I think viewers realize that people are a lot more three-dimensional than TV has traditionally portrayed them, particularly in news.
Old-school viewers remain adamant that 'The Real World' has deteriorated, as if the original enterprise were some pristine experiment that got sullied as the conditions in the lab got sloppier.
Viewers make online requests to their favorite video-making whisperers to do the things that trigger their head tingles. Everyone's needs are different. It's like an interactive choose-your-own-adventure.
Ultimately, criticism that 'The Real World' has devolved into a lesser enterprise comes from the viewers who came of age alongside it, not the teens of the moment that MTV has always existed for.
Interviews, and hence interviewers, are there to help shed light, and to let viewers judge for themselves. We are not judges, juries, commentators or torturers - nor friends, either.
Can you call and thank reviewers? I always wondered that.
I get asked to speak to a lot of different groups, one of the best parts of my job hosting a show on the Travel Channel, 'Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern.' I take viewers to the far corners of the globe and introduce them to other cultures by exploring the foods they eat - at times, pretty strange stuff.
You know, we've got so much on Bravo and coming up on Bravo, and I think we have so much more going on than 'The Real Housewives.' And I think 'The Real Housewives' is a great, you know, great addition to the portfolio. I think it brings a lot of viewers under our umbrella. And I think they stay and sample other shows.
Obviously, SNL has a lot of viewers, but the potential for a movie is through the roof.
But I think whenever you're bringing in a new Doctor, you have to set it up in a really great way because it's an entry point for a whole audience. Because the audience of 'Doctor Who' is everyone from eight to 108, life is continually creating new viewers.
