View Full Version : Hot Off The Press! The Latest Television News and Info
Sports Media and Business
Some Shows Turn NBC Olympics Into Also-Ran
By Richard Sandomir and Bill Carter The New York Times February 17, 2006
TURIN, Italy, Feb. 16 — NBC Olympic broadcasts have always turned back challenges to their ratings dominance, but the Turin Games have shown that strong counterprogramming can succeed.
"American Idol" on the Fox network has trounced the Winter Games twice and will face them three more times next week starting Tuesday, the first night of the women's figure skating.
Last Tuesday, two days after ABC's "Grey's Anatomy" outrated the Olympics, "Idol" attracted 27 million viewers from 8 to 9 p.m. Eastern, crushing NBC's 15.4 million. The next night, when they met again from 8 to 9, "Idol" expanded its lead in the second half-hour with 31.1 million viewers to NBC's 15.4 million.
Despite the invigorated competition, NBC is still dominating prime time during the Olympics in terms of total viewers. But the audacity of ABC and Fox underscores their belief that NBC, the No. 4 network in prime time, is vulnerable, even during the mighty Olympics.
CBS has chosen the more traditional policy of running repeats against the Games.
Although NBC officials said they fully expected "Idol" to defeat the Olympics by wide margins, they were surprised that "House," the medical drama on Tuesday, retained as many "Idol" viewers as it did. The 20.1 million "House" viewers nearly tied NBC's 20.9 million from 9 to 10 p.m.
The Games are a valuable franchise for NBC Universal, which has committed $5.7 billion for the Olympic television rights from 2000 to 2012, including $613 million for the rights to carry the Turin Games.
"The Olympics define us," said Randy Falco, the president and chief operating officer of the NBC Universal Television Group.
Through six nights, NBC's average Nielsen rating of a 12.5 was down 24 percent from the 16.4 that CBS recorded during the same period in 1998 for the Winter Games in Nagano, Japan. That drop is in line with the ratings slide for other major sports and entertainment events in the same time span.
It is also 36 percent lower than the rating for the Salt Lake Games four years ago, but a domestic Olympics is always a magnet for viewers.
In previous Olympics, NBC had lost a total of four half-hours to its competitors, and had never lost a night to any network.
NBC has promised its advertisers a final rating in Turin between 12 and 14; if the rating is lower, NBC will have to provide them with free commercial time.
Mr. Falco is unusually calm about the competitive ardor of Fox and ABC, which are showing original episodes from seven of this season's top 10-rated prime-time shows against the Olympics. In the past, rival networks have shied from such gamesmanship, but not now, during the February sweeps, with NBC having fallen from the prime-time throne.
"There is a very tight race for No. 1 between ABC, Fox and CBS," Mr. Falco said Thursday in a telephone interview from his office in Turin. "You can't discount that. That's why they decided to go with original programming. This is about the competitive nature of our business."
Preston Beckman, an executive vice president of the Fox network who is its chief scheduler, said: "We just decided we weren't going to lay down this time. We're just sticking to our knitting."
ABC's and Fox's salvoes against the Olympics come at a time when NBC is hoping to overcome the absence of the American figure skater Michelle Kwan and disappointing performances by United States skiers.
Among viewers 18 to 49, the category most networks care most about, the 11.7 rating for "Idol" on Wednesday beat NBC's 4.1. In addition to the two "Idols," "House" and "Grey's Anatomy," ABC's "Desperate Housewives" and "Lost" surpassed the Olympics with viewers 18 to 49.
"Idol," "Housewives," "Lost" and "Grey's Anatomy" are linked by having rabid followings among women 35 and older, an audience that NBC counts on for the Olympics.
"People have relationships with these programs," Stacey Lynn Koerner, an analyst for Initiative Media, said. "They are like their close friends or relatives."
She added: "You don't get that very visceral connection to the content of the Olympics. It's a two-week-long event with a lot of people you don't really know."
Mr. Falco acknowledged that NBC would be in a better position to promote the Olympics if it were in first place in prime time and that its ratings would be better if the American team were doing as well as it did in Salt Lake City and in the Summer Games in Athens in 2004.
But he said he was not worried about NBC's Olympic investment. "I'm on top of $900 million in advertising revenues that I have to protect with ratings and performance, and I feel very good about it," he said.
Mr. Falco said that prime time is only one element of NBC Universal's Olympic picture. He said that the strategy of spreading coverage to its USA, CNBC and MSNBC cable channels, and of expanding its Internet presence on nbcolympics.com, was succeeding.
"This is about realizing that the Olympics is more than about network television now, and the future is about being a content provider," Mr. Falco said. "In the future, it's going to be about going deeper with audiences."
The cable networks have reached 36.5 million viewers since the start of the Olympics, 35 percent more than they attracted for their regular programming in the same month last year. For example, curling on CNBC from 5 to 8 p.m., Eastern, Monday through Wednesday generated a rating that is 67 percent above what CNBC produced for various sports during the 6 p.m. to midnight period during the Salt Lake Games.
Internet users have downloaded 2.9 million video streams since the Winter Games began.
But even as NBC looks toward an even broader Olympic future — into broadband and possibly pay-per-view — so much focus remains on prime-time. Prime-time is where advertisers pay $500,000 to $700,000 for a 30-second commercial.
As NBC approaches its next smackdown on Tuesday with "American Idol," what will it do? Dick Ebersol, the chairman of NBC Universal Sports and Olympics, who oversees the production, is quiet about his intentions.
"I haven't discussed this with Dick," Mr. Falco said. "But I suspect we'll go on that night and program it the way we normally would, using our best stuff, as we build toward midnight." Would NBC shuttle any part of its ladies' figure skating coverage past 10 p.m. to avoid a possible third defeat by Fox's talent show?
"We won't back down to anything," Mr. Falco said.
• Richard Sandomir reported from Turin for this article, and Bill Carter from New York.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/sports/olympics/17tv.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
The Winter Olympics
Figure Skating: Got Milked
By Rich Heldenfels in his Akron Beacon Journal TV blog
I liked to get a good night's sleep. NBC would rather I didn't.
On Thursday night, the network's Olympics coverage ran four hours, with the big event -- men's figure skating -- scattered like crumbs behind Hansel and Gretel.
NBC provided 24 minutes of coverage at the beginning of its telecast, then went to other events, mainly the snowboard cross, for almost an hour. (It did at one point put up a graphic promising more men's figures in 27 minutes -- an estimate that brought viewers back several minutes before skating coverage actually resumed.) Another 43 minutes of figure skating -- taking viewers past the 10 p.m. hour -- led into more snowboard cross.
At this point, I have to concede that NBC's strategy worked somewhat with my viewing. I did sit through snowboard cross to get to more figure skating. (I had already read some notes online about Johnny Weir's troubles, and wanted to see for myself.) Not only that, the snowboard cross was exciting both in the semis and the final.
Still, NBC let itself be too focused on the gold-medal finish in snowboard cross, especially after American Seth Wescott won the gold. In a race with four men vying for three medals, we saw Wescott's win and replays of the big moments. But we never saw how the race for the bronze played out, even though it involved two racers who had been impressive earleir. Instead, we just got the information in a graphic with voiceover.
Skating resumed at 10:40 p.m., and would fill almost another hour. There were shots of skaters warming up, and a profile of Russian Yevgeny Plushenko, whose family-sacrifice tale makes for heart-warming television. Then Plushenko himself was on the ice, moving in a way that piled up points but found the NBC commentators carping about a lack of artistry.
Then, finally, came Weir. It was after 11 p.m. when he took the ice, an hour when many sensible viewers had gone to sleep. (I was among them, having wearily set my recorder before Plushenko's performance, to watch the rest of the coverage this morning.) He had a shot at a medal, but he didn't take it. In fact, I could almost feel the disappointment from the commentators, in their awkward silences during his routine, along with their acknowledging of his errors.
One blamed Weir's struggles on ''Olympic-itis.'' Maybe. But that's a disease that takes many forms. One is nervousness in an event. Another is a network stretching things out to keep viewers.
http://blogs.ohio.com/beacon_tv/
archiguy
02-17-06, 10:48 AM
Ratings Notes
FNC Draws Large Audience For Cheney Mea Culpa
“I had a bit of the feeling that the press corps was upset because, to some extent, it was about them,” Cheney told Hume. “They didn't like the idea that we called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times instead of The New York Times. But it strikes me that the Corpus Christi Caller-Times is just as valid a news outlet as The New York Times is, especially for covering a major story in South Texas.”
How ridiculous. :rolleyes: And so typical.
Rival news agencies were vocal in their criticism of Cheney’s decision to give FNC an exclusive. Appearing on The Situation Room Wednesday afternoon, CNN commentator Jack Cafferty said that “it didn’t exactly represent a profile in courage for the Vice President to wander over there to the F-word network for a sit-down with Brit Hume. I mean, that’s a little like Bonnie interviewing Clyde.”
That shouldn't surprise anyone. The Administration almost always "chooses" FoxNews for sit-down interviews. They reward their friends and attempt to punish and marginalize those who might just ask them, or who have asked them in the past, a hardball question. With Fox, they know they'll get served up softballs and they'll be able to spin the story any way they want. Again, typical.
jim tressler
02-17-06, 11:00 AM
at the end of the day.. trigger happy cheney can choose to be interviewed by whomever he wants.. I am still laughing my a$$ off at the whole incident.. How in the hell do you pop someone in the face like that.. I cant shoot for sh*t, but I know I wouldnt do something like that...
In all fairness guys, everyone I have read says Brit Hume did as good a job with the interview as anyone could have.
Presidents going back to Washington have always picked their favored methods of getting news out.
As I recall, major Clinton Administration figures very, very rarely appeared on FNC, but were often guests at CNN and MSNBC.
This stuff goes in cycles. And it probably should end here before it veers too far into the purely political.
jim tressler
02-17-06, 11:06 AM
good point fred.. how soon we forget.. CNN - Clinton News Network.. lol (and yes I did vote for him back in the day) lol
The fight over a la carte
The best argument for cable a la carte
By Diego Vasquez MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Feb 17, 2006
There are so many people claiming to know exactly what is best for our nation’s television viewers in the great debate over a la carte cable that it’s hard to keep them all straight.
The cable companies insist that offering consumers the option of paying for and subscribing to only those channels they wanted would drive up prices while reducing the range of channels available.
Then there are those who argue that a la carte would do exactly the opposite, lower costs while offering as much or more choice.
The most recent to make this argument is the Federal Communications Commission, which last week issued a report concluding just that, in a reversal of its earlier position, costs would go up under a la carte.
The Consumers Union has long supported a la carte, and then there is Sen. John McCain, an off-and-on supporter.
But then there are groups like the Faith and Family Broadcasting Coalition, National Puerto Rican Coalition and the National Congress of Black Women who claim that a la carte would stifle diversity on television. And last we have the entertainers whose work airs on these networks.
Many are represented by the Center for Creative Voices in Media, which strongly supports a la carte. Jonathan Rintels, president and executive director of the group, talks with Media Life about why his group supports a la carte, why the earlier FCC study opposing a la carte was flawed, and whether a la carte stands a chance of winning congressional approval.
