Two programs created for that Internet streaming service, the drama “House of Cards” and the comedy “Arrested Development,” are leading contenders for best actor or best program nominations that formerly were the province of shows produced for broadcast and cable networks. And if they are nominated, it would be the first time that slots in the most avidly pursued categories went to programs not specifically produced for the medium of television.

The reaction to this development inside the traditional television business has been largely muted, with many executives suggesting that only the quality of the work is important. But to some, this is a moment reminiscent of the days when cable channels like HBO first began to challenge the dominance of broadcast networks like ABC.

John Landgraf, the chairman of the cable network FX, who has been critical of Netflix’s practice of not disclosing how many people are watching its programs, acknowledged that “House of Cards” seems likely to grab one of the six nominations for best drama, potentially knocking out one of his network’s strong candidates, like “Justified” or “The Americans.”

Mr. Landgraf said that FX aggressively pursues Emmy nominations, but he added, “It would be the height of bad sportsmanship to seek to keep a show out because it comes from a different distribution system.”

Another senior broadcast network executive said, “It’s hard to say anything about the Netflix thing because we only sound defensive or whiny.” The executive insisted on anonymity because of a reluctance to criticize the inclusion of streaming services publicly.

More than anything else, Netflix’s arrival in the Emmy mix is disquieting to some broadcast and cable executives because it is probably only the beginning.

Though there is little evidence than winning Emmys drives up viewership (just ask Tina Fey about “30 Rock”), creators and networks still see them as validation. Netflix clearly does; it campaigned ardently for nominations this year, which including planting lawn signs in Los Angeles neighborhoods presumed to be dense with members of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

With everyone from Amazon to YouTube to Condé Nast having announced rosters of planned programs this spring, the prospect of a glut of new nominees is on the horizon. Already the number of eligible dramas under consideration has leapt to 105, from 87 last year. One academy member said this year’s nominating ballot “was mind-boggling; it was like an SAT test.”

John Leverence, the academy’s senior vice president for awards, said of the proliferation, “I think this is a parallel situation to what happened with cable 20 years ago.”

In 1988 the academy opened its doors to cable entries, and within a few years, led by “The Sopranos,” cable networks had slowly eroded the hegemony broadcast networks had enjoyed at the Emmys, leading to cable domination in certain categories, especially drama.

Mr. Leverence recalled how the series creator Steven Bochco argued that he faced limitations on content in his drama “NYPD Blue” that “The Sopranos” never had to deal with.

“The Bochco argument was very compelling,” Mr. Leverence said. “It was so compelling, he made poor Dennis Franz take his pants off.” Laughing at the memory, he added, “Nobody liked that solution.”

The issue of freedom versus limits persists. Yet Preston Beckman, who was the top program scheduler at NBC and later at Fox, said that the inclusion of Netflix and other streaming sites “is a big deal, but not a game changer.”

Since pay cable channels already are included in the Emmys, “what does it matter if two shows from some other source are included?” he said. “The issue isn’t so much these streaming sites as the fact that you have five entities that are constrained in terms of what they can put on the air and need to attract as large an audience as possible.”

Mr. Leverence said the Emmys “are about excellence.” But he agreed that the mix of shows is important to the academy, which is eager to generate strong ratings for its annual awards broadcast.

After attracting more than 16 million viewers in 2006 — coincidentally, the last time broadcast shows won both best drama (“24”) and best comedy (“The Office”) — the show has not surpassed 13.5 million viewers and has fallen below 13 million three times. Last year, it hit a record low among the viewers most prized by broadcast advertisers, those between the ages of 18 and 49.

Mr. Leverence acknowledged that the awards show risks losing viewers “when they are not going to have any rooting interest” because the nominated shows were seen only through streaming services or Web sites. One potential answer would be to expand the number of nominees in the categories with hordes of eligible entrants.

Four years ago, the academy expanded nominees in the two major categories to six from five. Mr. Leverence said that academy rules are fluid and that some other adjustments might be made.

The film industry, in search of a way to include movies that attracted big crowds after “The Dark Knight” was snubbed in 2009, expanded the number of best picture nominees to 10 the next year. Mr. Leverence said his awards committee has had some discussion about expanding the pool of nominees. But, he said, “There is always a hesitation about award inflation.”

Similarly, he said that another suggestion — separating categories either by traditional distribution versus Internet or advertiser-supported channels versus subscription services like Netflix — would threaten to devalue the trophy.

“Tiering is degrading,” he said. “The best should be the best.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/business/media/netflix-dominates-speculation-over-emmy-awards.html?partner=rss&emc=rss