'E.R.' goes from good to bad

There are precious few nighttime television "series" that I watch when I come home after a day at the office because most of the garbage on at night is, well, garbage.

As in every case, there are exceptions here.

Admittedly, I'm a sucker for Fox News' "O'Reilly Factor" because I'm a Bill O'Reilly fan. And since most of my few favorite nighttime shows don't come on until 10 p.m. EDT, it's a sure bet I'm catching Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" as well on a nightly basis. Alan, I love ya, but you're no Sean Hannity.

OK, OK, I also have an admitted weakness for reruns of "Married With Children," but that's it -- really.

TRENDING: Prof rejects calls to resign after rebuking his 'woke' university

On Mondays my wife and I settle in for NBC's "Third Watch"; Tuesdays, it's ABC's "NYPD Blue" (our personal favorite); and on Thursdays, like much of the nighttime television viewing audience, we settle in for NBC's "E.R.," a close "second" on our list of favorites; I spent 15 years as a paramedic, and my wife 11 years as an ER nurse herself (she can more closely relate to the "chaos" portrayed on NBC's "E.R.").

Despite our "real life" emergency experiences, the fact is we like "E.R." because it is well-written and features some of the best actors and actresses working today.

But like I said, there are "precious few" shows we care to watch. And as far as we're concerned, these few represent the cream of the nighttime television crop in terms of writing, acting and storyline.

Lately, however, "E.R." has taken a decidedly bad turn. For this, I don't blame the actors -- who are superb in their roles -- I blame NBC for allowing the show's writers to inject too much political correctness.

Specifically, the inclusion of a lesbian storyline that, frankly, has no business in this otherwise fine series.

The past several episodes have featured a "transformation" of one of the series' main characters, "Dr. Kerry Weaver," played by actress Laura Innes since the second season. By "transformation," I mean that, until this season, Innes' character has been "straight," having had a few romances with male partners over the years.

Suddenly, however, the show's writers and producers felt the need to introduce this "lesbian" connection/transformation, whereby Innes' character becomes "attracted" to another "doctor" -- who is not a main character -- on the show.

The other doctor, a psychologist, is portrayed by a very attractive actress whose lesbian character is much more "at home" and comfortable with her homosexuality than is Innes' "Dr. Weaver."

Now, I realize that a multiyear series, in order to remain popular, must evolve to keep its audience growing or, at least, not shrinking. But considering the Hollywood elite's liberal lust for portraying homosexuality as being much more prevalent among American society than numerous studies and statistics show, I am left wondering why this storyline was deemed critical and, indeed, necessary, to portray.

Stats indicate that the gay and lesbian community in the U.S. is less than 5 percent of the overall population. You'd have to assume, then, that "E.R's" gay/lesbian viewing audience is of similar numbers.

That means, then, about 95 percent of the show's viewing audience is straight. Using current political surveys as a guide, I'd unscientifically presume that about 65 percent of those viewers are like me -- they find such "in-your-face" portrayals of the gay/lesbian lifestyle offensive.

If that storyline continues or is increased, what are we going to do?

Personally, I'm likely to stop watching the show -- especially because I watch it with my children, whom I'm trying to raise as next-generation traditionalists. And I'd bet the majority of other viewers who find such blatant portrayal of a lifestyle in which we disagree would follow suit.

So what, eh? Well, if that happens, that means I won't see the advertisers NBC hawks during the program, and neither will the millions of others who will simply surf to a different channel (or opt instead to read a good book). The show will then lose money; the show will then be canceled.

That would be a shame because, as I said, I and millions of other viewers find this a remarkably well-written, well-acted, and otherwise well-rounded show. Why would NBC want to ruin it by getting in the audience's face with a lifestyle most of us don't find remotely alluring, seductive, attractive or desirable?

"Wait," you say, "this is reality, Dougherty. There are people having homosexual relationships out there in the real world."

Well, I don't dispute that, and besides, what "real-world" people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is their own business. And to be fair, I could probably become an even bigger fan of the show if so many of the scripts did not call for so much heterosexual "bed time" for most of the show's straight characters, either -- especially among unmarried couples.

But look: There's an old business acumen that says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Consequently, I can't figure out what NBC is trying to "fix" by converting "E.R." into some politically correct bastion of homosexual love. Like it or not, the show's core audience is not overwhelmingly gay, it is straight. Always has been, always will be.

Unless, of course, the gay themes don't stop. If they don't, I can guarantee the show will be canceled because it will lose its core audience who will no longer be able to "connect" with it.

I really do care about what happens to this show because, as I said, I believe most other television is abysmal. My hope is NBC will get off the PC bandwagon and make a better effort to "reconnect" to the core "E.R." audience that turned the show into a nighttime heavyweight in the first place.