A Critical View
Desperate to figure out this dud

By Maureen Ryan from the Chicago Tribune TV blog May 1, 206

If I call "Desperate Housewives" the worst show on the broadcast networks, you’ll probably think I’m just doing it just for effect.

And to a certain degree, I am. Let’s face it, how could "Housewives" possibly be worse than "The George Lopez Show" or "Ghost Whisperer" or (if this show is still even on) "Pepper Dennis"?

Well, it can be, and it is. And I’ll make my argument as to why I think that is in a minute.

But first, let me say this: “Desperate Housewives” is the worst show on the broadcast networks.

I will concede these things: The actors on the show, who are, in most cases, far better than the material they are given, are professionals. They enunciate all the words well, do their best with what they’re given and often make it better than it is.

As Susan, Teri Hatcher can be winningly gawky and funny and even inspires sympathy. As Lynette, Felicity Huffman brings wonderfully grounded, sympathetic empathy and intelligence to the brittle proceedings. And Marcia Cross’ sly, witty, perfectly calibrated portrayal of the uptight Bree can be a treat.

Still.

Those positives often come about despite, not because of, the scripts. The occasional good moments -- and there are some -- only happen when these skilled actors are given story lines that are not bland, irritating and harder to sit through than a marathon of failed NBC shows.

I won’t pretend that I’ve seen every episode of "Housewives." And I’ve made it clear from the start (including here and here) that I never thought that the show’s awkward mix of melodrama and comedy quite worked.

But, because they pay me to watch TV, I feel a duty to, on occasion, check in on shows I don’t particularly like, to see what’s going on and whether there’s anything new to like or at least comment on. And hey, “Housewives” is still a hot show. I want to watch what people like and try to figure out why they like it.

But to be frank, after watching a few recent episodes of “Housewives,” I can’t understand what prompts millions of people to tune in to the show every week. Is ABC putting something in the water? Do people just turn their sets on in anticipation of “Grey’s Anatomy,” which airs after “Housewives”? I don’t get it.

Let’s fact it, if the plots on this show appeared on “According to Jim,” we’d roll our eyes and think they were utterly dopey. But I guess when you pad these moronic plots out into an hourlong drama, add a few catfights and some gunplay, well, they’re just as compelling as can be.

Let’s examine Sunday’s episode of the show (and don’t read on if you haven’t seen that episode yet). We’re supposed to believe that Lynette, who’s returned to a corporate career after an unhappy stint as a stay-at-home mom, would teach her boss how he can use raunchy instant messaging to seduce his wife (and that she would send saucy messages to the boss' wife, masquerading as him at his request when he was called away). We're supposed to buy that Bree would be running around with a stringy-haried man with multiple addictions, including a sex addiction, and would be doing her level best to get him to resume his depraved sex life.

I don’t mind silly plots if they’re entertaining. The ones mentioned here are not only not very believable, they’re just not that interesting. And they’re not just filler, they’re filler plots that are full of clichés and lack any real character development or dramatic tension.

And the Bree story, in any case, has reduced the fine Lee Tergesen, who plays Bree’s troubled addict friend, to reciting lines such as, “It’s dangerous to care about me. A lot of people have over the years and they’ve all ended up getting hurt.”

Oh, but never mind if your attention wanes when such dialogue hits you like an anvil to the solar plexus. By the end of the episode, Bree’s waving around a gun, so that ought to get your attention. She’s got a gun because that crazy kid who’s been kept hidden inside the Applewhite’s house has gotten into her house and is apparently menacing her daughter, oh no!

Yes, that mystery -- what are the Applewhites hiding? -- is still hanging around. It was introduced at the very end of the show’s first season, and the writers are still stringing this sorry bit of melodrama along; now it features a screechy subplot involving Bree’s daughter and one of the Applewhite sons. The whole thing is so unspeakable boring that I can’t even write about it any more, for fear that my brain will shut down in protest and I will lapse into a coma.

And let’s face one fact: Eva Longoria is extraordinary at getting press for herself -- the one magazine she does not appear to have been in yet is Cat Fancy, and I’m sure her representatives are working on that. But she’s only average as an actress. Sure, she can do the snippy stuff and the semi-comedic bits with aplomb. But, handed Class A dreck or just mediocre material -- as they are so often -- Hatcher, Huffman and Cross generally make something more of it, to their eternal credit.

Longoria, given a chance to display some real chops, often doesn’t (or can’t) step up. Witness the scene in Sunday’s episode when the authorities took her baby away (in another plotline that had all the substance of an issue of InTouch Weekly). Granted, she had to recite lines like this: “This is our baby. No! We've been feeding her we've been bathing her, we wake up in the middle of the night and we rock her ... You can't take her away, we've already fallen in love with her.”

They are painfully clunky lines, but they were delivered in such an overwrought, shallow manner that they became positively painful.

I don’t know if it’ll stave off any of the hate mail I’ll no doubt get for this review, but I’ll say it again: I do think “Housewives” has a talented, even gifted cast (Richard Burgi, as Susan’s ex-husband, Karl, deserves a special shout-out for his impeccable comic timing).

It’s because of the talents of the cast (including the great Alfre Woodard, who mostly goes to waste on this show) that I must take the writers of the rudderless "Housewives" to task. Misusing these actors is a greater crime than putting out a show like "According to Jim," which aims for inoffensive mediocrity and more or less succeeds.

But it was obvious by the middle of the first season of the show that the writers really didn’t know what to do with the "Housewives" actors and where to go with their characters' stories. Now that they’re deep into the second season, the powers behind "Housewives" appear to be even less in control of where the show's going.

The show is adrift in silly contrivances (as opposed to inventive situations), painful dialogue and obvious wheel-spinning. The solution to ending or spicing up any boring story line is just to inject some over-the-top melodrama or at the very least, have various characters in floods of tears or running about screeching. Or, failing all that, have Teri Hatcher fall down.

But never mind. “Housewives” is still an undisputed hit, and no doubt will continue to be one.

Why that is, I have no idea. I’ve never seen the appeal of this show: In my opinion, the comedy isn’t funny enough and the drama (or melodrama) not compelling enough to put it on my must-see list.

For two years, I’ve been desperate to figure out the appeal of this show. And I simply can’t.

Which means, “Housewives,” you win.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2006/05/if_i_call_despe.html#more

TV Notebook
From 'Hill Street' to the White House

By Ann Oldenburg USA TODAY May 1, 2006

Daniel J. Travanti, 66, won two Emmys as Capt. Frank Furillo on Steven Bochco's groundbreaking cop series Hill Street Blues, which aired on NBC from 1981 to 1987. Since then he has been mostly out of the limelight — until tonight, when he returns to TV as the president on Prison Break (Fox, 8 ET/PT). USA TODAY asks a few quick questions of Hill Street's "Pizzaman":

Q: It has been almost 20 years since Hill Street Blues ended. What have you been up to personally and professionally?

A: Theater. A great deal of theater. Theater is smoke. When you go to the theater in America, you disappear. For a long time I sabotaged my own career. I'm a charming fellow when I'm in a good mood, otherwise I'm impossible. ... I even stopped doing interviews. All they want to talk about is the past.

I'm in good shape. I take very good care. I was a late bloomer in the industry, and I'm still blooming. One big break? Forget it. I'm due for another one.

Q: What effect did Hill Street have on your life?

A: It elevated us. It shot us all up. We broke through the paper barrier of obscurity — boom, suddenly they know you. And we were doing this lovely, remarkable material. I don't think there's stuff as good since. Not as complex, not as deep. We had goofy humor, satire, social satire apart from satire. We were intelligent, moving, touching, sentimental. We were wrenching and suspenseful. I could say that and brag about it, because I didn't write it. The producers and writers and I had a mutual love affair. I was working with a glorious group of talented people I admired. That's the ideal situation, which you may likely not have again. It's rare.

Q: We have an evil president on 24, a groundbreaking president on Commander in Chief, and an honor-bound president on The West Wing. What kind of president do you play on Prison Break?

A: He's strong-minded, and he's opposing the vice president — who's a lovely human being, Patricia Wettig. ... We had this one scene in which I gave her a stern warning about my support. I don't know who this president is supposed to be. They dressed me up, gave me a nice suit, Hugo Boss. I said, "You're trying to make me look like Clinton? I don't have as much hair." We had a lovely time.

Q: What are some of your favorite TV shows now?

A: I don't watch any series television. I haven't seen much of Prison Break. I don't have HBO, which I refuse to subscribe to for one or two shows. It makes me laugh when they sell the notion of 900 channels. If they said, "Here's a network which will give you the entire Library of Congress or the Met in New York," I'd say, "Really?" There's a whole bunch of good stuff there. When they say you can have all the television, I just laugh. You mean more mediocrity? That's a junk pile with a few gems. Most of what human beings do is mediocre or worse — in every enterprise.

Q: Do you hope to do more TV in the future?

A: I need one more big success. Anywhere. What television would get for me is greater opportunities. ... I've never been complacent. I've only always wanted to do the very best. To my regret, I haven't done a great deal of the very best because it's hard to come by. ... I'm staying in the best shape I can be in, just in case somebody wants to write that president as a major character in the series. Ha.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006-05-01-travanti_x.htm

THE CHANGING WAYS WE WATCH TV
TV or more TV?

That is the question now that you can watch your favorite shows on your computer, cell phone or iPod
By Diane Werts Newsday Staff Writer April 30, 2006

Wanna watch TV? That simple decision used to mean settling into the living room sofa watching something currently being aired by the broadcast networks. Then cable and VCRs gave us what seemed huge leaps forward in channel choice and time-shifting options.

But that's nothing compared to the way viewing technology is exploding almost continuously today. Now the desire to watch TV can jump-start a litany of choices.

Like where to watch - at home, at work or school, in transit.

How to watch - via the TV set, the computer screen, a portable device like an iPod, even a cell phone.

And when - as the show is broadcast; catching up with on-demand via digital cable; searching out an online download or stream; waiting for a show to be released on DVD.

Who knew an easy time killer like TV could get so complicated?

Changing the way we watch

At least that's the way it seems to many viewers who haven't gotten past their VCR clock flashing 12:00. Now they're hearing almost daily about new developments in TV technology that promise to change the way we watch. Every time yet another Big Announcement heralds the high-tech future of viewing, the mushrooming options seem yet more intimidating.

"You know the word caffeinated? It's like we're gadget-nated," says Phillip Swann, a media analyst whose TVPredictions.com site keeps track of evolving TV technology. "There's an infrastructure in place to create a perception that these things are taking over the world," Swann says. "It's because the people who come up with these things are so hyped up on gadgets and technology, everything that gets launched is the Next Big Thing."

But is it really? Should you jump on board to avoid getting left behind? Or should you not believe the hype?

The ball really started rolling in October, when Apple released its video-capable portable iPod and ABC offered downloads of "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives," commercial-free for $1.99 per episode. That was the first volley from Hollywood to provide prized current network content in an easily accessible way on a new format with a sky-high "cool" factor.

That put an official imprimatur on what some tech-heads were already doing informally, if not illegally: file-sharing video content, such as current TV episodes, over the Internet - the same way music fans had swapped song MP3s online in digital form with tools such as Napster. Such underground downloading was hard for legal rights-holders to police on the Internet's wild-West frontier.

"That's part of the reason why Walt Disney Company moved forward with an Apple iTunes deal," says Albert Cheng, executive vice president of digital media at Disney-ABC Television Group. "A lot of piracy was happening, and we as a company had to take a mindshift and say, we cannot deny that this technology is changing the way that people are consuming media. And we need to be able to partner with someone who's trying to legitimize platforms."

With video iPod content tied into the online behemoth iTunes Music Store, ABC's move brought episodic video on the Internet to the attention of millions of computer users who may not have been plugged into previous tools, or even aware that such TV content existed online. To tap the growing interest, CBS tried its own tack last fall, offering fee-based Web screenings of new "Survivor" episodes immediately after their airing, while NBC and a slew of cable channels joined ABC on the iPod bandwagon, where content could be watched either on computer or the portable device. Networks also tested Web viewing as a promotional tool. This spring, NBC made its new Dick Wolf drama, "Conviction," available as a free iPod download prior to its premiere. In the biggest news yet, ABC announced a Monday start for a two-month experiment streaming recent episodes of "Lost" and other series, for free with embedded commercials.

Making this technically possible was the pervasive penetration of home broadband service via cable modems and high-speed phone lines, which could move digital information fast enough to enable high-quality video worth watching. Nielsen/NetRatings reported that by 2005, 68 percent of home internet users had an "always on" broadband connection. That shift away from slower dial-up modems made downloads from iTunes a matter of minutes, rather than hours, and meant that video streamed from a Web site could better approximate TV quality, even if only in a small window on the computer screen.

Where the eyeballs are

TV's name brands began creating broadband video "channels," often aimed at a younger, more Web-friendly audience. In 2005, MTV launched its Overdrive Web channel with videos, interviews and concerts, while Nickelodeon gave kids TurboNick. Others tried online fee-per-month subscription services: Court TV Extra offered streaming trial coverage, CNN Pipeline provided four online streams of news. AOL hyped its March launch of In2TV, with dozens of vintage series such as "Kung Fu" and "Welcome Back, Kotter" available for ad-supported viewing anytime. Google and Yahoo jumped in with video search engines to help users find what they wanted to watch.

"If you're a marketer, you need to be where the eyeballs are," says David Katz, head of sports and entertainment for Yahoo! Media Group, who came to the Internet company after directing interactive ventures for CBS. "Clearly, there is a shift of usage and time spent moving to the Internet." In other words, TV today isn't being supplanted by the Internet, or iPods, or even cell phones, where wireless providers have lately been promoting TV content on video services such as Sprint PCS Vision and Verizon's V CAST. So far, these platforms have relied more on short clips and other media "snacks" than on the full-episode main courses at which TV excels. For now, living-room viewing is being supplemented and, the networks hope, bolstered by all these new devices. "It actually drives more traffic to our network shows," says ABC/Disney's Cheng. The iTunes venture, where "Lost" is typically one of the video bestsellers, "has not taken away viewers at all from our shows, but actually increased our viewership." NBC also noticed a TV ratings uptick after "The Office" appeared on iTunes.

Increasing loyalty

CBS' digital media vice president for wireless Cyriac Roeding agrees the new delivery platforms help to satisfy TV viewers in different ways. "Even those people that are really 'CSI' lovers, they don't make every episode," Roeding says. "So if they have a chance to catch up with it on a cell phone, for example, or on the Internet, it actually helps us to increase the loyalty of this audience segment."

That's why in the wake of last fall's video iPod excitement, CBS partnered with the largest U.S. cable operator Comcast to bring some of its hit shows to another new viewing platform. Cable TV systems had been trying to expand their digital cable services by trumpeting video-on-demand (VOD), the anytime viewing option with VCR-like functionality. But content available on VOD had tended to be fringe cable series, with the occasional big draw like "The Sopranos" for HBO subscribers. TV's big network hits were conspicuously absent. Then in November, CBS made episodes of "Survivor," "CSI" and other hits available on-demand to Comcast digital cable homes right after airing, at 99 cents for 24 hours' easy access through their cable remotes. NBC prepared to do the same in May, and Comcast says ABC and Fox are about to come on board. And let's not forget Howard Stern creating his own on-demand subscription channel last fall, selling his fans unfettered access to his explicit content.

Measuring usage

But are on-demand and online really the seismic shift in viewing that media coverage seems to portend? How many Americans are actually using them? Or iPods? Or cell-phone video? Quantifying any of these new delivery platforms remains difficult. Apple does not make iTunes sales numbers public. But Nielsen, which already tallies usage of both television and the Internet, will expand its sampling coverage to include on-demand viewing starting this month, according to Nielsen Media Research's Sara Erichson, general manager for national services. She added that the company is also working on prototypes for measuring usage of "many, many devices," including cell phones, iPods and streaming on the Net.

The current flurry of high-tech innovation seems to be outpacing viewer desires and the ability to follow the fast-moving developments. "Basically, some products are being pushed forward," says Swann of TVPredictions.com, "not so much because consumers are rising up demanding it, but because the technology could create it."

Sorting out the possibilities is just beginning. "The future is to combine these media and bring them together in a well-functioning way," CBS' Roeding says. "It is about creating something that makes sense together rather than these individual platforms that might be hyped one day and are gone the other."

Blurring the line

Yahoo's Katz says his company now has an entire team "whose job it is to combine the broadband space with the living room and the wireless and to create the plumbing and the connectivity between all these worlds." He notes: "If you look at high-definition TV sets, they all have Ethernet jacks in the back for you to put a high-speed connection in. ... That then kind of blurs the line. Are you getting content from a network? Are you getting content from a Web site? Does it really matter to you?"

Not if you can watch what you want, when you want, where you want, and how you want. Predictions king Swann thinks the promise of on-demand and the Internet lie in remote servers' ability to store limitless programs. "I don't mean things done in the last year, I mean things done for the past 30 years," Swann says. "There's too much revenue to be generated out of things that have already been produced. Everybody has a certain specific interest or niche, and you can accumulate all those niches of content." Meanwhile, viewers will never have to miss a current show, not with handy new options of watching through computer windows and portable devices like cell phones.

Convenience is what all the new developments come down to.

"There is a time to lean back in the living room and watch something together," CBS' Roeding says. "There is a time for me to watch something on a very tiny screen on the cell phone if I love my show and I don't want to miss it. And there is a time when I go to the Internet to find specific content."

That means TV as we know it isn't so much being transformed as cementing its own appeal. Swann is dismissive of other forecasts that viewing will change drastically with these new options of interactivity or portability. Back in 2000, he wrote the book "TV dot COM: The Future of Interactive Television," in which he predicted the tube would be used to personalize content, to "play trivia, order pizzas and access sports statistics. And that's proven not to be successful," he admits. "I have learned my lesson. I was buying into some of the hype." He warns today's viewers not to.

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/ny-fftv4718341apr30,0,3117191,print.story?coll=ny-entertainment-headlines

THE CHANGING WAYS WE WATCH TV
It's no longer a matter of hit or miss

With cable's VOD, you can't miss a hit, even if you don't see it when it first airs
By Diane Werts Newsday Staff Writer May 1, 2006

Watching TV shows on your own schedule sounds great, doesn't it?

If you remember to set the VCR, that is. Or the TiVo. Or the DVD recorder, or that nifty digital video recorder that came in your souped-up new cable converter.

But now you can miss a show completely, yet still have a catch-up opportunity as simple as clicking on your cable remote.

Video on demand (VOD) has become one of the big selling points for cable operators over competing satellite service. The two share the clarity and capacity of digital delivered video/audio, but satellite lacks the instantaneous two-way information flow that enables digital cable subscribers to click an on-screen menu to choose from a variety of shows available for viewing anytime. The home remote then sends commands to the cable operator's head-end video servers allowing VCR-like functionality for viewers to pause, rewind and rewatch programs stored there.

But which programs? VOD use has often seemed stalled over digital cable's first decade by the lack of big-name programs to drive viewer interest. On-demand offered mostly the same sort of theatrical films available in scheduled pay-per-view airings, at the same sort of charge. Even when TV programs appeared as free VOD content, they tended to be niche-oriented shows from basic cable networks like HGTV or Nickelodeon, or thrifty new productions like those in Cablevision's Mag Rack suite of categories devoted to fitness, cars, weddings and other personal interests.

High-profile HBO hits like "The Sopranos" and "Sex and the City" finally began arriving in VOD lineups in 2001, often with the cable system charging extra above the initial monthly subscription for HBO service. But prime-time network shows on VOD were MIA.

That changed last November when CBS announced a series deal with Comcast, the nation's largest cable operator (serving much of New Jersey and parts of Connecticut). Four popular series - "Survivor," "CSI," "NCIS" and "The Amazing Race" - would be available after an episode's initial network broadcast. Comcast customers in markets with CBS-owned stations could pay 99 cents to watch it to their heart's content over a 24-hour period. NBC soon announced it, too, would go VOD with Comcast this month; its slate adds late-night comedy and daytime soaps for free, along with cable hits from its Bravo, USA, Sci Fi and other owned channels.

Howard Stern, unbleeped

Time Warner tried another on-demand tack last fall, testing a Start Over service allowing subscribers in South Carolina to restart programs from 60 broadcast and cable channels so long as the show was still airing. And VOD got perhaps its loudest publicity push when Howard Stern launched his own subscription on-demand cable channel last November. Stern fans had long seen his shock jock antics in censored form on E! cable. Now an initial monthly fee of $10 would provide the unbleeped, unblurred bawdiness of Stern's new Sirius show at the viewer's command, with fresh content appearing daily.

By the end of 2005, Nielsen Media Research estimated VOD was available in about 20 percent of U.S. TV homes. (Cablevision claims the industry's highest rate of digital penetration with VOD in two-thirds of its 3 million cable homes in the tristate market.) Prime-time use of on-demand has increased sevenfold in the two years since Nielsen began measuring tuning to the service. And the demographic using VOD most is the advertiser-coveted 18-34 age range. These are also prime moviegoers, who may have quickly adopted VOD because they'd previously ordered pay-per-view screenings. That's still where cable operators are making their VOD money, some using extensive free TV content to familiarize users with the system in hopes they'll start paying to watch movies on-demand rather than deal with video rental. (The trade publication Adult Video News estimates adult content generates 40 percent of cable's VOD revenue.)

But if Comcast's CBS and NBC deals are any indication - and the cabler says other networks will soon sign on - TV hits may become another driver of VOD use. That likely means commercials will follow. While lots of programs, including those 99-cent CBS prime-time hits, are commercial-free, many of VOD's free shows include ads (although Cablevision's two-dozen Mag Rack categories are only beginning to).

Yet on-demand could well end up being a creative tool as well as a commercial one. The viewer-controlled environment has proven ideal for certain types of TV programs, including exercise shows (available whenever there's workout time), technology tips (right when your computer is acting up) or cooking classes (recipe steps can be performed in pause-and-resume fashion). Narrow interests that might never rate full-time linear channels are easily served with less extensive set-up costs in VOD.

Slaying the Nielsen monster

It's possible to envision more ventures like Stern's, providing all sorts of programs directly to motivated consumers, by fee or subscription, freed from having to satisfy the Nielsen monster that's devoured so many low-rated series with small but devoted audiences. Without taxing cable resources like bandwidth to serve only a sliver of total viewership, VOD provides an economical, nimble way to more personally satisfy a larger aggregate audience.

The remote-controlled concept may eventually even replace those ubiquitous VCRs, TiVos and DVRs. Cablevision is about to test a service in up to 1,000 Long Island households where digital-cable customers would use their current set-top box to record shows on the cable head-end server rather than a home recorder. All it requires is a new remote control with that VCR-like capability, which Cablevision anticipates would bring viewer-initiated recording to all its digital homes and at a substantially lower price.

And cable isn't the only VOD pusher anymore. Verizon's new FiOS TV service has won franchise approval in Hempstead, Massapequa Park and other communities, competing with its own extensive menu of on-demand movies, premium channels and cable favorites. Just one more option to sort through when it comes to TV viewing decisions.

Control has its quandaries.

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/ny-etun4724663may01,0,6852810,print.story

The 2005-2006 Season
This May sweeps, the stunting is back

By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 1, 2006

Sweeps over recent years have been less and less dependent on the sort of stunting that used to be standard during the month-long periods. But this May sweeps, with three networks in a tight scuffle for No. 1 for the season, the networks are stunting like it’s 1999.

ABC has two big movies scheduled, as well as an Oprah Winfrey special. CBS, which has pooh-poohed stunting since Les Moonves became network president, has a Tom Selleck movie, a “Dynasty” reunion and a country music awards special.

NBC has “10.5: Apocalypse,” a splashy miniseries sequel with stars such as Kim Delaney and Beau Bridges, plus a highly publicized series of “Dateline” specials on child pedophiles.

And that’s not even including all the series and season finales that have been supersized to two hours or, in the case of ABC’s “Grey’s Anatomy,” even three hours to gain any possible edge in a sweeps and season that are expected to be decided by a razor-thin margin.

Season to date, through the week ended April 23, the most recent available, ABC and Fox are tied for the lead with 4.0 averages among adults 18-49. CBS is just behind at 3.8, and NBC trails badly at a 3.3.

But depending on how the sweeps stunts go, any of the top three networks could conceivably finish No. 1 for the season or the May sweeps.

Fox and ABC have the strongest lineups for sweeps. ABC’s is particularly stunt-heavy, as the network has seen the lead it built with January’s Super Bowl evaporate over recent weeks.

Should either of its two movies, May 9’s timely “Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America,” or the May 23 spooker “Stephen King’s Desperation,” perform well, ABC could perhaps regain its lead or at least stay in a tie.

That’s because it also has supersized virtually all of its hit shows this month, with “Grey’s,” “Desperate Housewives,” “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” “Lost” and “Boston Legal” all expanding to two hours at least once.

Fox, which has been surging since the midseason return of “American Idol,” actually has the fewest major stunts planned. It will air a two-day, two-part “House” this week on Tuesday and Wednesday, a week after the medical drama scored its best-ever rating.

And of course it has a two-hour finale planned for “Idol” on May 24, part of which will air against ABC’s two-hour “Lost” finale.

It also has the series finale of “That ‘70s Show,” featuring the rumored returns of Ashton Kutcher and Topher Grace, but it’s unlikely they’ll provide a huge boost for the show. Fox’s regular lineup may well be enough to win with season finales of “Prison Break” and “24” expected to perform well.

CBS had yesterday’s “Jesse Stone: Death in Paradise” movie with Tom Selleck and the “Academy of Country Music” awards May 23. It’s also been heavily promoting shocking developments on the season finales for “Two and a Half Men,” “Without a Trace” and “CSI.”

Though the network would have to make up a lot of ground, 0.2 rating points at least, to finish first, media researchers say that’s not totally out of the question. CBS already is guaranteed yet another first-place finish among households and total viewers for the season.

CBS is the only network without any big series finales planned. Meanwhile, NBC has two (“West Wing” and “Will & Grace”) and ABC has “Alias,” while Fox also has “Malcolm in the Middle.” But all of those shows are so far off their ratings peak, the finale stunting likely won’t make a big difference in who finishes No. 1.

Sweeps began on Thursday and wraps up May 24.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_4423.asp

Obituary
Harvey Bullock, 84

Writer Specialized in TV Comedies, Movies
From Los Angeles Times Staff and Wire Reports May 1, 2006

Harvey Bullock, 84, a writer for "The Andy Griffith Show" and other TV comedies in the 1960s and '70s, died April 23 at South Coast Medical Center in Laguna Beach of age-related illnesses, said his daughter, Courtney.

Bullock wrote dozens of episodes of "The Andy Griffith Show" in his five years with the program. In the late '60s, he and writing partner Ray Allen also collaborated on the screenplays for the comic films "Who's Minding the Mint?", "With Six You Get Eggroll" and "Don't Drink the Water," which was adapted from a Woody Allen play.

Bullock and Ray Allen also worked together on scripts for such TV series as "The Flintstones," "The Dick Van Dyke Show" and "Hogan's Heroes." They also were executive producers of "Love, American Style," and creators and executive producers of the animated early 1970s series "Wait Till Your Father Gets Home."

Born on June 4, 1921, in Oxford, N.C., Bullock graduated from Duke University with a bachelor's degree in English. He served in the Navy during World War II, writing and transmitting fake radio messages designed to mislead the Nazis.

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-me-passings1.2may01,0,2108704,print.story?coll=cl-tvent

Sunday’s prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted at the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.

A Critical View
Latest stale episode has 'Lost' fans fuming

By Charlie McCollum San Jose Mercury News Mon, May. 01, 2006

The e-mails started coming even before the end of last week's ``Lost.'' By the next morning, there was a steady stream of often angry complaints about yet another repeat episode.

It wasn't the first such outburst this season. Since the start of the year, devoted fans have complained in e-mails and online forums about the scheduling pattern for ABC's complex dramatic series, which features one of the biggest casts on TV and whose appeal stems in large measure from all the twists and turns built into its story lines.

This past week's group whine was more vociferous than most because, technically, the episode wasn't a repeat and had been described as ``new'' in many TV listings, including those in the Mercury News. Unless you were paying very close attention, you probably didn't know that the hour was a ``clip show,'' a retrospective of what had taken place so far this season.

But no matter how the network dressed it up (and it did the same thing last week with ``Desperate Housewives'' and ``Grey's Anatomy''), the show repeated old material and people were very unhappy.

Before addressing the issues raised by this uproar, let's get one thing out of the way: The rest of the ``Lost'' season -- starting with this Wednesday's episode (9 p.m., Ch. 7) -- will be original, up to and including the two-hour finale on May 24. So that's five more hours of the good stuff.

That said, it's becoming clear that repeats are a big issue for ``Lost,'' or any other heavily serialized drama that requires viewers to pay attention to details.

Under the current network economic model, top dramas generally include 22 episodes each season. But the season lasts about 36 weeks, from mid-September to the end of May. That means at least a dozen repeats or pre-emptions a year.

For a series such as ``Lost,'' that can be deadly, particularly after the rush of a first season wears off. Many people just aren't willing to watch an original hour and then wait through two or three old episodes for the next developments.

And the way ``Lost'' has been expanding its core cast and adding layers to its story has compounded the problem. Quick, when was the last time we saw Michael (Harold Perrineau), who went off in search of his missing son, Walt? (Viewers this Wednesday will find out what's been going on with him.)

The big question: Isn't it time for the networks to fix the model and adopt the cable formula of fewer episodes, airing in a single block without breaks?

I like the idea of fewer hours (let's be honest, even the best shows come up with a percentage of clunkers every season). The problem is that the networks have to come up with something to fill the rest of the hours. Given their spotty success with new series, I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

But there already is some indication that a different scheduling approach could work. Just look at the success Fox has had with ``24'' (which airs all its episodes from January to May) and ``Prison Break,'' which ran part of its season in the fall and the rest in the spring.

``Lost,'' in particular, cries out for that kind of approach, and maybe ABC is starting to come around. In recent interviews, Steve McPherson, the head of ABC Entertainment, has said the network is seriously reconsidering how to program the show. A ``24''-style schedule is a possibility; a ``Prison Break'' split season also is on the table.

Whether ABC will take the risk on one of its tent-pole shows remains to be seen.

So what should frustrated ``Lost'' fans do in the meantime?

Well, this season is almost over, so you might as well hang around for the rest of what has been a very good sophomore year for the show.

But next fall, you might take the approach of at least a few people I know who loved Season 1 but have dropped out this time because of all the repeats. They're simply going to wait until the DVD of Season 2 comes out around Labor Day, and then just have a big ol' ``Lost'' fest -- without commercials or repeats.

It doesn't really work for me, but it is an alternative.

Remote controls

• There's never any question that the acting on ``House'' -- particularly by Hugh Laurie as the acidic Dr. Gregory House -- has been sensational from the show's first episode. But through much of the first season and into this one, the writing and storytelling were erratic, a bit ragged around the edges. In recent weeks, though, ``House'' has been on a roll, and this week it offers a superb, suspenseful two-part episode (9 p.m. Tuesday and 8 p.m. Wednesday, Chs. 2, 35). Not only is Laurie at the top of his game, but also the installment gives the sometimes-underused Omar Epps a chance to shine as Eric Foreman, House's much-abused protege. It's a gripping couple of hours.

