The fallacy of continuity

I previously wrote about my disbelief that local Jeopardy! affiliates were begging for one host of the daily syndicated game for the sake of precious viewer continuity. 

Having two hosts of any show is going to be divisive, I suppose. Jeopardy's executive director, Michael Davies, confirmed that Ken Jennings was a better host than Mayim Bialik, but he couldn't just say that. Saying the man was better at the job than the woman, you can't do that. He had to soften the truth by suggesting the affiliates, and other unspecified interested parties, were dialing up the Sony hotline, begging for one host or the other, all in the name of  "consistency."

Consistency and continuity are not the same thing, but they're close enough for my purpose. 

There's some fallacy that we need consistency and continuity in our game shows. I don't buy it. I'm calling BS.

I've already outlined why I don't believe the crowning of Jennings as king of the syndicated, daily Jeopardy! program was about consistency. 

Irony, Sony's other syndicated workhorse, Wheel of Fortune, is spawning similar claims. 

I dispute several claims, some preposterous, regarding Wheel and its pending transition from Pat Sajak to Ryan Seacrest. I won't cover all those today, but one of them is the fallacy that Vanna White needs to stick around for continuity. 

Really, without her at the puzzle board next fall, the wheels are coming off the wagon? TV's Randy West claims having White on set is really important to the future of the show. West has forgotten more about TV than I'll ever know, so if he says it's important, you best believe it. 

But I don't. 

It's really that important to have White on set come this fall? For who, the viewers?

I don't think so. At one point, we thought Sajak and White were going to walk off into the sunset together, despite the fact White is a decade younger than Sajak. 

What if they did? Are viewers going to stop watching next fall because the familiar faces aren't hosting the show? I doubt it. Highly.

Funny, when The Tonight Show went from Carson to Leno,  did they hold onto the band, announcer or cue card guy for continuity? Not that I remember. When Leno departed and O'Brien took over, what did they retain for continuity? How about when Leno left for his second time, and Fallon took over? They didn't even keep the show in the same state. 

And now I'm supposed to believe that continuity in television is so important? 

A game show is a different animal, some might argue. Yeah, it is. And what do I tune into Wheel to watch? The game, not the host. Mess with the game play significantly, change everything about the game, from the theme song to the set layout, and maybe I'll have problems watching the show. Make modest changes in the show, as has happened historically, and it won't matter if White is turning the letters or not next fall. 

Did having Rich Fields announce Drew Carey's first season of The Price is Right help me sleep better at night as Carey bumbled through his first year on the job? Not a bit. If anything, I was annoyed, and still am, that he was cut lose after one year of the Carey regime.

Some people will stop watching Wheel because they think Seacrest is a horrible human being who should burn in hell for his career success to this point. Others might start watching Wheel because they had no tolerance for Sajak's lame quips. Do we really believe that having White at the puzzle board is going to move the needle for a significant number of viewers in the positive direction? 

I don't. Wheel hasn't survived 40+ syndicated seasons because the witty banter between Sajak and White at the end of the show is some sort of comfort food for game show viewers. 

It's time to quite pretending we're all such fragile creatures.

The Jeopardy! lie?

 About two months ago I was endorsing the end of Mayim Bialik's tenure as a part-time host of the daily Jeopardy! games. 

TV's Blossom broke the news that she was no longer hosting the daily game in any capacity, and Sony quickly confirmed the news, suggesting they hoped to continue to employ her in some capacity for a future prime time stunt. Unless Jeopardy ends up in prime time 12 months of the year, I'd bet against seeing Bialik on the Jeopardy set again, but stranger things have happened. 

What puzzles me is that Jeopardy's executive producer, Michael Davies, recently spoke about this old news. I'm not sure why he was compelled to speak. Perhaps Sony likes seeing its off-camera drama covered by the media, and having Davies finally open up about old news was the best the show could muster after going several weeks without generating click bait on Yahoo. 

Davies parroted what Sony said: We like TV's Blossom, we would like to work with her again, we have no plans that call for her services, but we'd really like to work with her again. Ken Jennings is the better host, but our ratings were comparable for the daily show with both hosts. 

I've read that more than once, that neither host moved the needle when it came to day-to-day viewership. Some people really, really, really despise one host or the other -- according to comments on social media -- and some are indifferent to the host at the end of the day. I prefer Jennings, but I didn't have to boycott the show when Bialik hosted it. 

So why was it so critical to exile either Jennings or Bialik from the daily game if both were bringing in comparable ratings? Davies addressed that, and I don't believe it. 

I have read some form of this claim several times. "Over the past two and a half seasons, what we’ve heard from a lot of from television stations and other interested parties is that they wanted more consistency. They wanted a single host," according to Davies. (Yes, that quote is grammatically flawed.)

A lot of television stations? I'm skeptical. 

I don't work in TV. I have no connections to the important people at my local television stations. 

Plenty of people are not smart. I've met plenty of those people. 

It would not shock me to learn from an executive at my local NBC affiliate, the station that carries Jeopardy in the Minneapolis market, that people have called the station, posted on the station's Facebook page or sent an email to the station, lobbying for one host or the other. My NBC affiliate has nothing to do with the production of the show, of course, but never overestimate the intelligence of the local viewer. I'm sure my NBC station has had several comments about the host of a game show it broadcasts twice each weekday.

But how many people are we talking. Let's say a whopping 25% of viewers think complaining about Jennings or Bialik to the NBC affiliate would have any influence whatsoever. I suspect far fewer than 25% of viewers thought once about registering a complaint with anyone about the dual hosts. And of those who did consider it, how many actually took the time to follow through? And of the small percentage that actually registers a complaint, where will that complaint end up? At the easiest place to leave a complaint,  the station's Facebook page. (That's my guess, I have no idea how anyone actually followed through with registering their complaint.)

I have a hard time imagining that Jeopardy affiliates across the country were calling up Sony executives and the top brass at Jeopardy, bemoaning the dozens of viewer complaints they were receiving about two hosts. Sounds made up. 

Davies never said that Sony or Jeopardy received hundreds of calls and complaints from the affiliates, or "other interested parties." He claims to have heard from a lot of stations. How many is a lot? Are we talking 100 stations, or five. And what exactly is an interested party? I'm an interested party. I didn't call Davies to cast a vote, but I'm interested. 

His explanation is just vague enough to suggest there was a groundswell of support for removing TV's Blossom from the daily show. But I'll never believe it. 

It doesn't matter whether I do, or not. Davies doesn't know me or care what I think. But his need to clarify that Jennings was the better host, etc., and justify the decision by claiming affiliates were clamoring for one of the hosts to be fired from the daily show, seems quite unnecessary at this point. And again, it sounds made up. 

And if there was no fabrication regarding the groundswell of momentum for axing Bialik, then I've lost another ounce of hope for humanity. 

There's no harm in having an opinion and bandying it about on a Facebook post regarding Jeopardy. But perhaps that's not good enough any more. Perhaps Karen really did speak to the manager. 

I remain skeptical.