Hip, hip hooray for the Emmys picking such hip award results like "24," Kiefer Sutherland and Mariska Hargitay in the drama races and "The Office" and Julia Louis-Dreyfus in the comedy contests. (Sorry, Tony Shalhoub. You're no longer "hip" as a two-time past champ.) Imagine how much more ferocious the Emmy bashing from TV critics would be right now if these nominees had prevailed instead — all real possibilities: "The West Wing," Christopher Meloni, Allison Janney, "Two and a Half Men," Stockard Channing and, well, Shalhoub. Those poison-veined, foul-spirited TV critics (about 60% of the total) are pummeling TV's Golden Girl currently, like they always do post-Emmys regardless of the outcome. But they'd be forming lynch mobs, hoisting torches and marching on the TV academy today if the award results had been much different. That's one consolation.

But where does all of this core hate come from? What's behind it?

Two theories: 1.) TV insiders' self-loathing and/or 2.) the Emmys aren't the Oscars and must be punished for it.

While compiling my book on the Emmys, I've observed media coverage spanning roughly 60 years of diverse winners chosen by various voting methods. TV critics have never ceased attacking the Emmys with scorn, hatchets, paper wads, mockery, bazookas, spit, cheap beer, contempt, venom, flamethrowers and lots of incendiary language that proved that they really don't know what they're screaming about.

Consider this: the Emmys are an award chosen by specific episode entries. Less than 3 percent of America's TV critics (and I'm being generous here) have ever requested copies of the Emmy screeners so they can see the races through voters' eyes. Refusing to watch them would be like covering the Oscars and never bothering to see the films in the race. Can you imagine movie journalists doing that and not being fired by their editors? Why isn't there industrywide outrage over this? Why aren't they fired? Why does anyone take their criticism seriously?

Every year the TV academy makes copies of the screeners available to top journos and I'm always prodding members of the Television Critics Association (of which I'm an associate member) to take advantage of that. But they don't. Because they don't care. Can't be bothered. However, that doesn't stop them from mounting nuclear attacks against the Emmys for not choosing the nominees and winners that meet with their approval. Often Emmy voters have only limited control over who makes the cut due to candidates screwing up their episode selections (the Susan Lucci Syndrome), but they still get blamed. If journalists actually bothered to look at what the voters do, they'd see how and why things happen. Then their criticism would be informed and valid. Even welcome. Even by me! But they don't. Because the Emmys aren't cool. Saying sympathetic things about them just gets you slammed — like I got nailed yesterday by Fishbowl LA at Mediabistro. (CLICK HERE!) Did anyone over there look at the Emmy episodes this year? Ever? I think you can guess the answer.

No other showbiz award has taken such a beating — and consistently so, historically, decade after decade. I've written books about all of the major ones and thus have studied their histories, voting patterns and media reps. Knowing all of the awards as intimately as I do, I have unabashed admiration and affection for only one: the Emmy. That's because it's the only award that takes its job seriously, guaranteeing all nominees that their work will be seen by all voters. I'm talking about its at-home voting process and those judging panels.

Emmy's big problem is on the nomination side, which still employs a popular ballot (thus the Ellen Burstyn 14-second nom problem). Emmy chiefs are experimenting with new ways to fix that — essentially by applying the rule of careful scrutiny via a new judging process, just like they use to pick winners. But TV critics aren't paying attention to the changes, don't understand them, don't want to, and refuse to be patient while further experimentation continues. Of course, it's much more fun to attack and run, giggling like bully schoolkids eager to flee the reach of their firecrackers.

I think I know where the hate comes from.

CLICK HERE to Continue Reading!

Photo: TV's poor "Little Orphan Emmy" has been under media attack throughout her history, dating back to 1948.
(Variety/ Mediabistro.com)