• ``Thief,'' the spring's best new drama, comes to an end Tuesday (10 p.m., FX) as Nick Atwater (the wonderful Andre Braugher) and his gang try to pull off their big heist and elude the feds. This series has been worth watching just for Braugher's powerhouse performance and young Mae Whitman's (``State of Grace'') excellent turn as Atwater's stepdaughter. Here's hoping it gets a second season.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/columnists/charlie_mccollum/14471354.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Sockeroo Sunday for 'Grey's Anatomy'

By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 1, 2006, 20:45

Four weeks without a new episode did little to cool the libidos of Seattle’s sexiest interns. And it didn’t cool down ABC’s “Grey’s Anatomy,” either.

The show, which has been broadcast’s hottest drama ever since its post-Super Bowl outing in February, returned to originals last night from three weeks of reruns and preemptions with a 9.7 rating in adults 18-49, according to Nielsen overnights.

That’s 10 percent above the 8.8 rating “Grey’s” has averaged for the entire season. It also finished ahead of lead-in “Desperate Housewives,” which averaged an 8.9. “Grey’s” has bettered its lead-in for every original episode since the Super Bowl.

Before the Super Bowl, “Grey’s” had averaged an 8.1 rating. It’s jumped 0.7 since then, or 9 percent, going from broadcast’s No. 5 show to No. 4. Compared to the same week last year, the show was up nearly 20 percent.

“Grey’s” last original episode came April 2. Since then, ABC has aired a “Grey’s” repeat, the premiere of “What About Brian” and a recap episode of this season’s clips in the 10 p.m. Sunday timeslot.

It bettered the combined average of NBC’s “Crossing Jordan,” at 3.5, and CBS’s movie “Jesse Stone: Death in Paradise,” at a 2.7.

“Stone,” the third edition in the Tom Selleck film series, was up slightly, 4 percent, over its last outing, “Night Passage” in January. That averaged a 2.6.

Meanwhile, ABC finished first for the night among 18-49s with a 6.8 average rating and a 17 share. Fox was second with a 3.3/9, NBC third with 2.7/7, CBS fourth with 2.6/7, Univision fifth with 2.0/3 and WB sixth with 1.0/3.

ABC led each hour of the night, starting with a 2.8 rating at 7 p.m. for part one of “Extreme Makeover Home Edition.” Fox was second with a 2.4 for reruns of “The Simpsons” (2.2) and “King of the Hill” (2.7), CBS third with 2.1 for “60 Minutes,” NBC fourth with a 2.0 for “Dateline,” Univision fifth with a 0.9 for “Hora Pico” and “Chiquitibum,” and WB sixth with a 0.8 for two repeats of “Reba.”

At 8 p.m., “Home Edition” led again at 5.7, followed by Fox’s “The Simpsons” (4.2) and the season finale of “War at Home” (3.6) at a 3.9. CBS’s “Cold Case” was third at 2.9.

At 9 p.m., “Housewives” led with an 8.9 rating, followed by Fox’s “Family Guy” (3.9) and “American Dad” (3.3) at 3.6. NBC’s “Law & Order: Criminal Intent” was third at 3.2. At 10 p.m., “Grey’s” 9.7 led NBC’s “Crossing Jordan,” at 3.5, and CBS’s “Stone” at a 2.7.

In households, ABC led with a 10.0/16, followed by CBS at 9.2/15, NBC at 5.7/9, Fox at 4.1/7 and the WB at 1.6/3.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_4446.asp

TV Notebook
Cable Subscribers Want More Choices in Content, Access and Pricing Structures

(Abritron Press Release)

NEW YORK – Cable subscribers want less restriction in cable programming and more flexibility in accessing and paying for networks according to a new report from Arbitron Inc. (NYSE:ARB), "Arbitron Cable Television Study: Exploring the Consumer’s Relationship with Cable TV." The study examines what Americans want to see on cable networks, how they want to access the programming and the pricing structures that make the most sense to them.

What Cable Subscribers Want to See
Almost two-thirds of cable subscribers feel that basic cable programming should be unrestricted and nearly half feel that basic cable is rarely or almost never too objectionable. Sixty-two percent of cable subscribers agree that basic cable networks should be able to air whatever programming they please; if people don’t want to watch, they can change the channel. Seventy-seven percent of cable subscribers feel that premium networks should be able to air unrestricted programming.

Preferred Pricing Structure
Most cable subscribers would prefer to choose and pay for only the individual cable networks they are interested in viewing. Fifty-four percent of cable subscribers would prefer to only have access to the networks they view and only pay for those networks. Forty-two percent of cable subscribers would opt to continue buying channel packages as they currently do, and 4 percent are undecided. Currently, most cable companies offer packages of networks grouped together and available for one price for each group.

Video On Demand: With Commercials or Pay a Fee?
Forty-seven percent of those who have either watched or are interested in VOD services would prefer to get the programming for free in exchange for watching commercials that they cannot fast-forward through. Forty-two percent would rather pay a small fee, such as a dollar or two per show, in order to watch uninterrupted (commercial-free) programming.

"In an on-demand, multi-platform world, consumers increasingly want to experience media on their own terms and have a say in how programming is delivered," said Carol Edwards, Vice President of cable services, Arbitron. "As technology for media grows, consumers have more choices. This presents the cable industry with new opportunities to be creative in how they reach consumers."

How the Study Was Conducted
Arbitron, in conjunction with Edison Media Research, interviewed a total of 1,925 people to investigate Americans’ use of cable products and services. From January 13 to February 12, 2006, telephone interviews were conducted with respondents age 12 and older chosen at random from a national sample of Arbitron’s Fall 2005 survey diarykeepers. In certain geographic areas (representing 5% of the national population), a sample of Arbitron diarykeepers was not available for the survey, and a supplemental sample was interviewed through random digit dialing.

A Critical View
Latest stale episode has 'Lost' fans fuming

By Charlie McCollum San Jose Mercury News Mon, May. 01, 2006



• ``Thief,'' the spring's best new drama, comes to an end Tuesday (10 p.m., FX) as Nick Atwater (the wonderful Andre Braugher) and his gang try to pull off their big heist and elude the feds. This series has been worth watching just for Braugher's powerhouse performance and young Mae Whitman's (``State of Grace'') excellent turn as Atwater's stepdaughter. Here's hoping it gets a second season.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/columnists/charlie_mccollum/14471354.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
I'm hoping it does too, Braugher does a great job in this show, the interaction between father and step-daughter is intense, plus the show has a certain grittiness to it and along with being set in southern Louisiana makes for good TV.

I love "Thief" too but since when did 6 episodes constitute a season? Egads.

I love "Thief" too but since when did 6 episodes constitute a season? Egads.
I think part of that may be because shooting for the show had to be rescheduled and relocated due to Katrina. The show was originally to shoot in New Orleans but was moved to Shreveport.

I love "Thief" too but since when did 6 episodes constitute a season? Egads.

it does in britain. the office only had 6 episodes in a season and it feels like so much more.

Sports On TV
Fox to MLB: Let's Play Ball

By John Consoli MediaWeek.com MAY 01, 2006 -

Fox is continuing to talk with Major League Baseball about renewing its television broadcast rights beyond this season, Fox Sports president Ed Goren said today, adding that Fox is "absolutely interested in getting a deal done."

Fox's exclusive negotiating window has expired, and although the current deal with Fox coincides with the end of this season, a new agreement has not been reached. MLB has said other networks have expressed interest, but no specifics have been released. The current Fox TV $417 million per year package includes regular season Saturday afternoon telecasts, the All-Star Game and some post-season playoff games and the World Series. MLB initially was seeking a 20 percent per year increase, according to sources, and Fox was initially seeking to pay no increase.

Although Fox has not been able to reach a new deal, Goren today touted the telecasts on Fox for drawing solid ratings. "Last season, viewership of our Saturday afternoon games was higher than viewership in the first year we carried baseball ten years ago," he said. "How many sports can say that." Continuing to tout Fox's ratings, which averaged a 2.6 in households last season, Goren said, "On a Saturday afternoon at 1 p.m. during the summer, baseball outrates the NBA games which air on Sundays during the winter when more people are home."

MLB telecasts, he said, "have been very, very healthy. But it comes down to economics. NBC walked away from the NBA and ABC walked away from Monday Night Football because of economics. It comes down to how your organization views the deal economically."

But Goren said talks are ongoing and Fox is hopeful of getting a new deal done. "We are still talking and eventually there will be a resolution to this [before the start of next season]."

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002425806

Congress Watch
Senate Drafts Huge Telecom Bill

By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 5/1/2006

The Senate Commerce Committee has released the draft of its telecom reform bill and it is a doozy.

In addition to video franchise reform, the main thrust of the House version of the bill, the Senate deals with a host of other issues in its 135-page opus.

Included are the video and audio flag content-protection technology, network neutrality, reforming the Universal Service Fund that helps pay for telecommunications services in underserved areas, municipal broadband, provisions for unlicensed wireless devices, DTV transition-related issues stripped from an earlier bill on the DTV transition, child porn, emergency communications, and even allowing FCC commissioners to talk among themselves.

Committee Co-chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) co-sponsored the bill but apparently doesn't like it that much.

“Today, I have agreed to co-sponsor telecommunications legislation introduced by Senator Stevens," he said in a statement. "I do so in a spirit of bipartisanship, because I believe that bipartisanship will be required if we are to successfully update our nation’s communications laws. My co-sponsorship, however, is not a demonstration of support for the bill itself.

“This is the draft of the Majority Staff, and I have numerous, substantive objections to the bill in its current form. Given that my colleagues and I have not yet had an opportunity to weigh in on this critical legislation, I consider its introduction the very beginning of the legislative process. "

Inouye feels the network neutrality langage in the Senate bill does not go far enough in protecting the Internet from discrimination in service provision by networks, the same criticism leveled by Democrats at the House bill, though that one passed with strong Democrat support anyway.

Sports On TV
Fox to MLB: Let's Play Ball



But Goren said talks are ongoing and Fox is hopeful of getting a new deal done. "We are still talking and eventually there will be a resolution to this [before the start of next season]."

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002425806
..and hopefully the games will be in HD if/when they agree to a new contract.

TV Notebook
Puzzling demise of promising 'Thief'

Some say the FX show's stories were confusing, others that it got lost in a barrage of lavish new dramatic offerings.
By Scott Collins Los Angeles Times Staff Writer May 1, 2006

Andre Braugher has been racking his brain, trying to figure out where "Thief" went wrong.

The 43-year-old actor won some of the best reviews of his career playing Nick Atwater, the slick, emotionally conflicted New Orleans con man in FX's heist drama, which wraps its six-episode run Tuesday night. FX, home of such hits as "The Shield" and "Nip/Tuck," heavily promoted the show. Test audiences raved about the pilot, Braugher said.

And yet "Thief" tanked anyway. As soon as he glimpsed the ratings for the second episode early last month, "I entered the grieving process," Braugher said by phone last week.

Those who try to parse failure or success in Hollywood are reminded of screenwriter William Goldman's famous dictum: "Nobody knows anything." But given its many virtues, "Thief" has been an especially puzzling flop.

Just 2.5 million viewers showed up for the March 28 premiere, according to data from Nielsen Media Research. That was a far lower figure than the debut numbers for "The Shield" (4.8 million), "Nip/Tuck" (3.7 million) and even last summer's Iraq drama "Over There" (4.1 million), itself a disappointment. Then "Thief" shed nearly half its audience by the second episode.

What happened? Braugher and others close to the show have their own speculations. (Was there not enough action? Were Nick's problems with Chinese mobsters adequately explained? Were viewers turned off by Nick's ambivalent morality?) But some industry veterans wonder whether deeper forces are at work — ones that might spell trouble for cable's headlong push into scripted programming.

When FX's gritty cop drama, "The Shield," debuted in 2002, original series were still few and far between on basic cable (HBO's push began in the late 1990s, with "Sex and the City"). But now, in a bid for higher ratings and increased fees from cable operators, nearly two dozen basic-cable networks have original series in some stage of development or production.

TNT, for example, is bringing back its hit cop drama, "The Closer," in June, and USA Network has found some success with series such as "Monk" and "The 4400." And then there are splashy, loudly publicized broadcast series: NBC premiered its own "Ocean's 11"-style caper, "Heist," the week before "Thief's" debut. "Heist" bombed too.

The sheer number of new shows makes it tough for even the good ones to stand out.

"The overabundance of scripted programming on broadcast and cable networks has made audiences mostly numb to it," said Ted Harbert, president and chief executive of E! Networks, which today is announcing a slate of new shows that includes a reality series about Nick Carter, formerly of the Backstreet Boys.

Despite the glut, even Harbert is considering taking the plunge, mostly in hopes of adding a title that would help build buzz for E!'s reality lineup. "I'd love to have that special show like [HBO's] 'Entourage,' " Harbert said.

"I think we're going to see more and more [ratings] erosion of the larger cable networks," said Jack Myers, a longtime TV analyst and editor and publisher of the website Mediavillage.com. "Even the smaller networks are investing more money in programming…. Everyone is ramping up the game and competing with broadcast-type budgets."

It's not uncommon for dramatic series on cable these days to cost well more than $1 million per episode, Myers said, approaching the $2 million-plus price tags often seen on broadcast dramas.

That type of environment makes it easy for even highly acclaimed shows to slip through the cracks. Consider, for example, HBO's "The Wire," which despite endless hosannas from critics has never grown beyond its cult fan base.

Of course, none of that consoles the people who worked on "Thief." FX executives and the producers have spent the past few weeks trading ideas about what happened. Executive producer and writer Norman Morrill called the show's failure "heartbreaking."

"Essentially, [viewers] didn't like it," Braugher theorized. "The audience saw something on pilot night that let them know they didn't want to come back."

In fact, the audience was divided, at least according to comments posted on Internet message boards. Although reviewers mostly loved the series — San Francisco Chronicle critic Tim Goodman included it on his list of "Best Shows You're Not Watching" — some viewers have complained that the storytelling has been confusing, especially a subplot involving a crooked cop, memorably played by Michael Rooker.

It's worth noting, though, that a number of hit dramas, including HBO's "The Sopranos" and ABC's "Lost," have occasionally faced similar accusations from frustrated viewers. Braugher has a different view. " 'Complicated' is good, in my opinion," he said.

FX will angle for the Emmy Awards with a lavish trade ad campaign focusing on Braugher's performance and the fine reviews "Thief" received.

Meanwhile, Braugher, perhaps best known for his role as a detective on the mid-'90s cop drama "Homicide: Life on the Street," is still looking for that breakout role as a series lead (his medical drama "Gideon's Crossing" lasted one season on ABC). And he's been reminded of the folly of asking the unanswerable.

"I've thought long and hard," he said about "Thief's" failure. "I'm still baffled."

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-channel1may01,0,2139670,print.story?coll=cl-tv-features

I'm one of those folks who bailed on Thief after one episode (or was it two?). Just didn't seem compelling enough to stick with, was a bit confusing, and I wasn't sure whether I needed to root for Braugher's character or not. One thing I did like was its limited, 6-episode run. In these days of oversaturation, commented on in that article, shorter is sometimes better as it's somewhat comforting not to be subjected to a large time commitment. But after the initial episode, even 5 more seemed too much. Sorry Andre.

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: To each their own. I love Scrubs as well — that's no secret — but I also think it shares a bond with Grey's, which has exploded for a reason. Not just because of sex, but because of its heart. Both of these shows are so easy to love and make me feel great for watching, and are blessed with incredible, very diverse casts. To reduce Grey's to the mere level of an oversexed soap opera does not take into account how smartly it weaves its medical cases into its personal dramas, and how well it achieves its results. Not to mention the powerful chemistry of its various couples. Grey's is an almost perfectly satisfying show right now, but then, so is Scrubs. No reason to use one to club the other.



I would think House should at least be mentioned when comparing hospital-based programs. For me it's easily the best of them.

I agree that House is an exceptional TV show, TommyK, but I am not sure how long the grating central character will wear with mass audiences. I certainly could be wrong, and personally I look forward to (hopefully) many more seasons of Hugh Laurie in full House-ness. But I can't help but wonder if this isn't a one-trick pony.

Grey's, one the other hand, offers many storylines, though admittedly some are far less appealing than others. But many of them are so far out of the normal-TV box that they are fascinating (to me at least) to watch as they unfold.

So has "Thief" been officially dumped?

A Critical View:
''House'' Two-Parter

By Rich Heldenfels in his Akron Beacon Journal TV blog

This weekend was a ''House'' triple-header: finally catching up to the DVR of last week's episode, followed by the two-part telecast airing this week (at 9 p.m. Tuesday and then 8 p.m. Wednesday).

There is one link between last week and this week -- the intersection of faith and medicine. Last week, of course, that was in the story of House (Hugh Laurie) and team trying to cure a young faith healer. I didn't think the show handled the topic very well, as it reached a compromise -- medicine working some, faith working some -- that felt too much like something designed to pacify all segments of the audience. The new episodes embrace faith through Foreman's father (played solemnly by guest star Charles Dutton) during a medical crisis after Foreman picks up a mysterious and potentially very dangerous ailment from a patient. It feels with faith more sure-handedly. Foreman's father comes across as someone who not only believes in God but believes in what people can do -- particularly people who know more about a topic than he does.

But the episodes are really a showcase for Foreman (Omar Epps) and, to a lesser degree, Cameron (Jennifer Morrison), as her conflict with Foreman remains unresolved going into these shows. There's also a glimpse of the warmer side of House. All right, so he doesn't really have a warmer side. Let's say a glimpse into the conscience of House, since he does have one of those, and the show does well in dealing with why it's often better that House not care about his patients.

Not a perfect pair of episodes. After all, we all know that, if a story is in two parts, then what looks like a solution near the end of part one is probably not going to work out. But as character pieces they're highly enjoyable. The idea that Foreman is in many respects House Jr. gets a real workout here, and more than once you will look at him and think, yeah, House would have done the same thing. And Cameron gets to show some elements of her character that are a departure from what we usually see, while consistent with Cameron as we know her.

http://blogs.ohio.com/beacon_tv/

I'm one of those folks who bailed on Thief after one episode (or was it two?). Just didn't seem compelling enough to stick with, was a bit confusing, and I wasn't sure whether I needed to root for Braugher's character or not.
But that's what FX dramas have always been about, the flawed, anti-hero character, Vic Mackey(The Shield), Tommy Gavin(Rescue Me), and even every one of the soldiers in Over There. I don't know, I guess America can handle only so many of these types of characters.

As far as confusing, I'm not sure what was confusing about it, everything made sense, at least to me anyway...but I have not been picking many winners lately... :p

I am not sure how long the grating central character will wear with mass audiences. I certainly could be wrong, and personally I look forward to (hopefully) many more seasons of Hugh Laurie in full House-ness. But I can't help but wonder if this isn't a one-trick pony.

This season seemed to be a bit of softening of house. While the abrasive style is still there, the shows with Sela Ward showed another side of House... I enjoyed the small shift this season.


Sam

Here is yet another great link from Aaron Barnhart's superb TV Barn site:
http://www.tvbarn.com/

TV Notebook
“Reba” cancelled?

EXCLUSIVE: Moonves Manhandles "Reba"
By Nikki Finke LA Weekly

So CBS thinks Reba McIntire is good enough to host the Academy of Country Music Awards live on May 23rd. (It's her 8th time.)

But CBS' Les Moonves doesn't think the 51-year-old actress-singer's show Reba is good enough for his new CW netlet -- even though it's the highest-rated sitcom on the WB.

I'm told the show's producer, Fox Studios, was shocked to hear the CW doesn't want the sitcom. That's because, last year, Reba was picked up by the WB for two years.

When news broke about the WB/UPN merging to form CW, Reba's executive producers informed the cast and crew that Moonves had sent word that he expected the new netlet would honor that deal. So the series' shooting ended on March 14th with everyone expecting to be back in the fall.

But I'm told that, in mid-April, the CW execs told Fox they wanted out of the deal -- the reason being that the show doesn't attract "the desired demographic" the new network wants tuning in. (Translation: no to Country-Western yahoos.)

Fox said no way, and that is where things now stand.

It's my understanding that, because of the old pick-up deal, it could cost the CW lotsa loot to make the show go away. Some believe this might just be a negotiation ploy to lower the license fee and other costs.

But I seriously doubt it. Officially, the show is not canceled yet. But the cast is devastated, and the crew have been told to grab any other work that's offered.

I've also learned from some Reba insiders that the show's season finale, which airs this Friday, was originally scripted and shot as a cliffhanger. But they tell me it's been re-edited to reflect Moonves's kiss-off, so it may be the series' finale.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/205/

TV Notebook
'House'-a-palooza:

On Omar Epps' Emmy bid, Wilson's messed-up life and stupid cane tricks
By Maureen Ryan from the Chicago Tribune TV blog May 1, 2006

"House" isn’t waiting for its May 23 season finale to bring out the big guns.

The hit medical drama, which is regularly garnering an impressive 22 million viewers each week, airs an intense two-parter at 8 p.m. Tuesday and 7 p.m. Wednesday on WFLD-Ch. 32, and amps up the suspense by making the patient in crisis one of Dr. Greg House’s own assistants.

Omar Epps, who plays Dr. Eric Foreman, can’t complain that he doesn’t have a star turn to submit come Emmy time. The episodes, in which his character falls ill thanks to an infection passed on by a sick cop, are fine showcases for Epps, and also feature a cameo appearance by Charles S. Dutton as Foreman’s devoutly religious father.

One person you won’t see much of in the two-parter is Dr. James Wilson, an oncologist and House’s best friend. And the actor who plays him, Robert Sean Leonard, is fine with that.

“The hair and makeup people were saying one day, `Oh, I love those scenes with you and Hugh [Laurie, who plays House]; there should be more of that.’ And I’m like, `Shhh! ” Leonard said by phone from his New York City home.Don’t say that!,’ “I’m the luckiest man in Hollywood. I work only with Hugh, pretty much, who’s great. And I work two days a week.”

He says he doesn’t envy the hours that Laurie and “the Mod Squad,” or House’s trio of assistant doctors, have to put in on the drama.

“They are at that studio for 16 hours a day saying `tachycardia, ” Leonard says with a laugh. “I’m very happylupus, blah blah de blah,’ with the size of my role. I don’t want it to get any bigger.”

“Money’s good, and I’m glad I’m getting that,” adds Leonard, who has been in 14 Broadway plays and won a Tony Award for his role in “The Invention of Love.” “I’m putting it away for later in life when I do more Tom Stoppard plays at Lincoln Center and make no money.”

“If I come back to New York in two years and nothing’s changed, I’ll be thrilled,” he says. “All I really want to do is [act in] plays, play with my dog, have kids. My desires are pretty simple.”

Still, there’s no arguing that Wilson plays an important role in the show (which might well be around for more than two years, given how it has taken off in the ratings). The oncologist is a medical sounding board for House and one of the few people the brilliant diagnostician opens up to. Quite simply, the misanthropic House trusts Wilson.

“The original idea of the show was House and Wilson, like Holmes and Watson,” Leonard says. “But it got away from that, and his team is Watson, if you want to be technical about it.

“I’m the only one who tells him the truth. And [Wilson] has nothing to lose,” Leonard notes. “I don’t work for him, and he doesn’t work for me. I’m the only character who chooses to be with him as opposed to being there because of a job.”

Wilson and House have more in common than surface appearances might indicate. Sure, it might look as though Wilson cares too much about patients — possibly at the risk of getting unprofessionally involved, as a recent episode showed — and at first glance, it appears House cares too little for the people he’s treating.

But in fact, House cares a lot about figuring out each week’s medical puzzle, and you could make the argument that Wilson is nearly as emotionally messed up as House.

“They sort of hide out together; they hide from mature relationships,” notes “House” executive producer Katie Jacobs.

“He’s a character who’s been married several times, and all his marriages have failed,” Jacobs says of Wilson. “I think that when a relationship presents itself, it’s hard for him to say no. And he’s not necessarily thinking about what he wants. But he’s trying to simply make the other person feel good. And there’s something in that for him.”

What’s in it for Leonard, aside from a steady paycheck on a well-written, successful show, is the chance to work with the British Laurie, whose acting challenge, Leonard says, is daunting at best.

“The thing is, with this part, Hugh has a huge obstacle he has to deal with — having an American accent,” Leonard notes. “His problem [of thinking the accent isn’t perfect] isn’t our problem. … We as the audience don’t have that problem, because what he doesn’t know is that he does it perfectly. But of course he doesn’t hear that. That’s why he can’t watch the show.”

“He’s got the medical jargon, the accent, then we give him a cane,” notes Jacobs, who adds that Laurie himself has come up with most of the “stupid cane tricks” you see House perform. “And he’s spoken Chinese, he’s juggled. He’s got a lot of things to do. It’s an unbelievably tricky role. And it’s amazing how he’s made it his own. But it is really hard.”

As Leonard, who has done accents for several stage roles, notes, “acting is letting go and forgetting yourself — it’s the opposite of ego. It’s flying away and getting away from yourself and forgetting. And when you’re doing an accent, it’s virtually impossible to do that.”

Still, audiences don’t seem to notice any problems with Laurie’s performance; in fact, he won a Golden Globe for it this year. “House’s” ratings continue to climb; the show’s draw among adults ages 18-49 is up 40 percent from a similar post-“American Idol” slot a year ago. The show, which started out last year as a mid-season program on Fox, is now among the highest-rated scripted dramas on television.

Some of the show’s success can be attributed to the fact that it focuses on solving the mystery of the week by the end of the hour, so “House,” to an extent, falls within the procedural genre for which Americans have a seemingly insatiable appetite. But for viewers who aren’t particularly fans of “CSI”-style procedurals “House” regularly upends the conventions in head-spinning ways (as it did in last season’s Emmy-winning “Three Stories” episode. Jacobs says the show will do it again with its second-season finale)

“With our structure, you’re always going to have that person falling sick, it’s rooted in procedural that way — what is the mystery, what is the diagnosis,” Jacobs notes. “But I think if you get to know the characters better, we can rely on them to keep every episode original.”

The witty banter between the characters is also a draw. There’s an echo of Howard Hawks’ films in the dialogue, given that it’s spoken by smart, attractive, strong-willed people (and whenever a woman is involved in a scene, especially with House, there’s usually an undercurrent of sexual tension).

In the tense two-parter, there are several memorable bits of dialogue between House and Foreman, who has emerged as sort of a grumpy House-in-training. At one point in Wednesday’s episode, Foreman says he’d rather be disabled than dead. “Sure, I make it look oh so sexy,” House shoots back.

Though the smart writing, inventive storytelling and intriguing moral dilemmas faced by House and his patients are all compelling, one masterstroke lies at the heart of the show’s breakout success: The casting of Laurie, who was previously best known for comic roles in British comedies such as “Blackadder” and family-friendly fare such as the “Stuart Little” movies.

“I think a large part of why the character works so well is because, although House is really abrasive and arrogant and caustic on the outside, as an actor, Hugh Laurie lets us see inside of him and brings that inner life out — so that you forgive him, because you see so much going on there on the inside,” Jacobs says.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2006/05/house_isnt_wait.html#more

TV Notebook
'House'-a-palooza, part 2:

Robert Sean Leonard
By Maureen Ryan from the Chicago Tribune TV blog May 1, 2006

Here's the text of my interview with "House's" Robert Sean Leonard, who plays Dr. James Wilson. He may be the only actor in Hollywood who doesn't want his role to get bigger. And who wants nothing more than to do Tom Stoppard plays in New York and hang out with his fiance. But anyway, on with the show...

Do you watch the show much?

"I can't watch it. I mean, Hugh doesn't watch it because he's anal and … eight years old. [laughs] And by the way, I don’t buy it, I think he does watch it.

“I watched in the first year. We live in New York and [my fiancé] was in California] and she likes it because I’m on it. But then she left, she had to come back to New York, and what are you going to do? The idea of me watching myself on TV, alone in Santa Monica, was just about.. just short of, like, a bottle of Maker’s Mark and a shotgun away from shooting myself. [much laughter] So I haven’t watched it all season. But when I have watched it, I’ve been mildly confused and Hugh is appropriately grumpy."

I have this theory that a lot of my favorite shows aren’t even about what they’re supposed to be about -- they have to be set in a hospital or police station or outer space or whatever because the network can market that, but they’re secretly not even about that. Like, “House” is really about ethics and morality.

“Yeah, sure, I think that’s true.”

But you can’t pitch that show to the network. “Hey, we have this great show that examines personal morality!"

“‘It’s based on “A View from the Bridge.”’

Right! They’re really going to for that.

“Yeah. [laughs] I think it’s good, and when it’s right, when the show works, the mystery works. It has a Sherlock Holmes-ian feel to it, and you do kind of want to know what’s wrong with [the patients]. And it is interesting, the turns and twists that get you there. And there’s always a little bit of character-driven fun stuff in between, of who these people are and how they affect each other. And that’s it at its best. And I guess that could be true of any show.

“It’s tricky, you’ve got a lead character [who’s different from the TV norm] and you’ve got to be careful because those characters can be one-note. He’s the cranky guy, he’s the Australian guy, I’m the friend in one or two scenes a week. You just have to be careful, and I think we are, we have a really great team of writers. And the numbers are building, people are watching.”

So this two-parter on May 2 and 3, I think the unofficial subtitle is the “Festival of Foreman.” I guess they’re his Emmy episodes, and that’s fine. But you’re hardly in them, what’s up with that?

“Honestly, I’m okay. I don’t want an Emmy. This is what I want -- I know exactly what I want. I did play with a guy named Skip Sudduth, ‘The Iceman Cometh,’ seven years ago. I saw him five years later, and I said, ‘Geez, Skip, where have you been? I don’t see you at readings anymore.’ He said, ‘I’ve been on “Third Watch.”’ It sounded familiar but I’d never seen it. He said, ‘I’ve been doing it for five years.’ I said, ‘Holy crap!’ And he was back doing theater. That’s my dream.

“And it’s happening. I walk down the street and people say, ‘Where are you?’ and I say, ‘I’m on this show called “House.”’ My friend Lewis Black [from 'The Daily Show'] said, ‘What is it called? “Head”?’

“I’m okay. I’ve never been happier than where my career is now. And I don’t want it to change necessarily. Money’s good, and I’m glad I’m getting that, and I’m putting it away for later in life when I do more Tom Stoppard plays at Lincoln Center and make no money. But really, I’m great. I don’t mind working two days a week.

http://tempo.typepad.com/entertainment_tv/

TV Notebook
'House'-a-palooze, Part 3:

Katie Jacobs

By Maureen Ryan from the Chicago Tribune TV blog May 1, 2006

There aren't any really specific spoilers in this interview with executive producer Katie Jacobs, but there are a few tidbits about what's coming up on "House." The few spoilery bits are marked.

This is one thing I've always wanted to ask -- do you do those inside-the-body shots partly because that sort of stuff is on other medical or crime shows? Was that something the network wanted?

"That was something we [the show's creators and executive producers] decided on that with the pilot. Going inside the body really relates to our idea that going to a hospital is scary. When they treat you, it’s really high stakes trial-and-error. So the journey into the body is just an extension of that, when your throat closes up or whatever."

Those shots are effective, they do help tell the story of what's going on. But sometimes I think, but why aren't they spending more time showing Hugh Laurie's eyes?

"But I’m kind of with you on that [laughs]. We’ve really got to select those times, to go inside the body, so that it’s effective."

A friend of mine and I have a theory, that there's one lighting technician just for Hugh's eyes.

[Laughs] "That's so funny. What’s interesting about the way he photographs, aside from the fact that he photographs sensationally, is that you can’t get close enough. The closer you get with the camera, the more his face really comes alive, the more you can see into those eyes and his soul."

A lot of actors don’t have that, they have the dramatic skills, but that magnetism is something you can’t manufacture.

"I think a large part of why the character works so well is because, although House is really abrasive and arrogant and caustic on the outside, as an actor, Hugh Laurie lets us see inside of him and brings that inner life out, so that you forgive him. Because you see so much going on there on the inside."

