “We’re on the honor system, but we believe we’re working with highly qualified professionals and they’ll take the responsibility seriously.”

Emmy nomination ballots go out next week, but it will be months before anyone can ascertain whether the academy has fixed what’s broken or turned a drip into a major leak. Until then, if you have particular Emmy favorites, you might want to chat them up to the waiter at the bistro--especially if it’s near Century City or Burbank.

“The central question is: Can we trust Hollywood?” O’Neil said. “History has shouted a loud ‘Hell no!’ ”

*

Brian Lowry’s column appears on Tuesdays. He can be reached by e-mail at brian.lowry@latimes.com.