Can you summarize the case for a la carte cable?
Today’s bundling system gives big media--the broadcast networks and big cable--a chokehold over America’s television programming, restricting consumer choice largely to networks owned by broadcast network owners or large cable operators.
As the FCC recognizes, an a la carte option would enable consumers to access a wider diversity of programming from additional sources, full of diverse and competing voices and viewpoints--and at a lower cost.
It would also give consumers the ability to choose to not subscribe to networks on cable and satellite that offend them, eliminating any need for extending broadcast indecency regulations to cable. This will be good not only for creative media artists but for all Americans.
The FCC reversed its earlier position on a la carte, citing a staff report released last week that says prices for consumers would drop under such a plan. Other studies, including an earlier one commissioned by the FCC, have said they will rise. What if anything can we conclude from this? Will prices rise or fall?
The one fact that is certain about pricing is that no one will know for certain if a la carte will cost less or more until a la carte is actually implemented. But one thing is certain: The earlier FCC report was a rigged job, skewed toward industry, relying entirely on industry data and not at all on non-industry data.
For example, how could the earlier study possibly conclude that under an a la carte system consumers would watch nearly 25 percent less television, or over two fewer hours of television per day?
There is no reason to believe that viewers would watch less video programming than they do today if provided an a la carte option. The earlier study was a clear case of the bias that Chairman Michael Powell had against regulating a la carte.
The new study seems to most observers to be far more based on research and far less driven by ideology.
What’s your opinion of the family-friendly cable tiers being added by many carriers? Does this solve a real problem, or is it the cable companies trying to avoid going to a la carte?
It’s the cable companies trying to avoid a la carte. The real problem is that consumers do not have the freedom to access the content they want or the power to avoid the content they don’t want.
Once they have that freedom and power, any justification for extending broadcast indecency regulations to cable instantly evaporates. A la carte is a far better approach to these indecency issues than having the government censor program content.
Is this an issue that could ever really be addressed by Congress? What’s standing in the way?
Certainly, it could be addressed by Congress. But the broadcast and big cable lobbies are among the most powerful in D.C., and they are dead set against ALC. Perhaps that may possibly have something to do with it.
Meanwhile, small cable and digital broadcasting and satellite providers, certainly Echostar, favor a la carte.
How much of the push for a la carte is lawmakers trying to reign in indecency on cable, which they currently have no control over?
The interesting thing is that a la carte doesn’t “reign in” indecency on cable. It just gives people who are offended by it the power to avoid it. Which is a far more enlightened approach, we think, addressing the indecency problem by promoting greater choice than by instituting more restrictions and penalties.
If a la carte was put in service, what would be the result for mid-level networks such as Oxygen, Bravo or Hallmark Channel? How about very small networks?
We agree with the FCC’s conclusion that suggests a la carte could be good for mid- and small-level networks. Now, people who are fans of Hallmark and Oxygen but subscribe to a basic package have to decide whether receiving Hallmark and Oxygen justifies spending the extra $10-$20 per month to reach up to the next tier just to get them.
In essence, they are forced to take those channels at $10-$20 a month, when under an a la carte system, the monthly cost might be a fraction of that. Thus, as the FCC notes, these channels could benefit under a la carte.
Will there ever be a compromise reached on this issue? How long do you expect it to kick around?
I do expect a compromise that looks like this: Much of the debate has been about a straw man that doesn’t exist: pure a la carte substituting for and eliminating today’s packages and tiers.
Instead, we would expect to see a la carte as an additional choice to today’s packages and tiers, adding a new option for consumers interested in, for example, picking their own choice of 20 channels for $40.
Why would the artists and creative types you represent be in favor of this? Wouldn't it mean their work could be seen by fewer people if certain networks take big subscriber hits?
We think it could mean their work is exposed to a far larger audience. We also think it would mean that there would be more diverse offerings, more independent networks, more creative freedom, more viewpoints and voices, and more challenging, interesting, and innovative programming.
In the long run, it is far better not only for creative artists but the entire industry to give consumers the choices they want. And they want the freedom to choose and the power to avoid that a la carte provides.
http://medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_2943.asp
archiguy
02-17-06, 11:17 AM
good point fred.. how soon we forget.. CNN - Clinton News Network.. lol (and yes I did vote for him back in the day) lol
As I recall, CNN led the charge vis a vis Monica; they pulled no punches. Certainly, there's no comparison between that network's treatment of Clinton's administration vs. FoxNews fawning coverage of the current one.
As I recall, CNN led the charge vis a vis Monica; they pulled no punches. Certainly, there's no comparison between that network's treatment of Clinton's administration vs. FoxNews fawning coverage of the current one.
Fawning? It is obvious you have never really watched FOX News Channel.
O'Reilly rails daily how Bush is NOT securing the borders and how he is screwed up the Iraqi situation. Hannity rails about the border as well and how Bush is letting the Dems run all over him and how he has lost his way in Iraq.
FOX in general has been calling FEMA's handling of the Katrina situation deployable since day one with Shepard Smith, standing on a bridge in New Orleans day three of Katrina just letting the Bush Administration have it for not doing ANYTHING.
Guess you missed all that. I wouldn't exactly call that fawning.
archiguy
02-17-06, 11:37 AM
Fawning? It is obvious you have never really watched FOX News Channel.
O'Reilly rails daily how Bush is NOT securing the borders and how he is screwed up the Iraqi situation. Hannity rails about the border as well and how Bush is letting the Dems run all over him and how he has lost his way in Iraq.
FOX in general has been calling FEMA's handling of the Katrina situation deployable since day one with Shepard Smith, standing on a bridge in New Orleans day three of Katrina just letting the Bush Administration have it for not doing ANYTHING.
Guess you missed all that. I wouldn't exactly call that fawning.
Oh, good grief; you're cherry-picking and trying to describe that as their mainstream coverage (and clearly, judging by your handle, it's difficult for you to give an impartial opinion). I do watch FN from time to time when I feel I need a shot of propaganda, and in general, their coverage is exactly like I, and many, many others, described.
There is a place for that debate.
It seems to me this is not that place.
SnakeEyes
02-17-06, 11:55 AM
foxeng has it right, by and large Fox is fair and balanced. The people complaining about FOX News tend to cherry pick their examples of bias and typically they are of the commentators and analysts on FOX News not the reporters. Just as conservatives do with CNN. Both CNN and FOX also have softball type people as well.
But this is all for nothing, this discussion will be moderated away soon.
The February Sweep
ABC Still Out Front in Sweeps
By Melanie M. Clarke Broadcasting & Cable 2/17/2006 11:48:00 AM
According to NTI numbers through Wednesday, Feb. 15, ABC ranks at the top in the coveted 18-49 demo with an average 6.5 rating /16 share. That number includes Super Bowl ratings; when those are taken out, the network has a 3.9/10. In households, ABC is also on top with a 9.9/15 for this year’s ratings period, up from a 6.4/10 for 2005. The network also holds the top spot in total viewers with 17.4 million this period versus 2005, when it had only 9.8 million.
NBC barely edges into second place with an average 4.6 rating/11 share in the 18-49 demo, a jump of only 1.0 from last year’s 3.6 rating/9 share, when the Peacock didn’t have an Olympics. This year’s Games have given the network an 8.6/13 in households as compared to last year, when it averaged a 6.8/11. In total viewers, the network is at 13.9 million this year, compared with an even 10 million for the 2005 sweeps.
In third place in the 18-49 demo—though nearly in a dead heat with NBC— Fox averages a 4.5 rating /11 share. In 2005, when Fox had the Super Bowl, it averaged an 8.0/20, but a 3.9/10 without factoring in the big game. The network comes in fourth in households with a 6.4/10, down significantly from last year’s 10.5/16. In total viewers, where Fox is also in fourth place, numbers were down significantly at 10.9 million in 2006, from 19.5 in 2005.
CBS checks in fourth in the 18-49 demo with a 3.7/9, almost on par with last year’s 3.9/10. The Tiffany network comes in third in households, though, with a 7.6/12, slightly up from its 2005 numbers of 8.0/13. In total viewers, the Eye is also in third place with 11.7 million, down slightly from 12.2 million in 2005.
The WB is in fifth place in all categories, with numbers that stayed nearly even this year compared to last. Its 1.4/3 in the 18-49 demo was dead even with last year’s, household numbers were 2.3/3 for 2006 and 2.3/4 for 2005, and total viewers this season to date are 3.3 million, down only slightly from 3.4 million in 2005.
UPN comes in sixth across the board with a 1.1/3 for 2006 in the 18-49 demo, slightly down from last year’s 1.2/3. Households so far are a 1.8/3, down from last year’s 2.2/3, and total viewers are at 2.7 million, also a drop from 3.1 million in 2005.
SnakeEyes
02-17-06, 11:58 AM
I'm curious to see how my new favorite Winter Olympic sport did in the ratings last night.
The Winter Olympics
Fact: This Olympics is the worst ever
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Feb 17, 2006
By now it has become routine for the Olympics to be beaten by regularly scheduled programming on Fox and ABC. It has happened on three of the past four nights.
The only question remaining about these Winter Games is just how bad will they end up.
The increasingly clear answer is likely the worst ever. The 17.9 million average total viewers NBC averaged during primetime Wednesday may have been the single worst night in Winter Olympics history.
It was below the nightly average for any Winter Games broadcast dating all the way back to 1992, according to numbers provided by Nielsen.
Wednesday’s average 11.3 household rating also marked the lowest Winter Olympics night on record according to Nielsen, and the fifth-lowest rated night of any Olympics behind several nights at the Sydney Summer Games of 2000.
The Sydney Games averaged a record-low 21.5 million total viewers over 16 nights. The Torino Games are averaging 21.1 million total viewers per night.
Winter Olympics ratings among adults 18-49 have been particularly low owing to the strong competition from Fox and ABC. Through six days, NBC is averaging a 6.5. That’s off 21 percent from Sydney’s 8.3 average and 27 percent behind an 8.9 average for Nagano, the two lowest-rated Games of the past 14 years.
NBC is also at risk of not making its ratings guarantees. Its six-day household average has now fallen to a 12.5, which is closer to the lower end of the 12 to 14 average it promised advertisers. NBC still expects to finish ahead of its guarantees but media people aren’t so convinced.
At this point, almost halfway through the games, NBC's one hope is ladies’ figure skating next week, but media people believe it will provide a smaller bump than in past years and will not be enough to raise Torino’s average past the 2000 Sydney Games.
Their bigger concern, however, is for future Olympics. They see only further declines unless NBC makes major changes in its presentation, reflecting the fact that results are available online many hours before the events air on NBC.
“Consumers these days are proactive,” observes John Padgett, media director for the Hauser Group in Atlanta.
“Technology has trained consumers that they don’t have to wait for prepackaged programs to get what they’re interested in seeing. Nobody under age 35 is going to stick around and wait till 11 p.m. to find out if Bode Miller won a medal, and very few over age 35 are going to do it.”