The show's dialogue is, I think, really intelligent and smart. Not to mention funny.

"I think the fact that we have these characters that are smart and well drawn allows us the opportunity to do that kind of dialogue and you don’t feel like it’s fake and phony. And it is really fun. For instance the dialogue between Cuddy and House -- you believe that relationship, so you’re allowed to write that kind of dialogue and banter that feels real."

And House’s personality allows him to say things people don’t normally say. That must be fun to write.

"That’s exactly right. Yeah. And I think it’s great fun to watch. We all wish in our daily lives we could say exactly what’s on our minds, but few of us have the courage to do that, and Dr. House does that."

But I like how it’s not always the quip. At one point in the two-parter, Foreman delivers some obscure medical fact, and you're expecting House to give the zingy comeback, but he just smiles and says, "I love that you know that."

"[The episodes] all work really differently. They have very different sorts of tempos to them. That’s exciting to us, how to keep them fresh. With our structure, you’re always going to have that person falling sick, it’s rooted in procedural that way, what is the mystery, what is the diagnosis. But I think if you get to know the characters better, we can rely on them to keep every episode original."

I talked to Robert Sean Leonard, and he talked me out of my theory that the procedural isn't as important on "House." But I can see how they kind of have to be there in equal parts, you need both the character stuff and the procedural element.

"I think you do, I think you do. I think there’s a certain comfort in television viewing in knowing what to expect. But my taste is like your taste and yes, I want to know what’s going what’s going on with those people, what’s happening between them."

But often people are in the hospital because not just because they are sick, there is something wrong with their lives. It's partly about the choices they've made, and often about what they've hidden from the world.

"Yeah, everybody lies, thematically [that’s the show]."

It seems like there's been an effort to explore the Scooby gang a little more, or what Robert called the Mod Squad. Is that just a natural outgrowth of being in the second season?

"The luxury you have in having a second season and knowing you have a third season is you can develop character. This season, before it’s over, you learn more about Wilson, you learn more about Foreman, you learn something really interesting about Cuddy. So spending more time with these characters give you that opportunity. I should say that Robert refers to House and Wilson’s relationship as Tigger and Pooh."

With House as Pooh?

"I think so. But he’s more of an Eeyore character."

Yeah, exactly. And there is the whole Holmes-Watson element to their relationship too. I've really enjoyed the stuff where Wilson is in House's house. As someone noted online, "So oncologists can't afford hotels?" But really, Wilson moving in with House is more about him taking refuge with his friend.

"Yeah. And we’re alluded to Wilson having all these failed marriages, and falls almost too easily into these relationships. Him moving into House was just a way to learn more about that."

It's sort of like these two guys are more alike than they might seem at first -- they both use work to avoid deeper commitments. They're really pretty similar, in some important ways.

"Right. I think you’re exactly right and I think that’s one reason they take great comfort in their friendship. They sort of hide out together, they hide from mature relationships. [It's like,] 'Girls make us care and feel and it’s easier to be with guys and focus on our work and pretend that nothing matters.'

“A lot of ['House vs. God'] is about Wilson. A lot of it is about his personality trait that makes him want to fix everybody, heal everybody and make everybody feel good. Sometimes that’s a great thing, sometimes that can get you into trouble.

“He’s a character who’s been married several times, and all his marriages have failed. I think that when a relationship presents itself, it’s hard for him to say no. And he’s not necessarily thinking about what he wants. But he’s trying to simply make the other person feel good. And there’s something in that for him.”

It’s interesting that Wilson is seen as being so compassionate, but in the end, he sort of wants to be seen as the good guy, the savior – whereas House, despite his attitude, is more purely committed to the truth. He doesn’t care how he looks to other people.

"Well, Wilson, like most doctors, cares what people think of him. And I think House has dropped that to a larger extent. People do have an impact on him, he would not share that or let you see it, but he cares less about what you think about him and more about solving the puzzle. And when the chips are down, do you want a doctor who cares about crossing T’s and dotting I’s or who will figure out what’s wrong with you?"

He does care about solving the puzzle, even to the point where he will admit his mistakes. Where other doctors don't.

"And House doesn’t care about that."

Hugh had an interesting theory that, in a movie, the lead characters change. But in a TV show, everyone around the lead character changes. That character is the catalyst for the transitions of others. Do you think there’s a way to tinker with who House is, or do you not want to mess with that too much?

"One of the luxuries of TV series is that it’s like a family that you live with, so every episode is a little slice of life. And I think he’s right about feature films, you watch that main character and they will go through some sort of transformation. But when you’re experiencing a series, and experiencing a character week in and week out, the transformation is more gradual. So it’s not to say that House will never change, I think different experiences will have an impact on him, but the way you experience TV, you’re going to be living with him for a while, but it will be more gradual."

Can you talk at all about the finale? [This paragraph and the next few are a little spoilery]

"What I can say about the finale is that it’s really a departure for us. It’s a very different episode, not unlike -- we did an episode last year called ‘Three Stories.’"

That’s one of my favorite episodes of TV of all time.

"Thanks, [creator] David [Shore] did an amazing job with that episode. David has written and directed the finale, and it is a different way of storytelling for us. Leading up to the finale, you will learn more about Wilson, Foreman and Cuddy, things you don’t yet know about them. But the finale is pretty much focused on House.

"It’s interesting, you might wonder whether House ever struggles with whether or not he’s doing the right thing in the way that he behaves toward patients. And this episode will sort of deal with the struggle that goes on inside House’s head.

"As you can imagine, House ticks off a lot of people. So somebody comes back, not someone we’ve necessarily seen in the series, but someone who he has ticked off comes back in the finale, and lets House know what he thinks about how [House] goes about his business." [Spoilery stuff ends here]

Will you revisit the issue of House’s leg injury?

"[For him] I think it’s a constant struggle. Living with that kind of ongoing pain is a struggle and taking Vicodin to relieve that pain is also an ongoing struggle. It’s something we’re definitely going to deal with."

This year or next?

"Both."

You do have those moments in various episodes, when he’s alone in his apartment or whatever, when he tries to walk, and he can’t. But he’s unwilling to let anyone know how hard it is.

"Right. There are times when the pain becomes intolerable to him. And what’s he going to do about that? That’s a big part of the character. There’s something to the doctor who doesn’t want to see patients -- there’s also something to the doctor who doesn’t want to be seen by patients. There’s an element of that in House. What kind of confidence are you going to have in a doctor who is not… who’s handicapped basically?

And House has a huge reservoir of pride. To be seen as less that perfect must just grate on him.

"He doesn’t want to see patients because he doesn’t want to be bothered by them, but he doesn’t want to be seen by them for that reason. He’s an intensely masculine character, I find. And I love the way Hugh has incorporated the cane into [his performance]."

Yeah, there’s a lot of that [in “Euphoria Part 1 and 2," which air Tuesday and Wednesday]. Are all of those stupid cane tricks coming from Hugh?

"Yeah, that’s coming from him. Occasionally now we’ll write in cane tricks, but he he usually does his own thing and makes it his own. There was an episode recently where he smashed up a Vicodin into his sandwich – that came from Hugh."

From talking to Robert, I understand a bit more how difficult doing an accent is for an actor -- it sounds pretty difficult.

"It’s so hard. First of all, the medical jargon alone… he’s got the medical jargon, the accent, then we give him a cane. And he’s spoken Chinese, he’s juggled. He’s got a lot of things to do. It’s an unbelievably tricky role. And it’s amazing how he’s made it his own. But it is really hard."

And he’s pretty hard on himself as to whether he gets it right.

"He really wants to get it right and never quite thinks that he does."

And obviously he’s not a fan of all that “Hugh is a hottie” press.

"I don’t know, I think it’s just sort of foreign to him. The majority of roles that he’s played up 'til now is sort of the clown. And I imagine that has been something he feels more comfortable playing. But in truth, he is a serious [actor]. And a sexy guy in real life. I think it comes really naturally to him, and obviously he doesn’t feel that way. I think it’s who he really is, I mean, he’s a musician, he’s incredibly funny, incredibly smart, incredibly masculine and those are all qualities he brings to the character. But he feels very separate from this identity as a sex symbol. But it’s very easy to see how he is one."

Isn’t it funny how the people who have that charisma don’t think they have it. And if you try to have it, you just don't.

"I think he said in an interview, I don’t want to misquote, but I think he said, if a man thinks he’s sexy, he’s not, whereas women can think they’re sexy and they are. But he’s certainly not trying to be sexy, he just owns his space. I think there’s something really appealing about that. He holds the center of the show, and that’s what we were looking for. If you push him he won’t fall over, and there’s something really sexy about that."

The House-Cameron thing, will that ever come to the fore again? [Minor spoiler below]

"What I love is that the audience feels, and I feel, that there’s potential for House and Cameron. I think there’s potential for House and Cuddy. There have been a lot of gay references to House and Wilson. [laughs] And I think we’re going to play with all of that. I don’t think any of that is over. I love that all of that is percolating. I hope we haven’t extinguished any possibility.

"But [House and Cuddy] are going to share a secret by the end of the season that will bring them a little close together. I am not saying that they are going to hook up."

Will Stacy come back?

We haven’t discussed that yet, so the real answer to that is I don’t know.

Has it really hit you guys, how popular the show is, how the numbers keep going up?

"There was a school assembly that David [Shore] went to and the principal said, 'I will be brief -- you will all get home in time to watch "House."' To me that’s kind of phenomenal. It’s hard for all of us here, David and Hugh and myself -- we’re here so long and we’re just [doing the show]. It’s hard to absorb how it’s really become a part of the culture. We believe it but it’s hard to really take it in. But it’s thrilling."

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2006/05/houseapalooze_p.html#more

As far as confusing, I'm not sure what was confusing about it, everything made sense, at least to me anyway...but I have not been picking many winners lately... :p

That may just have been my limited perspective; probably would have tied up nicely had I been willing to overlook it's other flaws (as I perceived them). I'm generally a fan of FX's originals; they do a consistently good job at providing "non-lowest common denominator" programming. You know, the stuff that we like that generally gets flushed in a big hurry by the Big Four. ;)

Thanks for the Thief article. I knew the rating were bad, but not that bad! sigh. Sounds like the end of the show for sure.

Confusing? I didnt find that to be the case at all. Like others I've been watching too much television with ongoing story arcs(24, prison break, LOST, prev the shield, battlestar, veronica mars, etc), but only got confused a bit with veronica, but that was because of the long break bt new episodes.

Thanks for not shooting the messenger, Tony!

I should point out, as I do every six months or so, that I don't necessarily enjoy posting stories about the demise of one show or another. Each has people who have enjoyed it, even if I am not one of them.

And for the fans, as well as the cast and crew who -- no matter what we think of their efforts -- generally work their butts off, cancellation is an abrupt and sad end of the line.

I agree that House is an exceptional TV show, TommyK, but I am not sure how long the grating central character will wear with mass audiences. I certainly could be wrong, and personally I look forward to (hopefully) many more seasons of Hugh Laurie in full House-ness. But I can't help but wonder if this isn't a one-trick pony.

Grey's, one the other hand, offers many storylines, though admittedly some are far less appealing than others. But many of them are so far out of the normal-TV box that they are fascinating (to me at least) to watch as they unfold.

Fredfa,
I agree with you about Grey's. It has some of the freshest ideas going right now.

BTW

'House'-a-palooza, Parts 1-3?

Now look what I started...
Just kidding.:D

TV Notebook
Not WB Nor UPN

By Bill Carter The New York Times May 2, 2006

Only two months after announcing the start-up of the CW network — the result of a merger in January of two struggling part-time networks, WB and UPN — executives from CBS and Warner Brothers met with the marketing department of their new entity, expecting to make a radical change.

"We walked into that meeting ready to throw out the name CW," said Barry Meyer, the chairman of Warner Brothers. "We'd gotten so much grief from everybody. What does it mean? What is it?"

Good question. Some people thought CW might stand for "the country western network," said Leslie Moonves, the chairman of the CBS Corporation, who along with Mr. Meyer will oversee the new network. Other people suggested it might be "the conventional wisdom network."

Mr. Moonves explained that the CW name had been thrown together hurriedly because of the rushed nature of the merger last winter. The C came from CBS and the W from Warner Brothers. "And we certainly weren't going to call it the WC network," Mr. Moonves said.

Name aside, the prime purpose for establishing what both Mr. Meyer and Mr. Moonves hope will be a fifth major broadcast network is to ensure that the production studios each company owns, Warner Brothers Television and CBS/Paramount Television, will have a distribution outlet to make long-term assets out of the studios' programs.

One crucial decision that sealed the merger was an agreement that whenever a studio owned by the network's parents gets a show onto CW, the other studio will gain a 50 percent share in it.

But making the network credible to its prime audience of teenagers and young adults is critical to its success, the two executives said, and to do so CW will need to put on the best programs available in the marketplace, not merely ones owned by the parent companies.

So outside studios, including Touchstone — owned, like ABC, by the Walt Disney Company — and NBC Universal Television, also have pilot projects at CW.

Mr. Moonves emphasized that as a new network, CW wants to add at least a few new shows, if only to signal that it has something of its own to offer.

"At CBS scheduling meetings, I always say: Don't fall in love with the new girl, don't get carried away," Mr. Moonves said. "With the CW, I might say: It's O.K. to fall in love with the new girl, instead of the old wife."

The new network has seven pilots under consideration, four from studios not owned by one of the network's two parent companies.

Dawn Ostroff, the president of entertainment and chief programmer, said some of the promising shows included "Aquaman," a drama holdover from WB, and a comedy from Paramount, "She Said, He Said," starring Jessica Simpson's estranged husband, the gossip magazine superstar Nick Lachey.

From other studios, the network is looking at a reality show about forming a new all-girl singing group and a comedy from NBC Universal, "Aliens in America," about a Muslim exchange student moving in with a Wisconsin family.

The latter show reflects one strategic goal of the new network: trying to match its programming with the diversity of its intended audience. Ms. Ostroff said research the network had seen underscored how extremely diverse the 18-to-34-year-old television audience is.

"Thirty-five percent are minorities," she said. "And it's a big audience. There are 72 million Americans from the age of 25 down. That's the biggest group since the Baby Boomers."

For all the effort to carve out a new identity, however, much of what will be introduced this month on the first CW schedule is expected to be quite familiar to both advertisers and viewers.

"We could probably build a stand-pat schedule," Mr. Moonves said, noting that there were already enough shows working on WB and UPN to cherry-pick a cross section from each and fill the 13 hours that CW will program in prime time.

CW is not making anything official yet, but among the shows that Mr. Moonves and Ms. Ostroff said would almost surely be included on the new schedule are "America's Next Top Model" and "Everybody Hates Chris" from UPN and "Gilmore Girls" and "Smallville" from WB.

Other probable contenders include "Veronica Mars," and several of the shows from the Monday night UPN comedy lineup of "One on One, " All of Us," "Girlfriends," and "Half and Half" as well as "Supernatural" and "Beauty and the Geek" from WB.

But marrying the two part-time networks will not be as easy as simply picking the most popular shows. For one thing, each network had quite different identities.

Shari Anne Brill, vice president and director of programming for Carat USA, a media buying firm, said that CW faced a serious challenge in making its shows appeal across the broad demographic it hopes to reach.

"The WB was not especially diverse creatively," she said, pointing to the lineup of angst-ridden, virtually all-white teenage-oriented shows that have dominated its programming.

By contrast, UPN grouped a batch of comedies with African-American casts on Mondays, giving it a stronger appeal to black viewers. But it has had more problems than WB in getting high prices for its programs.

WB took in about twice as much money from advertisers during the last upfront sales period. Now the two networks will have their shows mixed together. "We have to find the right flow," Ms. Ostroff said.

Still, there is no dispute over the necessity, from a business perspective, of combining the two struggling networks, analysts said.

"It was absolutely the right decision to merge," said Michael A. Kupinski, a media analyst with A. G. Edwards. Each network was losing money on its own, he pointed out. But mixing the networks, he cautioned, does not necessarily mean the new entity will instantly be more successful than the two were separately.

"One and one does not necessarily equal two in this case," Mr. Kupinski said — or even 1.5, he added.

Mr. Moonves agreed that simply putting the two networks together did not mean that the audiences from each would also merge. Some viewers will simply be set free and could migrate to other networks. Fox, as the other network with the youngest audience profile, could well enjoy some ratings bounce out of the change.

"We're making no predictions" about how CW will do in its first year, Mr. Moonves said. But he came awfully close.

"Day 1, we're going to be profitable at the network," he said. "Day 2, the stations we are on will be much stronger. And Day 3 we're going to have great programs that we'll each co-own. So that's a winner on three different levels."

So what about the name? At the meeting in March, the marketing department offered a list of about 15 potential names.

The selections were aimed at being as hip as possible: the Evo network; the Now network. There was a proposal to call it NXTV (as in "Next TV") or XYTV (for the audience generations being spoken to), or something even more avant-garde: the Angle network.

Then the market research people chimed in. Based only on the attention the announcement of the merged new network had received, the name CW had achieved a national awareness level of a surprising 48 percent, according to their own surveys.

"It took us three years to reach a level like that with the WB," Mr. Meyer said.

So much for Angle or XYTV. When executives from the new network meet this month with advertisers at the sales presentations known as the upfronts, it will be as the CW network. Asked his goal for CW this season, Mr. Meyer said, "Two brand-new hit shows."

But Mr. Moonves, knowing how fickle the audience is, was not so demanding. "I'd take one," he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/business/media/02network.html?pagewanted=print

Sports Media and Business
Kiper Jr. Slips on Draft Board. The No. 1 Pick Is Mayock.

By Richard Sandomir The New York Times May 2, 2006

Remember this name: Mike Mayock. On Saturday, faced with better-known and certainly higher-paid analysts at ESPN during the National Football League draft, Mayock, the NFL Network's draft guru, lapped them all.

A former Giants defensive back and college football analyst for ABC, CBS, ESPN and Fox Sports Net, Mayock used superior insight to catapult himself beyond any voice at ESPN, which has carried the draft for 26 years.

It was Mayock who accurately predicted the Bills would select safety Donte Whitner with the eighth selection (while ESPN's Chris Berman hinted at a "curveball" coming, perhaps because the networks are told 15 seconds before the pick is announced), then said the Lions would take linebacker Ernie Sims with the ninth pick (while Berman said it would be the "highest-impact defensive player").

Mayock demonstrated his knowledge of the sport — matched at ESPN by only the terribly underused Ron Jaworski, tethered to a desk in Bristol, Conn. — early in the NFL Network's coverage. He produced a sophisticated analysis of the relative strengths of Matt Leinart and Jay Cutler, breaking down passing plays that underscored Leinart's better touch but Cutler's stronger arm.

Mayock was consistently more interesting than ESPN's draft maven, Mel Kiper Jr. Kiper is well informed, but Mayock interprets and explains better, perhaps because he was a player and has been in the broadcast booth.

What the NFL Network showed, in a side-by-side analysis of how it and ESPN covered the first 10 picks, is that less can be more. ESPN's formula — of more, more, more, from everywhere possible — needs tweaking. It bounced from its Radio City Music Hall set to Bristol to the "Cold Pizza" set, but could not outshine the surprisingly nimble NFL Network.

At Radio City, ESPN had Berman, Tom Jackson, Michael Irvin, Chris Mortensen and Kiper (with Steve Young chiming in by satellite), but this is an overwhelmingly pro football panel, not a college group. They can offer an N.F.L. perspective — if you can stomach Berman's weak attempts at humor and Irvin's refusal to speak in any tone less than a nearly incomprehensible shout.

Only Kiper is as knowledgeable about what these players did in college as Kirk Herbstreit, Lee Corso and Chris Fowler of ESPN's "College GameDay" program.

Meanwhile, from picks 1 to 10, the NFL Network stuck to one set, with Mayock; Rich Eisen, a comfortable host who did his job without unnecessary hyperbole or in the name of camaraderie; and Corey Chavous, a Rams safety who is something of a draft savant, and offered consistently good insights.

The NFL Network never strayed outside Radio City during those first 10 draft picks except for informative live interviews with Tennessee's coach, Jeff Fisher, and the recently hired New Orleans coach, Sean Payton. During that nearly two-hour period, ESPN had two of its best reporters, Ed Werder and Sal Paolantonio, in the field, but it did not have Fisher to explain why the Titans chose Vince Young with the third pick or how seriously the Saints entertained thoughts of trading the No. 2 pick to the Jets.

To his credit, Paolantonio reported the details of the Jets' offer, but Mayock explained the numerical "draft values" that the Jets were calculating in their attempt to lure the Saints into a trade they clearly would not make.

Mayock also gave the best explanation of the dynamics of the Titans' hierarchy that led to choosing Young; the ESPN analysts were too focused on why Norm Chow, who was an offensive coordinator for Leinart at Southern California and has the same job at Tennessee, will be tutoring Young.

Mayock then gave a fascinating assessment of Young's assets and flaws that went considerably beyond Kiper's. With video of two angles of a single play, he demonstrated how Young misread Southern California's pass coverage and threw right while his feet and hips were aligned to the left.

As sharp as Mayock was, he could not fix his network's tepid draft graphics, which the NFL Network knows must be improved. ESPN's were complete, omnipresent and sometimes dizzying. Graphically, ESPN was superior, although it need not herald each pick by scrawling "CURRENT SELECTION ALERT" on the screen as if it were an upgraded terrorism alert.

Visually, using pretty much the same material, the NFL Network showed more ambition, following drafted players around the legendary Radio City theater, and also using split screens of two players and of players and Commissioner Paul Tagliabue. The split screen was most effective when D'Brickashaw Ferguson celebrated his selection at No. 4 by the Jets while Leinart looked befuddled at his slippage, but it worked poorly when Leinart was mistakenly seen in duplicate.

ESPN's on-site reporting was slightly better, most notably Suzy Kolber's interview with Leinart's agent, Tom Condon, as Leinart sat waiting to be drafted. And Mortensen quite rightly offered an early and cogent explanation of an investigation into a report that Bush's parents had been living rent-free in a house owned by a man who had hoped to market Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/sports/football/02sandomir.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Sports On TV
ESPN sweeps Sports Emmys with 10

By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 2, 2006
Even without “Monday Night Football,” sports’ glamour show, ESPN networks picked up 10 awards at last night’s Sports Emmys. Next year things could get even sweeter, with “MNF” making the jump to ESPN this fall.

ESPN shows dominated the Sports Emmys, with ESPN and ESPN2 each winning four awards apiece.

The network also got one editing award for an ESPN Classic show and picked up the first-ever Sports Emmy broadband award for an animated webcast called “Off Mikes.” Of course, with three of the category’s nominations, ESPN.com was expected to win.
The network also collaborated on one of ABC’s three wins, providing production support for its X Games coverage, which won best live event turnaround. That edged NBC’s Summer Olympic Games.
ESPN’s Jeremy Schaap won the Dick Schaap Outstanding Writing Award, named for his late father, for a “SportsCenter” piece called “Finding Bobby Fischer.”
ESPN2’s “Cinderella Man: The James J. Braddock Story” picked up two awards, for outstanding camera work and production design/art direction.
“MNF” received four nominations, second-most of any show. It lost to Fox’s NASCAR coverage in the live sports series category, but John Madden won outstanding studio analyst for his work on the show. It will move to ESPN this fall, when Mike Tirico, Joe Theismann and Tony Kornheiser will take over announcing duties from Madden and Al Michaels, who move to NBC’s “Sunday Night Football.”
That should help punch up NBC’s haul. Despite 14 nominations for the Olympics, which were nearly shut out, it won just one Sports Emmy last night, a shared one with HBO for best studio host for Bob Costas. It was the 18th career Emmy for Costas, who hosted the Olympics and also has his own HBO show.
HBO had six wins on the night, including two for “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel.”
TNT’s British Open won outstanding live sports event, edging CBS’s Masters coverage, among others.

A complete list of Sports Emmy winners:

OUTSTANDING LIVE SPORTS SPECIAL
134th British Open Championship on TNT, TNT

OUTSTANDING LIVE SPORTS SERIES
NASCAR on FOX, FOX

OUTSTANDING LIVE EVENT TURNAROUND
Best of Winter X Games Nine, ABC – ESPN Productions

OUTSTANDING EDITED SPORTS SPECIAL
CostasNOW - David Robinson: A Man in Full, HBO

OUTSTANDING SPORTS DOCUMENTARY
Rhythm in the Rope, ESPN2

OUTSTANDING EDITED SPORTS SERIES / ANTHOLOGY
SportsCentury, ESPN Classic

OUTSTANDING STUDIO SHOW - WEEKLY
Inside the NFL, HBO

OUTSTANDING STUDIO SHOW - DAILY
Inside the NBA – Playoffs, TNT

OUTSTANDING SPORTS PERSONALITY – STUDIO HOST
Bob Costas, HBO / NBC

OUTSTANDING SPORTS PERSONALITY – PLAY-BY-PLAY
Joe Buck, FOX

OUTSTANDING SPORTS PERSONALITY – STUDIO ANALYST
Cris Collinsworth, HBO

OUTSTANDING SPORTS PERSONALITY – SPORTS EVENT ANALYST
John Madden, ABC

OUTSTANDING TECHNICAL TEAM REMOTE
NASCAR on FOX: Daytona 500, FOX

OUTSTANDING TECHNICAL TEAM STUDIO
NBA Draft, ESPN

OUTSTANDING CAMERA WORK
Cinderella Man: The James J. Braddock Story, ESPN2 – Red Line Films

OUTSTANDING EDITING
PGA Tour Sunday, USA – Kevin Hall (PGA Tour Productions)

THE DICK SCHAAP OUTSTANDING WRITING AWARD
SportsCenter, ESPN – Finding Bobby Fischer

OUTSTANDING MUSIC COMPOSITION / DIRECTION / LYRICS
World Figure Skating Championships, ESPN – Teases, Bumps and Rollout (ABC Sports)

OUTSTANDING LIVE EVENT AUDIO / SOUND
HBO World Championship Boxing, HBO
NASCAR on FOX, FOX

OUTSTANDING POST PRODUCED AUDIO / SOUND
Indianapolis 500, ABC – Speed City Tease

OUTSTANDING GRAPHIC DESIGN
NFL on FOX: Super Bowl XXXIX, FOX

OUTSTANDING PRODUCTION DESIGN / ART DIRECTION
Cinderella Man: The James J. Braddock Story, ESPN2 – Red Line Films

THE GEORGE WENSEL OUTSTANDING INNOVATIVE TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
Golf on CBS, CBS – SwingVision

OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT IN CONTENT FOR NON-TRADITIONAL DELIVERY PLATFORM
Off Mikes, ESPN.com – Webcast on ESPN.com (Animax)

OUTSTANDING SPORTS JOURNALISM
Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, HBO – Soccer Racism

OUTSTANDING SHORT FEATURE
Timeless, ESPN2 – Kunga (Red Line Films)

OUTSTANDING LONG FEATURE
Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, HBO – The Hoyts

OUTSTANDING OPEN / TEASE
World Figure Skating Championships, ESPN – Show 1 Tease (ABC Sports)

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_4390.asp

Congress and TV
Sen. Stevens Introduces Telcom Bill

By Todd Shields MediaWeek.com MAY 02, 2006 -

A key U.S. senator has introduced a broad telecommunications reform bill that would make it easier for Bell companies to begin offering video services in competition with cable in markets nationwide.

However the measure, introduced Monday by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the chair of the Commerce Committee, appears to offer telephone companies less sweeping freedoms than those envisioned in House legislation.

The House Commerce Committee has approved a bill granting video providers nationwide permission to enter local markets with high-speed video; the Senate version preserves more powers for localities.

The Senate bill would forbid satellite and cable operators from striking exclusive deals for sports events. Cable companies and regional sports networks have come in for criticism as unfairly monopolizing content that consumers demand.

For the Senate bill, initial votes in committee are planned for some time in June.

A slow pace is considered likely to lessen odds of final passage by a Congress preoccupied with gas prices, lobbying reform and the fall election.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002426130

TV Notebook
ABC's 'Legal' back on docket

By Nellie Andreeva The Hollywood Reporter May 02, 2006

David E. Kelley's dramedy "Boston Legal" will return for a third season.

Sources said ABC has given a full-season pickup to the show from David E. Kelley Prods. and 20th Century Fox TV.

The series, starring William Shatner, James Spader and Candice Bergen, is slated to end its sophomore season with a two-hour finale May 16.

In addition to "Boston Legal," Kelley has another project at ABC, "Life on Mars," a drama pilot based on the BBC sci-fi crime drama, which is targeted for fall 2007.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/television/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002426014

TV Notebook
Fox at the upfront: Fewer holes to fill

By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 2, 2006

After four years of falling behind early and surging late on the back of “American Idol,” Fox has become a perennial threat to take No. 1 among adults 18-49.

That could well change next season. With a strong development slate, the network could become a lock to finish first.

This year Fox patched several holes in its schedule with the addition of moderate hit dramas “Bones” and “Prison Break.” Both have bettered the ratings of all but three of Fox’s 13 new shows last season.

For next season, the network needs to strengthen its schedule in the months leading up to "Idol's" January debut with new sitcoms that can draw viewers outside of its successful Sunday night lineup. Wednesdays before "Idol's" return remain a problem, and Thursday could use a major revamp once again.

Fox may have already found one of those pieces with the promising new Brad Garrett comedy “’Til Death,” which it gave an early pickup last week for 13 episodes amid strong buzz.

Should Fox patch those other holes quickly, it won’t have to sweat out a down-to-the wire win next year.
“With both its returning series and new series averaging higher ratings than last season, it’s hard to find a downside for Fox,” writes Magna Global U.S. in a recently released development report. “Unless ‘American Idol’ suddenly declines, which doesn’t seem likely, the network remains in good shape.”

Season-to-date numbers
Fox is even to last year among adults 18-49, season to date through April 23, with a 4.0 average, tied with ABC for No. 1 this season. It is down slightly, 2 percent, to a 4.2 average among 25-54s, behind CBS and ABC. And it leads easily among 18-34s with a 3.8 average, even to last year and 0.5 ahead of No. 2 ABC.

Safely returning
“American Idol,”
“House,”
“Bones,”
“The Simpsons,”
“Family Guy,”
“24,”
“Prison Break”

Fox’s top six shows – both editions of “Idol,” “House,” “24,” “Simpsons” and “Family” – are all up from last season among adults 18-49. It’s the only network to see such growth in its top tier, and it helped Fox recover from a terrible baseball season that put it in a much deeper midseason hole than in past years.

Fox will likely stick with the same strategy of running “24” nonstop during the second half of the year, which leaves a hole on Monday this fall. Wednesday is also problematic. “Bones” could stay there or move back to Tuesdays with “House” before “Idol” returns, meaning Wednesday could be totally reworked.

On the bubble
“War at Home,”
“Bernie Mac,”
“The O.C.,”
“The Loop,”
“Free Ride”

“Mac,” “Loop” and “Ride” are likely gone unless Fox’s comedy development is really awful or the network decides to give “Mac,” a fifth-year show that was once a solid performer, a plum Sunday slot.

“The O.C.” is also probably safe. Though it’s declined, it’s still Fox’s strongest Thursday performer, and as with “Mac,” it has shown in the past that with the right timeslot, it can perform well. It may move back to 8 p.m. to help launch a new show at 9.

“War” benefits from “Malcolm in the Middle” and “That ‘70s Show’s” cancellations. With those two gone, and lots of empty spaces on the fall schedule before “Idol” returns, the middling show could survive.

In development
“Death,” in which Garrett plays half of a long-married couple who live next door to newlyweds, has already received a 13-episode order. Fox will need at the least two or three more comedies, possibly four.

