Media Mergers Raise Questions About Quality

A business deal is not a work of art. A business deal did not produce the Mona Lisa or “War and Peace,” “Citizen Kane” or “The Honeymooners.”

But the emphasis these days, from the boardroom to the newspaper page, is on the deal and the bottom line: Disney stuns Wall Street and the entertainment industry by announcing it will acquire ABC. With far less fanfare, Westinghouse moves to buy CBS. Ted Turner makes noises, always idiosyncratic in his case, about owning a broadcast network.

Such mergers will give way to ferocious competition among giant new conglomerates, analysts predict. That trend should entertain Wall Street, but what will it mean to viewers? Will bigger companies yield better TV shows?

The movies could provide a disheartening clue. The film studios’ glory days ended, in part, with conglomeration. The studios lost their individual identities and their leaders with vision.

Agents and actors gained more power, and new studio bosses lacked their predecessors’ savvy and control.

The movies today might look better than ever technically, but Hollywood struggles each year to find five candidates for the best picture Oscar. For Hollywood, the film deal usually matters more than a quality script. A recent Wall Street Journal article noted the recent box-office slide and pointed to bad scheduling. Could it simply be that the movies just weren’t that good?

Oft-reviled television, by comparison, has provided consistent quality in recent years. As adults lost interest in visiting the multiplex, television stepped in with first-rate dramas from “thirtysomething” and “L.A. Law” to “NYPD Blue” and “ER.” The choice sitcoms have included “Cheers” and “Seinfeld,” “Roseanne” and “Frasier.” PBS has done its part with Ken Burns’ “The Civil War” and “Prime Suspect.”

It has been a second golden age for television, but an unappreciated time, and it could end soon.

PBS’ fate, of course, remains a hot topic. The networks will introduce 42 series - the first, “Kirk,” arrives at 8:30 p.m. tonight on WB - in what will be a transitional year for broadcast TV because so much about the networks’ futures remains uncertain.

What will a Disney ABC look like? A Westinghouse CBS? Will the Westinghouse deal come off or will Turner step in? For network employees, the latest ratings will matter less than the latest headline about the corporate owner.

Consider Disney: Chairman Michael Eisner has been effusive about ESPN, an ABC cable property that could boost international expansion. Then there are all the possible theme-park attractions, the possible channels, the possible merchandise. With superagent Michael Ovitz aboard as Disney’s No. 2 executive, second only to all-powerful Eisner, Mickey’s kingdom will be well protected. But what are Ovitz’s talents beyond deal-making?

Disney’s acquisition of ABC has prompted dozens of op-ed pieces in newspapers and magazines raising concerns about ABC News’ independence. Concentrating so much power in few hands sets off alarms. What of the viewers? They don’t need a repeat of what happened to the movies. They want more entertaining series. That’s what they’ve always wanted, no matter who owned the network.

In the coming TV era, the bosses will need to spot the talent, then get out of their way and let them work.