Why did I write this?

I know not all of these old columns are great, but perhaps they can show some sort of evolution in my style. Or, at least, that I know how to laugh at myself. This baby was originally printed late September, 2002:

There was something different about the Emmy Awards Sunday night. It’s difficult to determine exactly what, but it seems that the people running the show know exactly how to reach a wide cross section of American viewers.

Absent was the pompousness of the Oscars. Equally absent was the sometimes tasteless debauchery of MTV’s double-team of awards presentations — The MTV Video Music Awards and Movie Awards. The 54th Emmy Awards (not televised last year due to security concerns) provided a simple, classy look at the industry’s finest. And isn’t that all an awards show is supposed to do?

Television sometimes faces the same problems that movies used to, being debunked as vanity fare with little substance when compared to more serious forms of entertainment. For TV, the competition will always be movies, with higher pay for talent and less boundaries giving supposedly a much better product. American cinema had to do away with live theater and the great American novels to earn its post as our main form of entertainment.

But we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss our TV stars. While it may be challenging for Julia Roberts to assume the personality of Erin Brockovich, isn’t it more difficult for Jennifer Aniston to bring life to Rachel Green for nine years? Television stars, far more often than movie actors, often forgo an entire career by sticking with one role until they can no longer be seen as anyone else.

Yes, many movie stars began on TV (Tom Hanks in “Bosom Buddies,” anyone?). Perhaps the initial argument has gotten away — the Emmys are simply more fun than the Oscars. The stars were dressed far more tastefully, there was no ridiculous political posturing (though the crowd did pay fair tribute to the Sept. 11 victims, as well as to the careers of Bob Hope and the late Milton Berle) and best of all, there were no goofy, drawn out on-stage performances detracting from the entire purpose of the event — passing out awards.

The Emmys also win for another reason: TV reaches the masses. While a fair chunk of the population has at least one favorite TV show, many Americans don’t go to movie theaters any more. Frequent moviegoers don’t always get to see foreign or independent films that “The Academy” seems to value. Furthermore, the Oscars always seem to go to someone that has mastered a singular acting style — an English accent, simulating a mental or physical disability, poignant monologues… most educated viewers can tell which movies were made with Oscars in mind ("The English Patient”) and which were not ("Dude, Where’s My Car?”).

Television actors, however, may submit only one episode of their work to the Emmy voters. To be sure, they’ve been known to select the one-hour season finales or “Very Special” episodes dealing with drug abuse or racial issues. But still, being judged for one show out of 22 is pretty particular. The only beef with the Emmys is that we don’t get to see more of the individual work from these episodes like we do at the Oscars or the MTV awards. At least the shows nominated for top drama and comedy series were given decent air time.

In days of international conflict, the escape of a TV awards show should not be considered too heavily. But still, when something like the Emmy Awards seems to get everything right, it’s nice to stop and commend a job well done.