Other sitcom pilots it’s considering are “Union Jackass,” about a British Archie Bunker type; “Julie Reno, Bounty Hunter” with Annie Potts; and “The Winner,” a nostalgic look back at 1994.

Fox has also ordered 13 episodes of the drama “Vanished,” about a senator’s wife who goes missing. That could pair with “Prison Break” or “Bones” on Monday or Wednesday as part of a thriller night. It’s also eyeing forensic/lawyer drama “American Crime,” Southern mafia drama “Southern Comfort,” and “National Treasure”-esque puzzler drama “13 Graves.”

Predicts MediaVest in a recently released development report, “Fourth quarter 2006 will have a hard time keeping pace with 2005 unless the network is successful with its development slate.”

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_4450.asp

Monday’s prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted at the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.

TV Notebook
Endemol Sells “Rest of Your Life” to ABC; “Show Me the Money” Goes to Fox

By A.J. Frutkin MediaWeek.com MAY 02, 2006 -

Following NBC's success with Endemol USA's Deal or No Deal, the Dutch-based content supplier is fanning out over all the networks with game show ideas, striking deals both with ABC and Fox.

At ABC, Endemol sold For the Rest of Your Life, in which contestants compete for prize money which is dispensed on a monthly basis for as long as they live.

Fox has ordered Endemol's Show Me the Money, a trivia game show, in which the prize cash continually alters between the millions and zero.

Last week, Endemol sold game show 1 vs. 100 to NBC, which pits a single contestant against an opposing team of 100. Each correct answer by the contestant eliminates some of those opponents. A record-setting $3 million will be offered as prize money.

Earlier this season, CBS picked up FremantleMedia's Game Show Marathon, in which celebrity contestants will compete in a number of classic formats from the Mark Goodson library ("The Price is Right," "Match Game," "Beat the Clock," etc.), which FreMantle now owns.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002426173

The (re-) Dawning of the Age of the Game Show. :eek:

Maybe even the (re-) Yawning of the Age of the Game Show.

Last week’s complete network average prime-time results (with demographic averages) are now at the top of RATINGS NEWS the first post in this thread.

Last week’s top 10 prime-time program ratings are now at the top of RATINGS NEWS -- the first post in this thread.

The 2006-07 TV Season
Deal or no deal?

Notable Series Await Their Fate As Networks Nail Down Next Season’s Lineups
By Charlie McCollum San Jose Mercury News May 2, 2006

It's that time of year when the networks start piecing together their fall schedules -- and a lot of people in Hollywood get very, very nervous. This year, there's a whole lot of sweatin' goin' on because an unusually large number of current shows (at least 23, by most counts) are ``on the bubble'' when it comes to renewal. That's because of the merger of the WB and UPN into one network (CW), deep schedule problems at NBC, and ABC's issues with its entire comedy roster and all its new dramas.
Here's a quick look at the most notable series whose futures are in doubt:

`Commander in Chief'
First season, ABC
Condition: Rarely has a seemingly healthy patient deteriorated so rapidly. Sporting a first-rate cast headed by Geena Davis and Donald Sutherland, the White House drama was a big hit early in the season and looked like a long-term keeper. But plagued by behind-the-scenes problems, the show has fallen apart creatively and has slipped dramatically in the ratings.
Prognosis: Not good. ABC executives love the cast and still believe the premise is workable. But the viewers seem to have voted with their remotes, and it's unlikely that this ``Commander'' will get re-elected.

`Invasion'
First season, ABC
Condition: It must have seemed like a great idea to slide ``Invasion'' -- an atmospheric, serialized sci-fi drama -- behind the atmospheric, fantastical and complex ``Lost.'' The problem was that viewers, having been asked to sift their way through all of the twists and turns of ``Lost,'' were not in the mood to spend another hour doing the same with ``Invasion.'' While the show consistently has been good -- and sometimes very good -- it hasn't held on to even a decent portion of the ``Lost'' audience.
Prognosis: Still showing signs of life. ABC brought it back for May sweeps -- always a show of confidence -- and the network certainly would like to hold on to at least one of its new dramas for a second year.

`Sons & Daughters'
First season, ABC
Condition: ABC recently dumped its head of comedy development -- and with good reason. In recent years, the network has seemed incapable of finding a quality (or even decent) new sitcom that clicked with viewers. This fresh, innovative half-hour has the quality, but the ratings have been anemic.
Prognosis: Every comedy on the ABC schedule is on the chopping block. That includes old-timers (``According to Jim,'' ``George Lopez,'' ``Hope & Faith'') as well as newcomers (``Freddie''). ``Sons & Daughters'' might survive because the network brass likes it and feels it could become a hit with more compatible shows around it.

`Close to Home'
First season, CBS
Condition: No buzz, lukewarm critical response, just so-so ratings. Still, this crime procedural probably would have been renewed already by any network other than CBS. It's done OK on Friday nights in between ``Ghost Whisperer'' and ``Numbers.''
Prognosis: In recent years, the joke has been that CBS doesn't rebuild, it reloads. That's certainly the case this season as the network has renewed almost its entire schedule. The fate of ``Close'' depends almost entirely on how strongly CBS feels about some of the new dramas it has in production.

`The King of Queens'
Eighth season, CBS
Condition: After a good, long run, ``King'' is showing signs of age. No longer the laugh factory it once was -- at one point, it may have been the most underrated comedy on TV -- its audience gradually has diminished.
Prognosis: Stars Kevin James and Leah Remini are looking for a pay bump to $1 million per episode each to do one last season. That's a bit pricey, given the ratings. Look for ``King'' to take a seat in favor of a new sitcom.

`Everwood'
Fourth season, CW
Condition: Code blue! Code blue! Even though ``Everwood'' gets decent viewership and would be one of the few family dramas on television next season, it looks as if this fine series doesn't fit the hip, urban concept of the new CW. Whenever network executives put together dummy versions of the fall schedule, ``Everwood'' doesn't make it.
Prognosis: Looks to be on its last breath. In fact, the show's creators already are preparing the memorial services, filming a final episode for this season that can be tweaked into a series finale.

`Veronica Mars'
Second season, CW
Condition: If scheduling decisions were made by TV critics, this terrific teen drama would be an absolutely safe bet for a third season. Unfortunately, those calls are made by executives who have to worry about little things like viewership. And as brilliant and buzzworthy as the show has been, there are just too few viewers tuning in every week.
Prognosis: There's no question that this is a favorite of CW Entertainment boss Dawn Ostroff, formerly of UPN, and there were early indications that it would survive the carnage wrought by the WB-UPN merger. Now, the word is that the series' return is not a sure thing, but let's hope for the best.

`The Bernie Mac Show'
Five seasons, Fox
Condition: Not as strong as everybody expected it to be. When ``Bernie Mac'' first aired, it was viewed widely as TV's next big comedy. It was funny, it was sharp, and it had a terrific lead actor. But while it's still a solid sitcom, the show never built on its early promise and has lost traction gradually with viewers.
Prognosis: Last month's season finale looked an awful lot like a series finale. The show looks to be on life support, with Bernie Mac himself ready to pull the plug.

`Scrubs'
Five seasons, NBC
Condition: This quirky, bordering-on-deranged hospital comedy has been treated like an unwelcome stepchild by NBC ever since it came on the air. It has been shuffled all over the schedule, has started its seasons at odd times and has been on the bubble almost every spring. Still, it has been a fave rave of critics and has managed to develop a fanatical cult audience.
Prognosis: Surprisingly robust, given its viewership. NBC Entertainment President Kevin Reilly repeatedly has said he wants it back. And ABC has said that if NBC cancels the show, it will pick it up. Nice to be shown the love.

`The Apprentice'
Third season, NBC
Condition: Originally thought to be a lock for renewal, the Donald Trump reality show has taken a turn for the worse in recent weeks. Once a big hit, the series has seen its viewership plummet, and it no longer has the buzz it once did. Even a move to Monday nights for this season's second cycle didn't help.
Prognosis: Even though the series already is casting its next season, don't count on it living past its June 5 season finale. If NBC is convinced it's got better stuff in the pipeline, the Donald's days are numbered, although it's possible it could be used as a fill-in or a summer series.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/television/14474272.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
A super finale for ABC's 'Supernanny' '

By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 2, 2006, 20:45

There’s nothing like watching a really wild child to make you feel better about your own parenting skills. Apparently a lot of people feel that way, because ABC’s highly publicized season finale of “Supernanny” zoomed way up over its season average last night.

The show earned a 4.2 Nielsen overnight rating among adults 18-49, bettering last week’s 3.3 average by 27 percent. It was also up an impressive 62 percent over its 2.6 season average, though some of that came when the show was airing on Friday nights last fall.

“Supernanny” has been a solid addition to ABC’s Monday schedule, but rarely has it done as well as it did last night, when British nanny Jo Frost dropped in on a separated couple whose kids tossed rocks at her.

The show even outperformed CBS’s competing comedies in the 9 p.m. timeslot, a real rarity. “Two and a Half Men” and “The New Adventures of Old Christine” averaged a 4.1, though both networks finished behind Fox’s “24” in the timeslot.

“Supernanny” ended early to make way for several weeks’ worth of stunting in the timeslot, including next week’s David Blaine special and an Oprah Winfrey one two weeks later.

Meanwhile, Fox finished first for the night with a 4.4 rating and 11 share in 18-49s. CBS was second at 4.2/11, followed by NBC at 3.7/9, ABC at 3.4/9, the WB at 1.8/5 and UPN at 1.2/3.

In a night of split leadership hour to hour, NBC led at 8 p.m. with a 3.9 for “Deal or No Deal.” Fox’s “Prison Break” was second at 3.6, followed by ABC’s “Wife Swap” at 3.2.

At 9 p.m., Fox led with a 5.2 for “24,” followed by “Supernanny” and CBS’s “Men” at 4.4 and “Christine” at 3.7.

At 10 p.m., CBS led with a 6.0 for “CSI: Miami,” followed by NBC’s 3.6 for “Medium” and ABC’s 2.8 for “What About Brian.”

In households, CBS was an easy first with an 8.7/13, followed by NBC at 7.4/11, Fox at 6.6/10, ABC at 5.5/9, the WB at 3.2/5 and UPN at 1.9/3.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_4475.asp

The 2006-07 TV Season
Deal or no deal?

Notable Series Await Their Fate As Networks Nail Down Next Season’s Lineups
By Charlie McCollum San Jose Mercury News May 2, 2006


`Commander in Chief'
See ya later...


`Invasion'
I really think this show is better than it's ratings indicate, there's a lot going on beneath the surface of this show that I guess a lot of folks are not tuned into. I'll miss it if it's gone.


`Sons & Daughters'
I like this one, but I probably won't miss it if it doesn't.


`Close to Home'
This is a take it or leave it for me, I'll watch if it comes back, but won't miss it.



`Veronica Mars'

Definitely miss this one if it doesn't make the cut, very intelligent and well acted.

The 2006-07 TV Season
Deal or no deal?



`Commander in Chief'
First season, ABC
Condition: Rarely has a seemingly healthy patient deteriorated so rapidly. Sporting a first-rate cast headed by Geena Davis and Donald Sutherland, the White House drama was a big hit early in the season and looked like a long-term keeper. But plagued by behind-the-scenes problems, the show has fallen apart creatively and has slipped dramatically in the ratings.
Prognosis: Not good. ABC executives love the cast and still believe the premise is workable. But the viewers seem to have voted with their remotes, and it's unlikely that this ``Commander'' will get re-elected.


It looks like ABC already pulled the plug on this one, from the ABC site,

The next episode of Commander in Chief has not yet been scheduled. Check back for more details!

This is after previews were shown last week and program guides indicated it would air this Thursday, now there's a empty box in the ABC schedule at ABC.com.

Considering its ratings have completely tanked since its switch to Thursdays, I am not surprised.

Obituary
Elma Farnsworth: 1908-2006

TV pioneer's wife was his biggest fan
By Dawn House The Salt Lake Tribune

Her face was one of the first images transmitted on an all-electronic television, invented by her husband, Philo T. Farnsworth, after years of experiments to send pictures through the air.

Memorial services are pending for Elma "Pem" Farnsworth, who died Thursday at the Avalon Care Center in Bountiful. She was 98.

She worked as a lab assistant for her husband in the 1920s when he assembled the world's first electronic television system and took notes of his experiments. She spent the last 35 years of her life fighting for recognition of her late TV-pioneer husband.

Pem Farnsworth turned over her husband's papers to the University of Utah, which holds the premier collection of Philo Farnsworth, a forgotten inventor recently recognized by Time magazine as the Father of Television.

"She spent many years preserving the legacy of her husband, Philo, and delighting in his many scientific accomplishments, including the breakthroughs that led to the invention of television," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

She was also behind efforts honoring her husband on a postage stamp and was honored herself during the 2003 Emmy broadcast of the first Philo T. Farnsworth Award for excellence in technical achievement.

"Phil always said he never made an invention," she had said. "He was the conduit in which these things were given to the people."

She had told the story of her husband's epiphany many, many times.

Philo Farnsworth was a 14-year-old Idaho farm boy, plowing his father's potato field when the furrowed rows gave him the vision that pictures could be transmitted electronically - line by line, row by row. He was 21 when he transmitted the first television image in 1927: a single rotating line from an "image dissector" camera to a cathode ray tube for viewing in another room.

"There you are - electronic television," were his now famous words.

The first images of human beings were those of Pem Farnsworth and her brother Cliff Gardner. Both had comprised the team in the early, makeshift laboratory at the foot of Telegraph Hill in San Francisco, wrote Donald G. Godfrey in Philo T. Farnsworth: The Father of Television.

The triumph turned into an 11-year court fight with RCA executives who insisted that their top scientist, Vladimir Zworykin, had invented television and sued Farnsworth for patent infringement. Farnsworth won, but he was was left exhausted and in poor health. By 1940, he turned his attention to developing the first electron microscope, missile-guidance systems and hot fusion research.

"She knew her husband's work was valuable and her book about him, Distant Vision, is essentially a love story," said U. communication professor Tim Larson.

She was born near Vernal on Feb. 25, 1908. The two met through a friend while she was attending Provo High School.

He was enrolled at Brigham Young University, doing odd jobs before he was forced to drop out to support himself and his widowed mother.

He proposed in 1926 on Pem's 18th birthday, and they were married three months later.

Survivors include sons Russell of New York and Kent of Fort Wayne, Ind., said Julie Anderson, daughter of Pem Farnsworth's only surviving sibling, Lois Gardner Anderson, 88.

http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=3765457

TV Notebook
Weekly Nielsen Notes

House' keeps adding on
By Gary Levin USA TODAY

• House on fire. Fox's House continues to climb, hitting another series high, 24.5 million viewers Tuesday, behind American Idol. This makes the hospital drama — for now, at least — more popular than any of ABC's hits. Against it, CBS' The Unit delivered a series-low 13.9 million viewers, down by nearly 2 million from the previous week.

• Shades of Grey. ABC's Grey's Anatomy returned with a new episode (20.8 million) that marked its smallest turnout since late January, and trailed Desperate Housewives (21.3 million), which it has bested since Anatomy's post-Super Bowl boost. Grey's, however, remains more popular among young adults, ranking fourth for the week.

• Idol not idle. American Idol's Wednesday installment (28.3 million) was the most watched results show since the top 12 finalists were revealed on Feb. 15.

• Thursday woes. Another sluggish Thursday, as NBC's My Name Is Earl (9.1 million) and ABC's Commander in Chief (6.5 million) hit series lows. (Commander has been pulled by ABC; Primetime returns this week.) CBS' Survivor (17.1 million), however, had its largest audience since its season premiere Feb. 2.

• Selleck sells. As CBS prepares to exit the weekly made-for-TV movie game, Jesse Stone:Death in Paradise, starring Tom Selleck, averaged 14.8 million viewers Sunday. That marks the network's second-most-watched flick this season. Stone still ranked a distant fourth among young-adult viewers.

• Sudser. ABC's Daytime Emmy Awards Friday averaged a third-place 6.1 million viewers, matching last year's record low despite a move out of the competitive mid-May finale week.

• Ready for football? ESPN's eight-hour midday coverage of the NFL draft Saturday drew 5.3 million viewers, a record high for the event and up from last year's 4.9 million.

• Queen suffers. Monday's Part 2 of HBO film Elizabeth I averaged 821,000 viewers, just half the audience of Part 1 the previous Saturday. Sunday's Sopranos (8.5 million) held steady, while Big Love (4 million) dipped slightly.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006-05-02-nielsen-analysis_x.htm

The New York Times Obituary
Louis Rukeyser, Television Host, Dies at 73

By James Grant in The New York Times May 3, 2006
(James Grant was a panelist on "Wall Street Week" for 10 years, beginning in 1988.)

Louis Rukeyser, the exquisitely tailored and pun-loving television host who helped millions of Americans believe that they could get rich in the stock market, or at least begin to understand it, died yesterday at his home in Greenwich, Conn. He was 73.

He died of multiple myeloma, said his brother Bud Rukeyser.

When "Wall Street Week" was broadcast for the first time on Nov. 20, 1970, probably nobody, not even the always self-assured Mr. Rukeyser, dreamed that the show would run for 32 years while attracting the biggest audience on public television and making its host a celebrity in the improbable field of light-hearted, free-market-oriented financial commentary. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was then languishing, and the population of American mutual funds numbered a scant 323.

And though the Dow continued to languish (not until 1982 did it push above 1,000, a mark it had first set in 1966), "Wall Street Week" prospered. "I invented the job of economic commentary on television," Mr. Rukeyser said in 1980. He was already well along in inventing the medium of investment broadcasting.

"Fridays at 8:30 find me — amply fed, digestive organs ruminating contentedly to the rhythmic sloshing of martini juice — sitting in my Louis Quinze armchair awaiting another installment of 'Wall Street Week,' " wrote Russell Baker in The New York Times at the beginning of the show's second decade. "By 8:33 my mind is reeling so wildly with gyrations of the Dow Jones average and the pinwheeling of money funds, Treasury bills and gold markets that I often require a calming infusion of brandy."

The show attained its biggest audience, some six million viewers, in the mid-1980's.

Mr. Rukeyser, though he prodded the financial gurus who appeared on the program to forecast the stock market (the rosier the outlook, the better he liked it, as a rule), he usually kept his own predictive counsel.

But when, in 1980, he uncharacteristically ventured part way out on a limb — "I think we have entered the decade of the common stock," he said — he proved only partly correct. In fact, the market had embarked on a nearly two-decade up-cycle, and Mr. Rukeyser was started on his own professional bull market.

"Wall Street Week" had as its point of origin not the beating heart of American finance in Lower Manhattan but the leafy Baltimore suburb of Owings Mills, Md. The show was the brainchild of Anne Truax Darlington, a producer with Maryland Public Broadcasting, and the original corps of panelists was recruited from the Baltimore financial community, not previously noted for its telegenic possibilities.

Mr. Rukeyser's supporting cast members (later augmented by experts from outside Baltimore) became little celebrities in their own right. "I get recognized in bus lines," one long-serving panelist, Monte Gordon, remarked in 1990. "I get recognized when I'm eating in restaurants. There's a lot of psychic satisfaction to being on the show."

There was money at stake, too. The value of an appearance on "Wall Street Week" to each week's "special guest"— mutual-fund portfolio manager, bank trust officer, economist — climbed as the bull stock market went higher and higher.

"So how badly do people want to get on?" The Times asked a New York publicist, Len Kessler, in 1990. "It's spelled k-i-l-l," said Mr. Kessler.

Louis Richard Rukeyser was second of four sons of the financial journalist Merryle S. Rukeyser, who wrote a syndicated column in the Hearst newspapers.

Louis Rukeyser graduated from the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University in 1954. He took a reporting job at The Baltimore Sun and, within five years, was made London bureau chief, an unusually swift rise through the newsroom ranks. He joined ABC News in 1965 as a correspondent and commentator. Not until 1973 did he judge it safe to quit his day job for a still-unproven "Wall Street Week."

It was a decision that he never regretted. After 20 years on the air, Mr. Rukeyser was earning $300,000 a year from the show and $1 million or more in annual speaking income, each speech bearing the same title, "What's Ahead for the Economy" — the echo of the title of a book he wrote for Simon & Schuster in 1983.

He produced, in addition, a thrice-weekly newspaper column and a book on investing ("How to Make Money in Wall Street," Doubleday, 1974). Later he added a pair of newsletters, Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street and Louis Rukeyser's Mutual Funds. He flew first class, loved to gamble, slept in the best and gaudiest suites in the finest hotels and dressed every inch the sybarite he was. In 1991, The Fashion Foundation of America pronounced him the "best-dressed man in finance."

The host of "Wall Street Week" ("with Louis Rukeyser," he never failed to add to the show's title) and self-described champion of the "little guy" could be openly contemptuous of professional investors, a sentiment many of them warmly reciprocated. Mr. Rukeyser reserved his most withering scorn for the "gloomy Guses" and "Wrong-Way Corrigans" who warned of financial troubles that, during the prosperous 1990's, never transpired.

An eternal bull on the stock market, the more bullish, and less tolerant of dissenting bears he became, the higher the averages climbed. On the program of Nov. 5, 1999, Mr. Rukeyser announced the firing of the veteran panelist Gail Dudak for her 156 consecutive weeks of bearishly errant forecasting. Ms. Dudak heard the news from her neighbors the next morning. The stock market peaked four months later.

Though "Wall Street Week" never fell from the top of the heap of TV financial programs (a pile that owed much of its impressive height to Mr. Rukeyser's success), viewership slipped as stock prices fell and as competition from other financial media increased. In March 2002, Maryland Public TV announced that the snowy-haired Mr. Rukeyser would be eased out to make room for a youth movement led by the staff of Fortune Magazine.

Mr. Rukeyser would have none of it. "I want you to rise up out of your chairs," he summoned his viewers from the set of "Wall Street Week' the next Friday evening, "not to shout, 'I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!' but," he added, to "write or e-mail your local PBS station saying you heard Louis Rukeyser is still going to have a program and that you'd like to see it."

Mr. Rukeyser was fired. But he quickly re-established the show at CNBC. He took pride in his new success and glee in the spectacle of Maryland Public Broadcasting suffering a forced retrenchment as his sponsors decamped from public television with him. (The Fortune version of "Wall Street Week" was canceled in 2005.)

Failing health forced Mr. Rukeyser off the air in 2003. He was presented with the Gerald Loeb Lifetime Achievement Emmy for Business and Financial Reporting in 2004.

Besides his brother Bud, of West Palm Beach, Fla., he is survived by his wife, Alexandra; three daughters, Beverley Bellisio of Middletown, Conn., Susan Rukeyser of Amarillo, Tex., and Stacy Rukeyser of West Hollywood, Calif.; two grandchildren; and two other brothers, William S., of Knoxville, Tenn., and Robert, of Greenwich.

One cost of celebrity for Mr. Rukeyser was the jibes he would have to bear while indulging his fondness for casino gambling. No sooner had he settled into a blackjack game, he once recalled, than someone would ask him if the odds at the table were really better than those on Wall Street.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/business/media/03rukeyser.html?pagewanted=print

The 2006-07 TV Season
Wednesday Night’s Season Finale

One Tree Hill 8 PM ET/PT The WB

From The Hollywood Reporter,

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/television/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002426575
'Commander' recalled by ABC

May 03, 2006

'Commander' recalled by ABC

By Nellie Andreeva

It was a short return for ABC's drama "Commander in Chief."

The network has pulled the Touchstone TV-produced freshman series off the schedule for the remainder of the season.

Beginning this week, newsmagazine "Primetime" will return to its Thursday 10 p.m. slot.

The three unaired episodes of "Commander" are tentatively slated to air next month.

"Commander" launched with a lot of promise, ranking as the most-watched new series of the season and earning an early full-season pickup (HR 10/20).

But plagued by well-publicized behind-the-scenes turmoil and scheduling interruptions, the drama, starring Geena Davis as the first female president of the U.S., saw a steady decline in the ratings throughout the season.

Early in the series' run, show creator Rod Lurie was replaced as showrunner by Steven Bochco, who, in turn, was replaced at the helm by the show's executive producer Dee Johnson for the final episodes.

After about a three-month hiatus -- "Commander's" second long break from the schedule -- the series returned April 13 in a new time period -- Thursday at 10 p.m. – where it faced an uphill battle against CBS' "Without a Trace" and NBC's "ER."

In its most recent airing, "Commander" hit series lows, posting 6.5 million viewers and a 1.8 rating/5 share among adults 18-49.

That episode also drew strong criticism from officials of Prince George County, Md., who said they were offended by a story line that depicted the county's town of Hyattsville as violent and crime-ridden.

ABC ended up issuing an apology, but emphasized in its statement that the show was fictional work and the reference to Hyattsville was embellished "only to make a more compelling drama for our viewers."

[The triumph turned into an 11-year court fight with RCA executives who insisted that their top scientist, Vladimir Zworykin, had invented television and sued Farnsworth for patent infringement. Farnsworth won, but he was was left exhausted and in poor health.

Ah yes, one of the many lives ruined by David Sarnoff in the name of corporate greatness and profits (just ask Edwin Armstrong's family about that and how FM radio threatened Sarnoff's TV in the 1940's). Sarnoff makes the Martha Stewart's and Donald Trump's of the world look like wusses.

[The triumph turned into an 11-year court fight with RCA executives who insisted that their top scientist, Vladimir Zworykin, had invented television and sued Farnsworth for patent infringement. Farnsworth won, but he was was left exhausted and in poor health.

Ah yes, one of the many lives ruined by David Sarnoff in the name of corporate greatness and profits (just ask Edwin Armstrong's family about that and how the infant FM radio threatened Sarnoff's infant TV in the 1930's). Sarnoff makes the Martha Stewart's and Donald Trump's of the world look like wusses.

The TV Column
The Week’s Winners and Losers

Recall Election: ABC Yanks Its 'Commander in Chief'
By Lisa de Moraes The Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, May 3, 2006; C01

Prince George's County won't have "Commander in Chief" to be kicked around by anymore.

Just days after county bigwigs went thermonuclear over an episode in which faux POTUS Geena Davis sends in the troops to quell crime in the county (she was also seen in front of a restaurant advertising sweet potato pie, pork chops and chitlins), ABC quietly pulled the plug on the White House drama for the rest of the season. While county big cheeses no doubt wish they could claim embarrassment caused ABC's decision, honestly, the series was done in by ABC's very tight race with Fox to finish the season in first place among young viewers.

Here's a look at the week's better and worse:

WINNERS

Fox. With four weeks left in the 2005-06 TV season, Fox squeaked ahead of ABC among the 18-to-49-year-olds coveted by advertisers. Through last week, Fox averaged 5.2 million viewers in the demographic to ABC's 5.19 million. Last year, Fox needed the Super Bowl to eke out its first-ever season win in the age bracket; this year, it will edge out ABC -- the network that hosted the football game, which is annually the most watched broadcast of the season by a huge margin.

"Boston Legal." ABC has renewed its Monday legal drama that last week nearly doubled its "Less Than Perfect" lead-in audience. This season's "Legal" is averaging about a million more viewers than ABC snagged last year in the time slot with its "NYPD Blue" swan song and short-lived "Blind Justice."

"House." Fox's doc drama posted another record audience -- nearly 25 million -- hanging on to nearly 90 percent of its "American Idol" lead-in -- the best retention ever for any regularly scheduled program following the reality series ratings monster.

LOSERS

"Commander in Chief." Behind-camera discombobulation has done in the most promising new series of this television season. Once the most watched new series in the prime-time firmament -- a hefty crowd of more than 16 million saw the debut -- behind-camera problems caused ABC to yank the show for long periods, during which young viewers found other viewing habits. Last week, "CiC" clocked just 6.5 million viewers in its Thursday time slot, and a disappointing 1.8 percent of viewers in the golden 18-to-49 age bracket.

Daytime Emmy Awards . Despite a move to Los Angeles, an airdate earlier in the May sweeps ratings race and Rick Springfield's opening performance , only 6.1 million people tuned in to the trophy show Friday -- a fraction of the 22 million who watched in the early 1990s to see if Susan Lucci would ever win a Daytime Emmy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201856_pf.html

Ah yes, one of the many lives ruined by David Sarnoff in the name of corporate greatness and profits (just ask Edwin Armstrong's family about that and how the infant FM radio threatened Sarnoff's infant TV in the 1930's). Sarnoff makes the Martha Stewart's and Donald Trump's of the world look like wusses.


Welcome back, foxeng. I thought we had lost you as a contributor!

TV Notebook
'One Tree Hill,' and drooping way over

By Jae-Ha Kim MediaLifeMagazine.com May 3, 2006

"One Tree Hill" has never been as compelling or interesting as fellow WB shows "Dawson's Creek" or "Gilmore Girls." So upon hearing that tonight's season finale also may be the three-year old drama's finale, even fans may be muttering a tepid, "Eh."

Developed as a showcase for series star Chad Michael Murray--who proved quite popular on those other WB programs--"One Tree Hill" is meant to deal with the tribulations of a group of teenagers transitioning into adulthood.

Unfortunately, the antics of series stars Murray and his ex-wife Sophia Bush, as well as his new engagement to one of the show's teenage extras, have long overshadowed any of the plotlines on the soapy drama.

Ratings for tonight's episode, which airs at 8 p.m., could very well help determine whether the show gets picked up on the fall schedule of the CW, as it morphs from the WB and UPN.

The show, once a hot program among teen viewers, actually finished third in its timeslot last week in that demo, behind UPN's "America's Next Top Model" and Fox's "Bones," not a promising sign. It was a mere 0.2 rating points ahead of Univision's "La Bella Mas Fea" during its first half hour with just a 1.8.

For tonight's finale, here's hoping the show's writers resolve once and for all whether Lucas (Murray) ends up with Brooke (Bush) or Peyton (Hilarie Burton).

And if the show does move to the CW, it might be a good time to close this love triangle and start with a fresh idea.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_4477.asp

TV Notebook
Gone: ABC axes 'Commander in Chief'

By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 3, 2006

Seven months ago, ABC’s “Commander in Chief” was the most-watched new show of the season on any network and looked like the network’s next big hit following “Desperate Housewives” and “Lost.”

Two show runners, a three-month hiatus and one timeslot change later, “Commander” has been canceled in perhaps the biggest single-season sizzle-to-fizzle burnout for a new show in recent broadcast history.

ABC axed “Commander” yesterday after it averaged a mere 2.1 adults 18-49 rating in its three outings back after a long benching, including a series-low 1.8 last Thursday that was half its season average. The network said the show’s remaining three episodes may air over the summer.

If there's any lesson to learn from "Commander," it's don't mess with a good thing. ABC, riding high on the success of “Lost” and “Housewives,” jumped in to take over the show in a dispute with creator Rod Lurie, despite strong reviews and good ratings.

"Commander" peaked with nearly 17 million viewers in its second week and was ABC’s fourth-most-watched drama when the network suddenly canned Lurie in October, reportedly because the show-runner’s scripts were coming in late and costing the network money in delayed production costs.

ABC, flush with confidence after years of underachieving dramas, perhaps figured that it could even improve on Lurie’s vision of the show, about the first woman president, by bringing in cop drama veteran Steven Bochco (“NYPD Blue”) as show runner. It was the wrong choice.

Under Bochco, whose episodes began airing in December, the show withered both creatively and in the ratings. The veteran producer turned the focus from the personal to the political, making the show little more than a “West Wing” ripoff, with Geena Davis subbed for Martin Sheen.

Viewers began to drift away, and by Jan. 24, the show’s last outing under Bochco, its audience had shrunk to some 10.4 million.