Indeed, NBC has drawn its broadcasts out well past 11 p.m. for results that were available on the internet hours earlier.
Another problem, in Padgett's view, is that the network has relied too long on a formula of attempting to please all segments of viewers by offering a little bit for each.
“Older women want a storyline and emotion, and younger men want results and competition,” Padgett says. “They program the three and a half hours each night as a movie that consistently throughout touches on all the things that are relevant to the different demographic segments. That worked in 1988 and 1992, but it doesn’t work anymore, in my opinion.”
Critics say the network needs to do two things to revive viewer interest in the Olympics, and one is to show the big results throughout the night, rather than waiting until the end of the broadcast.
The other is to build interest in foreign competitors by giving them the sort of coverage and feature play it now gives only to U.S. athletes. The Games are truly an international competition, they say, and NBC has been short-sighted in treating them as American events.
http://medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_2944.asp
The Winter Olympics
Olympics on TV: Where's the buzz?
By Ann Oldenburg USA TODAY
Where has the Winter Olympics TV audience gone?
The world's grandest sports gathering, an event that historically crushes the competition in television ratings, has been losing millions of viewers each night since the Games began a week ago to hot new episodes of entertainment shows. The trend suggests that the counterprogramming is stronger than ever, that alternative sources of Olympics news are more accessible online — and perhaps even that the Games have lost some resonance with American viewers.
"We are watching much less of the Olympics than we ever have in the past," says Paula Rawson, 33, of Indianapolis. "My husband and I, especially, just aren't as interested. Even when they try to tell the gut-wrenching stories, it just doesn't motivate me to watch."
Prime-time viewership for the first six nights of the Winter Games is down 36% from Salt Lake City in 2002, 17% from Nagano in 1998 and 44% from Lillehammer in 1994. Not only are other networks, sensing weakness, putting up more competition, but the six- to nine-hour time difference between Italy and the USA means Americans can find out the results well before NBC goes on the air. Those thrill-of-victory, agony-of-defeat moments in prime time seem a little stale when the winners have been decided and results posted online, viewers say.
Wednesday in the head-to-head battle, Fox's American Idol again trounced NBC's Olympics. From 8:30 to 9 p.m. (the Olympics were unrated by Nielsen from 8 to 8:30), Idol averaged 31.1 million viewers to the Games' 15.4 million. ABC's hit drama Lost was almost even with the Olympics at 9 p.m. Overall, Fox took the evening, NBC's second loss in a row.
Not all the numbers are bad. Traffic at NBC's Olympics website, the top Olympics site, doubled over the weekend, and CNBC's and MSNBC's coverage of the Games, often of minor events, is pulling in far more viewers than the cable networks' usual fare. NBC, which has invested more than $700 million in rights fees and production costs to televise the events from Torino, still expects to turn a profit of at least $50 million.
"We used to say the network is for the family, the cable coverage was for the sports fan and the website for the fanatic," NBC Sports spokesman Mike McCarley says. "It's the same basic idea, but we continue to add. It's like the Olympics evolve as the industry evolves. We're evolving with how people consume media." When it comes to ratings, he adds, "We're right where we thought we'd be."
There still are millions of viewers. Laremy Legel of Seattle, 27, is making the Olympics his own must-see TV. "I have elected to avoid Internet sports sites, so I can see the action fresh," Legel says. "I am watching in prime time almost exclusively."
Tougher competition
Not only the Olympics are slipping. Other marquee sports broadcasts, including the World Series and Monday Night Football, have also seen audience erosion.
The network competition NBC faces is fiercer than ever. "Usually, the Olympics beat anything thrown against it — combined," says Andy Donchin, director of national broadcast for media services company Carat in New York.
Not this time. "The one key thing going on this year is that NBC is not the No. 1 network going in," says Steve Sternberg, analyst for the Magna Global USA ad firm. NBC is No. 3 this season, and fourth behind Fox in the advertiser-coveted 18-49 age group.
In 2002, during the last winter Olympics, NBC had top series and simply pre-empted what would have been its most difficult competition for viewers. Now the biggest competition to NBC's programming has come from Fox's Idol, whose appeal is stronger than ever in its fifth season.
Peter Liguori, president of Fox Entertainment, is modest about it: "It proves there's enough success to go around."
Idol has bested the sporting event by more than 10 million this week in each hour they went head-to-head Tuesday and Wednesday. Next week, the Olympics will face three nights of Idol, and the ad industry is watching closely.
If NBC doesn't deliver promised Olympics TV ratings to advertisers — and NBC says it still is making its numbers — the sponsors would receive "make-good" ads, or complimentary commercials, within Olympics coverage. "Right now. (NBC is) walking the line, but it's still in the good zone," says Susan Hajny, broadcast research manager at ad agency GSD&M.
General Motors, one of the biggest advertisers in the Games, is "disappointed in the viewership to date" but is still "thrilled to be an Olympic sponsor," spokeswoman Ryndee Carney says. "We also know that even though the audience isn't as robust as in some prior Games, we are still reaching a huge number of people."
"It's a little troubling any time a network guarantees an event and falls short," says Sam Armando, research director at Starcom in Chicago. "If anything, this is opening the eyes of other networks who say, 'We don't have to run away.' We all expected Idol to compete very well, but I don't think anybody expected the gap to be as huge as it was."
It's not just Idol.
"This year is different than other years," says Matt Pitzarella, 26, a Pittsburgh utility company manager. He's talking about choices.
"Olympic skating against Skating with Celebrities," for example, he says, referring to the Fox reality series that airs Monday. "To be honest, we prefer the latter, and my wife is a huge figure-skating fan." He says they're following the Games on "non-traditional media outlets like the Internet, cellphones and talk radio."
Many paths to news
How potential viewers get news of medal results is the big difference from previous Olympics.
Kelly Taylor, 41, lives in Troy, Mich. Her proximity to Canada enables her to watch Canadian television, CBC-TV, which is airing events live during the day.
"My husband and I have discussed the fact that watching NBC's coverage is frustrating because they edit it so much we only get to see what they want us to see," Taylor says. "We like all of the athletes, and Canadian TV provides that."
For anyone who can't see the Winter Olympics live, the Internet is the obvious outlet of choice.
"I don't see why I should waste my time to watch an event that occurred more than six hours ago when I can just find out the results on the Internet," says Taha Jamil, 32, of Columbus, Ohio.
If the numbers aren't sky high on TV, they are way up on the Web.
Almost 1.4 million people visited Olympics websites Monday, an 86% jump since Friday's opening ceremony, according to Nielsen/NetRatings, which tracks Internet traffic for search engines such as Yahoo and Google and for online advertisers.
The most popular website in Nielsen/NetRatings' count, www.nbcolympics.com, saw its traffic increase 95% from Friday to Monday. More than 1 million surfers visited the site Sunday and Monday. "That's a lot," says Jennifer Fan, director of marketing and communications for Nielsen/NetRatings.
To help boost Web traffic, NBC worked out a deal with Disney that resulted in an NBC-logo link to the NBC Olympics site being placed on the home page of ESPN.com, one of the top sports websites.
In fact, although Idol beats the Olympics on TV, NBC's website is clobbering idolonfox.com, according to Nielsen/NetRatings. (It makes sense, because the search is for results in the Olympics before prime time, while Idol results are unknown until the show airs.) For the week ending Sunday, idolon fox.com attracted 509,000 unique visitors, while NBCOlympics.com attracted 2.3 million visitors. Combined, all Olympics-related sites attracted nearly 3 million individuals for the week ending Sunday.
Using another new technology is Cathy Dee, 50, of Fort Wayne, Ind. She has a high-definition television in her house and likes to watch the Olympics on it because, she says, "Everything looks amazing."
Still, she goes to the Internet to get results early. "It is a little disconcerting to hear the nighttime announcers act as if we were all in the dark about what is about to happen," Dee says. "I consider this network habit a long-overdue one to quit. It just seems dumb in 2006. Surely there is some way to package the prime-time coverage in such a way that there is honesty in reporting."
But Dee says, "Despite the hype, time-delayed coverage and commercialization, there's something about watching mostly young people doing something they love, so well, and caring so much about the outcome."
Spirit of the sport
Just knowing who won the gold has never been the heart and soul of the Olympics. It really is about the agony and the triumph, the awe and the wonder of athletes and their stories, their incredible strength, their personalities and the families behind them.
If an athlete emerges who can capture the country's imagination, ratings could still rise. Carat's Donchin notes NBC still has an ace in the hole: women's figure skating with Sasha Cohen and Michelle Kwan's replacement, Emily Hughes, whom he expects will pull a "huge ratings number."
"It's the great unscripted drama of sports," NBC's McCarley says. "What's going to happen? Who thought that a 19-year-old snowboarder from San Diego would be on the cover of Sports Illustrated and Rolling Stone next week?"
Other potential draws: Short-track speedskater Apolo Anton Ohno's next medal chances begin with Saturday's 1,000-meter races. Chad Hedrick, winner of the USA's first gold in these Games, continues his quest for four gold medals Saturday when he will battle teammate Shani Davis in the men's 1,000 meters.
Some pre-Games favorites have gone nowhere. Heavy hype went to bad-boy skier Bode Miller and veteran figure skater Kwan. She withdrew because of an injury and returned to the States. Miller finished fifth in the downhill and was disqualified in the combined, though he has three events left, including Monday's giant slalom, in which he is the reigning silver medalist.
Vicki Nguyen of Kansas City, Mo., says she is a "casual viewer" of the Olympics but was interested in Kwan's quest for the elusive gold. "With Kwan out of the Games, I will probably watch a lot less."
Even sports media veterans acknowledge that the Olympics aren't as interesting as they should or could be. ESPN's Tony Kornheiser admitted on his Washington radio show Wednesday to watching Idol over skiing. Commentator Skip Bayless said on ESPN2's morning show Cold Pizza: "The Winter Olympics were the original American Idol: Unknown amateur comes from nowhere to become a prime-time star. Dorothy Hamill was Kelly Clarkson. Now the mutant offspring is devouring the original."
For Anthony Giaccone, 41, of Fairfield, Conn., it goes deeper than just picking Simon Cowell over Bob Costas. "Athletes today aren't as mythic as they were when I was a kid. Athletes such as Bob Mathias, Jesse Owens, Paavo Nurmi and others, to me, were amazing amateur competitors," Giaccone says. "The Olympic movement was about competition and the thrill of being there. Today, it is all about money and professional athletes, gold medal counts and ratings."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006-02-16-olympic-tv-viewing_x.htm
SnakeEyes
02-17-06, 12:15 PM
I think the article has it right. People don't want to wait and spoilers are everywhere even if you dont search it out. If this were a result of a sport that was valued greater, like the World Series, sure people if they had to wait and watch on delay but interest in these sports for most people only comes once every four years. Only if the spoiler/result indicates something of remarkable interest are people going to still "have" to tune in for.
I also think NBC needs to go with more live coverage. At least pick up some of that viewership that they will certainly lose by delaying a lot of the coverage. They need to be showing all of events. You cant build any drama by cutting and pasting up events.
