Reality-based program seems to be a large part of FOX's prime time strategy. If this show is any indication, FOX had better say its prayers.

Where's Mike Wallace to kick some butt when you need him?

"When Good Pets Go Bad" aired Wednesday, November 12, 1998. Sequels will probably follow.

I was reading USA Today yesterday and came upon the following paragraph by critic Robert Bianco: "At Fox, counterprogramming means tasteless, depressingly successful reality specials. There's no reason to expect any more, or less, from When Good Pets Go Bad (9 p.m. ET/PT), which includes footage of a pet alligator biting its owner's head. That's why I suggest sticking to basset hounds. They seldom have enough energy to reach your head, let alone bite it." Sounds like a column in the making, I thought. Let's watch!

I came away from this show with far more complex feelings than I thought possible. I wasn't prepared for a show that masqueraded as morality programming. In the end, I found it highly offensive. Basically, it exploits footage (or re-enactments, if footage is unavailable) of horrible, tragic incidents between humans and animals (not just pets) and glosses it over with a "message" about treating animals with respect. Many of the incidents involved pit bulls and in only one of these incidents could the blame not be traced to the owner. (In that incident, the owner was pulled over for drunk driving, and the dog attacked the police officer when the officer roughed up the owner some. I would expect that from any dog and don't believe it qualifies as "bad" behavior. Just such behavior has saved more than one owner from life-threatening attack.) They paid a lot of lip service to the fact that the elephants who stampeded were reacting against the horrible conditions and treatment to which they were subject. And yet, there didn't seem to be a whole lot of finger pointing. They may mention that the owner was never brought up on charges or that the owner didn't take enough responsibility in training the animal, but there isn't a real sense of comeuppance (except for one owner who was arrested and sent to jail for six months for siccing her dog on an animal control officer). I kept wishing Mike Wallace would show up to take these owners and trainers to task, then turn on the show's own creators. I also kept wondering why circus personnel, animal control, or other officials who often come up against angry animals don't come equipped with tranquilizer guns. They always end up resorting to fatal measures to control the animal.

Why do I feel the concern over the animals was just a bit phony? Let's start with the title of the show. "When Good Pets Go Bad." If the creators of this show actually felt that animals are reactive beings who, like humans, will lash out if driven too far and can become violent and uncontrollable when not properly handled, they never would have advertised the show with such a misleading title. It would have been something like "When Bad Humans Ruin Good Animals" or "When Arrogance Bites Us In The Keister." But, no. Instead they opted for the sensational "When Good Pets Go Bad." Such a title conveys to me a show about inexplicable incidents, or incidents in which no one or no animal is at fault. It does not convey the idea that an owner has mistreated or failed to properly train his/her pit bull or that some idiot in Florida kept putting his head in an alligator's mouth until the gator decided to give him a chomp. Generally, wild animals, whether in the wild or in captivity, aren't considered pets. And generally, actual pets don't just "go bad."

I guess the offensiveness boils down to the whole tone of the show. The melodramatic voiceovers (think Bill Shatner lampooning himself) and black and white slow-motion replays, ostensibly intended to demonstrate just how serious these situations are, were nothing more than cheap bells and whistles. The entire production degraded what could have been, in more competent and less cash-hungry hands, a serious and useful news commentary. I just keep thinking, "ë60 Minutes,' where are you?"

There were also more mundane problems with the show. As with many of these reality-based programs, the incidents were extremely repetitive. Animal gets out of control. Human tries to get away. Other human beats or shoots animal into submission. Animal may or may not live. After 20 or 30 minutes, I was wondering what else they could possibly show me. Turns out, not much. The whole thing was twice as long as it should have been. And what's with these hosts? Where do they find all of these James Brolin wannabes? And if you're a wannabe, why James Brolin?

"When Good Pets Go Bad" was my first experience with reality-based programming, a thing that's become a staple at Fox. I didn't expect to really like it. I did expect it to have some sort of bizarre "Jerry Springer"-like appeal. Unfortunately, I found no redeeming value here.

Date: November 13, 1998

Copyright © 1998 by Lisa McInnis