ABC yanked it off the air to once again revamp it, this time turning to writer Dee Johnson, part of Lurie’s original team, to become showrunner. By this point, though, the network seemed to have lost faith in the program.

Three weeks ago it plunked “Commander” onto Thursdays at 10 p.m., facing NBC’s “ER” and CBS’s “Without a Trace” in a timeslot where ABC has not had a hit in more than a decade.

At the time, a source close to the show told Media Life that the move was a vote of confidence, part of ABC’s plan to rebuild the night. The source expected “Commander” to be back for a second season.

But the show flopped, its identity now so fractured between Bochco’s cast additions and the storylines sinking into the ridiculous. “Commander” averaged just 7.5 million total viewers in its three Thursday outings, barely half the 13.8 million it was averaging when it went on hiatus in January.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_4487.asp

TV Notebook
Networks deciding which shows will die

By Ellen Gray Philadelphia Daily News May 3, 2006

Television puts the May in mayhem this month, whether it's nature turning against us in NBC's "10.5: Apocalypse" and ABC's "Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America" or Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) nearly destroying the global village to save it in Fox's "24."

The broadcast carnage is all too appropriate for the networks, which will be meeting with advertisers in New York at mid-month to unveil their fall schedules.

Called the "upfronts" - because that's how TV networks like to get paid - they're upbeat occasions where the more successful suits recount the high points of the past year and everyone, successful or not, promises to do better in 2006-07.

And then they all go get a drink.

For viewers, who generally aren't invited to the after-parties, the stories emerging from the upfronts will inevitably cause some disappointments, as favorite series die to make way for new shows that they're months away from even seeing, much less liking.

So I could tell you that "West Wing" creator Aaron Sorkin will likely have a new show, "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," on NBC this fall, but if you're still in mourning for "The West Wing," which is bowing out May 14, that may be only partial consolation.

I'll admit I'm more worried about fictional Everwood, Colo., the setting for the WB's "Everwood," than I am about anything that happens in "10.5: Apocalypse."

In "10.5," after all, we have Roxborough's Kim Delaney once again standing between us and the End of the World as We Know It, but "Everwood," whose entire network will disappear this fall to make way for a UPN-WB hybrid they're calling the CW, appears to have no such champion.

Other shows I'm worried about:

• UPN's "Veronica Mars". Veronica (Kristen Bell) does have a champion in new CW president Dawn Ostroff, but given the pounding her show's taken in the ratings against, first, "Lost" and the "American Idol" results show, and lately, "House," it's difficult to be sure it'll make the cut.

• ABC's "Invasion". What started out looking like a remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" has turned into one of television's most thought-provoking serials, thanks to a twist in which some of the "hybrids" are reluctant to abandon their own humanity.

I'd not only like to see where creator Shaun Cassidy is going with this, but I'd like to see Cassidy, who's created some of the most intriguing television you've probably never seen - "American Gothic," "Cover Me" - get something to a second season.

• ABC's "Commander In Chief". OK, maybe I'm more resigned than worried about this one, which has been mismanaged to the point where it's barely recognizable as the "West Wing"-lite series that premiered last fall to generally positive reviews, particularly for Geena Davis as the accidental president.

Maybe it was replacing creator Rod Lurie just a few episodes in, or bringing in Steven Bochco - whose record of producing shows that don't do justice to women characters remains woefully intact - but this one feels as if, in the pursuit of elusive younger viewers, it's literally been fixed to death.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/entertainment/television//14487145.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

TV Notebook
Has ABC assassinated "Commander in Chief"?


By Melanie McFarland Seattle Post-Intelligencer TV Critic in her TV blog

Winning a Golden Globe in your first season does not necessarily make your series unimpeachable.

That's the hard lesson Geena Davis, who took home the Globe for best actress in a TV drama for "Commander in Chief" in January, is learning today. ABC confirmed that the remaining three new episodes of the presidential drama have been yanked for sweeps, with no solid airdate in sight. (The word from the network is that they'll show up during the summer, tentatively in June, to be burned off.) "Primetime" will air in its place for the remainder of the season.

Whether or not "Commander in Chief" made viewers more open to electing a female president is debatable, but one thing is certain: Television history will look back on it as a textbook example of how to sink a decent show.

Under the direction of its creator, Rod Lurie, "Commander" started out as the most watched new drama of the season. However, Lurie was a little slow in delivering new episodes. Instead of hiring an experienced television writer who could assist Lurie, which would have been the smart thing to do, ABC bumped him and hired Steven Bochco, who doesn't play well with series he didn't create.

Along came new writers and Mark-Paul Gosselaar; there went a substantial portion of the show's audience.

Bochco's abrupt tonal change and a slew of other flubs -- keeping it in competition against "American Idol," another showrunner switcheroo (exit Bochco, enter Dee Johnson), an additional hiatus and a move to a murderous timeslot (Thursdays at 10 p.m., opposite "E.R." and "Without a Trace") -- all conspired to put a bullet in this series.

Granted, it's not officially dead. ABC announces its fall lineup on May 16, and who knows? The writers could create a premiere in which Mac Allen wakes up suddenly and says to the First Husband, "I had a dream....a horrible, horrible dream."

But don't count on it.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/print.asp?entryID=103142

Welcome back, foxeng. I thought we had lost you as a contributor!He made up for it by double posting. :D :) :D

TV Notebook
Thoughts


By Rich Heldenfels in his Akron Beacon Journal TV blog May 3, 2006

''Grey's Anatomy''

The bride and I finally got around to Sunday's ''Grey's'' on Tuesday night, squeezing it in between obligations, before focusing on ''American Idol.'' While there were plenty of things to like about the episode, the thing I've been thinking most about is Alex (Justin Chambers).

He is such a -- well, I can't use the word I want to use here. But he is an awful human being. Not awful because he's misunderstood, or awful because he has inner pain. He's just awful. Although he might pretend that he ratted out Addison because of some principle, we know he did it just to get even with someone he didn't like.

That said, I thought the episode underplayed the potential trouble facing Addison, as if it had become inconvenient late in the telecast. Did like the way the show continues to give TV veterans interesting roles -- Jayne Brook as the divorce attorney, ''Yes, Dear's'' Jean Louisa Kelly as the mother wanting to stop getting pregnant. Loved the head twitches when Brook mentioned a bad marriage.

''Veronica Mars''

If last night's episode was the last of the season, it would be a pretty dazzling ending. (One quibble: Shouldn't Veronica have thought of Mac as math tutor? First person I thought of.)

Once again, money and power had reigned in Neptune. Justice would be denied. Veronica, Logan, Keith, Wallace -- all would have emotional baggage to carry into another season, while evildoers like Woody and Aaron would still be safe somewhere.

Of course, it's not the last episode, and the promos promise some resolution next week.

But I hope whatever explanations we get, they don't undercut ''Veronica's'' core issues: the class warfare never ends, that pain doesn't just go away, that life is hard and unfair, and still all we can do is figure out the right thing, regardless of consequences.

And I have to admire any show that can fill me with dread for an hour -- and refuse to comfort me at the end.

http://blogs.ohio.com/beacon_tv/

He made up for it by double posting. :D :) :D


He is just out of practice!

There is no doubt ABC hung CinC out to dry. Even with the changes, and admittedly some less than good episodes, you just can't take something off the air, etc., and then try to bring it back near the end of the season up against already established shows. Even at it's best, it wasn't good enough to make people switch their viewing at that point in time. I'm not sure how many shows could.

Remembrance
A sweet so-long to Louis Rukeyser, 73


By Heidi Dawley MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 3, 2006

Back when television was still young, that being the early 1970s, he was already what many Americans had come to embrace as the visage of Wall Street. And it was an inviting visage indeed, warm, jocular, rumpled, corny, slightly ill at ease in front of the camera but not the least bit off-putting.

He was Louis Rukeyser, and in many ways he was the father of financial journalism on TV, as the founder and longtime host of PBS's "Wall $treet Week," the first national show on personal finace and by far the longest-running. Over three decades he made investing an activity that became all that more inviting to millions of Americans, during a period when owning stock had gone from a privilege of the few to one of the masses.

Rukeyser died yesterday at his home in Greenwich, Conn., after a lingering fight with cancer of the bone marrow, known as multiple myeloma, that had forced him into retirement several years ago. He was 73. He is survived by his wife, Alexandra, and three daughters.

The elegantly attired Rukeyser founded "Wall $treet Week" in 1970 and served as its host for 32 years until his unceremonious ouster four years ago by Maryland Public Television, its producer. MPT, in a bid to draw a younger audience, replaced the white-haired chatter with a panel of Fortune editors in an effort to draw a younger audience.

Through the years, under Rukeyser,"Wall $treet Week" made sense of the stock market and economics generally for millions of Americans through his jovial and often irreverent monologues and the show's relaxed chat-on-the-sofa format. His guests over the years included all the big names of Wall Street, as well as the nation's top economists. Rukeyser's mission, often stated, was to remove the baffle from economics and investing.

Rukeyser was born in New York City in 1933. His father, Merryle S. Rukeyser, was also a financial journalist, working for newspapers and writing a syndicated column. Louis Rukeyser began his reporting career at the Baltimore Sun after graduating from Princeton University in 1954. He later worked for ABC News before founding "Wall $treet Week." He also wrote books, columns and newsletters.

But in 2002, Maryland Public Television decided it needed to bring in a younger host to reel in a younger audience. With Rukeyser then 69 years old, MPT turned the top position over to Fortune magazine's editorial director Geoffrey Colvin, who was 48.

What happened next probably surprised MPT management. After turning down a lesser role on the show, Rukeyser refused to go quietly into the night.

Instead Rukeyser, as was characteristic for the man, said just what he thought about the situation. He used the opening minutes of his next show to complain about how he had been "ambushed" by MPT and to lambaste the company’s plans for the new show. He was abruptly fired. Even then Rukeyser had more to say. In a statement released after the incident he blasted those who labeled his on-air rant as unprofessional.

"What really has them [at MPT] in a frenzy, quite obviously, is the near-unanimous public reaction against their dumb, deceptive and almost unbelievable graceless behavior in this manner," he said.

Rukeyser found himself another show to host and within a month was on air again in "Louis Rukeyser’s Wall Street" on CNBC. However, only about six months later Rukeyser was forced to leave the show due to chronic back pain. Some months later cancer was diagnosed.

In any case, neither show achieved anywhere near the audience of the "Wall $treet Week," and both were eventually canceled.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_4480.asp

Great show, wonderful host. RIP Louis!

He was an original, that is for sure.

TV Notebook
Surprising pull of Fox's 'War at Home'

Critics trashed it but earthy sitcom may return

By Abigail Azote MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 3, 2006

The critics were brutal, but then what do critics know? They widely panned Fox's "War at Home" when it debuted last September as a cheesy ripoff of Fox's 80s hit "Married with Children." And that it was. So of course no one expected "War" to hang around.

But it did, and then some. Rather than sinking into a quick cancellation, "War" held onto its viewers, and now it even stands a chance to be picked up for next season, as unlikely as that might have seemed back in September.

"War's" finale, airing on Sunday night, posted a 3.6 rating among 18-49s. While that was down 14 percent from the 4.2 it averaged in its premiere, it’s even with the show’s 3.6 season average in the demo.

More important, though, "War" bettered the numbers for its timeslot.

"War" aired in the plush 8:30 period, leading out of "The Simpsons" and into "Family Guy" at 9 p.m. Even so, it boosted the period's season average by 20 percent over the year-earlier period, according to Fox. The trend also held among total viewers, with the show’s 7.3 million viewers bettering the 6.5 million averaged during the same period last season by 12 percent.

That makes a pretty good argument for a second season. "Three-point-six is pretty good for a first-year comedy," says Brad Adgate, research director at Horizon Media. "My gut reaction is it probably will return."

Whether it actually does will depend on what new comedies Fox is working on for next season, but with two established sitcoms, "That '70s Show" and "Malcolm in the Middle," ending and a third, "Bernie Mac," on the bubble, "War's" chances of renewal grow stronger.

Fox will want to balance its new shows with established shows as insurance against a nightmare scenario in which all if its new offerings bomb.

"A lot of these issues are going to be decided on how good Fox’s development is," Adgate says. Already, the network has picked up 13 episodes of the new Brad Garrett comedy "‘Til Death."

Adgate thinks that if "War" does return, it could end up on a different night, perhaps Monday. While the berth between The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" gave "War" as good launch pad, as a live action show it would likely be a better fit among similar comedies, he says.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_4479.asp

The Business of TV
ABC affiliates bristling over online ventures

By Phil Rosenthal Chicago Tribune Media Columnist May 3, 2006

If the Walt Disney Co. tries to take ABC to Tomorrowland without asking its partners for directions, it's headed for Fantasyland.

That's the message from the head of ABC's largest affiliate group, speaking to investors the day after the Disney-owned network launched its two-month experiment with rerunning programs online for free with limited but unskippable commercials.

Forget for a moment that the early results of that ABC.com trial with episodes of "Lost," "Desperate Housewives," "Alias" and "Commander in Chief," at least from viewers' standpoint, is imperfect. Some report the program freezing up, though the reduced ad load is as nice as the promise of speeding through an hourlong show in less than 45 minutes.

Hearst-Argyle Television President and CEO David Barrett, whose company owns a dozen ABC affiliates and manages a 13th, bristled Tuesday at the lack of input affiliates have had in the network's Internet ventures to date as well as the suggestion stations may not get revenue from their once-exclusive programs running online.

"Obviously [there] is a lot of work that needs to be done with ABC to get the relationship with the affiliates on better ground," Barrett said during Hearst-Argyle's first-quarter earnings call. "I think stations and companies and affiliates are committed to doing that. I hope ABC is as well."

There's an industrywide tug-of-war as media companies struggle to maintain their footing in the shifting sands of the new distribution platforms new technology creates. The Internet now makes it possible for the TV networks to bypass stations to reach viewers.

Anne Sweeney, who's co-chair of Disney Media Networks and president of Disney-ABC Television Group, reportedly told TV executives at a National Association of Broadcasters luncheon a week earlier that it's a mistake to "cling to old models or old ways of thinking." According to Broadcasting and Cable, she suggested stations are naive to expect they should get a cut of revenue from Internet deals.

For Barrett--and presumably other ABC station owners still smarting from how Disney last year sprung its landmark deal to sell shows on Apple's iTunes site--the idea that affiliates don't understand the need for change is absurd. They just want their needs acknowledged and to be consulted.

"I am put off by the condescending rhetoric that we get from some of the networks about how we [have] got our heads in the sand about the business," said Barrett, whose company has 25 large-market stations, including some with NBC and CBS as well as ABC.

Noting he is "dismayed that ABC continues to take the position that the affiliates are stuck in the past," he said they are no less interested than their network business partners in adjusting to the realities for media businesses in the 21st Century as viewers and advertisers are seduced by the Internet.

"We are as aggressive as ABC and Disney [are] in terms of recognizing the potential of digital media," Barrett said. "We've had a Web site business in place that's been growing for the past seven years. And, in fact, some of the networks have had significant failures [while] we've been building a business."

Other networks have reached out to stations. Fox recently announced a deal to share revenue generated from repurposing programs with its affiliates. NBC has announced a plan to help its affiliates build online businesses. "That's a constructive way to approach it," Barrett said.

ABC has sacrificed diplomacy in the name of speed while rushing to exploit new platforms. The hope is that once it completes its online test, Disney will sit down with affiliates and discuss how these arrangements should work.

"We are not seeking to preserve the old business model," Barrett said. "We're seeking to participate and build new business models."

This could be a "Lost" opportunity instead of a lost opportunity.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/chi-0605030040may03,0,814035.column

TV Notebook
For FX's 'Thief,' the caper was a bust

By Abigail Azote MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 3, 2006, 01:05

On the face of it, "Thief" had everything going for it when it debuted a month ago: strong reviews and a network, FX, known for push-the-envelope dramas like "The Shield" and"Nip/Tuck."

"Every time you think ‘Thief’ has maxed, the tension ratchets up with another surprising, often sorrowful twist," wrote Media Life's Toni Fitzgerald. "It does it all cleanly through strong, disciplined acting and writing, entirely free of the dramatic clichés one might find on another network."

But "Thief," which concluded its six-episode run last night, never quite caught with viewers, and the reason may well be that, ironically, for all it had going for it, the original series lacked the originality to make it stand out from all the other cops and robbers shows on cable. The show, which aired at 10, was about a group of guys planning a major heist, led by a career thief played by Andre Braugher.

FX has not commented on the show's future, but the likelihood of its return would seem iffy based on its ratings over the six weeks of its run.

Even from the start, "Thief" looked to be struggling, despite the encouraging reviews. The series premiered with 2.5 million viewers on March 28, well below the debut levels of "The Shield" and "Nip/Tuck." Even the quickly canceled "Over There" fared better, drawing 4.1 million viewers when it premiered. And in the weeks after, the caper series fell even more. Through last week, it was down 36 percent, to a season average of 1.6 million viewers.

The show’s season-to-date average was down 35 percent from its premiere in households, to a 1.1 rating, and down 41 percent among viewers 18-49, to 828,000.

"Thief" may also have been hurt by its subject matter, bad guys scheming to pull off a big job. Caper sagas succeed in movies, which have the luxury of time to build tension as the crew knits together its great scheme, as in "Ocean's 11" and "Ocean's 12." It's a lot tougher to build and sustain that tension in a TV series airing in segments over weeks. The similarly themed "Heist" on NBC tanked as well, and that too was received well by critics.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_4478.asp

(The following is posted only as an item of interest. It is not meant to provoke angry responses.)

TV Notebook
Fox, CNN Most Trusted

By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 5/3/2006

Fox News and CNN are more trusted news sources than NPR or the The New York Times, according to a new poll from BBC/Reuters/Media Center.

According to the poll of news consumers in 10 countries, most of the world trusts their media more than the goverment (61% trust the media, while only 52% the goverment).

Not in the U.S., however, where 67% trusted the government compared with 59% who said they trusted the media. The UK government also got higher trust numbers (51% vs. 47%).

National TV got the highest trust numbers of any media on the planet at 82%; followed by newspapers, public radio, and international satellite TV.

Among U.S. respondents, the most trusted national media were Fox News and CNN, with 11% of respondents naming each, unprompted, as most trusted, followed by ABC (4%), NBC (4%), NPR (3%), CBS (3%), Microsoft/MSN (2%), USA Today (2%), New York Times (2%), CNN.com (1%), Time Magazine (1%), and friends/family (1%).

Blogs got the lowest scores for trust at 25%.

TV was also voted the most 'important' news source (56%), with the Internet getting only 9% of the votes.

More than 10,000 respondents were polled from UK, USA, Brazil, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia, and South Korea..

The results of the BBC/Reuters/Media Center poll, conducted by GlobeScan, was announced at the We Media Global Forum in London Wednesday.

Following is the country break-out for the U.s., taken from the study summary:

The United States

Americans’ most important news sources in a typical week are television (mentioned first by 50%), newspapers (21%), Internet (14%), and radio (10%). Fully 20 percent of American men name the Internet as their most important news source (second only to South Koreans in the survey). Americans (87%) are second only to Germans in preferring to check several sources of news rather than rely on just one — something that is correlated with the use of Internet news sources.

When asked how much they trust different news sources, Americans give the highest trust ratings to local newspaper (81% a lot or some trust), friends and family (76%), national television (75%), national/regional newspapers (74%), and public broadcast radio (73%) and the lowest ratings to blogs (25%), international newspapers (52%), and news web sites on the Internet (55%).

The most trusted specific news sources mentioned without prompting by Americans include FOX News (mentioned by 11%), CNN (11%), ABC (4%), NBC (4%), National Public Radio (3%), CBS (3%), Microsoft/MSN (2%), USA Today (2%), New York Times (2%), CNN.com (1%), Time Magazine (1%), and friends/family (1%).

Attitudinally, Americans stand out from citizens of the other countries surveyed on a number of dimensions. They are the most critical of the news media’s reporting of all sides of a story; fully 69 percent disagree that the media does this. They are also significantly more inclined to disagree (46%) that the media reports news accurately; and more likely to agree (68%) that the media covers too many ‘bad news’ stories.

Tuesday’s prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted at the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.

(From Marc Berman’s Wednesday, May 3, 2006, Programming Insider column at Mediaweek.com )
National Ratings in Primetime: Week of April 24-30, 2006

In this final week of April, which included the first four nights of the May 2006 sweep, CBS and Fox remained in the winner’s circle. CBS finished first in households, total viewers and adults 25-54; Fox was No. 1 among adults 18-49 and adults 18-34; and ratings for both networks were close to year-ago levels. Ten of the top 20 most-watched shows were on CBS, while Fox held the top 3 spots among adults 18-49 courtesy of two episodes of American Idol and blockbuster House. Fox also landed 10 of the top 20 spots among adults 18-34.

NBC came in third in all five categories this week with only very minor erosion from the comparable year-ago period, while ABC fell into the No. 4 spot, down by margins of 10 to 14 percent. Despite the ongoing success of the Big 4 – Desperate Housewives, Grey’s Anatomy, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition and Lost (which was a clips edition this week), ABC’s failures elsewhere were clearly visible this week. And one of those non-successes was The 33rd Annual Daytime Emmy Awards at an historical low 6.08 million viewers (#70), and a 1.7/ 6 among adults 18-49 (#84) Friday from 8-11 p.m. Another was the relocated Commander in Chief, which was just pulled from ABC’s schedule as a result of 6.51 million viewers (#64) and a 1.8/ 5 among adults 18-49 (#82t) Thursday at 10 p.m. opposite CBS’ Without A Trace and NBC’s fading ER.

Tied for the #5 and #6 spots were the soon-to-depart UPN and the WB, with both networks (excluding UPN among adults 18-34) suffering noticeable year-to-year losses. As upcoming network The CW prepares the programming blueprints for fall 2006, one series now unlikely to find a spot is WB sitcom Reba, which dipped to a mere 2.54 million viewers (#104) and a 0.9/ 3 among adults 18-49 (#107t) in the Friday 9 p.m. half hour.

As a benchmark, meanwhile, for the recent midseason entries, what follows are the rankings in order of total viewers:

Deal or No Deal (NBC) – Mon. 8 p.m.
Viewers: 15.58 million (#10); A18-49: 4.9/14 (#16)

Deal or No Deal (NBC) – Wed. 8 p.m.
Viewers: 15.24 million (#12); A18-49: 5.0/14 (#15)

The Unit (CBS) – Tues. 9 p.m.
Viewers: 13.87 million (#18); A18-49: 3.9/ 9 (#21t)

Inan1mous (Fox) – Wed. 9:30 p.m.
Viewers: 11.90 million (#24); A18-49: 5.3/13 (#11)

The New Adventures of Old Christine (CBS) – Mon. 9:30 p.m.
Viewers: 11.81 million (#25); A18-49: 3.8/ 9 (#25)

American Inventor (ABC) – Thurs. 9 p.m.
Viewers: 7.30 million (#56); A18-49: 3.0/ 8 (#42t)

What About Brian (ABC) – Mon. 10 p.m.
Viewers: 5.38 million (#79): A18-49: 2.6/ 7 (#56t)

Teachers (NBC) – Tues. 9:30 p.m.
Viewers: 4.70 million (#86); A18-49: 2.3/ 5 (#63t)

Pepper Dennis (WB) – Tues. 9 p.m.
Viewers: 2.11 million (#107); A18-49: 0.8/ 2 (#110t)

Modern Men (WB) – Fri. 9:30 p.m.
Viewers: 1.84 million (#111); A18-49: 0.7/ 2 (#115t)

The Bedford Diaries (WB) – Wed. 9 p.m.
Viewers: 1.60 million (#116); A18-49: 0.8/ 2 (#110t)

Survival of the Richest (WB) – Fri. 8 p.m.
Viewers: 1.30 million (#117); A18-49: 0.6/ 2 (#117)


Here are the final national ratings for the week of April 24, 2006 (with percent change versus the comparable year-ago period in parentheses).

Households:
CBS: 8.6 rating/14 share (+ 1 percent)
Fox: 6.3/10 (+ 3)
NBC: 5.9/10 (- 3)
ABC: 5.4/ 9 (-10)
WB: 2.0/ 3 (-20)
UPN: 1.9/ 3 (-17)

Total Viewers:
CBS: 13.09 million (+ 1)
Fox: 10.34 (+ 3)
NBC: 8.87 (- 2)
ABC: 8.24 (-12)
WB: 3.00 (-19)
UPN: 2.87 (-15)

Adults 18-49:
Fox: 4.3/12 (no change)
CBS: 3.7/10 (+ 3)
NBC: 3.1/ 9 (- 3)
ABC: 3.1/ 9 (-14)
UPN: 1.3/ 3 (- 7)
WB: 1.2/ 3 (-25)

Adults 25-54:
CBS: 4.8/12 (+ 2)
Fox: 4.5/11 (no change)
NBC: 3.6/ 9 (- 5)
ABC: 3.6/ 9 (-14)
WB: 1.2/ 3 (-25)
UPN: 1.1/ 3 (-21)

Adults 18-34:
Fox: 4.2/13 (+ 5)
ABC: 2.6/ 8 (-13)
NBC: 2.5/ 8 (- 4)
CBS: 2.3/ 7 (- 8)
UPN: 1.4/ 4 (no change)
WB: 1.4/ 4 (-13)

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Big hair, wee ratings: 'Dynasty' fizzles

By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 3, 2006

At its peak 21 years ago, ABC’s “Dynasty” averaged a 25.0 household rating and ranked No. 1 on television. All those viewers have long since moved on, and they didn’t care to come back last night.

CBS’s “Dynasty Reunion: Catfights and Caviar” averaged a mere 5.5 million total viewers and a bleak 1.6 adults 18-49 rating last night, according to Nielsen overnights. It finished a distant third in its 10 p.m. timeslot, behind NBC’s “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” and ABC’s “Boston Legal.” In fact, it was less than half a point ahead of Univision in that slot.

It earned under half the 3.4 rating that various crime show repeats have averaged in the timeslot for CBS over the past four weeks.

The reunion may have been ill-advised from the start. In fact, CBS pulled it together despite the fact that “Dynasty,” which originally aired from 1981 to 1989, ran on ABC.

It was long one of primetime’s most popular shows, but that was a different era, one of big hair and shoulder pads. Yesterday’s show managed just a 4.1 household rating, barely a fifth of what it averaged at the height of its popularity.

Certainly timeslot competition didn’t help. “SVU” averaged a 5.3. But another factor is that recently reunion shows haven’t been big ratings draws, not in these days when it’s easy to pop on the internet and see what a former favorite actress has been up to.

Meanwhile, Fox was No. 1 for the night with a 9.8 rating and 26 share among 18-49s. NBC was a distant second with 3.0/8, CBS third with 2.8/7 and ABC fourth with 2.2/6. The WB was fifth with 1.4/4, Univision sixth with 1.3/4 and UPN seventh with a 1.0/3.

Fox led easily at 8 p.m. with an 11.0 rating for “American Idol.” CBS was second with a 3.1 for “NCIS,” WB third with a 1.9 for “Gilmore Girls,” ABC fourth with a 1.6 for “According to Jim” (1.7) and “Hope & Faith” (1.5). Univision was fifth with a 1.4 for “La Fea Mas Bella,” NBC sixth with a 1.3 for “Outrageous Moments” (1.3) and a repeat of “Scrubs” (1.3), and UPN seventh with a 0.9 for a repeat of “America’s Next Top Model.”

At 9 p.m. Fox led with an 8.7 for the first of a two-part special episode of “House.” CBS was second with a 3.7 for “The Unit,” NBC third with a 2.3 for “Scrubs” (2.6) and the finale of “Teachers” (2.1), ABC fourth with a 2.0 for “Hope & Faith” (2.1) and “Less Than Perfect” (1.8). Univision was fifth with a 1.5 for “Barrera de Amor,” UPN sixth with a 1.1 for “Veronica Mars” and WB seventh with a 0.9 for “Pepper Dennis.”

At 10 p.m., NBC took over the lead with a 5.3 for “SVU,” followed by ABC with a 3.1 for “Boston Legal,” CBS with a 1.6 for “Dynasty,” and Univision with a 1.1 for “Ver para Creer.”

Fox also led the night among households with a 14.9 rating and 23 share, followed by CBS with 7.5/12, NBC with 5.3/8, ABC with 4.6/7, WB with 2.3/4, Univision with 1.8/3 and UPN with 1.5/2.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_4511.asp

The 2006-07 TV Season
Wednesday Night’s Season Finale

One Tree Hill 8 PM ET/PT The WB

I think that it should be the series finale. The show in my eyes has run it's course. Most of the cast is graduating from high school or getting married.

D.C. Council requires Comcast to carry Nationals games

Washington Business Journal - 6:14 PM EDT Tuesday by Josh Drobnyk Staff Reporter

D.C. Council on Tuesday passed emergency legislation aimed at forcing Comcast to begin airing Washington Nationals games, although the cable network immediately disputed the city's legal standing to enforce such a bill.

The legislation, introduced by Council members Jack Evans, D-Ward 2, and Vincent Orange, D-Ward 5, compels Comcast to begin airing Nationals games or be forced to renegotiate its franchise agreement with the city.

With the baseball season a month old and much of the region's cable audience still unable to watch Nationals games -- Comcast has 1.3 million subscribers in the Washington area -- the legislation, in essence, is intended to get Comcast to come to an agreement with the Mid Atlantic Sports Network, which has the rights to air Nationals games this season but is not carried by Comcast.

The legislation will take effect in two weeks unless Mayor Tony Williams vetoes it.

Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen challenged the council's position.

"This legislation will not have any legal effect as local government efforts to mandate programming are clearly impermissible under federal law," he says in a statement, adding: "We share the council's frustration with the current situation but believe that its decision to adopt this legislation may only prolong the unfortunate dispute."

MASN spokesman Todd Webster says in a statement: "We are hopeful that this new mandate by the D.C. Council will finally convince Comcast to abandon its efforts to punish the Nationals and their fans, and simply put the games on."

The dispute, in essence, centers around Major League Baseball's decision to give the Nationals' broadcast rights to Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos through the newly established MASN in a package to compensate him for possible lost revenue related to the move of the Montreal Expos to the District.

Angelos intends to begin airing Orioles games on the network next season, a move that has further angered Comcast, which currently airs Orioles games on network subsidiary Comcast SportsNet. Comcast wants MLB to step in to renegotiate the deal.

MASN is carried by five other cable providers in the Washington area, servicing more than 2 million households.

http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2006/05/01/daily19.html

CBS Could Launch Broadband Channel Tomorrow

By Jon Lafayette TVWeek.com May 3, 2006

CBS is expected to announce plans to launch a new broadband channel as early as tomorrow, sources familiar with the plans told TelevisionWeek.

The new channel will be advertiser-supported and free to the viewer.

Some of the content on the site will be original and unrelated to CBS's network television content. It was not immediately clear Wednesday whether the content would include both comedies and dramas. The content is also expected to encompass various lengths, not necessarily the hour and half-hour lengths necessary for a linear television schedule. Much of the programming will likely be the shorter, two- to three-minute clips popular with Web viewers.

CBS has developed some of the content internally but may also have turned to other producers, including those primarily focused on Web production, sources said. Nancy Tellem, president of CBS Paramount Network Entertainment Group, has been involved in the development of the programming, working with Larry Kramer, president of CBS Digital Media.

CBS has already put some of its shows on CBS.com, including "Survivor." It also puts clips from shows including "Late Show With David Letterman" and clips from upcoming shows.