Thursday’s network prime-time ratings have been posted at the top of Latest Prime Time Ratings news which is the first post in this thread.
Note: in the-don't-believe-everything-you-read department, note that Ms. Sanders says NBC paid "tens of millions" for the Olympic rights through 2012. Actually NBC is paying $1.5 billion for the 2006 and 2008 Olympics, and $2.2 billion for the 2010 and 2012 Games.)
The Winter Olympics
Tarnished Gold
Olympics No Medal Winner for NBC Ratings
By Holly M. Sanders The New York Post
NBC's Winter Olympics coverage is far from over, but advertisers are already grumbling about the less-than-stellar ratings.
The numbers are disappointing enough that advertisers and their agencies are starting to mouth "makegoods." These are calls for additional commercial spots to cover ratings shortfalls.
NBC insists it's too early for advertisers to have their hands so greatly outstretched, as the 17-day sports extravaganza only began last Friday.
And one of the most popular events — women's figure skating, albeit absent media-darling Michelle Kwan — doesn't start until next week.
"We're tracking right where we expected to be," said Mike McCarley, vice president of communications and marketing for NBC Sports. "This is within the range."
The "range" refers to a promise NBC brass made to advertisers before the torch was lit that the Olympic broadcast would average a Nielsen household rating of 12 to 14. NBC said it's pulling a 12.7 so far.
Still, the ratings have to be ruffling a few feathers at the Peacock Network, which paid tens of millions to broadcast the Games through 2012.
NBC's broadcast has been beaten several times in primetime this week by hit shows on rival networks — in particular Fox's "American Idol" and ABC's "Grey's Anatomy." (Fox is a division of News Corp., which also owns The Post.)
This is an almost unheard of occurrence for the once-every-four-year spectacle — the Olympics.
Ad experts said this re Flects, in part, NBC's overall competitive standing. NBC is ranked third among the major networks and has no top-10 shows.
The competition has also rolled out NBC's strongest programming lineup as the nets duke it out during the crucial February "sweeps" period that determines ad rates for the coming season.
During the past two Games, NBC was the top network and its Olympics coverage wasn't competing against the same hit shows.
"It's the sweeps, and their competitors aren't giving up the 17 days to NBC," said Brad Adgate, director of research at ad-buying firm Horizon Media. The other nets "are putting on their A-list schedule."
NBC suffered a pair of back-to-back whackings this week, when "American Idol" drew over 10 million viewers more than the Games on both Tuesday and Wednesday evenings.
Ad experts said it's not really fair to compare anything to "Idol."
" 'American Idol' is a juggernaut that no one has found an effective way to program against," said David Abrutyn, senior vice president at IMG, a sports and entertainment consulting firm.
Still, it could get even worse next week, when "Idol" expands to three straight nights.
Wednesday's "Idol" gave Fox an average 11.9 rating, leaving NBC in second with a 10.9 rating, below the number it had guaranteed advertisers.
Sources said some advertisers — who paid an average of $700,000 for a 30-second spot — are now evaluating whether to ask NBC for the dreaded makegoods.
NBC president Bob Wright has said the network raked in $900 million in advertising and will turn a profit on the Games based on that figure.
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/pfriendly_new.php
Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
'Stars' and 'Survivor' beat NBC Games
Top sagging Games in viewers and in 18-49s
By Diego Vasquez MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Feb 17, 2006
Unlike three of the previous four nights, NBC’s Olympic Games did manage to finish first among adults 18-49 last night. But it did so despite finishing behind two competing programs during the 8 p.m. hour, the first time during this Olympics that NBC has finished third in a timeslot among 18-49s and total viewers.
ABC’s “Dancing With the Stars” finished first among total viewers with an average 18.3 million total viewers at 8 p.m. last night, according to Nielsen overnights, followed for the second straight week by CBS with 17.1 million for “Survivor.” That left NBC’s Olympics coverage third with 15.8 million viewers.
Among 18-49s, “Survivor” posted a 6.3 rating to lead the hour, followed by the first hour of a 90-minute “Stars” a 4.9 and NBC’s Olympics a 4.5 at 8 p.m.
With CBS in repeats the rest of the night, however, and ABC’s lineup much weaker after “Stars,” NBC rebounded to finish first among 18-49s for the first time in three nights with a 5.9 average rating and a 15 share. CBS was second at 5.7/14 and ABC third at 4.2/11,
The Olympics, which featured the men’s figure skating finals, finished second during the 9-9:30 p.m. half hour, just ahead of a repeat of CBS’s “CSI” among both total viewers and 18-49s but behind ABC’s “Stars,” which has only two episodes left.
“Stars” averaged 21.2 million total viewers from 9 to 9:30 and posted a 6.1 rating among 18-49s. For the full hour, “CSI” and the Olympics tied for first with a 6.3.
Meanwhile, the rest of the competition was far behind for the night. The WB was fourth among 18-49s at 2.4/6, Fox fifth at 2.2/5, Univision sixth at 1.9/5 and UPN seventh at 1.2/3.
CBS took the 8 p.m. hour among 18-49s with its 6.3 for “Survivor,” followed by ABC’s 4.9 for “Stars.” NBC was third that hour with a 4.5 for the Olympics, WB fourth with a 2.7 for “Smallville,” Univision fifth with a 2.1 for “Contra Viento y Marea,” Fox sixth with a 1.9 for the first hour of the movie “Legally Blonde” and UPN seventh with a 1.4 average for “Everybody Hates Chris” (1.8) and “Love, Inc.” (1.1).
NBC and CBS tied for first during the 9 p.m. hour at 6.3, NBC for the Olympics and CBS for a repeat of “CSI.” ABC was third with a 4.7 for the last half hour of “Stars” (6.1) and the first half of a “Grey’s Anatomy” repeat (3.2), Fox fourth with a 2.5 for the second half of “Legally Blonde,” WB fifth with a 2.2 for “Beauty & the Geek,” Univision sixth with a 2.1 for “Alborada” and UPN seventh with a 0.9 for “Eve” (1.0) and “Cuts” (0.8).
NBC led during the 10 p.m. hour with a 6.8 for the Olympics. CBS finished second with a 4.6 for a repeat of “Without a Trace,” ABC third with a 3.1 average for the last half of its “Grey’s” repeat (3.7) and a 30-minute “Primetime” (2.6) and Univision fourth with a 1.4 for “Aqui y Ahora.”
Among households, NBC led the night with an 11.7 average rating and an 18 share, a smidge below the 12 to 14 range it promised advertisers. CBS was second at 10.5/16, ABC third at 8.9/14, Fox fourth at 3.4/5, WB fifth at 2.9/4, Univision sixth at 2.2/3 and UPN seventh at 1.8/3.
http://medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_2945.asp
TV Notebook
Bob Woodward Slow To Mend
By Michael Starr The New York Post
'World News Tonight" co-anchor Bob Woodruff and ABC News cameraman Doug Vogt continue to recover from the injuries they sustained last month in Iraq.
And Woodruff's brother, David, is preaching patience regarding Woodruff's recovery.
"Bob's amazing team of doctors, nurses and corpsmen continue to be pleased with the progress he makes each day, and they are optimistic about his recovery," David Woodruff wrote in an e-mail to ABC News staffers.
"The more we learn about Bob's injuries, the more we appreciate just how lucky he is.
"We need to remind ourselves it's only been 2 1/2 weeks since he sustained his injuries in Iraq. We live in a world of instant gratification, where patience as a virtue is rarely practiced.
"Our family now has a whole new appreciation for the word and what it truly means to be patient."
Woodruff and Vogt were traveling with an Iraqi convoy Jan. 29 when they were hit by a roadside bomb.
Woodruff, who sustained head and rib injuries, remains sedated in a Bethesda, Md. hospital.
Vogt is being treated there as an outpatient.
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/pfriendly_new.php
The 2005-2006 TV Season
Ask Matt
(from the Ask (TV Critic) Matt (Roush) column at TVGuide.com
By Matt Roush TVGuide.com TV Critic
Matt Roush: Well, let's say one of the best shows of the freshman class, anyway, and certainly Fox's best new show of the season.
http://tvguide.com/tv/roush/askmatt/
Uh, I think Prison Break is easily Fox's best new show of the season.
TV Notebook
“Party” Cancelled
After just two airings, UPN has cancelled it’s new Tuesday night series “Get This Party Started”.
We live in a world of instant gratification, where patience as a virtue is rarely practiced.
After just two airings, UPN has cancelled it’s new Tuesday night series “Get This Party Started”.
Funny sequence of posts :)
Whitearrow
02-17-06, 06:33 PM
I really wish NBC would have live coverage during the day, at least on the cable channels like USA and UHD. Then I could record and watch stuff right when I get home. Or at least start 4 hour nights of prime time coverage at 7 instead of 8. Trying to stay spoiler free all that time limits everything you can watch on TV and look at on the Internet, and it's a real pain in the ass.
RussTC3
02-17-06, 08:42 PM
I really wish NBC would have live coverage during the day, at least on the cable channels like USA and UHD. Then I could record and watch stuff right when I get home. Or at least start 4 hour nights of prime time coverage at 7 instead of 8. Trying to stay spoiler free all that time limits everything you can watch on TV and look at on the Internet, and it's a real pain in the ass.
I agree 100%.
We were watching the USA woman's curling math today -- it went to extra ends and at 2:55 NBC left it to to a preview of the USA women's hockey game that ended up starting at 3:10. Seems if they really cared about the viewer they could have stayed with the curling as they had for almost 3 hours or switched it to one of the other stations they are using. So when they show a live event they screw it up. Finally about 3:20 they gave the score of the curling match.
Thanks NBC!
My computer problems of the past 24 hours seem to have cleared up (with help from David Bott) and I'll be updating again.....
TV Notebook
“Lost’s” Dharma boom
By Maureen Ryan from the Chicago Tribune TV blog
There are a million theories about “Lost.” That’s one of the show’s key strengths: Just about every fan of the show has his or her own idea about what’s transpiring on that mysterious island, and events on “Lost” can be interpreted to support as many theories as viewers can come up with.
Personally, my interpretation has, of late, involved pirates; surely that explanation covers the buried treasure, i.e., the hatch, the mysterious, violent band of radicals terrorizing the plane-crash survivors, not to mention the climactic battle at sea last year between Jin, Michael and Sawyer and the Others, who happen to have their own rickety boat and who stole a child, a maneuver worthy of Captain Hook. It’s as valid a theory as any, though perhaps overly indebted to recent readings of “Peter Pan,” one of my son’s favorite bedtime stories. But I digress -- as one does so often when one’s talking about “Lost.”
But this season, a truly compelling explanation of the island happenings has emerged: Episodes aired in the fall revealed that the island is an experiment run by a collective known as the Dharma Initiative. Dharma is the word used to describe the collected teachings of the Buddha.
“What’s going on here? Is mainstream TV really making a meaningful foray into the Buddhist world? Or is it merely rummaging through the thrift store of Buddhist terminology for the odd hat or trinket with which to play dress up?” Dean Sluyter writes in the current issue of the Buddhist magazine Tricycle. There’s reason for Sluyter’s wariness; he notes that the last time the word “dharma” was prominently mentioned on TV, “it turned out to mean a cute blonde hippie girl married to an uptight yuppie named Greg.”
