a vent about Emmy

Emmy and I, I think, are done.

Why? Because Emmy is delusional. While sometimes honoring deserving people and shows, Emmy also rewards the mediocre. Emmy apparently doesn't watch much TV, and yet is responsible for honoring the best TV has to offer. Emmy is a poser. Sure, lots of people know about Emmy. Emmy is the best known TV award in the country. But does the modern-day Emmy deserve to be in a position of influence? Only when it gets things right.

You may have guessed by now that I disagree with the Emmy nominations announced this morning. The fact that the voting process is so screwy — and obviously incompetent, as the continued insistence on nominating popular junk like "Two and a Half Men" while ignoring, say, a good five to 10 more rightly acclaimed shows reveals — should make the blows easier to bear. But the high profile of the Emmys makes its shortcomings frustrating.

The nation should know that "Friday Night Lights" is better than the shows they're watching — "Grey's Anatomy," for example. Not that "GA" is wretched. But come on. I am not even speaking as someone who considers "FNL" her favorite show. It's not even in my top five. But it's better — the writing, the acting, the directing, the editing, the whole package — than most of the shows (or maybe all of the shows) that are nominated for Best Drama. To an extent, these decisions are about opinion. But sometimes you just have to concede to reality.

This year's "Lost" was better than those shows, too. I will acknowledge that I haven't seen a full episode of "Boston Legal" or maybe "Grey's Anatomy" this year, but based on what I've read and my own previous, though limited, exposure to these shows, I wonder HOW ON EARTH they could be considered better than "Lost," "Friday Night Lights" or "Battlestar Galactica," the latter being a show I also have limited exposure to, but enough to know it shouldn't be snubbed every year.

I wonder how much exposure Emmy voters have to all these shows. Are they really watching "Two and a Half Men" and thinking, "Gee, that Charlie Sheen does some incredible work"? Are they really watching complete episodes of "Friday Night Lights" and thinking, "Wow, that Kyle Chandler is good, but why not just blindly nominate the same people over and over instead"?

Not that Hugh Laurie doesn't deserve a nomination. Not that several nominees are deserving. But the glaring omissions are too much for me this year. I've had it. I am officially boycotting the 2007 Emmys. Even if they DID manage to have somewhat of a clue in the Comedy categories, nominating "The Office" for best comedy, Steve Carell for best lead actor, Rainn Wilson for best supporting actor, Neil Patrick Harris for best supporting actor and JENNA FISCHER for supporting actress. (Looking over a few of the bigger categories that were not announced on TV this morning, I am also happy to see that Masi Oka from "Heroes," Michael Emerson and Terry O'Quinn from "Lost" are nominated in the Best Supporting Actor in a Drama Series category.)

But I don't think I can stand to watch the whole Emmys broadcast for the sake of the comedy awards and best supporting actor award, unless I really think that there's hope for all of them — "The Office" and Jenna in particular — to win. The half a clue the voters caught while choosing supporting actors and actresses lessens the shock of "Friday Night Lights" and "Lost" (and others) being shut out of the major categories, but maybe not enough to get me to watch. Every time "Boston Legal" or "Two and a Half Men" comes up, the annoyance twists inside me. And I even like William Shatner and James Spader.

For some more looks at the problems of Emmy voting, check out this Entertainment Weekly column by Mark Harris. For more Emmy reaction, visit the Gold Derby.
For a complete list of Emmy nominations, go here.
And stay tuned for my list of who I would have nominated in the major Emmy categories.