ABC last month announced that it was making some of its shows, including "Desperate Housewives" and "Lost," available for free on ABC.com with advertising support as a test of the Internet as a distribution platform. Ad buyers are looking at digital media as both a supplement and an alternative to traditional television advertising. NBC has also said that providing digital extensions of its television programming will be a cornerstone of its upfront pitch to advertisers.

"We're definitely seeing a trend," said Tracey Scheppach, VP and video innovations director for Starcom USA. "The majority of programmers are providing nonlinear content."

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=9911

The 2006-07 Prime-Time Season
Updated Cheat Sheet on Network Pilots

By Nikki Finke LA WeeklyTuesday, May 2nd, 2006 at deadlinehollywooddaily.com

This is that time of year when agents, studios, producers, writers, actors, and the coffee cart guy bite their nails down to the nub waiting for a fall pickup by the TV networks. I feel your pain.

So here's an exclusive cheat sheet (updated) I've just been slipped about how the networks really feel about the pilots that have not been picked up yet. It's solid, I promise, because two shows I was told in it were locks have just been OKed by FBC: Til Death, and Vanished ("Hot, Hot Hot." "This is also rumored to be getting an early pick up next week.")

I'll continue to update it as warranted. So read it and relax. Or weep:

A B C
6 Degrees: "Hot." "ABC liked cut." (update) "New problem. J.J. Abrams might not stay with the show now that he's so busy as a director."
Help Me Help You: (update) "Pilot with Ted Danson really hot."
Drift: "ABC liked cut and need it to work."
Secrets of a Small Town: "Highest testing drama." "Looks gorgeous."
Traveler: "Apparently this is Warner Bros.'s favorite pilot and ABC likes as well." "Studio is pushing hard."
Ugly Betty: "Came in better than expected, but still lukewarm."
A House Divided: "Warm."
60 Minute Man: "Ice cold, the cut was apparently a disaster."
20 Questions: "Conflicting reports, some say chilly, others say warm."
Brothers & Sisters: "Calista Flockhart tested poorly." "It's as good as gone." (update) "Yes, initially she tested poorly. But then they recut it, and tests came up."
October Road: "Looks really good, but I'm hearing that they won't pick this up and Secrets of a Small Town . It will be either/or."
Nine Lives: "Hot." "Looking good."

C B S
Shark: "Hottest pilot at CBS."
Company Town, 3 lbs, Jericho: "All hot." (update) "Wait, 3 lbs conflicted. Not hot."
Shadow of Law: "Since it's Carol Mendelsohn, it's as good as on air."
Edison: "Conflicting reports."
Orpheus: "Haven't heard anything about."
CW

Aquaman: "Losing steam." [Though Dawn Ostroff, the president of entertainment and chief programmer, told the NYT that it was promising, along with She Said, He Said, starring Nick Lachey.
Palm Springs: "Warm."
Runaway: "On air."

Fox
Primary: "Scorching." "This is rumored to be getting an early pick up next week."
Damages: "Another rumored to be possibly getting an early pick-up for #3."
13 Graves: "FBC likes."
American Crime: "So-so."
Southern Comfort: "Middle of the road for FBC, but acting & directing have made it better than expected."
Beyond: "Cold."
Faceless: "Shooting was a disaster & FBC is not happy with cut." "The temp is lukewarm."
Wedding Album: "Dead on arrival."

N B C
Friday Night Lights: "NBC is very happy with."
Heroes: "Probably the hottest at NBC."
Raines: "Warm."
Haskett’s Chance: "Cold." "Least likely to be picked up."

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/exclusive-cheat-sheet-on-network-pilots-chances/

TV Notebook
BOOK REVEALS WHY THERE'S NO IDOL IN FALL

In his new book, Desperate Networks, New York Times TV writer Bill Carter discloses that Fox pays American Idol panelist and co-producer Simon Cowell $36 million a year and that the reason that it doesn't run Idol in the fall has little to do with its post-season baseball coverage and more to do with the fact that Cowell produces a high British reality series called the X-Factor in which he also appears.

The book also reveals that in just the four months that it does air, it offers 45 hours hours of programming, while other hit shows air about 24 hours for an entire season.

http://contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/book%20reveals%20why%20theres%20no%20idol%20in%20fall_03_05_ 06

(Note: If the networks and their programming interest you at all, go get the Carter book. It is a fun read and very very informative about how the network business really works.)

The 2005-06 TV Season
Thursday Night’s Season Finale

Supernatural 9 PM ET/PT The WB

A Remembrance
Nice Work, Lou.

By David A. Gaffen of The Wall Street Journal

Louis Rukeyser, who was gabbing about investing when nobody wanted any part of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, died Tuesday at 73, and commentators say they remember the television host's steadiness above all.

His Wall Street Week program stayed on public TV for 32 years, until it was summarily dismissed in March 2002 when the network wanted to update the format with younger hosts (one of many terrible decisions made in the wake of the market's boom).

Jim Grant, writing in the New York Times, pointed out that there were only 323 mutual funds when Mr. Rukeyser's show started. On its inaugural broadcast, Nov. 20, 1970, the Dow closed at 761.57.

"In this age of shout TV, it is almost impossible to imagine a gentleman like Lou Rukeyser even getting on the air, no less getting his own show," said Barry Ritholtz of Ritholtz Capital Partners, in an email. "Everything he did appeared to be the result of deep thought and quiet contemplation. You suspected he worked on his opening monologue all week -- and it showed."

Merrill Lynch quantitative strategist Richard Bernstein related this anecdote in a comment: "During one of my most memorable discussions with him on this topic, Lou pointed out that he never had corporate CEOs on his show. He thought they should pay him for the media exposure. After all, he claimed, they didn't give investment information to his audience, rather they simply advertised for their companies."

Writing in his Controlled Greed blog, John Bethel said "his TV show covered investing long before anyone dreamed of devoting whole channels to it. And, compared to so much of today's TV coverage of markets, his show always had a sense of dignity."

The Business of Television
Study: Broadcast, Cable Ad Clutter Continues to Rise

By John Consoli MediaWeek.com May 4, 2006

Advertising clutter [non-programming minutes per hour] in prime time on the broadcast networks in 2005 increased cumulatively by only 2 percent, while it jumped 5 percent on the cable network side, according to media agency MindShare's annual study on the topic.

While the percentages of increase do not seem to be that high, MindShare group research director, Debbie Solomon, said the results are "disturbing" because more consumers are believing that TV has the most commercial clutter, even though the medium ranks behind print and online.

While most of the networks have inched up their non-programming time per hour by adding more commercials and show promos, Solomon said not everyone has. "Some are to blame, some, and we praise them, have held their clutter in check."

On the broadcast side, ABC ran the most non-commercial minutes [commercials and programming promos] in 2005, averaging 15 minutes and 26 seconds per hour. Other networks over the 15 minute mark included the WB (15:10), NBC (15:01), and Fox (15:00). CBS was up by about 37 seconds per hour but still under 15 minutes with an average of 14:52, and sister network UPN was also up 37 seconds to 14:26.

Fox showed the greatest increase, 11 percent, in network commercial minutes and total commercial minutes, but remained flat on its total non-commercial minute basis. Fox was one of the few networks that reduced its amount onf promotional spots to offset its increase in commercial load.

Most of Fox's additional commercials came from additions to its hit show American Idol.

NBC, which has struggled in the ratings, actually reduced its commercial minutes, but came in flat in its clutter because it increased its show promotions, trying to drive more viewers to watch its shows.
ABC carried the most network sold commercials per hour, with 10 minutes and 12 seconds, followed by Fox (9:47) and CBS (9:43).

On the cable side, MTV boosted its non-commercial minutes per hour to over 16 minutes, up nearly 20 percent. More than any other network, MTV ran four minutes of show promos per hour. Other cable networks with more than 15 minutes of non-program minutes per hour were Discovery, Lifetime, USA and Spike.

ESPN had the lowest amount of non-program minutes per hour, just over 12, while TNT had the lowest number of commercial minutes, under 11. But ESPN also increased its commercial minutes to 12:38 from 9:41, in the process reducing its promotional minutes.

CNN increased its commercial minutes per hour to 11:25 from 9:56, Fox News increased its commercial minutes to 11:32 from 9:41, and Lifetime increased its commercial minutes to 13:37 from 12:18.

In total, MindShare examined the clutter levels of the six broadcast networks and 11 commercial cable networks.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002462751

how true, everytime i turn on mtv, there is a damn commercial

Wednesday’s prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted at the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.

Posting for Fred.

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
'House' special socks a homer for Fox

Second of two-parter earns a 6.2 in 18-49s

By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 4, 2006

Fox got just what it wanted from a special edition of “House” last night: A big boost for its Wednesday schedule that dulled ABC’s usually sharp night at the same time.

“House,” in the second episode of a two-parter that kicked off Tuesday night, averaged a 6.2 overnight rating among adults 18-49 last night. That was 77 percent better than the 3.5 “Bones” earned in the same 8 p.m. timeslot last week.

It also gave Fox a big boost for the night versus the previous week. The network took the night easily with a 7.5 rating, more than double second-place CBS and third-place ABC and up 27 percent over the previous week’s average.

That “House,” which has set two new series highs in the past month in its regular Tuesday 9 p.m. slot after “American Idol,” would do well is not surprising in itself. But in a May sweeps period where the winner will come down to a thin margin, and with Fox and ABC currently tied for No. 1 for the season to date, any edge is significant.

And Fox certainly got it. While Fox was surging ahead, ABC was falling behind. Facing “House” at 8 p.m., the network’s “Alias” dipped to a potentially series-low 1.8 rating, 18 percent off the previous week’s 2.2 and just two weeks after the show delivered its best ratings of the season.

ABC’s nightly average was a 3.6, lifted because of a 6.2 rating for “Lost” at 9 p.m.

Meanwhile, Fox led among 18-49s, with a 7.5 rating and 20 share. CBS was second with a 3.7/10, ABC third with a 3.6/10 and NBC fourth with a 3.4/6. Univision was fifth at 1.6/4, UPN sixth at 1.5/4 and WB seventh at 1.0/3.

Fox took the early lead at 8 p.m. with a 6.2 for “House.” NBC was second with a 3.8 for “Deal or No Deal,” CBS third with a 2.9 for “Amazing Race,” UPN fourth with a 2.0 for “America’s Next Top Model,” ABC fifth with a 1.8 for “Alias,” Univision sixth with a 1.6 for “La Bella Mas Fea,” and WB seventh with a 1.4 for the season, and possibly series, finale of “One Tree Hill,” which did rise slightly week to week among the audience’s target 18-34s with a 1.9.

Fox held on to its lead at 9 p.m. with an 8.7 for the “American Idol” results show (11.4) and “Unan1mous” (6.0). ABC followed with a 6.2 for “Lost,” CBS with a 3.5 for “Criminal Minds,” NBC with a 2.9 for “Dateline,” Univision with a 1.8 for “Barrera de Amor,” UPN with a 1.0 for “Everybody Hates Chris” repeats, and WB with a 0.6 for “Bedford Diaries.”

CBS took over the lead at 10 p.m. with a 4.8 for “CSI: NY.” NBC was second with a 3.4 for “Law & Order,” ABC third with a 3.0 for “Invasion” and Univision fourth with a 1.5 for “Don Francisco Presenta.”

Fox also led the night among households with an 11.3 rating and 18 share. CBS followed with a 7.5/12, NBC with a 7.0/11, ABC with a 5.9/9, UPN with a 2.3/4, Univision with a 2.0/3 and WB with a 1.6/3.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_4538.asp
Media Life Magazine

Fred, thanks for posting the articles by Nikki Finke. I like her style!

Thanks for the help, jim!

TV Notebook
As anchor mends, ABC waits

By Matea Gold Los Angeles Times Staff Writer May 5, 2006

NEW YORK -- ABC anchor Bob Woodruff, who suffered serious wounds while traveling in Iraq in January, has nearly recovered from his physical injuries and is undergoing intensive rehabilitation with the aim of returning to his post as soon as possible, one of his brothers said in an interview.

Much of the treatment is focused on restoring his cognitive functions through "thinking processes, talking with therapists," said David Woodruff, the anchor's older brother. "It's exercising the brain."

While Woodruff has made remarkable progress since he was hurt in a roadside explosion, doctors still do not know when he could return to the air, a situation that has left ABC in limbo.

For now, Woodruff's co-anchor, Elizabeth Vargas, may continue to helm "World News Tonight" alone for the near future, as she has for much of the last three months. While ABC officials appeared poised in March to name morning anchors Charles Gibson or Diane Sawyer to fill in for Woodruff, the staff of "Good Morning America" was told this week to expect that show's anchor team will remain in place through the fall. That's when Katie Couric moves to CBS and ABC executives believe they have a chance to make a run at NBC's top-rated "Today."

It remains unclear whether ABC will tap a replacement for Woodruff before this summer, when Vargas, who is due to have a baby in August, is planning to go on maternity leave. News division executives declined to comment on their plans but are scheduled to hold a meeting next week with the program's staff to discuss its future.

"We all miss Bob very much, but Elizabeth is an anchor on this broadcast and has been holding down the fort and doing an amazing job while he's been out," said Jon Banner, executive producer of "World News Tonight."

"There's not an urgent reason to make a change or alteration," he added. "With Elizabeth here every night, we feel very comfortable. We know at a certain point she needs to go off and have her baby, and that will necessitate a change."

But ABC may make a move before then, especially with the upfront presentation for advertisers this month. So far this season, the second-place newscast has averaged 8.6 million viewers, a drop of 924,000 from the same point last year, according to Nielsen Media Research.

"We'd clearly like to be doing better," Banner acknowledged.

The situation at "World News Tonight" has preoccupied ABC for much of this year, a period that the network had hoped would be a time of growth for the broadcast. In January, Woodruff and Vargas officially took over a newly expanded version of the program with updated editions for West Coast audiences and frequent anchor reports from the road.

But less than a month later, Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt were wounded when the Iraqi military vehicle they were traveling in north of Baghdad was hit by an improvised explosive device, forcing ABC to put those plans on hold.

Vogt, whose injuries were less severe, was released from the hospital in February. But Woodruff sustained shrapnel wounds to the head as well as broken ribs and a broken collarbone and was kept sedated for five weeks.

After being treated at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., and then a private facility in New York, the 44-year-old broadcaster returned to his Westchester County home in early April and began outpatient treatment.

"I can't tell you what a blessing it is," he wrote to his ABC colleagues in an e-mail last month. "Though I know there is still a long road ahead, it's nice to be feeling more like myself again — laughing with family, reading bedtime stories and reminding my kids to do their homework."

ABC News President David Westin, one of the few from the network who has spoken with Woodruff since the attack, visited the anchor and his wife, Lee, for the first time two weeks ago. "You need to be with Bob for only five minutes to marvel at his remarkable progress," he wrote in an e-mail to the staff last week.

Still, he and others stressed that Woodruff would be in rehabilitation for a while.

"He's 100% committed to getting back to work and getting back to where he was before the attack," David Woodruff said. "But he's got a lot of work ahead of him."

For the last three weeks, the anchor has been undergoing vigorous outpatient treatment four to six hours a day, his brother said. Aside from a still-healing shoulder injury, Woodruff has largely recovered from his physical wounds and is now focused on regaining his stamina.

"The real issue with Bob right now is he's tired," his brother said. "His energy level is nowhere near where it was before."

David Woodruff said that the family has been relieved that the anchor, who can once again converse normally, has not suffered the kind of alterations that plague many with head wounds.

"He's emerged from such a serious injury with so much of everything about him intact: his wit, his humor, just his personality," he said.

While Woodruff feels "grateful to be alive," his brother added that the recovery process has been difficult.

"It's stressful," David Woodruff said. "It's hard for guy like Bob to have such a radical change in his life. But you think about the fact he was in this horrific situation that frankly should have cost his life — it wasn't his time, and we're thankful for that."

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-woodruff5may05,0,4539295,print.story?coll=cl-tvent

TV Notebook
NBC Announces Pickup of “Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip”

(NBC Press Release) May 4, 2006

New Backstage Television Drama from Emmy Winners Aaron Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme Earns Slot for Next Fall

BURBANK, Calif. - May 4, 2006 - NBC has added "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" - the new backstage television drama series from Emmy Award-winning executive producers Aaron Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme (both for NBC's "The West Wing")-- to its Fall 2006-07 primetime schedule, it was announced today by Kevin Reilly, President, NBC Entertainment.

"Aaron Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme's work is TV at its best and 'Studio 60' lives up to that standard," said Reilly. "I'm thrilled they are back on NBC for the Fall."

Among the stars of the ensemble cast are Matthew Perry ("Friends"), Amanda Peet ("Syriana"), Bradley Whitford ("The West Wing"), Sarah Paulson ("Down with Love"), D.L. Hughley ("The Hughleys"), Nathan Corddry ("The Daily Show with Jon Stewart"), Timothy Busfield ("thirtysomething"), Steven Weber ("Wings"), Evan Handler ("The West Wing") and Carlos Jacott ("Being John Malkovich").

Sorkin returns to television with this crackling take on the drama behind the humor of producing a popular, late-night comedy sketch show, "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip." He lays bare the backstage politics, romances and delicate balance between creative talent, on-air personalities and network executives in an instant text-messaging world.

Prominent are Jordan McDeere (Peet), a savvy new network entertainment chief who inherits a massive public relations disaster on the series -- even before she starts her first day - and Matt Albie (Perry) and Danny Tripp (Whitford), a brilliant creative team that she wants to resurrect the program. Also playing crucial roles are the sketch comedy series stars Harriet Hayes (Paulson), Simon Stiles (Hughley) and Tom Jeter (Corddry), their normally cool-headed director, Cal Shanley (Busfield) as well as supreme network honcho Jack Rudolph (Weber).

The series is a production of Warner Bros Television.

NBC will announce its complete Fall 2006-07 primetime schedule at its annual Upfront presentation on May 15 at Radio City Music Hall.

The Business of TV
DirecTV Quarterly Financials

(DirecTV Press Release)

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., May 04, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The DIRECTV Group, Inc. (NYSE:DTV) today reported that first quarter revenues increased 8% to $3.39 billion and operating profit before depreciation and amortization(1) more than tripled to $605 million compared to last year's first quarter. The DIRECTV Group reported first quarter 2006 operating profit of $392 million and net income of $235 million, or $0.17 per share, compared with an operating loss of $54 million and a net loss of $41 million, or $0.03 loss per share, in the same period last year.

"DIRECTV U.S. had a strong first quarter highlighted by revenue growth of 14% to $3.19 billion, operating profit before depreciation and amortization more than doubling to $545 million and cash flow before interest and taxes of $211 million," said Chase Carey, president and CEO of The DIRECTV Group, Inc. "Similar to recent quarters, this solid growth was driven by our large and growing subscriber base, strong ARPU growth and higher operating margins due mostly to the significant scale and operating leverage of our business."

Carey continued, "In addition to the strong financial performance, first quarter results also reflect the benefits gained from our strategy to attain higher quality subscribers. DIRECTV's stricter credit policies and revised dealer incentives implemented over the past several quarters have impacted both our gross and net subscriber growth. DIRECTV U.S. gross additions of 919,000 were down 19% compared to last year but more importantly, the number of high-quality subscribers added in the period actually increased more than 13% over the prior year. The continued improvement in the quality of our subscriber base contributed to the first year-over-year improvement in churn in nearly two years as average monthly churn fell to 1.45% in the quarter. The lower gross additions combined with the improved churn rate resulted in net additions of 255,000 subscribers in the quarter."

Carey concluded, "Looking ahead, the introduction of new high definition programming will play an increasingly important role in DIRECTV's competitive strength and future growth. Just two weeks ago, we launched local HD channels in 8 new cities bringing our total coverage to 20 markets representing about 40% of U.S. TV households. We will continue launching new markets over the coming months and by the end of the year, we expect to have HD local channels available to approximately three-quarters of all households. And after the launch of our two remaining HD satellites next year, we expect to have the most comprehensive and compelling offering of HD programming for nearly every home in America."

http://phoenix.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle_print&ID=852408&highlight=

The Business of TV
This broadcast upfront is a tough call

By Kevin Downey MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 5, 2006

The broadcast networks in the fast-approaching upfront are going to have a tough time matching last year’s $9 billion ad market.

This upfront, set to begin May 15, is shaping up to be one of the most complicated in history, with buyers armed with new ratings that work against the networks and a growing confidence that they can walk away from the networks in favor of cable and the internet.

Media buyers and forecasters predict negotiations will drag on in part because new Nielsen Media Research ratings will change the currency used to set prices and the networks’ ratings guarantees.

Nielsen late last year began issuing three tiers of ratings, one for live viewing, the second for live plus same-day digital video recorder viewing, and live-plus-seven-day ratings. Upcoming negotiations will be marked by the networks counting as many viewers as they can, while buyers will hold off for a full year’s worth of data.

“Until I know how many viewers fast-forward through commercials, I don’t know how to ascribe value to the live-plus ratings,” says one New York buyer. “If my commercials are not being seen I’m certainly not going to pay for them.”

Nielsen will also begin measuring viewing on college campuses early next year, a period covered in the upfront, which spans the September-to-May broadcast season. The television ratings service also began measuring Spanish-language networks in its national sample, which may result in advertisers taking some money out of network.

But the change that will most dramatically alter future upfronts, and possibly this one, is the new minute-by-minute ratings. Media buyers say the data is too new to make much impact this year, but initial findings suggest the networks are facing a horrific battle. Media researchers say commercial ratings are often 20 percent to 30 percent lower than program ratings. Buyers will soon begin asking for lower prices for programs with ratings that fall off significantly during commercials.

“What I think will happen longer term is that it will drive us to commercial ratings,” says one network negotiator. But other issues are also lingering, including the high price of oil and uncertainty about how that will affect advertising budgets.

Moreover, most buyers say the internet and other new media are no longer simply an add-on to a network buy, but rather a critical component in most upfront discussions.

The network landscape has also radically changed. UPN and the WB are becoming the CW, while News Corp.’s My Network TV isn’t clearly a network or a syndicated buy. Together, these issues make predicting upfront spending more difficult than it has been in the past.

It also explains why forecasts are all over the place. Noted forecaster Jack Myers, for instance, is projecting a flat to down upfront. Most network negotiators agree. But a few analysts are predicting the networks will do well, up a few percentage points. David Joyce, a media analyst with investment firm Miller Tabak, for instance, expects spending to be up 2.6 percent, to just under $9.3 billion. The one point that most buyers and analysts agree on is that prices will be up, but only in low-single-digit percentages.

ABC: Expect another year of modest price increases
ABC surprised many industry observers last year by asking for modest price increases, about 4 percent. With ratings then accelerating with “Desperate Housewives,” the network could have been more aggressive. It wasn’t and the plan worked. Expenditures on the network were up, to $1.9 billion. This year, ABC will likely use the same strategy.

CBS: With ratings down expect it to be flexible on pricing
CBS prides itself on having a solid primetime lineup with lots of hits. But the network has lost some of its luster. Ratings are down 5 percent so far this season and one-time mega-hits like “Survivor” have seen ratings slide. In this upfront, CBS isn’t likely to hold firm to high price increases and will probably sell as much inventory as it can.

Fox: Stronger still and helped by the merger of UPN and the WB
Fox may be this year’s upfront success story. Ratings are strong for “American Idol” and other hits like “House.” That will help in negotiations. But media analysts also say that Fox – and MTV – will reap the rewards of the WB and UPN merger. Advertisers will likely shift some money to young-skewing networks like Fox.

NBC: Facing a lot tougher sell, despite its successes this season
NBC is working hard to position itself as having momentum. But buyers aren’t buying it. NBC has had success with programs such as “My Name Is Earl” and “The Office,” but neither is strong enough to make up for NBC’s weaknesses. The network is stuck in a distant fourth place among 18-49s, down 8 percent for the season.

The CW: The best of the WB and UPN but with much to prove
Media buyers are fairly upbeat about the CW’s prospects. One buyer describes it as a stronger version of the WB, solidly focused on reaching young women with the best of two networks’ programs. That being said, some advertisers will hold off until the CW proves itself.

My Network TV: A limited player that will take away a small slice
With its programming limited to two novelas, an untested concept in English, My Network TV isn’t expected to make a splash in this upfront. It will generate perhaps $100 million.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_4544.asp

The 2005-06 TV Season
Friday Night’s Season Finales

"Ghost Whisperer," 8 PM ET/PT, CBS
"Survival of the Richest," 8 PM ET/PT, WB
"Reba," 9 PM ET/PT, WB

amazingly enough i don't fastforward past the Ford commercial that airs with the American Idol cast. even more odd, i actually look forward to that commercial and enjoy watching it.

The TV Column
NBC's 'Saturday Night' Fever: How Many Series About a Sketch Show Can It Run?

By Lisa de Moraes The Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, May 5, 2006; C07

Aaron Sorkin's new dramedy about the behind-the-camera antics at a long-running late-night sketch comedy show bearing an uncanny resemblance to "Saturday Night Live" has been guaranteed a place on NBC's fall schedule, the network announced yesterday.

This is, of course, not great news for NBC's other series contender for next season about the behind-the-camera antics at a long-running late-night sketch comedy show bearing an uncanny resemblance to "Saturday Night Live."

That one is being written by Tina Fey, the hottie hack head writer of the actual "Saturday Night Live."

Sorkin's project, "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," will star Amanda Peet as Jordan McDeere, who bears an uncanny resemblance to Jamie Tarses. Tarses (who, while married, went by Jamie McDermott) is the deeply smart/insecure- but-in-a-sexy-way TV industry child (dad Jay Tarses of "The Bob Newhart Show," "Buffalo Bill," "Days and Nights of Molly Dodd" ) who grew up to head NBC's comedy series development until she was plucked by then-Disney President Michael Ovitz to run the entertainment division at Disney-owned ABC.

"Studio 60" also marks the return to TV series work of most talented "Friends" actor Matthew Perry, "West Wing" romantic guy Bradley Whitford, stand-up comedian D.L. Hughley, "The Daily Show's" Nathan Corddry, "Sex and the City" sweetheart Evan Handler, "West Wing" and "thirtysomething's" Timothy Busfield, NBC staple Steven Weber and "Down With Love's" Sarah Paulson, among others.

Tina Fey's project would star Tina Fey, who, in a stretch, would play the head writer of a long-running, late-night sketch comedy show bearing an uncanny resemblance to "Saturday Night Live." The character's name is Lisa Lemon, according to news reports -- that's where the stretch comes in.

It also would star Alec Baldwin as vice president of East Coast television and microwave oven programming for NBC/GE/Universal/Kmart. (NBC Universal really is owned by General Electric. The Kmart bit is Tina's deft touch. )

Sorkin, who is like a rock star to the Reporters Who Cover Television, will executive-produce "Studio 60." So will Tommy Schlamme, who directed Sorkin's "West Wing" scripts during that show's brilliant seasons.

Fey would executive-produce the other series, along with "SNL" executive producer Lorne Michaels.

Ironically, Perry and Whitford will star in "Studio 60" as the creative team brought back to the show after its producer suffers a meltdown.

Yesterday, Michaels insisted the two shows were "apples and oranges," though he said he'd not seen Sorkin's pilot, which we hear was delivered to NBC on Wednesday under tight security.

Michaels said he saw no problem with both series being on one network's prime-time slate simultaneously.

"Would I rather live in a world in which Aaron Sorkin did not do a show about 'Saturday Night Live'? Possibly," Michaels told Post television critic Tom Shales.

Despite yesterday's announcement about "Studio 60," the Fey project is still a contender for fall.

In which case, fruit argument aside, it will be compared with "Studio 60."

NBC snagged the show after this development season's hottest bidding war, agreeing, according to trade paper reports, to order 13 episodes of "Studio 60" at nearly $2 million per. In the event of non-broadcast, it would pay a kill fee in the mid-seven figures.

Which is why yesterday's announcement wasn't what you'd call a total shocker, people in the industry figuring that, having bent over backward, NBC might as well announce it had picked up "Studio 60."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CBS unveiled its new broadband channel yesterday. Innertube is an ad-supported compendium of cheap original programming, repeat episodes of current CBS prime-time series and reruns of CBS's library of 2,600 titles and 100,000 hours of TV programming.

Plus, the network will finally have a place to show unaired episodes of series it canceled. Had it launched earlier, innertube could've had "Love Monkey."

As CBS Corp. CEO Leslie Moonves put it in yesterday's announcement, it's the We've-Essentially- Bypassed-Cable channel.

Innertube initially will stream three shows a day. Streaming video of current CBS series does not yet appear on the channel. Nancy Tellem, CBS Paramount Network Television Entertainment Group president, told reporters on a news conference phone call that the network is still working on deals with broadcast affiliates covering the reuse of the episodes.

CBS has been offering its programming on a pay-to-play basis on Google and iTunes. But in March, when CBS offered free, ad-supported streaming of March Madness, it got 5 million visits, CBS Digital Media President Larry Kramer told reporters.

Original programming set to roll out this month on innertube includes makeover reality series "Greek to Chic"; sketch comedy series "BBQ Bill"; "Animate This!," in which celebrities (guessing here they will be CBS show celebs) narrate funny personal events, which will be animated; re-streaming of Pearl Jam's exclusive CBS.com Webcast concert; and a show about the making of "Survivor."

Shows seen on the channel yesterday opened with commercials, and product placements were not subtle. The debut of "Greek to Chic" -- in which experts turn well-heeled fraternity slobs into well-groomed heels -- was sponsored by Chili's restaurant and Dr Pepper.

Two frat bros, picked from the crowd by two chicks after a round of speed dating, took their dates out to a Chili's restaurant -- one wearing a Dr Pepper T-shirt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/04/AR2006050402047_pf.html

Sports On TV
Index key for sportscasters' status

By Michael Hiestand USA Today 5/5/2006

Just 9% of the U.S. adult population has heard of ABC sideline reporter Michele Tafoya, says new research ranking 30 sportscasters' popularity. But they really like her: She trails only ESPN's Dan Patrick as the most-noticed announcer and outranks everybody when it comes to being a "trendsetter" and getting consumers to "aspire" to the life she "stands for."

Who knew? The Marketing Arm, a Dallas-based sports marketing agency, and its Los Angeles-based Davie-Brown Entertainment, a talent broker matching celebrities and advertisers, recently created the Davie-Brown Index. It's meant to compete with Marketing Evaluation Inc.'s famous Q ratings, which rank celebrities largely on name recognition and likability.

DBI ratings do that too, finding Fox's Terry Bradshaw to be the best-known broadcaster it ranks and ESPN's John Saunders as the most-liked. The DBI ratings, meant to help marketers evaluate sportscasters as potential product endorsers, include more categories. (And include glaring omissions, like not ranking ESPN's Dick Vitale and NBC's Cris Collinsworth.)

Who do you trust? The index says ex-CBS analyst Deion Sanders, ESPN's Michael Irvin and — here the public is obviously mistaken — TNT's Marv Albert as the least trustworthy.

The top choice for the announcer best-suited to pitching products: Fox's Troy Aikman, about to become the first TV analyst to get his own signature line of sneakers, sold by Riddell.

Bradshaw tops DBI's overall sportscaster rankings, followed by NBC's John Madden, ESPN's Mike Ditka and HBO's Bryant Gumbel, although Gumbel ranks nearly last in having a life others "aspire" to and as a "trendsetter" — behind even retired Pat Summerall in those categories.

Bradshaw, who got lots of exposure by appearing nude in the recent film Failure to Launch, shouldn't get cocky: He's ranked 288th among all celebs in the DBI Index, which is topped by Tom Hanks and Oprah Winfrey.

Only as young as their scores

Sunday, CBS airs something you never see in sports television: competition between octogenarian athletes.