But Sluyter noted other Buddhism-related clues in the show: The computer that must be tended to every 108 minutes may be a reference to the 108-bead string, or mala, that some Buddhist practitioners use during meditation.
And he sees John Locke, the enigmatic character played by Terry O’Quinn, as a man with a lot of relevance to Buddhism: “Thanks to O’Quinn’s gravitas, when flashbacks reveal Locke as a loser,” Sluyter writes, “we accept his emergence in the forward action as the macho paramilitary survivalist of his own dreams, the warrior-sage who may well prove to be the salvation of his people. Yes, even schmendricks like us may rise to be bodhisattvas,” or enlightened beings. (Of course, Sluyter's piece was written before we saw Locke permit Sayid's torture of the man thought to be one of the Others).
An ABC publicist said that neither of the show’s main day-to-day executive producers, Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof, is a Buddhist. Still, Sluyter notes in his piece that, aside from tossing about words such as dharma, the show does address core issues that sound familiar to anyone on the Buddhist path.
“To be lost is to be stripped of the cozy but confining assurance that you’re on course, on a tidy, logical trajectory from Point A to Point B,” he writes. “If you’re really going somewhere new (toward enlightenment, let’s say), any concept you have of the destination or the path” that you’ll end up on “is necessarily an ignorant concept.”
“Whenever we practice” Buddhist concepts such as meditation and mindfulness, Sluyter concludes, “we must be willing to get lost, to cast off the moorings of what we know or think we know. In that sense, `Lost’ … has provided a kind of mass-audience quasi-meditative experience. How long its creators can maintain the mystery, without resolving it into mere rational explanation or exhausting the audience’s patience, is another question.”
And that is a good question, to digress again.
In my opinion, the episodes of “Lost” that have aired since the start of 2006 have not been great. “The Long Con,” an episode centering on Sawyer, was pretty good, but the other episodes we’ve seen over the past month or two have been subpar. And the effort, via "The Long Con" and the Sayid-centric episode in which Sawyer crushed a frog, to turn Sawyer from Roguish but Possibly Redeemable Guy to Bad Dude has been overly obvious. Sawyer is a Bad Dude. I get it already.
The recent episode about Charlie, in particular, was a disappointment, and as far as I’m concerned, the glimpses we got of the Others and the smoky, black “monster” were anti-climactic and poorly handled. The new characters aren't as interesting as the old ones, the flashbacks are getting predictable, and the mysteries of the island just don’t seem as … well, mysterious anymore. And why is it that characters such as Claire look as if they just came from a Beverly Hills spa?
Many of these problems were bound to crop up in Season 2; what was once radically new is now familiar, so some disillusionment was bound to creep in.
But when we speak about Season 2 of “Lost,” we must turn to another concept familiar to Buddhists and Hindus, a concept recently popularized further by Earl Hickey of “My Name Is Earl.”
Karma, Hickey’s inspiration for turning around his life, is defined by the American Heritage dictionary as “the total effect of a person’s actions and conduct during the successive phases of the person’s existence; [it is] regarded as determining the person’s destiny.”
In the past season and a half, “Lost” has built up a lot of good karma, with this viewer and millions of others. For that reason alone, I’m inclined to give it a break, for the time being. But not forever.
Let’s hope that during the next phase of the show’s existence -- namely, from now until May -- it ascends to a higher plane of existence.
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2006/02/losts_dharma_in.html#more
TV Notebook
“24”: The First Lady Is Seriously Off Her Rocker
By Joe Rhodes The New York Times February 19, 2006
Five seasons into the terrorist-chasing, plot-twisting, clock-and-dagger shoot-em-up soap opera that is the Fox network's "24," viewers have come to expect certain things. They know, for instance, that there will be good guys who turn out to be bad guys and bad guys who turn out to be good.
They know there will be kidnappings, explosions, bureaucratic ineptitude, downloaded schematics, back-channel double-crosses and complicated triggering mechanisms vital to the deployment of devices that are set to go off within the next few hours, jeopardizing the lives of thousands, if not millions of civilians in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. (Previous threats have included biological weapons and nuclear missiles. This year, so far anyway, it's nerve gas. )
And they know that the Counter Terrorism Unit special agent/tormented soul Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) will be forced to do something unpleasant in the name of national security including (but not limited to) torturing suspected bad guys, punching or shooting innocent bystanders who get in the way (he always feels bad about this) and clenching his jaw as he realizes he should probably tell his only daughter that he's not really dead. Also, he or one of his terrorism unit associates will have to get from one side of Los Angeles to another in an impossibly short period of time.
About the only thing viewers might not have been able to anticipate was that this season's break-out character would be a high-strung, sharp-tongued and off-her-meds first lady of the United States, a woman who screams, "I will have your family eating dog food out of a can" at Secret Service agents trying to keep her away from a presidential news conference. Jean Smart's first on-screen appearance as Martha Logan, perhaps the most memorable character debut in "24" history, consists of her looking into a mirror, assessing her make-up and proclaiming, "I look like a wedding cake" just before dunking her face in the bathroom sink.
"I read that scene and thought I have to play this woman," said Ms. Smart. In nearly 30 years she has been offered many parts, but few included such delicious possibilities: a chance to be intelligent and sexy, powerful and mysterious, vengeful and slightly psychotic, a loose cannon in sling-back pumps, married to a weak-kneed opportunist (Gregory Itzin as President Charles Logan) she no longer trusts or respects.
"I just loved the fact that she was so impulsive," Ms. Smart said, sipping Diet Coke at a Ventura Boulevard restaurant not far from the Encino home she shares with her real-life husband, the actor Richard Gilliand, and their 17-year-old son, Connor.
"I don't think she ever counted on being first lady," Ms. Smart said, "and I think she's not well suited for the job. Intellectually she is. But I think she's way too emotional to make the kind of compromises you're forced to make, to appear unrelentingly supportive all the time , even when you're not. She can't stand that."
Howard Gordon, one of three executive producers of "24," freely admits that the original model for Ms. Smart's character was Martha Mitchell, the volatile wife of Richard M. Nixon's attorney general, John N. Mitchell, known for her late-night calls to reporters outlining outrageous theories about conspiracy in the Nixon White House, a number of which turned out to be true. The Nixon administration response — just as in the fictional Logan administration — was to label Martha Mitchell as "unstable."
"We think of her as the first lady who cried wolf," Mr. Gordon said of the fictional Martha Logan, "a woman who is armed with the truth" — that a high-ranking administration official is involved with a terrorist plot — "but who is discredited by her own mental health history, the fact that she's had breakdowns and delusions in the past."
"It's a fun part to write," he continued, "but it's kind of a high wire act, to make sure she's not so hysterical that you can't see she's still an incredibly powerful and capable woman. To make it work, we had to have an actress you could believe had the strength and intelligence to be a first lady, but the unpredictability of never knowing when she might snap. Jean's name was the first we brought up."
In the 15 years since she left the hit comedy series "Designing Women," Ms. Smart, now in her early 50's, has carved out a steady but esoteric career, drawing rave reviews for roles in independent films like "Garden State" and "Guinevere," scene-stealing parts in mainstream movies like "The Kid" and "Bringing Down the House," her Emmy-Award winning guest appearances on "Frasier" and frequent returns to the theater (she started out with the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in 1978 and received an Obie nomination for her first Off-Broadway role, 1980's "Last Summer at Bluefish Cove), including a 2000 Broadway revival of "The Man Who Came to Dinner" with Nathan Lane.
Although she has tried, unsuccessfully, to get three comedy series off the ground since "Designing Women" ( 1995's "High Society," 1998's "Style and Substance" and last year's "Center of the Universe" with John Goodman) Ms. Smart said that being a television star is never what she had in mind.
"I grew up with a feeling that money was not that important, almost a reverse snob thing," she said, asked why she walked away from "Designing Women" at the peak of its rating success. "And I could feel myself getting used to the money. I felt like I was getting lazy. We worked maybe 30 hours a week, three weeks a month, I mean, good Lord. ..."
Her choices, she acknowledged, may have led to smaller paychecks and less star wattage, but they also gave her the freedom to pick her spots and feel good about the parts she took.
"I always wanted to be taken seriously," she said. "I always wanted to feel good about what I was doing and have my peers think that I was talented. I think I've had a really good reputation and that's very important to me."
"What I admire about Jeannie is that she's not afraid to get her hands dirty," said Mr. Itzin, a co-star with Ms. Smart in a play, "Mrs. California," at the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles 20 years ago. "There are a lot of actors who won't take roles because they think it might be unflattering. But Jeannie's not afraid to let herself look bad."
Because of the way "24" is structured — plot lines and character twists are often being revamped even as episodes are being filmed — Ms. Smart said she had no idea whether First Lady Logan will turn out to be a heroine or a lunatic, whether she'll forgive her husband for trying to have her committed or whether she'll end up by his side, saving his presidency and possibly the free world. Producers, however, have strongly hinted that her character will still be around when the season ends.
"I think, whatever happens, her fate is tied to the President's," Ms. Smart said. "If something happens to him, then I'm done."
But what, she was asked, if the first lady were somehow responsible for the President's demise.
"Oh, that would keep me around for several extra episodes, wouldn't it?," she said. "I've thought about that, President Logan floating face down in the pool, like William Holden in 'Sunset Boulevard.' That would — be fabulous."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/arts/television/19rhod.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
The Winter Olympics
They just can't wait for the results
By Rick Maese Baltimore Sun
TURIN, Italy -- Used to be we'd gather around the water cooler the next day and talk about what happened last night.
"Did you see Bode bomb?!"
"Kwan couldn't land a triple if you spotted her two spins and the landing!"
"Gretzky says Canada will cover, so why would I bet against them?"
Not anymore.
These Turin Games mark a whole new chapter for the Olympics. The way we consume the Olympics has been revolutionized. I don't buy the talk that the sky is falling on the sacred Games.
Sure, Americans don't understand all of the sports, attendance is sparse and television ratings are down. That is apparently reason enough for the fantasy-football crowd to declare the Olympics obsolete. But the truth is the Games are very relevant — you just have to realize that we've ridden the monorail into a techno age.
You can look back on Sydney in 2000, Salt Lake City in 2002 or Athens in 2004, and you won't see a single Olympics affected by the Internet like these Turin Games. Go ahead and blame new media for sagging ratings, but it also illustrates that people are still interested in what's happening up on the slopes and down on the ice.
This week, NBC puffed out its chest. The network is boasting about winning four straight nights of the prime-time ratings war for the first time since August 2004. We can attribute that to the weak lineup NBC normally presents, not Olympic intrigue. Actually, the ratings are down more than 33% from the Salt Lake City Games in 2002 and nearly 20% from the Nagano Games in 1998. Last week's opening ceremony brought in half the viewers from four years ago. In the past few days, the Olympics has lost out to "CSI" and "Grey's Anatomy." More viewers were interested in "American Idol" than the Alpine idol, and many of you nixed desperate figure skaters for "Desperate Housewives."
