The Problem with Agenda Television

Here we read that ratings for "Commander in Chief" -- the Geena Davis show about the first female president -- are falling, amid speculation about why: Is it changes in the show's behind the scenes team? Scheduling? What's going on?

Here's the problem -- and it has nothing to do with viewers "losing" the show during its break, or the switch to Steven Bochco. It's the fact that "Commander in Chief" is too deeply invested in being "agenda television."

What makes a television character interesting? Flaws, foibles, quirks. But those creating "Commander in Chief" are so solidly behind the concept of a female president -- and obviously so afraid of being condemned for political incorrectness -- that they've created a prototype who does nothing but speak powerfully, stride masterfully, decide decisively, swat down sexism powerfully, maintain control at all times, etc. etc. etc. Portraying her any other way might -- heaven forbid! -- play into gender stereotypes about women . . . and we can't have that, can we (especially with Hillary Clinton planning a run in 2008)?

But paragons (and paper cut outs) are boring. Here's what would make "Commander in Chief" interesting: Learning about how the female President quells an impulse to cry (or maybe even embarasses herself by doing so). Seeing less of her emerging triumphant at the end of each show, after withstanding clearly outrageous and gratuitous attacks from either foreign enemies or domestic political adversaries. Watching her make a mistake and cope with it. Fewer storylines that leave her as the victim of circumstances created by some clearly dislikable "other" (be it North Korea, the Speaker of the House, or her children).

But "Commander in Chief" can't afford to take those risks. It has too much invested in bolstering the concept of female president-hood. It has an agenda. And therein lies its problem.