Forget traditional senior tours: Some of the athletes on display Sunday, in action that will be taped Saturday, are in their 90s.

The premiere of Shoot Your Age Championship, from The Villages, Fla., will feature 58 very mature amateur golfers — and senior citizens Arnold Palmer, 76, and Gary Player, 70 — trying to break par.

Except each player's definition of par will be his age. Meaning that Harold Layman, a former code-breaker in the U.S. Navy and retired engineer from Ormond Beach, Fla., can go 10 under par by shooting 86 — because he's 96 years old. That's not unrealistic, given that Layman has made 14 holes in one in his life and has scorecards showing he's shot his age 1,119 times.

Robert Horowitz, the independent producer who created the event and bought time on CBS to air it, says the show's scoring system makes sense "because it's easily explained, which is everything in TV."

Having copyrighted the concept, Horowitz hopes to make versions of the show overseas and make it an annual event on TV. It isn't too expensive to stage. "We can't have prize money," he says. "These players want to keep their amateur status. And they said they don't care about prize money anyway."

After all, they're not exactly saving for retirement.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2006-05-05-weekend_x.htm

TV Notebook
CBS Unveils Summer Slate; Gameshow Marathon Kicks Off Season

By John Consoli MediaWeek.com MAY 05, 2006 -

CBS has announced the premiere dates of some of its original summer programming, which will include a celebrity game show hosted by Ricki Lake, a one-hour reality series which follows the lives of a group of real suburban women, and the return of music competition Rock Star, and reality series Big Brother.

Gameshow Marathon, hosted by Lake, will premiere on Wednesday, May 31, at 8 p.m. and also air the following night at 8. It will then air the following week at 8 p.m on June 7 and 8, before airing once a week in its regular time period on Thursday, June 15 at 8 p.m.

Based on a British game show, Marathon is produced by FreemantleMedia North America and Grenada Entertainment USA. It will feature six celebrity contestants competing in a weekly elimination-style tournament in which they play against one another in different classic game show formats.

The Tuesday Night Book Club follows the lives of a group of real women in a middle-class, suburban neighborhood as they deal with the pressures of raising kids, maintaining households, their relationships with their husbands and during which they reveal secrets about themselves. The show premieres Tuesday, June 13 at 10 p.m.
Rock Star: Supernova returns for a second ear with two weekly broadcasts beginning with its premiere on Wednesday, July 5 at 8, following by a second airing the following night at 9.

The show will air in the regular time period of Tuesday at 9 and Wednesday at 10 the following week. In the series, the rock group Supernova will audition to find a new lead singer.

Big Brother will return for its seventh edition on Thursday, July 6 at 8 p.m. with an All-Star edition. It will air three times a week throughout the summer, on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 8 and on Saturday at 9. The new edition will for the first time let viewers help choose who will participate in the game from a pool of former houseguest competitors.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002463436

TV Notebook
Long arm of the law reaches out to comics

By Barbara Serrano Los Angeles Times Staff Writer May 5, 2006

For many TV fans, NBC's long-running "Law & Order" franchise conjures up images of perverts and murderers, wisecracking detectives and self-important D.A.s trying to put the bad guys in jail.

But guest-starring roles for Stephen Colbert, Lewis Black and "Saturday Night Live" regulars such as Darrell Hammond too?

Flip to USA or TNT, where the original "L & O" series and its spinoffs are featured regularly, and you might catch them and other stand-up comedians and comic actors cast as some of television's creepiest characters.

And more are coming. On Sunday, Whoopi Goldberg will turn up as a villainous foster mother in a new prime-time episode of "Law & Order: Criminal Intent." And on "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" this fall, Jerry Lewis will play a homeless man accused of murder.

"There's a certain sparkle these guys bring," said Fred Berner, one of the executive producers of "Criminal Intent."

"We like to think of our criminals and perps being as equally entertaining as our stars, and you have a relatively short period of time to make the audience familiar with the characters," Berner explained. "So if they have some sparkle and you can bury their personality a little bit in the darkness of one of our characters, you bring them alive in a unique way."

"Law & Order's" producers and writers have tapped at least 20 comedians and comic actors for guest-starring roles. Among them: Janeane Garofalo, Larry Miller, Eric Bogosian, John Ritter, Martin Short and Sandra Bernhard.

"Saturday Night Live" has proven a fertile casting ground, as has "The Daily Show."

René Balcer, another executive producer of "Criminal Intent," says that as actors, comedians can often tap into the underlying anger and resentment that not only fuel great comedy but also help illustrate what makes criminals tick.

"They're willing to push the envelope a lot more than a lot of other actors" in front of the camera, he said. "If you look at famous comedians, whether it's [John] Belushi or [Chris] Farley or any of those guys, they had no qualms about making fools of themselves, or doing anything."

There's a tradition of actors crossing over from comedy routines to dramatic roles — consider Jackie Gleason ("The Hustler") and Jerry Lewis ("The King of Comedy"), Robin Williams ("Good Will Hunting"), Steve Martin ("The Spanish Prisoner") and Bill Murray ("Lost in Translation").

On television, Garofalo has spent much of the last year playing Louise Thornton, a Democratic media strategist on "The West Wing." Bob Newhart played an architect contemplating suicide on "ER" in 2003. And police work has been comedian Richard Belzer's on-screen job for 14 years, now as Det. John Munch on "Law & Order: SVU."

At "Law & Order," producers say, a specific actor will sometimes come to mind for a script; other times their agents contact the shows expressing interest.

Filling the shoes of a well-scripted character on a single episode doesn't require the time commitment of a movie project. And as much as they enjoy getting laughs, comedians are often eager to try a creative challenge.

Lewis agreed to appear on "SVU" at the urging of Belzer, a longtime friend. "He's a huge fan of the show, and I said, 'You should come on,' " Belzer said. The producers "figured out a story that he liked."

Hammond, a stand-up best known for his Al Gore and Bill Clinton impersonations on "Saturday Night Live," has appeared on "SVU" and "Criminal Intent," most recently as a bully who sexually harasses an employee.

"I feel like a clown in the sense that I am," he said. "I wear a lot of paint on my face and fake noses and ears. So to think that even for a second that I could act alongside these great actors is thrilling."

It can also be intimidating. There he was in a tense scene, Hammond recalled, with Vincent D'Onofrio (Det. Robert Goren) getting in his face like he always does with the bad guys, trying to pin a rap on him.

"When he's yelling at you, it's so real," Hammond said. "You just want to go, 'Dude, I'm on "Saturday Night Live." People don't talk to me like that.' "

In the 2004 episode, "The Saint," writers brought Colbert to "Criminal Intent" as a tightly wound and somewhat pretentious handwriting expert who swindles a Catholic foundation and blows up a grandmother with an explosive device.

But not every comic necessarily plays the bad guy.

"SVU's" executive producer, Neal Baer, says he likes to mix it up. He's cast comedian Jim Gaffigan as a clown who preys on children, Bernhard as a defense attorney and Black as a crass radio host.

While it might seem enticing to cast a comedian for the name draw, Baer said, "We always go for acting ability. We do it because it's going against type."

Belzer sees some of his comic stage personality in the role of Munch, who's given to dark trench coats, a rebellious streak and cynical-yet-wry observations about people.

He still occasionally goes out on the road to do stand-up comedy — his next booking is June 3 in Atlantic City, N.J. — but he said he's content right where he is, working on a hit television show. "This is the best role I could possibly have."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-law5may05,1,1068347.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews

Thursday’s prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted at the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
The lights are dimming for NBC's 'ER'


By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 5, 2006

A year ago, the rest of NBC’s Thursday schedule was a mess, but “ER” continued to win its 10 p.m. timeslot, and by a wide margin. But this year, “ER” is stumbling into the muck right along with the rest of the night.

Last night “ER” averaged just a 5.1 overnight rating in adults 18-49, finishing a distant second in its 10 p.m. timeslot behind CBS’s “Without a Trace.” “Trace” averaged a 5.9.

“ER’s” average was down 27 percent from the comparable night last year, when it averaged a 7.0 on the second night of May sweeps. Meanwhile, “Trace” was up 11 percent over last year’s 5.3.

“ER” has been sinking all season, and last night’s rating was 0.1 off its 5.2 season average. Obviously age is part of the reason for its decline – the show is now in its 12th season, while “Trace” is just four years old.
But an ever-weakening schedule earlier in the evening is also hurting “ER.” After strong ratings in January, new 9 p.m. occupants “My Name is Earl” and “The Office” have tumbled, last night averaging just a combined 3.8. By comparison, “Apprentice” averaged a 5.7 in the same slot a year ago, a difference of 33 percent.

Whether “ER” can recover seems doubtful. Aging shows don’t often find a second wind, and next year losses could get even worse, with longtime NBC Thursday stalwart “Will & Grace” gone and only remaining original cast member Noah Wyle making even fewer “ER” appearances.

Meanwhile, CBS led the night among 18-49s with a 6.7 rating and 18 share. NBC was second with 3.9/11, Fox third with 2.3/7, ABC fourth with 2.0/6, WB fifth with 1.7/5, Univision sixth with 1.5/4, and UPN seventh with 1.1/3.

CBS swept the night starting with the lead at 8 p.m., a 5.9 rating for “Survivor.” NBC was second with a 2.8 for an original episode of “Will & Grace” (2.7) followed by a repeat (2.9). Fox was third with a 2.4 for two episodes of “That 70s Show,” WB fourth with a 1.8/6 for “Smallville,” ABC fifth with a 1.7 for “American Inventor,” Univision sixth with a 1.4 for “La Bella Mas Fea,” and UPN seventh with a 1.1 for “Everybody Hates Chris” (1.3) and “Love, Inc.” (0.9).

At 9 p.m., CBS led with an 8.2 for “CSI” followed by NBC with a 3.8 for “My Name is Earl” (4.0) and “The Office” (3.6). ABC was third with a 2.6 for another episode of “American Inventor,” Fox fourth with a 2.3 for “The O.C.,” Univision fifth with a 1.6/4 for “Barrera de Amor,” WB sixth with a 1.5 for “Supernatural,” and UPN seventh with a 1.0 for “Eve” (1.0) and “Cuts” (1.0).

At 10 p.m., CBS was first with the 5.9 for “Trace,” NBC second with the 5.1 for “ER,” ABC third with a 1.7 for “Primetime,” and Univision fourth with a 1.4 for “Aqui y Ahora.”

CBS also led the night among households with a 13 rating and 21 share. NBC was second with 6.0/10, ABC third with 3.9/6, Fox fourth with 3.5/6, WB fifth with 2.6/4, Univision sixth with 1.9/3 and UPN seventh with 1.6/3

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_4567.asp

TV Notebook
CBS Unveils Summer Slate; Gameshow Marathon Kicks Off Season

By John Consoli MediaWeek.com MAY 05, 2006 -

CBS has announced the premiere dates of some of its original summer programming........,

The Tuesday Night Book Club follows the lives of a group of real women in a middle-class, suburban neighborhood as they deal with the pressures of raising kids, maintaining households, their relationships with their husbands and during which they reveal secrets about themselves. The show premieres Tuesday, June 13 at 10 p.m.

Everyone see this 'show' in their everyday lives. All I have to do is walk outside, go to the grocery store and observe some suburban mom wrangling with the kids, talking to the husband, gossiping with the girlfriend and all of that other boring, err........., good suburban mom stuff. Ooooohhh, what secrets will be revealed! I'm so not on the edge of my seat. I picture a secret that goes something like this: "Ok, I'll let you in on a secret, I don't dye my hair every week". I know nets are desperate for programming in the summer, but this is really desperate. Nice going CBS!

What would really make a show like this good, is having a suburban mom that is divorced or unmarried and in her mid to late 40s dating some young dude in his mid to late 20s. That would be kick-a*s. You'll get to see how her friends feel about the relationship, the dynamics of an older woman, younger man relationship and the pressures of that type of relationship. Now that is compelling, real-life tv! ;) Get a clue CBS. No one wants to watch a group of married, surburban moms living their everyday lives. We see enough that everyday.

Hey, I just heard from some surburban moms and they even think your show is boring. You know why? B/c your show goes something like this: Drive minivan/uber lux SUV/Benz, Lexus, BMX, Infinity, Honda, Toyota with kids in it, go rent a blockbuster movie, go grocery shopping with the children, argue with the husband, makeup with the husband after arguing, gossip with girlfriends, cook dinner, wash and iron clothes, go to the Cheesecake Factory with girlfriends, go to work, come home, sleep, eat. There you go. I just did your show for you in under 2 minutes.

Rant off




Big Brother will return for its seventh edition on Thursday, July 6 at 8 p.m. with an All-Star edition. It will air three times a week throughout the summer, on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 8 and on Saturday at 9. The new edition will for the first time let viewers help choose who will participate in the game from a pool of former houseguest competitors.


A all-star edition is a good way to change things up. I would hope that the producers aren't bringing back people who have won previously.

The 2006-07 TV Season
Draft picks can beef up roster, but cuts can too


By Tim Goodman San Francisco Chronicle Friday, May 5, 2006

Next week is the calm before massive change in TV land. It's the inhalation networks take as they close their eyes and step boldly -- or stupidly -- into the future.

So three columns next week will be devoted to grading out the freshman class, saying goodbye to longtime series that are retiring and previewing what moves the networks are likely to make starting May 15 in New York.

That's when they will announce their new fall lineups to advertisers and press in the annual "upfronts" -- and Madison Avenue will throw wads of cash at each network, based on the appeal of those new series and the strength of the returning schedule. Yes, it's very much like the NFL Draft. And it's a week that shares the same kind of excitement, shot through with the untainted hopes of all five networks.

But there's something missing from all of this preparation and prediction. Something absent from the ritual that's about to ensue. And that thing is this: wishing away series that have every intention of staying.

See, all the action is on the new pilots, or those series -- and there are a lot of them -- that are on the bubble. Everybody else in the safety zone can hit the snooze button and wake up in September. But for a lot of critics, some returning shows shouldn't be. Here's a very necessary pruning of the schedule:

-- "ER." What is the point anymore? What was the point the past two or three or even four seasons? Prime-time television is no place for series that are given the soap opera treatment by viewers -- same show, every year, watched out of habit. Get rid of it.

• "The Apprentice." It was interesting for a season and a half. Now it's just limping along in complete lameness. The spark is gone. The Donald has worn out his welcome. The numbers are tanking. If NBC were a stronger network, this would be in the trash bin where it belongs.

• "Crossing Jordan." Do you know anyone who watches this? If so, ask them this question: Other than for Jill Hennessy, why? One of the most damning problems on broadcast networks is how mediocre series are allowed to squat on the schedule and take up space.

• "Law & Order." See "ER." See also: "Crossing Jordan." Oh, you can't bear to see it go? Fine, let's swap out "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" instead.

• "CSI: New York." The same laws of critical shoulder shrugging apply here. You like this one? OK, let's kill "CSI: Miami."

• "According to Jim." Is there no TV god?

• "Las Vegas." You mean to suggest that there's not something better that might come along? Didn't this series burn through its relatively meager hipness in the first season? You know a series that tries to sell the uncut DVD versions has lost its way, creatively. If it actually had a real direction in the first place.

• "Rodney." Checking the canceled list -- can't find it. That's an administrative problem, yes?

• "Still Standing." It can't be. It shouldn't be. Surely CBS must have another sitcom in development in which a fat, jovial husband marries a wisecracking wife who's no more than a size 6. Somebody check on that -- preferably someone at CBS before it's too late.

• "Primetime." You can find this Thursday night in place of the just-yanked (and no doubt -- no doubt whatsoever), just-killed "Commander in Chief." But prime-time news magazines are so early 1990s. And also so boring.

• "20/20." See above, sans the "Commander in Chief" killing.

• "48 Hours Mystery." Putting "Mystery" in the title did not help. See "20/20" and "Primetime." But add this: Name five people in the Bay Area you know who watch this. Confirm their addresses. Call to see if they've fallen down.

• "The O.C." Few series have flashed brilliance then squandered it so fast, yet lived to tell another ridiculous tale.

• "Dateline." See "20/20," "Primetime" and "48 Hours Mystery." But add this: "Dateline" is pandering and obnoxious and bad for your health.

• "America's Funniest Home Videos." Who doesn't like a good groin thwack? Good point. But for every two-by-four in the crotch, every golf ball off the head, every perilous and possibly staged crash of children into something stiff or scratchy, you have to remember that home videos are dead, viral videos now rule. And besides, wouldn't it be nice to get a good drama in that slot?

• "Wife Swap"/"Meet Your New Mommy," etc., etc., etc. No explanation should really be necessary.

Now, remember: "The West Wing," "Malcolm in the Middle," "That '70s Show," "Will & Grace" and "Alias" are all departing without being pushed (technically).

Even venerable old "Monday Night Football" is moving to ESPN.

And though "Saturday Night Live" is always a candidate for this list, there's the faintest hope that new blood or better hosts will invigorate the tired old hag.

This list also didn't include freshman series that are likely doomed (more on that next week), nor cable series, nor several series that received mercy for various reasons ("King of Queens," which is still funny enough, and "George Lopez," because the guy got a kidney transplant and why rain on that?), nor much of the WB and UPN schedule, which has already been discussed here and on "The Bastard Machine" before.

Settle down, vampires. There are enough shows that made this list. Once snipped from the schedule, they'd free up a lot of room for leniency, and perhaps even something better.

Too bad it's not going to happen. But there's always next May to dream again.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/05/DDGT5IKIAT33.DTL&type=printable

TV Notebook
Off-screen folks a force in stardom: Great writer-, director-actor duos


By R.D. Heldenfels Akron Beacon Journal television writer

As the current TV season comes to an end, actors (and married couple) Bradley Whitford and Jane Kaczmarek will be thinking about new jobs.

Whitford has had a long run as Josh Lyman on NBC's The West Wing, while Kaczmarek has played the outspoken mom Lois on Fox's Malcolm in the Middle. Both shows have their series finales on May 14.

I don't envy them the task ahead. After all, Whitford and Kaczmarek had been working in TV long before they had hit series and Emmys to go with them.

Each needed an off-screen collaborator -- writer Aaron Sorkin for Whitford, writer Linwood Boomer for Kaczmarek -- to make them stars.

The relationship between on-screen talent and off-screen forces, such as writers and directors, can shape a career.

Look at what Desperate Housewives has done for Felicity Huffman and Teri Hatcher, for example. Or how Grey's Anatomy has put Patrick Dempsey back on magazine covers. Ask yourself how much you knew about James Gandolfini before he spoke David Chase's words on The Sopranos.

Yes, their performances are part of the mix. But only part. You can't ponder the success of Grey's without crediting series creator Shonda Rhimes for concocting a unique blend of comedy, drama and character. The show has revived Dempsey's career much the way that Quentin Tarantino saved John Travolta's. It has also increased the star power of Isaiah Washington, Sandra Oh, Katherine Heigl and James Pickens Jr. -- hitherto reliable but less-known actors.

Smart actors know this. Whitford, for example, is working on a new project with Sorkin. And next week, PBS's American Masters will look at a long, remarkable teaming in a program about director John Ford and actor John Wayne.

Ford and Wayne made more than a dozen movies together over careers in which dynamics shifted. Ford was the bigger name when he discovered Wayne, while Wayne bolstered a fading Ford later in their lives. They also differed in their opinions. Wayne was a well-known arch-conservative while Ford, American Masters says, was a Democrat who in one notable case fought show-biz McCarthyism.

But somehow, when they got together for a movie, remarkable things happened often enough that they would work together again and again. It's not unlike the way Denzel Washington and Spike Lee often pair, or Robert DeNiro and Martin Scorsese.

Although part of those relationships may involve a comfort zone, that's not always the case. Ford was good at pushing, even bullying, Wayne into some of his best performances.

Writer-director David Mamet (The Unit) has a specific rhythm to his dialogue that is difficult to master. (An actor once recalled that Mamet did not even let actors change an ``um'' in a script.) So he often returns to actors like William H. Macy and Joe Mantegna, who can do it.

David Milch (Deadwood) brings tricky poetry to his scripts -- but Ian McShane found the music, playing Al Swearengen. (New episodes, and new music, begin on June 11.) In pursuit of characters full of humor and anguish, actor-writer Denis Leary has found a great partner in writer-director Peter Tolan, first on The Job, then on Rescue Me, which begins its third season on May 30.

But show-biz careers may last longer than partnerships. (Sorkin left West Wing, Boomer is now just a consultant on Malcolm.) Actors may decide they can make it on their own. Writers and directors may be drawn to new projects by the lure of big money. Studios and networks can make demands. Agents can want better deals.

Think of another guy who worked with Whitford on The West Wing. He had a good role on a hit show, and he walked away from it for other things -- including two series that didn't make it to a second season. Rob Lowe didn't know he was in the middle of magic -- and how rare that magic can be.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/entertainment/columnists/rd_heldenfels/14497188.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

TV Notebook
'The worst show on the broadcast networks': Readers respond

By Maureen Ryan from the Chicago Tribune TV blog

Declaring "Desperate Housewives" to be the worst show on the broadcast networks, as I did in a recent blog entry, is bound to attract a certain amount of flak.

One fan of the ABC show e-mailed that he would never read my work again. Other fans declared, in comments on the Web site, that I just didn't get "Housewives" -- I didn't get that the show is meant to be escapist entertainment, "fun in a world of craziness," as one reader noted.

All that disagreement is fine -- welcome, even -- and it's all par for the course for anyone who throws opinions out into the world for a living. But the fact is, I actually got far less angry e-mail than I thought I would. If anything, what the "Housewives" piece seemed to unleash was the pent-up scorn of a whole host of TV viewers who, like me, cannot understand what others see in this still red-hot show.

The disdain for the show, as evidenced by comments left on this blog, seems to center around these six main critiques, which I share.

Readers said they dislike:

• The plots that go nowhere or that start out interesting and wind up as poorly thought-out filler. "I loved the show when it first came out, [I] thought it was `American Beauty' lightened up for TV," reader Ron Fishman posted. "By the second half of the first season, I was staying with it out of loyalty and hoped that it would recover its footing. The next-to-final straw for me was when they killed off Rex, the most complex character on the show. I really didn't understand that -- there were very interesting dynamics going on with Bree as they tried to salvage their marriage. Maybe it was too difficult for the writers, [it] made them uncomfortable?"

Maybe the writers just got sick of the Rex-Bree story, or had no idea where to go with it. Who knows? But it's clear that they're grasping at straws with Bree's current love, a sex addict she met in AA. She's trying to persuade him to give up his hard-won sexual sobriety -- how's that for an entertaining plot?

• A lack of character development -- or characters whose personalities vary wildly from week to week. "They need to be really careful with Bree," reader B.K. Ray posted. "One day she was Martha Stewart and the next she was a rather drunk, passed-out Martha Stewart (which was totally unbelievable)." You said it.

Goodness knows the actresses on this show, with one exception, do the best with what they have, and often make their scenes better than they have any right to be. But even a classy, talented actress such as Marcia Cross can only do so much with Bree. The rest is up to the show's writers, who seem to change the characters to suit the plot, not the other way around, which is more work for the writers but far more satisfying for viewers.

• The misuse of talented actors. Few commenters disputed the fact that the "Housewives" actresses are, for the most part, a talented bunch (and there are standouts in the supporting cast as well, especially Richard Burgi as Susan's ex). But these performers are given far too little of substance to do.

Lynette (Felicity Huffman) sending raunchy instant messages on behalf of her boss? Bree encouraging her friend Peter to fall off the wagon? These plots are not only silly and insulting, they don't even begin to display the actresses' range or skills. And don't get me started on the misuses of Alfre Woodard as new Wisteria Lane resident Betty Applewhite. Not giving her much of interest to do for an entire season is tantamount to buying a pound of delicious, expensive truffles and then letting them rot in the trunk of your car.

• The fact that Eva Longoria can't really carry her weight dramatically on the show. Though some readers disagreed, Longoria is, in many readers' opinions, the weak link in the "Housewives" cast (the recent scene in which the authorities took away her baby was proof of that for me). "As we've recently seen with the films `Catwoman' and `Aeon Flux,' attractive talent alone does not make a show," reader Patrick Broderick noted.

• The preponderance of clunky dialogue. Some recent samples of the lines "Housewives" cast members have been asked to speak: "It's dangerous to care about me. A lot of people have over the years and they've all ended up getting hurt"; "This is our baby. . . . You can't take her away, we've already fallen in love with her." Now, it wouldn't be fair to take a couple of lines of dialogue out of context if those lines weren't pretty representative of the general quality of the "Housewives" scripts, which, especially of late, have all the wit, complexity and nuance of "an anvil to the solar plexus," as I wrote in my "Housewives" blog entry.

• The characters can be pretty irritating. Commenter (and fellow blogger) Claire Zulkey noted that she had rented the entire first season of the show, to see what all the "Housewives" fuss was about. "I didn't find any of the characters on the show particularly likeable. Bree was cartoonish, Gabrielle was bratty, Lynette was grating, Susan was blah and Edie was just sort of bizarre . . . [ and] I just never have seen the appeal of Teri Hatcher."

I like Hatcher just fine, but it's disheartening to see her given so little meaty material. Sure, "Housewives" is meant to be, at least partly, a comedy, one without, perhaps, a huge amount of weightiness or seriousness behind it. That's fine. But at least give these actresses something to do, besides line up their next magazine features on breaks between scenes.

You might wonder how can I call "Housewives" the worst show on the broadcast networks -- how can it be worse than "According to Jim"? Because "Jim" aims for inoffensive mediocrity and succeeds. Because it does not live up to its much greater potential, and because it misuses such a talented cast, the flailing banality of "Housewives" is all the more galling.

"Housewives" should and could be much more than it is. It could be a sharp satire of suburbia, an intriguing exploration of motherhood, marriage and relationships, and a sympathetic, funny look at the price of making it as a female executive in the working world. Its failure in all those realms and its inability to get its house in order a mere two years into its run is shocking. And sad, for all of us who were intrigued and excited by the idea of an hourlong comedy-drama examining the lives of women -- or anyone who has ever been desperate.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2006/05/the_worst_show_.html#more

humm... Since Thief is pretty much a goner... and reading about problems with Law and order CI. I think It will be kinda cool if somehow the Andre Braugher's character of Frank Pembleton from the show "Homicide" goes to New York where the character was from. And is somehow partnerd up with his "old pal" John Munch.. Richard Belzer character from Homicide and SVU!:D They could be the other half of the CI team! :)

I hope Braugher comes back next season in something, I really enjoy his work.

The Business of Television
Fighting Off Satellites and the Bells: Saturday Interview With Glenn A. Britt

By Ken Belson The New York Times May 6, 2006

The last year was rough for cable companies. Everyone from Hollywood to New York predicted the industry's demise as satellite providers continued to steal cable customers, as the Bell companies geared up to sell television and as Disney, CBS and other networks started distributing shows over the Internet.

But the outlook for cable companies may be turning. Comcast, Cablevision and others are adding basic subscribers once again, and they are signing up record numbers of broadband and digital phone customers.

More change is on the way. By midyear, Time Warner Cable and Comcast hope to complete their purchase of Adelphia Communications and its 4.9 million subscribers.

As part of the deal, Time Warner Cable will also, for the first time, be publicly traded, increasing the spotlight on Glenn A. Britt, the company's decidedly low-profile chief executive. Mr. Britt has spent more than three decades in the Time Warner universe, working at Time Inc. and HBO before Time Warner Cable.

In an interview this week, Mr. Britt discussed the company's prospects. Following are excerpts:

Q. Time Warner Cable reported strong first-quarter earnings this week. Are satellite customers returning to cable?

A. The triple play — the combination of video, phone and broadband — is really, really popular with consumers and they tend to vote with their feet. The satellite companies have done a wonderful job making themselves look cheaper than cable. Some introductory packages are cheaper. But their average revenue per customer is about the same as cable. So the reality is that what people pay for satellite is about the same.

Q. Most cable stocks are up this year, but analysts remains wary. Why?

A. Wall Street has two concerns about cable. They are both going to be proven wrong. The first is the phone companies are going to crush the cable companies. But the reality is that it will take them many, many years to build out the whole country. When they get to where we are today, we'll be selling all these new things.

The second thing is whether all television is going over the Internet. The answer to that is not anytime soon. The Internet as it exists today is not capable of delivering hundreds of channels to millions of homes. The second reason is we gather an audience and guarantee revenue back to the networks, and they use the money to make more programming. Networks aren't going to put their content on the Internet unless there is a replacement.

Q. But Disney is now putting some of its shows on the Internet free. Isn't that a threat to your business?

A. Media companies are under pressure to experiment with putting a few shows on the Internet. It's a valid experimentation and if something takes off, people will do it. What I don't want to say is that there will not be a lot of video on the Internet. There's a huge amount of consumer-generated video. But that's a lot different than networks putting video on the Internet free.

Q. What will the acquisition of Adelphia Communications do for Time Warner Cable?

A. The really important part of the deal is that we'll be able to consolidate the Los Angeles market. We will go from having 15 percent of the market to having 85 percent.

Q. Time Warner and other cable companies are working with Sprint to develop wireless products. When can consumers expect to see them?

A. We will be in test markets later this year and those products will be fairly rudimentary. The things we really want to do are across platforms, like getting all your e-mail in one box or being able to get your Internet service on your cell. There isn't that big of a rush. It isn't clear what will be popular.

Q. Some consumer and religious groups want cable companies to sell channels on an à la carte basis. How likely is this?

A. The underlying economics of the television business and what it costs to produce the array of television in this country are what drives this phenomenon of big packages. We could offer à la carte technically. But if we offered à la carte, it would introduce all sorts of other costs. Think about being a new subscriber to cable. The average customer service phone call is five minutes. But with à la carte, operators would have to explain all the different channels. It might take half an hour and we would have to pass that cost along. It would not be cheaper but more expensive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/06/business/media/06interview.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

The Digital Revolution
High-Def Newsgathering Passes CBS Test

Digital microwave gear successfully supports HD feeds
By Glen Dickson Broadcasting & Cable, 5/8/2006

Complete high-definition newscasts might reach viewers sooner than they expect. After extensive testing in New York, CBS believes new digital microwave gear can support HD electronic newsgathering (ENG).

CBS measured HD feeds from an ENG van parked at various sites up to 35 miles away from its receive site atop the Empire State Building, replicating the typical coverage area for ENG operations. With a line-of-sight to the building from the van’s microwave mast, CBS experienced 100% success at HD data rates ranging from 18 to 28 megabits per second (Mbps), says CBS VP of Advanced Technology Robert Seidel.

CBS also tested “bounce” transmissions from various locations within New York’s urban canyons, such as Times Square and Rockefeller Center. The network had similar success with the COFDM (Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed) system, despite the greater multipath interference present in such locations. The reception rate for bounce transmissions was 95% at a data rate of 18 Mbps, 90% for 22 Mbps.

In fact, the new digital microwave gear is deemed reliable enough that it may actually replace satellite newsgathering (SNG) links in locations that previously didn’t allow analog microwave feeds. “In some locations where we used SNG,” says Seidel, “now we can use ENG.”

CBS’ findings are significant. While a few stations produce HD newscasts, the material coming from the field is still standard-def, with the exception of a few HD helicopter cameras. The expense of HD field cameras is one stumbling block to high-def ENG, but the bigger issue is the return path to the station.

Broadcasters are in the midst of an FCC-mandated transition from analog to digital ENG gear, freeing up spectrum for Sprint Nextel. The wireless carrier is spending up to $500 million to compensate stations for new digital microwave gear (B&C, 5/1, p. 28).