And here in Turin, many venues have been only half full. Olympic organizers are actually filling the stands with schoolchildren, charging them only $3.50 for admission. But none of this is to suggest that people are ignoring the Games. They're just receiving and digesting the information in a whole new way.
On Monday, 21 million people tuned into NBC's coverage of the Games. On that same day, NBCOlympics.com registered 29 million page views. The Internet is changing everything.
Young people "don't want to be engaged for hours on end," says Larry Weber, CEO for W2 Group, an Internet marketing services company. "They just want to check it out when they can. They inform themselves. They don't wait for someone to inform them."
Weber notes that before many viewers watch the Games each night, they've already read about the results online.
"We can't wait until 8 o'clock," he says. "Part of the problem television has is that it's not live. We've quickly become a society of immediate gratification. If someone has heard about a big wipeout on the mountain, they want to see video of it right now. There's no waiting."
While TV ratings slip, websites are booming. Early numbers are more than twice what they were in Athens and nearly 10 times higher than Salt Lake City. At Athens, NBC seemed hesitant to invest too much in its digital offering. After all, it spent hundreds of millions of dollars for broadcast rights.
Earlier this week, Gary Zenkel, president of NBC Olympics, said that "nothing replaces the shared experience of watching the Olympics on television."
I guess that might be true for the 1% of American people who are still scared of computers. It's a safe bet that NBC's sponsorship dollars are mostly tied to TV, but more and more, actual consumers are following the Games online.
No matter how many commercials we see, the Olympics aren't designed for the mainstream. They're sports Americans can't relate to and athletes we've never heard of. That makes the Games perfect for the Internet audience. The web is where we go for our niche interests — things like the Danish stock market, single women who love goldfish and Doritos and the latest biathlon results.
Study after study suggests that the prime demographic, 18- to 34-year-olds — especially men — spend more time online than any other group. Doesn't it make sense that they'd move from their spreadsheet window to their Internet browser and check out Olympic results during the course of their workday? Or they might have watched some streaming video on their cellphone? Or listened to Bob Costas' daily podcast through iTunes?
So why in Kwan's name would they tune in to even three minutes of NBC's 418 scheduled hours of Olympic coverage when they already know that Norway stomped the Americans eight hours earlier?
It's something the network has struggled with. Officials at NBC seemed resistant to embrace the Internet during the Athens Games. But 1 1/2 years is an epoch in the world of computers. This time around, in addition to a half-dozen channels, NBC is covering the Olympics in as many ways as possible. Online, it has more streaming video. It also has created the youth-targeted site, OffThePodium.com.
On mobile phones, users can get regular updates, and also download national anthems from around the world as ring tones. Maybe by 2010 and definitely by 2014, it will become increasingly difficult to sell the entire Olympics package to the broad world of sports fans. Reliance on the Internet will increase, and to sustain long-term relevance, the Games will have to be marketed piecemeal and through a wide variety of mediums.
In the age of the Internet, there's no such thing as one-stop shopping, as Olympic officials are slowly learning. The guess here is that the investment isn't translating into big money for the network yet — which only lends false weight to the dinosaurs' argument that no one cares about the Olympics.
The Games are slowly changing their program, opening their hallowed arms to a generation with short attention spans and lots of electronic gizmos. With the advent of cable television and other new media over the past couple of decades, our outlet for information and entertainment has been fractionalized. The Olympics are no different. More than ever before, fans are following the Games without ever flipping on the television.
http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-sp-olymaese18feb18,0,4634708,print.story?coll=cl-tvent
Saturday’s network prime-time ratings have been posted at the top of Latest Prime Time Ratings news which is the first post in this thread.
The Winter Olympics
NBC gives 'Joey' one last chance
(Note: All times are Mountain)
By Scott D. Pierce Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News
It's a measure of how far "Joey" has fallen that the sitcom's impending return to the NBC schedule was almost an afterthought in a network programming announcement.
The headline? "NBC keeps 'The Office' lights burning."
Item No. 2? The premiere of the new sitcom "Teachers" has been pushed up a week.
Oh, and, by the way, "Joey" returns to the lineup on Tuesday, March 7, at 7 p.m.
This is really all about "The Office" and not so much about "Joey." NBC programmers have perhaps realized that taking "The Office" off the Thursday schedule after March 30 isn't the best way to build an audience for the show. Duh.
So instead of airing the season finale on March 30, the network is going to stretch out the schedule through May 11 by inserting a bunch of repeats and "an extra original episode."
NBC is certainly working mightily to make "The Office" a hit. It hasn't been an entirely successful effort, but the network has already renewed the show (and "My Name is Earl") for next season.
And the network is taking advantage of the fact that "Dancing With the Stars" airs its season finale on Feb. 23. The week before the Olympics, NBC's sitcoms went up against CBS ratings powerhouse "Survivor" and "Dancing," the latter dominated the ratings, the former held onto its audience and the sitcoms suffered.
What with the decision to leave Thursdays alone, here's what NBC is doing to Tuesdays:
• "Joey" returns with original episodes on Tuesday, March 7, at 7 p.m. (A dozen new episodes of the sitcom remain in this, its second season.) "Joey" repeats will air Tuesdays at 7:30 p.m. on March 7, 14 and 21, and then . . .
• On March 28, "Scrubs" repeats move from 8:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Original episodes of what has become perhaps TV's funniest half hour will continue to air Tuesdays at 8 p.m.
• Also on March 28, "Teachers" moves into the Tuesday-at-8:30 p.m. timeslot. (I've only seen a few clips of that show — and they weren't particularly promising.)
NBC execs long maintained that "Joey" was suffering in comparison to "Friends" — that if it wasn't a spinoff of that hit and was judged on its own merits, "Joey" would be fine.
There's some truth to that, but "Joey" has also been wildly inconsistent. There have been laughs in every episode, but nearly every episode also falls down in spots.
"Joey" is ailing badly, but it isn't dead. If it does well on Tuesdays — and if NBC doesn't think it has anything better for next season — it could return in the fall. But it's a longshot.
There is good news — "Fear Factor" is going away until sometime this summer. And, after failing to make the fall schedule and failing to find viewers when it returned at midseason, maybe the end is near for that gross-out festival.
OVER AT CBS, the network pulled the plug on the thoroughly charming "Love Monkey" because, well, not much of anybody was watching.
So now the network will probably just fall back on still more crime dramas. Drat.
CBS aired a repeat of "NCIS" last Tuesday; it's airing a repeat of "CSI" this Tuesday at 9 p.m.
On Feb. 28, it's the two-hour season premiere of "The Amazing Race" at 8 p.m. A week later, on March 7, "Race" moves to its new time slot at 9 p.m.
Also on March 7, at 8 p.m. it's the premiere of "The Unit," a drama about a covert Army unit and their wives.
http://www.desnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,635185272,00.html
CPanther95
02-20-06, 07:41 AM
I also think NBC needs to go with more live coverage. At least pick up some of that viewership that they will certainly lose by delaying a lot of the coverage. They need to be showing all of events. You cant build any drama by cutting and pasting up events.
I don't watch any sport on delay, sports should absolutely be live. With "Live" Olympics, it's all about the event - you watch knowing that nothing, or something very dramatic may happen.
The problem with the current "highlight" format is that it becomes heavily dependent on the results, rather than the event. What good is a primetime highlight reel when there are limited "high"lights to show? Those with even a moderate interest or curiosity about the Olympics are inundated with results via the internet or other non-NBC sources. The result is people picking and choosing what limited coverage they continue to care about enough to tune in, already knowing the outcome.
The fight over a la carte
Cable-channel a la carte menu not on table yet
Tim BarkerOrlando Sentinel Staff Writer February 20, 2006
It sounds so good: the freedom to choose and pay only for those cable channels you really want to watch.
Not interested in American Movie Classics or Toon Disney? Maybe you would rather invest your couch time engrossed in ESPN or the Hallmark Channel.
Then a la carte pricing may be just what you need. But you're not likely to get to pick and choose which cable channels you subscribe to anytime soon.
"I don't see a day when you'll be able to choose only eight channels. That scenario is never going to happen," said Rick Gershon, professor of telecommunications at Western Michigan University.
Still, that doesn't mean there won't be changes as cable operators look for ways to stave off unwanted government regulation.
The idea that consumers could save money while having more choices is at the center of a battle pitting the Federal Communications Commission against the powerful cable industry -- with consumer and special-interest groups lining up on both sides of the fight.
The uproar started earlier this month, when the FCC reversed its two-year stance, saying now that a la carte pricing could save consumers as much as 13 percent a month on cable bills. Not surprisingly, the industry started screaming -- arguing that the marketplace should dictate what's offered.
"We're not ruling anything out. But we draw the line at the government mandating pricing controls and packaging," said Brian Deitz, a spokesman for the National Cable Television Association.
Bright House Networks -- Central Florida's largest cable provider, with more than 800,000 customers -- does not view a la carte pricing as a viable option.
"We've said before, we think it would be more expensive for our customers," Bright House spokeswoman Sara Brady said.
Consumer groups have long supported the unbundling of cable channels to allow families -- the average household watches only 17 channels -- more control over the type of programming making it into their homes.
What nobody knows for certain is how much it would cost.
Along with concerns about equipment upgrades, there is the pricing structure itself. It's not as simple as taking your cable bill and dividing it by the number of channels you get -- in Orlando, for example, Bright House offers more than 70 channels for $48.49, an average of 70 cents each.
Actual prices vary widely, with premium channels such as ESPN and MTV costing the most, while religious programming and less-popular channels are generally carried cheaply, if not for free.
ESPN, owned by Disney, was quick to sound off against a new pricing structure. In a statement, the company said many viewers would be loath to pay the premium price -- keeping desirable programming in the homes of the privileged.
The Faith and Family Broadcasting Coalition, likewise, sees nothing but trouble in a world where viewers have to choose to let a program in their home.
If you haven't heard of a channel, "there's no reason to get it," said Colby May, director of the Washington office of the American Center for Law & Justice, and a spokesman for the coalition.
Still, cable companies and big programmers know that it will be difficult to keep things just as they are.
"The arguments in favor of it have a clear political appeal," said Paul Gallant, senior media analyst for the Stanford Washington Research Group. "So cable is taking a la carte very seriously."
Seriously enough that companies such as Comcast and Time Warner already have announced the addition of "Family Tier," a new packaging option. Locally, Bright House also has plans for such an offering within a few months.
The idea of a Family Tier is to offer a variety of channels -- in the 15-to-20 range -- with offerings such as the Disney Channel, Discovery Kids and Nickelodeon.
It's the sort of compromise that industry observers expect to emerge from the a la carte battle. Other possible groupings could include sports or lifestyle packages.
The debate is forcing companies such as Disney and Viacom, neither of which allows cable operators to sell their channels separately, to rethink their policies, said Fritz Messere, chairman of communications studies at the State University of New York at Oswego.
"Disney is not stupid," Messere said. "I think they realize there is a whole new world out there."
