1. The Host Doesn’t Matter
Ryan Seacrest is a talentless boob, but as an Emmy host he worked and here’s why: They had the good sense to surround him with talented people. Seacrest simply showed up to smile and announce people’s names while all the actual entertaining is handled by, well, entertainers. This year’s Emmy telecast opened with a hilarious, biting musical number by Brian and Stewie from Family Guy, Ray Romano got the show going with a standup routine, and Lewis Black emerged later from the mid-stage trapdoor to give the much deserved television industry a big, stinking, raspberry. Sure the Oscars have a legitimately entertaining person in the form of Jon Stewart hosting next year, but if the Emmys can work this well by stacking talent in around a no-talent like Seacrest just imagine how well that’d work with someone like Stewart standing in the middle. Note to the Academy: Use your host like a host, and use entertainers for well… entertaining. It just might work.

2. Disguising Censorship As A Technical Glitch Doesn’t Work
When an actress starts to talk politics and you “accidentally” cut away to a camera facing a wall and “accidentally” and simultaneously mute the broadcast’s sound, we know what you’re doing. Nobody is that stupid. Censorship is bad enough, but when you try to hide it by faking technical glitches you’re not just a stupid bunch of weak-kneed FCC lackies, you’re evil. George Orwell evil. We see through you. Maybe the Emmy telecast is new to this whole America thing, but hey, free speech? Where’d that go? If it’s just a curse word you’re censoring, how about using an old fashioned bleep? It’s worked for decades. Use it. Love it. Don’t leave us looking at the wall and wondering if we’re living in a “V for Vendetta” graphic novel.

3. Don’t Be Afraid Of Things That Are Old
Old actors can present awards too. You don’t have to be promoting something to hand out those statues. In fact, it’s probably better if you don’t. The “I’m not going to promote my new show” bit stopped being funny ten years ago. While the Emmys screwed up and allowed a little of that, they also had the good sense to promote the importance of their artform by dragging out the cast of Roots for a tribute. As long as you’re celebrating television, why not remind people of why it’s worth celebrating? The same goes for the Oscars. Your ceremony needs to be about more than promoting the new Ben Stiller movie. Give us some substance, and we’re more likely to forgive you for allowing has been Jimmy Smits to cram his new show that nobody is going to watch down our throats.

4. Randomly Promoting Technological Innovations Which Destroy Your Artform Is Counterproductive
If you’re television, of course you don’t want to promote You Tube. But you also don’t need to piss off their users by promoting some Al Gore fueled competitor no one has ever heard of or uses by giving it a fake, made-up, meaningless award. While you’re at it, stop pushing iTunes and video iPods down our throats. Lost is not designed to be watched on a 2 inch screen. If you have to work product placement into the show, try promoting 52”, high-def plasma televisions instead. If you actually care about your medium, then that’s what you want people watching it on, not a screen so small they can’t see the expression on Pam’s face when Jim agrees to go on a date with Karen. That goes double for your Oscar. Movies are meant to be seen at the movies. Not on cell phones. At next year’s Academy Awards make it a point to avoid gratuitous shots of audience members watching Knocked Up on their overpriced iPhone.

For CB TV's complete coverage of this year's Emmy Awards, click here