Whenever people in the network news business find themselves talking about the sorry ratings condition of the newsmagazine format – and with the recent cancellation of “60 Minutes Wednesday” and imminent failures of several others, that’s almost daily – there’s always one question at the root of the discussion: Can we reinvent the form? It has been 37 years since Don Hewitt came up with the concept for “60 Minutes,” and that’s either a testament to the brilliance of his idea, or the world’s longest creative drought, or both. I’ve heard numerous news executives moan, “I just can’t think of anything that works better.”

But, as it turns out, a 34-year-old documentary filmmaker named Morgan Spurlock could. The first three episodes I watched of his new FX series, “30 Days,” represented, to my mind, the first truly successful rethinking of the genre since “60 Minutes” – and a perfect distillation of our culture into a dramatic, thoughtful, and informative hour of television. Mr. Spurlock may not have the dogged relentlessness of Mike Wallace or the literary grace of Morley Safer, but he has something so many television news personalities lack these days: passion. His topics and approach reflect his own heartfelt concerns with where America is going, and what it has become. The result is a series that, if it’s lucky, may find itself an audience starved for television that teaches in fresh and exciting ways. At the very least, the goofy, balding Mr. Spurlock may remind the networks that you don’t need a great head of hair and five years of experience covering the White House to represent the future of television news.

I had been afraid that Mr. Spurlock’s high-concept premise for “30 Days” – a video diary of a month spent immersed in the reality of a news phenomenon, experiencing its effects – would prove tiresome. I’d enjoyed “Super Size Me,” his Oscar-nominated documentary journey into the world of fast-food culture, but even there I’d grown a little bored by Mr. Spurlock’s narcissistic obsessions. I found myself grateful for the leavening effect of his girlfriend (now fiancee) Alexandra Jamieson, the mousy vegan chef who often seems as annoyed as the rest of us with Mr. Spurlock’s manner. But after the first (and least successful) episode of “30 Days,” in which Mr. Spurlock and his fiancee travel to Columbus, Ohio to live on the minimum wage, the show takes off. In Episodes 2 and 3, Mr. Spurlock finds ordinary (and more appealing) Americans to stand in for him, as his camera follows them on journeys into Mr. Spurlock’s overflowing wheelhouse of smart story ideas.

In Episode 2 he delivers us Scott Bridges, a flabby 34-year-old door-to-door salesman who becomes a guinea pig in the anti-aging business, agreeing to an aggressive program of testosterone injections and hormone supplements to restore his body to fighting form. Mr. Spurlock’s camera follows him to the offices of an oily specialist who insists the medications will cause no irreparable harm, but within two weeks, he experiences abnormal liver functions and a complete deterioration of his sperm count – and the terror that he may have permanently damaged his body in his quest to improve it. Throughout the episode, Mr. Spurlock narrates with no nuance whatsoever; we can hear the outrage in his voice as he explains how little we really know about the dangers of this form of medicine. (Alas, Mr. Spurlock hasn’t quite cured himself of his love for the spotlight; the side trip we take with him across the border into Mexico, to buy growth hormones without a prescription, proved a pointless digression.)

The third episode works even better, as Mr. Spurlock sends Dave Stacy – a ruggedly handsome married Christian from West Virginia – to Dearborn, Mich., for 30 days to become a Muslim, and to immerse himself in the religion’s customs and beliefs. It’s funny, insightful, and informative, thanks to Mr. Stacy’s perfect blend of openness and cynicism. Here Mr. Spurlock recedes even further into the background, allowing the story to unfold with no distractions except his occasional – and clever – detours into the background of Islam and the religion’s origin and customs. I watched this episode with my 11-year-old son, who was as riveted as I was by Mr. Stacy’s gradual acceptance of this distant world. Would he have watched an episode of “60 Minutes” as patiently – or at all? I can tell you from experience: not a chance. The next generation of television newsmagazine watchers stands ready to embrace Morgan Spurlock and the blast of fresh air he brings to journalism, and that’s great news for all of us.

***

Aren’t there other Morgan Spurlocks out there, too? Maybe the folks assigned to fashion the future of ABC’s “Nightline” ought to consider copying his approach for the post-Koppel era. What works for an hour on FX could easily be squeezed into a 30-minutes time slot on network television – particularly with a host as engaging and straightforward as Mr. Spurlock. What the current generation of television news executives seem to forget is just how much hits like “Nightline” depended on the charismatic presence of reporters like Mr. Koppel. Instead of bemoaning the lack of talent among the ranks of current television news reporters, how about casting the net a little wider – and looking at the people who’ve recently been turning the documentary form upside-down? What separates FX from their network equivalents is its bravery in embracing people like Mr. Spurlock, and trusting him to make great television. If ABC News president David Westin exhibited similar courage in his quest to replace Mr. Koppel, his network might just be able to restore glory to the “Nightline” name.