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/tv/orl-alacarte20_106feb20,0,7879486.story?coll=orl-caltvtop
DoubleDAZ
02-20-06, 09:53 AM
Well, I'm not an Olympic fanatic or anything even close to that, but Idon't read the sports section of the paper and I don't watch network news, I've pretty much been able to view NBC and not know the results beforehand. So, I record it all and then FF through what I don't care to watch. But, even with all that, the coverage is so disjointed that it is downright annoying and oftentimes not worth my time even for the events I enjoy.
I am also very disapponted so far with the lack of emotion from the Americans who don't fininsh as expected. And then there was the total turnoff of the showboating in the women's snowboard-moto final. While there was definitely an air of total shock, there didn't seem to be much disappointment, then or during post event interviews. Maybe I just live too far in the past when losers were very disappointed/emotional at losing and showed it. :(
The Winter Olympics
Taped coverage not a hit with audience
By Dusty Saunders (Denver) Rocky Mountain News February 20, 2006
Two young men were in a Subway sandwich shop late Saturday afternoon excitedly discussing Shani Davis' victory in the 1,000-meter speedskating competition.
"That's really cool," one man said, while asking his companion if he was going to view the race during NBC's prime-time tape replay.
"I don't think so," came the reply. "I'll watch the highlights on a sportscast."
He added he didn't like spending a lot of time watching a sports event when he already knew the results.
Such comments provide a major reason why NBC's prime-time Winter Olympics is having problems consistently beating entertainment programs on rival networks in audience ratings.
Actually, NBC's taped coverage of Davis' win is not the best example of viewers staying away from taped coverage of early-in-the day competition.
The fact that Davis is the first black American gold medalist in the Winter Games probably brought viewers to the set, even though many knew the results.
Also, there was an intriguing, controversial back story - something that always intrigues Olympics fans.
Davis had been criticized for dropping out of team skating competition in order to concentrate on his drive for the gold.
Without him, the U.S team finished sixth in its competition last week.
Thus, overnight Saturday Nielsen ratings provided NBC with one of its strongest nights since the Olympics began Feb. 10, finishing ahead of all network competition.
But Saturday night is traditionally the loneliest night of the week on network television as far as popular series are concerned.
And NBC didn't have American Idol, Lost, Dancing With the Stars and Grey's Anatomy as audience competition.
But overall, the delay has hurt NBC. Most were aware of NBC's prime-time delay policy before the Games started.
But knowing is not the same as accepting, particularly when viewers were spoiled during the 2002 Salt Lake Games, when many major events were aired live near or in prime time.
As Dick Ebersol, NBC Universal Sports chairman has noted, the network is striving to serve three constituencies - viewers, affiliates and sponsors.
And not necessarily in that order.
Ebersol has claimed surveys show that most Olympics fans want key competition broadcast in prime time for convenience reasons.
With advertisers and affiliates demanding such prime-time coverage, delays are an unshakable part of NBC's ritual.
Are Ebersol's surveys accurate?
As the age of instant information and increasing competition becomes more prevalent, viewers seem to have less tolerance with the delay policy.
Blocking our eyes and ears to results can be a pain. And finding out results early seems to diminish fan interest, particularly because NBC is up against popular prime-time programming.
The result: Prime-time viewership is down about 30 percent compared with 2002.
"Consumers these days are proactive, according to John Padgett, media director for the Hauser Group in Atlanta. He told Media Life magazine that "technology has trained consumers that they don't have to wait for prepackaged programs to get what they're interested in seeing."
He added that NBC has relied too long on a format of attempting to please all segments of the audience by offering a bit of everything in prime time.
For NBC, this exploding information age is a double-edged sword.
While prime-time ratings are below expectations, audience figures for live competition on MSNBC, CNBC and USA have boosted audience figures by 40 percent above normal daytime programming.
And the Turin Games have been a boon to the network's Web site, which, according to NBC executive Gary Zenkel, has drawn more than 167 million page views, surpassing the 145 million views during the entire coverage in Salt Lake City.
Instead of showing only brief video highlights, the Web site is providing, on a delayed basis, the complete runs and routines for the top finishers in nearly all major events.
Still, prime time remains the battleground for viewership and advertising dollars. And this week could be a make-or-break battle for NBC, as far as sponsor happiness is concerned.
Tuesday is a key night, when ladies figure skating, the most anticipated Olympics event, opens with live coverage against a key edition of Fox's American Idol, which earlier clobbered the taped highlights format of the Olympics.
It's Dick Button vs. Simon Cowell in commentary competition during the first of three competitive meetings.
URL: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/spotlight_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23962_4481276,00.html
The Winter Olympics
Not watching the Olympics? Too bad for you.
By Tim Goodman San Francisco Chronicle Monday, February 20, 2006
In the pantheon of bad ideas as they pertain to newspapers, you will almost always find an editor or nine. It's uncanny how they can ceaselessly come up with something obvious or dull -- hey, let's write about ratings! -- but when applied to the Olympics there's also what they perceive to be a Bigger Picture. Namely, what does it mean for us as a country and a people if the Olympics get trounced by prime-time soap operas or reality series about treacly cats?
While we suspect it has a lot to do with the Nordic combined or the biathlon, it could conceivably have something to do with meritless male divas performing badly on ice skates or an adult's inability to tell a child the difference between the luge and the skeleton -- other than one goes head first, the other feet first and that neither should ever be copied off the roof.
Despite the fact that ratings stories are traditionally poison for readers -- there's a superficial curiosity but no deep care -- let's end the discussion with a couple of difficult truisms:
1) You can't mandate what people watch, even if you believe that patriotism should trump entertainment. That's partly why this worry about ratings in the Olympics and what it all means is misplaced. Nobody gets worked up when the State of the Union address -- foisted on most of the networks -- is ignored en masse by Americans. There's no outrage about how few Americans watch C-SPAN, where the gumming up of the entire governmental process is displayed regularly and for free.
(By the way, where were these editors when nobody was watching "Arrested Development"? If you want to fret over American priorities, start with our country's love of soul-suckingly lame comedies at the expense of comedic genius.)
No, we're constitutionally entitled to take a pass on ice dancing or curling or skating around an oval, where the goal is not so much beating the person next to you as it is besting a tiny clock that stops on a hundredths of a second, confusing an already math-challenged nation. Freedom of choice, of choosing "American Idol" over American slalom skiers, is fundamental to who we are.
That doesn't make it right. People should be watching the Winter Olympics. But they should also be reading the classics, not some made-up tripe that gets dissected on "Oprah." The world is full of people who opt out of enlightenment.
2) This is not the first time networks have programmed hits against the Olympics and won. And it won't be the last. Television is a business run by people afraid to lose their jobs, and if they roll over in a sweeps month, which February is, they will in fact lose the race and their posh Beverly Hills homes. A perfect storm -- NBC being weak; Fox and ABC having powerhouse hits; dubious decision making by NBC on what, when and how it shows events in prime time during the Olympics -- it all may play a part in the Torino numbers. (Comparisons to Salt Lake are ridiculous because those took place on our so-called home field and that Winter Olympics came close on the heels of the Sept. 11 attacks when the country was still looking to heal.)
So, theories posited, facts stated and editors appeased, we've still left out one important point: Who the hell cares? If people choose to ignore the Olympics, let them. Whores to culture, people, whores to culture. (Google: "Dorothy Parker").
And anyway, NBC claims the Olympics are averaging 21 million viewers each night in prime time across the board and, after one full week, "152 million total, unduplicated viewers have watched the Olympics on the networks of NBC Universal."
Good enough for us. With that, let's move on to what we've learned so far watching the Winter Olympics:
• Don't make Lindsey Jacobellis the poster girl for showboat karma. She made a mistake and she'll pay for it in a way far more painful than hackneyed gibes at her. But by all accounts she's a talented, graceful, hardworking and humble young woman.
• Save your indignation for all the wannabe rebels and meretricious peacocks elsewhere in the Games. Like Alpine skiers Julia Mancuso, who wore a tiara on her helmet-less head and became queen of nothing, while teammate Resi Stiegler wore pearls but finished well back with the swine. One can only hope those two went temporarily insane from jealousy of all things Bode or the fact that all the hip-kid snowboarders were stealing all the media attention (and the medals, which is important to remember if you're gonna talk the talk). Give us Lindsey Kildow -- or pretty much any foreigner -- any day.
• Say what you want about the snowboarders, but they have a unique sense of purpose all to themselves, and they have infused the Winter Olympics with some much needed drama. And they have proven they're not too cool to care about patriotism and the Olympics, all the while winning and losing with dignity and a sense of fellowship with their competitors.
• On top of that, snowboard cross is a total rush. That sport and short-track skating are more than enough reason to watch. We're all for anything where judging doesn't taint the results. Note to Dick Ebersol, NBC's Olympics guru: The rules of attraction have changed. You'd better change with them. Ice dancing is dead. Long live snowboard cross.
• Congratulations go to Shani Davis, but he proved in his post-gold medal win interview that he's a jerk. You can be annoying and me-against-the-world trite no matter what color your skin is. Just look at Johnny Weir.
• If you want to see how to win (or lose, if you think gold is the only color that matters, which would be unfortunate but totally American of you), look no further than Apolo Anton Ohno. He got the bronze and said he was happy to have it. Refreshing.
• Of course, if you want to be genteel and understanding about not winning, then don't jump on the anti-Bode bandwagon just because the guy is imploding in Torino.
• It may be that the rest of the country is just fine with NBC's decision to be all about the American Olympians, win or lose, but Bay Area viewers have expressed e-mail disappointment in droves about the one-sided nature of the coverage. While it's likely true that NBC did some kind of research that showed -- U.S.A.!, U.S.A.! -- we want to see our own, that sheltered, blinders-on approach robs broad-minded people of the thrill of international competition.
• Jacobellis and unlucky curling skip Cassie Johnson can always find solace at our house.
• If you haven't watched "Push Dick's Button" on the USA Network, well, you're not getting enough Dick Button. The man has single-handedly saved these Olympics.
Just give him a microphone and let him walk around complaining. "What is the MATTER with this cappuccino?" "No bangs, Bob Costas, no bangs." "There's nothing cute about warm-weather countries sending a sole athlete here. Keep your pathetic losers AT HOME." "Say what you will about the ice dancing, but for the LOVE OF GOD, what are those kids doing in the half pipe?"
• Do viewers win a gold medal for memorizing commercials that are repeated endlessly?
• Is the ski jump on every night?
• And finally, we'll ask it once again: Where are the Italians? Find someone who lives in Turin. Interview them. Then ask them if they're worried about ratings.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/20/DDGKGHA48V1.DTL&type=printable
The New York Times Obituary
Richard Bright, 68, an Actor in the 'Godfather' Movie Series, Dies
By Ben Sisario The New York Times February 20, 2006
Richard Bright, a veteran character actor who appeared in all three "Godfather" films and "The Sopranos," died on Saturday in New York. He was 68 and lived in Manhattan.
He was hit by a bus as it rounded the corner of Columbus Avenue and 86th Street at about 6:30 p.m., and was pronounced dead at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center shortly thereafter, the police said.
A versatile actor with a characteristic rasp in his voice, Mr. Bright had a busy career in movies and theater that stretched back to the late 1950's, when he made his film debut in a small part in Robert Wise's "Odds Against Tomorrow." During the 1970's, he appeared in "The Panic in Needle Park" with Al Pacino, Sam Peckinpah's "Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid," "Marathon Man" with Dustin Hoffman, "Looking for Mr. Goodbar" and "The Getaway."
In the "Godfather" pictures he played Al Neri, one of Michael Corleone's toughs, whose murders came at crucial plot points: in "The Godfather: Part II," he took a fateful ride in a fishing boat with Michael's untrustworthy brother Fredo, played by John Cazale.
Mr. Bright's theater credits included "The Beard" by Michael McClure, "Short Eyes" by Miguel Pinero, and a number of productions with Mr. Pacino, including "Richard III" at the Cort Theater in 1979 and "The Basic Training of Pavlo Hummel."
Among his other films are "Vigilante," Sergio Leone's "Once Upon a Time in America," "Red Heat," "Beautiful Girls," "Brighton Beach Memoirs" and "The Ref." In recent years he appeared on episodes of "Law & Order" and "The Sopranos."
Mr. Bright is survived by his wife, the actress Rutanya Alda; a son, Jeremy Bright, of Manhattan; and a brother, Charles, of Rowland, Pa.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/20/arts/television/20bright.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
The 2005-2006 TV Season
Ask Matt
(from the Ask (TV Critic) Matt (Roush) column at TVGuide.com
By Matt Roush TVGuide.com TV Critic
Question: Matt, I look forward to your columns each week and agree with most everything you write — due in large part, I'm sure, to the fact that we share similar taste in programming. However, the one idea that I just can't get onboard with is your appreciation of Mary Lynn Rajskub's acting ability. As much as I love the show, to me, MLR is 24's answer to Beverly Mitchell. Her overdone facial expressions and bitten-off phrasing most often leave me cringing. (But, I have to admit, a couple of times she's made me smile.) Still, what's the attraction? — Katherine
Matt Roush: Focus on that smiling thing. The thing to keep in mind is that Mary Lynn Rajskub is primarily a comic actress, and her being cast against type is what makes her portrayal of the eternally grouchy, socially inept computer whiz Chloe such a joy. (Note to fans of hers, and of Louis Lombardi's Edgar: Check out the interview in this week's issue of TV Guide.) She never fails to amuse me, especially when she's at her most impossible — yelling at her bosses, scowling at every command and browbeating all those she deems inferior, which is just about everyone but Jack. She is so unlike the typical CTU drone, bringing some sly comic relief to the monotony of watching characters gather info on their computer screens. And I'm still marveling over the episode last season where she was forced out into the field, becoming an action hero when her life counted on it. I'm not saying she's a perfect actress, just a perfect Chloe.
________________________________________
Question: Hey Matt, bring on the Emmy for a thinner (he looks great), smiling, soft-spoken (he scares the bejesus out of me) Forest Whitaker of The Shield. He had Vic and the Strike Team looking up at the tower as he raised the blinds with a look of, "What is he up to next?" It was hair-raising. I love this show, and Forest has added so much more to it. He keeps me on the edge of my seat. You go, Forest!!! Wake up, Emmy people!!!!! — Mrs. E.
Matt Roush: No, you go with all those exclamation points!! Couldn't agree more, and while FX often goes begging for Emmy attention, I have to think he's a lock for a nomination, the way Glenn Close was last season. (Helps when you've got a marquee guest star whom the Emmy voters have actually heard of.) He really has ratcheted up the tension in these last few episodes, especially since moving into the Barn and taking the doors off the Strike Team's inner sanctum. Speaking of Emmy-worthy work on The Shield, do not miss this week's episode with CCH Pounder giving a remarkable performance, as Claudette tackles a fiend in the interrogation room while battling her recurring illness. The last scene is a stunner.
And for balance, I should note that there are those who haven't been won over yet. Such as Tracy: "I think I'm one of the rare people who finds Forest Whitaker's character on The Shield horrible and annoying. For me, the entire season has been ruined because of him. Can you tell me how much longer he will be on?" Sorry, Tracy, he's not going anywhere. He's driving the story line this season, like it or not.
________________________________________
Question: Why won't NBC move Scrubs to Thursdays — after My Name Is Earl? Are they trying to kill it so another network won't try to pick it up? — Lisa
Matt Roush: NBC seems happy with how The Office is holding on to Earl's audience, as well as growing in critical acclaim and buzz via iTunes. The network just announced that The Office will continue in the post-Earl slot, with a mix of repeats and originals, through May 11. That's why Scrubs is staying put on Tuesdays, not out of some network conspiracy (you people give the networks too much credit for skulduggery, when mostly it's just incompetence). I've argued long and often that Scrubs would be a great fit with the equally stylized and irreverent Earl, but no one but my readers, my friends and my colleagues seem to be listening. Matters probably won't be helped much next month when NBC gives Scrubs a new lead-in: fresh and repeat episodes of (gulp) Joey.
________________________________________
Question: I'd like to use your forum to express my dissatisfaction regarding the recent Grey's Anatomy episode (Feb. 5) in which an anesthesiologist exited the operating room, leaving his anesthetized patient in the care of an EMT because he "has a family." Being a board-certified anesthesiologist in practice at a major university in the United States, I find this poorly written scene to be an appalling antithesis of our current ethics and guidelines. An anesthesiologist values patient safety above all else, and would never abandon a patient, even at one's own personal risk. Please feel free to contact the American Society of Anesthesiologists in the future regarding other ethical quandaries that may surface on this lousy television series. — Dr. Kenneth Saliba
Matt Roush: Sorry, Doctor, but while I empathize with your dismay (imagine how many unethical journalists I've seen dramatized on TV), I would argue that Grey's Anatomy is a drama in which characters often make terrible mistakes. That's what makes it dramatic. If this doctor, who abandoned poor Christina Ricci after making his speech (pretty well written, by the way) about "pink mist," had been portrayed as heroic in any way, I would agree with you. But for the rest of the two-parter, everyone in the loop expressed disgust and horror over how this doctor acted so unprofessionally and cowardly. Because he's not a major character, I don't know if they'll follow through and note that this doctor was fired, as he deserves to be (although the circumstances were awfully dire, to be sure). But I can't imagine that the millions of fans, new and old, watching these episodes actually believed this jerk was in any way representative of his profession.
________________________________________
Question: I was very upset when I read that The Book of Daniel had been canceled. I, however, have been following the episodes on the Internet and have been really enjoying this show. I love it, and I know I'll regret following it to the Internet. Did you follow it to the Internet, too, and what did you think of its only and final episodes? — Matt
Matt Roush: I have seen most of the remaining episodes, either before the show was canceled or afterward. And as is the case with so many series, Book of Daniel just kept getting better and stronger, and these episodes available for viewing on the Internet are well worth any fan's time. I particularly recommend the "God's Will" episode, dealing with the gay-bashing of Daniel's son, Peter, with flashbacks of Peter's twin brother's death from leukemia. Powerful stuff. Too bad an intolerant social climate, an incompetent network and a spineless ad industry combined to seal this show's unhappy fate.
________________________________________
Question: I was interested to read the question about House on Monday — I was the total opposite. I never paid any attention to the show in the first season, then blew through the episodes once I discovered it on DVD. Now I can't get enough. Sure, House doesn't digress from its formula (neither does CSI for that matter), but it is so well acted (especially by Hugh Laurie) that I wish it were on three times a week. I think the show hit a high point at the end of the first season with the episode where House is forced to teach a class and retells the story of how he came to be the way he is, and I haven't missed an episode since, constantly watching House while TiVo-ing another favorite medical show, Scrubs. — Daniel
Matt Roush: Not only was that the best episode of the first season, it won the show's creator/writer an Emmy. Another reaction to this subject, from Mike P.: "I really liked your response to last week's question about what is wrong with House. I agree with the inquirer in the sense that the show follows a formula. In terms of the basic plot of each episode, they do not differ that much. But the real beauty of this show, which you mentioned, is the subtle nuance that each main character shows and the way they react to each other in order to solve the medical puzzle. House grows into a more complex and emotional person in every episode. It is just that it is done in a very slow and calculated way that is very intriguing to watch. Another show that has a main character who grows slowly over a long period of time is Patricia Arquette's Allison on Medium — although instead of becoming more complex and emotional, she is slowly becoming more confident in her psychic abilities. What do you think?"
You're right about Patricia Arquette. Her Emmy win was a shock, but not unearned. Her portrayal of Allison, like Hugh Laurie's House, is not that of a simplistic hero. Her gift is also a curse, and as she struggles with that, while solving bizarre cases and keeping her messy family together, there's plenty for Arquette to play. And play well.
________________________________________
Question: When I was posted overseas, I found myself an avid watcher of a Brazilian telenovela called Terra Nostra. Luckily, I know some Spanish and was able to get the gist of the dialogue using Spanish and English cognates. It was a great story and made me realize that I'd like to see a series that had a beginning and an end. My question: Don't you think the telenovela format would be a welcome change from TV shows that you start to get invested in, such as Threshold or Love Monkey, just as they're prematurely canceled? Or do you think it would be more like a longer miniseries, such as Roots or North and South? Of course, Centennial doesn't count because they switched that around so much I lost track of when it was on. Maybe it was too long? — Diane M.
Matt Roush: If the networks' experiments with the telenovela format means a sideways return to the old-style miniseries, I'm all for it. (Actually, I've been saying for a long time that many of HBO's acclaimed dramas, most notably The Wire and Rome, might work better scheduled as miniseries, since they play better in big gulps rather than weekly hour increments.) I do like the idea of a serialized story being presented with an endgame already on the horizon, but remember, that didn't stop Fox from killing Reunion midway through what was always intended to be a single-season-long mystery. Let's hope the networks don't yank these telenovela soaps before they come to their natural end. Given that some of these are expected to air in the summer, when less is at stake, that might not be such a problem.
________________________________________
Question: Your constant bashing of ER and its "mediocrity" gives me the impression that you really haven't even given yourself the possibility of liking the show this season, maybe due to disillusionment with the last couple of seasons. John Leguizamo's Doctor Clemente has been one of the best (or at least most enjoyable) new characters on TV this season, bringing comedic relief to a cast clearly in need of it. You can cynically brush off Cynthia Nixon's and James Woods's guest roles as stunt casting, but the respective episodes have been high-quality drama, especially last week's ALS-themed outing. I agree that the show is very different from its first seasons (I've been rewatching Seasons 1 through 4 on DVD), but in my mind it still delivers the goods drama-wise. So what do you say, Matt? Give ER one more chance? — Eetu
Matt Roush: I tuned in to the beginning of the season with an open mind. But from the torpor of the opening episode, with Luka and Sam going in search of her brat, to the numbing story line of Pratt and his father, to being subjected to Morris as a full-time character and Kristen Johnston's obnoxiously officious nurse, there's little for me to like. John