While Sprint Nextel is providing only standard-definition equipment, some broadcasters plan to spend more for high-def capability. But since HD video has four to five times the information of SD video—and improving the robustness of a microwave signal generally means lowering the data rate—questions emerged as to whether reliable high-def feeds could be sent in the new ENG channel.

Those questions seem to be answered, says Seidel: “I suspect New York City represents one of the harshest [receive] conditions you will run into.”

CBS transmitted the compressed HD microwave feeds within an 8 MHz transmission channel, or “pedestal,” using transmission gear from Microwave Radio Corp. and HD encoding and decoding technology from NTT Electronics. The COFDM system allowed CBS to test different modulation configurations at a range of data rates; for example, CBS used a 9-Mbps stream for signal alignment and sighting the antenna.

CBS also tested sending HD feeds with a prototype non-COFDM transmission system at a high data rate of 35 Mbps. That system proved reliable for line-of-sight applications, with a 100% success rate for distances less than 35 miles, but unsuitable for bounce applications, with a success rate of only 15%.

CBS shared the test results with affiliates at NAB and demonstrated the Sony XDCAM HD camcorder that it will begin rolling out to its owned-and-operated stations this year. CBS showed what Seidel called a “clean switch,” alternating between a live camera feed and a prerecorded, edited piece stored on an XDCAM optical disk loaded in the camcorder. Because the camcorder has a countdown timer on its monitor, the operator can perform a countdown to the talent to indicate when a switch back to the live camera feed will occur.

“It’s a nice seamless switch in and out of the disk,” Seidel says.

The XDCAM HD gear will replace tape-based Panasonic DVCPRO equipment at CBS’ 17 owned-and-operated stations. Which gets the gear first will be a function of which needs it the most, says Seidel, with WBBM Chicago likely to be first up.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6332386

TV Notebook
Things you might want to know about, part II

By Melanie McFarland Seattle Post-Intelligencer TV Critic in her TV blog

We're getting close to upfronts, that magical/tragical week during which we will find out what shows will be there next fall, and which ones have gotten the ax. (It runs from May 15th through the 18th in New York City, in case you want to know.)

So until then, I will have very little in the way of definitive information about whether or not a show will be back on the air -- that is, unless it has already been renewed.

To that end, here are most of the programs that have been picked up. I won't say all because I'm only human. And a little lazy.

N B C
All the "Law & Orders," "Medium," "Crossing Jordan," "Las Vegas," "The Office," "My Name is Earl." Pickup: "Kidnapped," "The Black Donnellys," and Aaron Sorkin's "SNL" satire "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," which brings Matthew Perry back to television. (Exit Joey, enter Chandler!) Oh yeah, and you can pretty much count on "Deal or No Deal."

A B C
Good news "Boston Legal" fans -- your show was officially renewed this week. Other than that we have the obvious selections: "Lost," "Grey's Anatomy," "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" and "Desperate Housewives." "Invasion" is still very much on the fence.

Fox
"House," "Bones," "King of the Hill," "Family Guy," "The Simpsons," "Prison Break," you know, Fox is doing pretty well this season. I'm amazed, frankly. Pick-ups: "'Til Death," starring Brad Garrett and Joely Fisher, and the drama "Vanished," with Christopher Egan and Rebecca Gayheart.

C B S
Pretty much everything except for the spring comedies, "Out of Practice," "King of Queens" and "Close to Home." "Yes, Dear" is gone. "The Unit" is a shoo-in for a second season.

And no, I don't know whether or not our dear "Veronica Mars" is going to make it over to the CW, but I have high hopes -- very high, somewhat informed hopes -- that a third season is going to happen.

Just in case, the fans have already started to rally to the cause.

A large, dedicated group of VERONICA MARS fans is pulling out all the
stops to support the show's move to the new CW network.

Their efforts include:

• Raising over $5,000 - in just four days - from fans on various Web sites.

• Using a portion of these funds to purchase DVDs of the show's first
season, to be donated to libraries in major TV markets across the
country.

• Encouraging fans who want to help donate DVDs to their hometown
libraries (so far over 50 sets have been donated and accepted).

• Sending VERONICA MARS-inspired T-shirts, care packages and floral
bouquets to decision makers at the CW, its parent companies and
influential people in the media.

But the group's biggest effort is ensuring that on TUESDAY, MAY 9, the
day of the VERONICA MARS Season 2 Finale, "CW" will stand for
something entirely different: CLOUD WATCHERS.

• During the morning and afternoon rush hours, on Tuesday, May 9, an
airplane will fly the skies between the UPN offices in Los Angeles and
the future site of the CW headquarters, showing network officials the
way to their new home in Burbank.

And on that day, should those in charge of the fictional private eye's
future look to the skies for guidance, the message from her fans will
be clear:

"RENEW VERONICA MARS! CW 2006!"

That's right, guys. You tell 'em!

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/print.asp?entryID=103254

The 2006-2007 Season
Early hope for ‘Studio 60’

By Diane Holloway Austin American-Statesman

Rarely do I get excited about a series before seeing the pilot — too many heartbreaking disappointments over the years. But NBC’s just-announced fall newcomer already has me jazzed.

Thursday the network jumped out in front of its May 15 fall schedule unveiling and declared an official pick-up for “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip”, a series about the behind-the-scenes shenanigans and politics of a veteran sketch comedy show that sounds a lot like “Saturday Night Live.”

This project, from the former “West Wing” braintrust of Aaron Sorking and Tommy Schlamme, has been bandied about for months. But NBC seemed to be dragging its corporate legs on a commitment until now. Maybe another network was about to snatch it away. Maybe Sorkin was pitching one of his custom-made fits. Who knows?

Whatever. “Studio 60” is loaded with talent and filled with possibilities. As always, there’s a chance that the whole train will screech off the tracks. Or it could be scheduled opposite an impenetrable hit like “CSI” or “Grey’s Anatomy.” But in the early going, we have reason to be hopeful.

The hourlong show will star Matthew Perry (“Friends”) and Bradley Whitford (“West Wing”) as the fast-talking, stressed-out creative team behind the late-night comedy show. With Sorkin writing, the scripts are bound to be filled with quick wit, dark moments and exhilarating fun. With Schlamme directing, it’ll be beautifully crafted.

Rounding out the cast will be Amanda Peet (“Syriana”), stand-up comic D.L. Hughley, Sarah Paulson (“Deadwood”), Timothy Busfield (“The West Wing”), Nathan Corddry (“The Daily Show”), Steven Weber (“Reefer Madness”), Evan Handler (“Sex and the City”) and Carlos Jacott (“Kicking and Screaming”).

If the Peacock has something other than a bird brain, it’ll schedule “Studio 60” in a prime 9-10 p.m. slot where it won’t immediately be killed off by an established favorite

http://www.austin360.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/tvblog/

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: One of your readers wrote in recently to say that "only Joss Whedon understands the concept of having a character evolve." I have to disagree with that, and I humbly submit the example of Everwood to prove my case. One of the brilliant things about Everwood is that, at times, its characters make miserable decisions or go through phases in which they are really unappealing. It's a brave thing for a show to do, and I think they do it better than any other show on TV. I know you've supported the show in the past, and I wonder if you think that its refusal to make its characters always likable helps or hurts it in terms of ratings. I'd really like to see it find an hour on CW. — Nicole

Matt Roush: You and me both. First, I should note that more than a few readers wrote in to gripe about that random Joss Whedon comment. Gotta love his rabid fan base, and gotta cut them some slack when they go a bit overboard. (What else are these poor souls going to do, given that we're in a non-Joss lull here in TV land.) I love Joss, too, but clearly he doesn't have a monopoly on great character development; just think of J.J. Abrams' shows, for a start. And too many more to mention. Including, of course, my beloved Everwood. Which is beloved for the very fact Nicole notes: that unlike many more saccharine family dramas, the characters here often do dreadful things and suffer pretty dire consequences as a result. It can take a long time for the characters on this show to get over broken relationships and pick up the pieces of their shattered lives, which is as it should be. If it were a lighter, brighter, more pandering show, I suppose it could have enjoyed more robust, 7th Heaven-level ratings. But until WB started screwing with it this season, moving it to Thursday and then subjecting it to another long hiatus, I hadn't really worried about its future. Now, of course, as we face the merger into the new CW, I fear it may not make the cut. Which would make me very sad.

On another Everwood front, this from Lauren: "As someone who has loved Everwood from the get-go, I have grown more and more annoyed by the fact that since the beginning of Season 3, more and more focus has been taken away from the main characters and put on supporting characters, like Jake, Reid and, most of all, Hannah. Do you think there is any chance that the rest of the season will concentrate on the main cast and their multiple issues? It seems unfair to the longtime fans that there are so many unresolved issues between main characters (Andy and Ephram, and Ephram and Amy being obvious examples, the difficult relationship that Bright has with Harold another one), and still we are expected to be more interested in story lines surrounding supporting characters."

An interesting and possibly fair complaint, but a show like Everwood can only thrive by bringing in new characters to play alongside the core cast, in order to stem a feeling of sameness. If the show were still dealing each week with Andy and Ephram coming to grips over Andy lying about Madison and the baby (the epitome of the sort of miserable decisions Nicole was talking about), fans would probably be knocking the show for having fallen into a rut. The Bright-Hannah relationship has been one of the bright spots (so to speak) of the show the last two years, and Scott Wolf as Jake has been a tremendous addition to the show's appeal. (Adding him as a barrier to the Andy-Nina relationship was first-rate soap opera.) It's not like these newer folks are living in their own separate series. They're intimately connected to the stories of the show's primary original characters.

________________________________________

Question: The question about whether or not Desperate Housewives really needs an annual mystery is a good one. I'd like to put a slightly different spin on it and say that DH doesn't so much need a mystery (that is, a "whodunit") as much as it needs secrets. That's a bit of a variation on "mystery," but it seems to me to be the essence of the show: the secret lives of the people who, on the surface, seem so lucky, happy, privileged, whatever. Secrets reveal the characters' sense of desperation. Bree is the master character (and Marcia Cross is the master actor) along these lines: trying to hold her appearances and dignity so tightly intact while she's trying so hard to keep her family's secrets secret. Of course, "secrets" rather than "mysteries" isn't a silver bullet. The story of Betty and her son is also about secrets, but the plot machinery around it is just that: plot machinery rather than character. — Tom

Matt Roush: Excellent point. To contrive a big mystery isn't as important as building intrigue (as in "secrets") that reflects on the characters you actually care about. The Betty Applewhite story misfired on just about every level. Even the secret, once you knew it, wasn't that compelling, just icky.

Looking at it from another angle, Dee writes: "The question was raised if the mystery element of Desperate Housewives should be dropped because this season's mystery has not seemed to work as well. The problem is the Applewhite story has been given short shrift in its amount of airtime, and whenever it seems things might heat up with the story, we go perhaps weeks without any movement. For example, a few weeks ago it seemed Caleb might try to hurt Bree's daughter because she rejected him in a way similar to the young woman he killed, but for weeks nothing happened. Betty has not really become part of the neighborhood. Briefly, she and Bree seemed to be bonding over their sons' criminal activities, but again little or no recent movement in that direction. If the writers can't find a way to write for the magnificent Alfre Woodward, something is wrong, don't you agree?"

Of course I agree. But the fact that the story just didn't work is why the writers kept dropping the ball and choosing to focus on more promising subplots. There was no there there, and soon it won't be there at all, which will be a relief.

________________________________________



Question: In your Dispatch column, you said that you enjoyed Vito's Splendor in the Grass moment on The Sopranos this week. Don't you think it was a little too reminiscent of Brokeback Mountain? From the fight outside the bar, to the Splendor in the Grass moment, the whole thing was either a deliberate, or at least conscious, imitation of Brokeback. Why do something so unoriginal? Even if the story line was conceived before Brokeback came out, it seems that they should have changed the way, or at least the place, in which that last scene played out. — Courtney

Matt Roush: Let's see. A fat mobster in exile and a volunteer fireman/short-order cook ride their motorbikes into the New Hampshire countryside for a clandestine getaway where they can finally show some affection for each other, and you think that's ripping off the angst-filled, awkward yearning of those Brokeback cowboys? The only thing these stories share in common is how these characters' homosexuality upends the usual stereotypes not just of gay characters but of people who tend to inhabit these roles: cowboy, gangster, local hero/fireman. These Sopranos episodes were certainly underway long before it was clear that Brokeback Mountain would have as large a cultural impact as it did. The idea that The Sopranos would change any of the content of this remarkable, equally groundbreaking story line seems staggeringly shortsighted. Unoriginal? I'm not even going there.

________________________________________

Question: As I mourn the fact that Gilmore Girls will never be the same again due to Amy Sherman-Palladino's departure, I find myself wondering how many shows left on the air are run by women. The only shows I can think of off the top of my head are Grey's Anatomy, 7th Heaven (which is almost gone) and Everwood. Are there any others? It's a shame that Gilmore Girls is losing one of the few amazingly creative women out there who are given the opportunity to be a creative force in the business. Hopefully, she will be behind another amazing show soon. One thing is for sure, Gilmore Girls won't be the same without her. — Susan

Matt Roush: You may be right, but to cut off the Amy-bashers before they chime in again, given the shaky quality of this most recent season, maybe some fresh blood will help get things back on track for what I can only hope will be its final season on CW. As for female creators, the list also includes Cold Case's Meredith Stiehm, New Adventures of Old Christine's Kari Lizer, Girlfriends' Mara Brock Akil, along with other female creators of UPN's female-skewing comedies, and I'm sure I'm missing a few others. No question, though, that Amy (with husband Dan) is a distinctive voice in TV that I'm sure we haven't heard the last from.

________________________________________

Question: I've heard rumors that Lost might be aired nonstop in an upcoming season, à la 24. People are talking about this like it's a good thing. Personally, I'm totally against it. Part of what makes a continuing-story-line series like Lost is the anticipation of waiting for the next episode and the unraveling of new mysteries. I don't mind waiting two or three weeks if it means I have eight months of enjoyment instead of four or five months. Waiting a few weeks every once in a while is better than waiting for more than half the year for a new season to start. Do you think ABC will actually go through with this? — Morgan C.

Matt Roush: In the April 24 issue of TV Guide, ABC Entertainment president Steve McPherson said he was "definitely considering" strategies that would allow for extended consecutive runs of Lost episodes without repeats: "Whether that's a January through May run [like 24] or a big installment in the fall and another post-January, I'm not sure yet." Given the amount of whining I get in my mailbag whenever Lost or any other show goes into an erratic pattern of originals and repeats, I think McPherson may be on to something. Maybe airing Lost in two concentrated batches at the start and end of a season will appease everyone. You wouldn't have to wait half a year for the season to start, as we do for 24. (Just a longish period between the first and second halves of the season — although during Lost's downtime, I can only imagine the screaming.) The fans who bitch and moan whenever new episodes are interrupted by a handful of repeats might be satisfied (if that's even possible) if the show were to air repeat-free in 10-episode stretches of time. That would certainly be good for the show's continuity and our enjoyment of this deliciously dense and mystery-packed series. If ABC plays with the scheduling of this show, I'm on board. (But then, I'm perfectly happy with it as is. I need a week off from time to time.)

________________________________________

Question: Has Supernatural made a successful transition to Thursday? Because I am worried that if it did not, it wouldn't make it to CW. Has it been successful? All WB's returning shows from hiatus have been down a lot. — Rhoda

Matt Roush: Supernatural has done OK, certainly well enough given the circumstances of the Thursday time period (proving itself compatible to Smallville) that it's still a front-runner to being part of the CW lineup. I'd be shocked if it doesn't get a second season.

________________________________________

Question: Do you think ABC will have the nerve to move Grey's Anatomy to Thursday nights? I hope they don't, because that could be the end of ER, which is still the better medical show. — Nathan

Matt Roush: In your opinion. (It's no secret I hold Grey's in much higher regard these days.) The only buzz I've heard is that if Grey's moves from Sunday, it would be to Mondays, to fill the void left by the departure of Monday Night Football. Moving it to Thursdays would be aggressive, but also needlessly reckless. It would hurt ER for sure, but it would also likely put a major dent in Grey's momentum. (Still, ABC would love to be more of a serious player on Thursdays, where there are so many ad dollars at stake.) I agree with you in hoping this wouldn't happen. I would be amazed if it did.

________________________________________

Question: I've noticed quite a few instances of shows on the same channel and same night having very similar plotlines or important scenes. On April 26, both Alias and Invasion used the Doors song "Riders on the Storm." Do TV execs do this purposely, to link the shows and therefore get viewers to watch what comes on next? Or are these just some really odd coincidences in TV writing? — Angela

Matt Roush: This was just one of those strange coincidences. For one thing, given Alias' erratic scheduling, who would ever have known that this episode would be airing the same night as that particular Invasion episode? All it really showed to me is that producers would be well advised to be a wee bit more original in their song choices. Given the hurricane theme in Invasion, the song used in that episode was especially too "on the nose" for my taste.

________________________________________

Question: What is the status of Joey? I haven't seen it on air in a while. Has this show been canceled? — Audrey

Matt Roush: Not officially. But let's face it, it's dead. Also from my FAQs file, and also on indefinite hiatus without hope of renewal: E-Ring and, as of this week, Commander in Chief, which was just yanked for the rest of the month.

________________________________________

Question: Why wasn't Audrey in last week's 24 at all? — Kate

Matt Roush: Maybe she was busy recuperating from the wound she suffered in the previous hour (not to mention having apparently lost her father). Not everyone bounces back as quickly as Jack. What, you didn't think there was enough action in the hour, between Jack taking over the plane being copiloted by his target, Chloe zapping the lech at the hotel bar who was interfering with her work (hilarious!), Martha Logan melting down while getting Mike Novick's suspicions up, and all the intrigue going down back at CTU as Karen Hayes tried to figure out how to work against the president while continuing to work for him (and keeping that weasel Miles in the dark about it all)? I didn't even miss Audrey, and I like her this season!

http://tvguide.com/tv/roush/askmatt/

Friday’s network prime-time ratings are now at the top of RATINGS NEWS (the first post in this thread).

TV Notebook
Showtime repeats its early-bird Emmy tactics

By Scott Collins Los Angeles Times Staff Writer May 6, 2006

The Primetime Emmy Awards won't take place until August, but some of the cable networks have already spent months lobbying voters.

By now, of course, mailboxes of the 12,000 members of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences are getting stuffed with material from dozens of networks (the nominations are announced in July). But the promotional bonanza does seem to be starting earlier each year — this time around, it began in January.

Leading the way is Showtime, the premium network eager to promote such acclaimed but low-rated fare as "Huff" and "Weeds." PR chief Rich Licata says so many networks are now churning out scripted fare that voters need more time to watch.

"Trouble nowadays is," Licata wrote in an e-mail, "a month is not long enough to screen all the product that's arriving in their offices and homes."

Last year, Licata sent out the first season of "Huff" in mid-February, about three months before a network's traditional campaign launch. Showtime was rewarded with a surprising seven nominations for the quirky Hank Azaria series. So this year, Licata started in mid-January.

A Lifetime spokesman said he was stunned to see the Showtime screeners arriving so early, but tipped his hat to the effort. "Good for them," he said, although he noted that Emmy nods (and expensive promotional campaigns) don't always translate into good ratings. "Huff" has proven ratings-challenged in its second year, and even Emmy-winner "Arrested Development" could manage only two seasons on Fox.

Even so, it's not too tough to imagine a time when Emmy guests leaving the event might be told: "Here is your screener box for next year's ceremony…."

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-channel6may06,0,7710240,print.story?coll=cl-tvent

The Digital Revolution: Commentary
Someone Has to Pay for TV. But Who? And How?


By Randall Stross in The New York Times May 7, 2006
(Randall Stross is a historian and author based in Silicon Valley.)

They will take my remote control away only when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

This thought followed my first reading of a patent application for a new kind of television set and digital video recorder recently filed by a unit of Royal Philips Electronics at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The design appears to threaten the inalienable right to channel-surf during commercials or fast-forward through ads in programs you've taped.

A second, calmer reading of the patent application revealed that the proposed design would uphold the right to avoid commercials, but only for those who paid a fee. Those disinclined to pay would be prevented from changing channels during commercials. If the viewer tried to circumvent the system by recording the program and skipping the ads during playback, the new, improved recorder would detect when a commercial segment was being displayed and disable the fast-forward button for the duration.

As a business proposition, the concept appears dead on arrival: what consumer would voluntarily buy a television designed to charge fees for using it? When I spoke last week with Ruud Peters, the executive in charge of intellectual property at Philips, to learn how it would be pitched to consumers, he explained that the patent application had no connection to any Philips products in the pipeline. And, he explained, the notion of temporarily crippling the remote control to protect advertising is already out there and did not originate with his company.

But limiting remote controls is a possibility that could be realized in a new technical standard — M.H.P., for multimedia home standard — that the television industry is contemplating for the future. Neither broadcasters nor television manufacturers, whose joint cooperation would be necessary, have yet to adopt the standard. If the television industry embraced M.H.P., broadcasters could insert special signals to immobilize the remote control during commercials. If this came to pass, Mr. Peters said the Philips technology would "give consumers the freedom of choice" — "freedom" defined as exercising the option to pay a fee in order to regain the use of the remote control.

Philips's pay-to-surf proposal may be the first of its kind, but we should expect to see other ideas that would not have appeared in days past, when advertising-based television thrived. Today, the digital video recorder is slowly, but surely, tunneling through the television industry's foundation. Ten million homes had DVR's in 2005, according to Forrester Research; the number is expected to jump to 15 million this year, 30 million next year and 42 million in 2010. Scientific-Atlanta, which supplies set-top boxes to all the major cable companies, reports that fully half its boxes going out today are equipped with DVR's.

What this means for traditional advertising can be divined in data collected by TiVo, which has 4.4 million subscribers. Davina Kent, a TiVo vice president, said that when its customers watch recorded programs, they skip 70 percent of the commercials.

This has not escaped the notice of advertisers. Josh Bernoff, a principal analyst at Forrester, predicted that "next year, you'll see significant decline in TV ad spending as a result of digital video recorders."

The television industry has not figured out how best to respond. Four years ago, Jamie Kellner, then head of the Turner Broadcasting System, remarked in an interview in CableWorld magazine that viewers who used DVR's to fast-forward past commercials were committing "theft," then a moment later described it as "stealing the programming." He did allow trips to the bathroom as a noncriminal exemption.

The remarks brought instant criticism outside the industry. But he anticipated the adoption curve for DVR's when he said in the same interview that broadcasters needed to come up with a "new model" for collecting revenue from consumers who used recorders to skip commercials.

CBS OnDemand, which rents commercial-free episodes for a modest fee as low as 99 cents, but which must be viewed within 24 hours of downloading to a PC, is one experiment. (Those CBS downloads reveal just how much time commercials occupy in the traditional broadcast: with commercials stripped out, a 60-minute program may run as short as 41 minutes.) The abundant network program offerings at iTunes, which cost $1.99 but do not go poof after a set time, is a work in progress, too. An industrywide hardware standard that could immobilize remote controls, and the related Philips pay-to-surf proposal, are also in the mix of possible responses to the industry's quandary.

I have not paid close attention to the online offerings of single television episodes because my DVR works well and the fast-forward function on my remote works very, very well. (The button I've programmed to perform a 30-second skip is holding up beautifully, even though it is pressed as emphatically as a hospital button connected to a morphine pump.) Why would I ever buy what the DVR effortlessly records at no cost? Even if I were to feel a twinge of concern that by skipping ads, I am violating an implicit contract that Mr. Kellner asserted exists between broadcaster and viewer of ad-supported television, I take comfort in the knowledge that no such contract exists.

James Boyle, a law professor at Duke University, said that broadcasters offer a program knowing that only a fraction of the audience watches the commercials. Advertisers, he added, buy nothing more than "an option on a probability," and the viewer is no more obligated to watch every commercial than a driver is obligated to read every billboard.

The trickiest legal issue posed by DVR's is not ad-skipping, but something even more basic: the right to freely make a copy of a program for personal use in the first place. My assertion of an inalienable right to fast-forward through commercials would be rendered moot if the creators of the program that I am racing to rejoin were permitted to fully exercise the protections of copyright and impose control over the copying of their creative work.

Since the dawn of the videocassette recorder designed for home use in the mid-1970's, we have copied copyrighted television programs with impunity, enjoying the "fair use" exemption granted for this, a private, noncommercial purpose. The legality of home copying based on "fair use" was enshrined in a Supreme Court decision, Sony Corporation v. Universal City Studios Inc., handed down in 1984.

That decision addressed copying with a Betamax videocassette recorder, and it remains the key decision that protects copying with DVR's today. But the more one looks at how the court arrived at its decision in the Sony case — a 5-to-4 squeaker — and at how recording technology has changed and new business opportunities have opened since then, the more difficult it is to see how a majority of the court could possibly uphold the same position today.

The courts uphold "fair use" only when it doesn't harm the commercial value of the copyrighted work. At the time the suit was brought, skipping ads during playback on a clunky tape machine was hardly worth the considerable trouble. At the trial, survey data showed that only about 25 percent of recorded ads were skipped. In the face of testimony by Fred Rogers of "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" on PBS, who welcomed home copying of his program, the movie studios that brought the lawsuit failed to convince the judge that VCR copying of televised movies was hurting their business.

WOULD indisputable evidence that DVR's facilitated ad-skipping make a difference if the Sony case were decided today? Paul Goldstein, a professor at Stanford Law School, thinks that it might. "If you were working with a clean slate, and everything was the same except for the ad-skipping rate — that's a compelling fact that could have made a difference," he said.

Randal C. Picker, a law professor of the University of Chicago, pointed to the commercial availability of network programs at places like iTunes as another enormously important change to be considered by the court if a case like Sony were litigated today.

How to pay for free television is the overarching but unanswered question, Professor Picker said. Speaking as a viewer, he said: "I want the other guy to watch advertising. But we can't all not watch."
E-mail:ddomain@nytimes.com.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/business/yourmoney/07digi.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

TV Notebook
'7th Heaven': A Farewell

By Brad Walters in the Washington Post Sunday, May 7, 2006; Y04

When "7th Heaven" premiered in 1996, it marked the beginning of Monday night programming for the then-fledgling WB network.

It's somewhat fitting, then, that the network's longest-running original series is airing its final new episode Monday at 8 p.m. on WB as the network prepares for a fall merger with UPN.

The show featuring the (mostly) wholesome adventures of the Camden clan has been one of WB's most popular shows, but cost overruns -- to the tune of $16 million per episode -- helped WB decide to pull the plug. There's a glimmer of hope (however small) for fans: Buzz at press time indicated the newly formed CW network might pick up the show for another season.

Former regulars Barry Watson and Jessica Biel return for the finale as Simon (David Gallagher) prepares to tie the knot.

Other Season Finales
Broadcast season finales scheduled to air this week: (all times Eastern/Pacific)
• Crossing Jordan: Sunday, 10, NBC
• All of Us: Monday, 8:30, UPN
• Girlfriends: Monday, 9, UPN
• What About Brian: Monday, 10, ABC
• Gilmore Girls: Tuesday, 8, WB
• Veronica Mars: Tuesday, 9, UPN
• The Bedford Diaries: Wednesday, 9, WB
• Unan1mous: Wednesday, 9:32, Fox
• Everybody Hates Chris: Thursday, 8, UPN
• Smallville: Thursday, 8, WB
• Love, Inc.: Thursday, 8:30, UPN
• My Name Is Earl: Thursday, 8:40, NBC
• Eve: Thursday, 9, UPN
• The Office: Thursday, 9:20, NBC
• Cuts: Thursday, 9:30, UPN
• Las Vegas: Friday, 9, NBC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201219_pf.html

The 2006-2007 Season
An overhaul made to 'Order'

Wolf preps major changes as NBC woes drag down franchise
By Josef Adalian, Michael Schneider Variety.com

"Law & Order" supremo Dick Wolf can't wait for the Peacock to get back in fighting form. So he's readying his own plan to pump up the brand.

"There are going to be casting changes and additions on all three shows," Wolf tells Variety. In addition, he is pushing the network to make scheduling shifts to boost the "L&O" trio, which he says remains NBC's most potent -- and profitable -- primetime player.

The longrunning franchise is in danger of overexposure. Aside from its frequent cable reruns, NBC has done the show no favors by airing repeats in scheduling holes throughout the week -- sometimes with little warning. Last spring, in one week NBC aired 10 hours of the various "Law & Order" shows -- almost half of its primetime lineup.

In addition, the series are feeling a squeeze due to the glut of procedural dramas on TV. But perhaps the biggest factor spurring Wolf's radical moves is the pitiful performance of the Peacock's primetime sked, which is dragging down even its semi-hits; there's only so much he can do when the shows around him are crumbling.

"Of course it irks me," Wolf says of his shows' ratings declines. "This is like trying to sing a cappella in the Forum while Rome's burning."

The original "Law & Order" -- the Wednesday night staple Wolf calls the "mothership" -- has seen ratings plummet 40% in two years, thanks to poor lead-ins and tough competition from "CSI: NY."

Spinoff "SVU" ranks as the most popular of the three "L&O" franchises, but it's fighting an uphill battle.

Last week, NBC laffer "Teachers" delivered a weak 5 share lead-in. "SVU" nearly tripled that score to dominate the 10 p.m. hour.

The "L&O" skein with the toughest task, however, has to be Sunday night's "Criminal Intent." In addition to taking on "Desperate Housewives" and young-male magnet "Family Guy," since January, the show has had to battle HBO's "The Sopranos."

The results have been predictably grim. "CI" is the lowest-rated of the "L&O" bunch, with ratings down 29% over two years. To shore up "CI," Wolf is pushing NBC to take the show off the net's fall sked.

"I hope they put us on in January," after NBC's new Sunday night football franchise wraps, he says. "My fondest hope is 'SVU' and 'Law & Order' are back on Tuesday and Wednesday at 10, 'CI' is on in January at 9 on Sunday."

Wolf thinks "CI" would benefit from airing a full season of episodes without repeats, particularly since "Desperate Housewives" tends to air a fair number of reruns during the winter and spring months.

NBC Entertainment prexy Kevin Reilly won't commit to anything before NBC's May 15 fall schedule announcement, but he seems poised to grant Wolf his "CI" wish.

"We've talked openly about that," he says. He won't make any similar promises about keeping "SVU" or the original "L&O" in their current slots.

Reilly vows he'll be in constant contact with Wolf in the days leading up to May 15. It's a big change from a year ago, when Wolf seemed caught off-guard by the last-minute call to kill "L&O's" third spinoff, "Trial by Jury."

Open line of communication could placate Wolf, who hated NBC's decision to shift the mothership to 9 p.m. Wednesdays in order to launch the ill-fated caper drama "Heist."

The shows aren't in danger of going anywhere: Last month, all three were renewed for next season. "These shows make a lot of money still," Wolf says. "In a land where there isn't much profitable stuff on the schedule, these are literally gold mines. It's a very loyal audience. There are no shows on television that have more upscale and better educated audiences than the 'L&O's."

The more difficult challenge facing Wolf is refreshing the brand he's worked so carefully to create. With all three shows past the 100-episode mark, simply turning out well-crafted crime stories may no longer be enough.

The "L&O" brand finds itself in a similar situation to the dilemmas faced over the years by other brand giants such as Coke or McDonald's. Tough competition and fickle tastes have frequently forced companies to tweak their brand by introducing twists.

Wolf isn't planning any radical writer or producer shakeups on the "L&O" shows. Instead, he believes adding fresh faces is the equivalent of introducing new menu items.

"New casting is new product," he says. "You hope that something really catches on."

Wolf is loath to couch "Law & Order's" ratings declines as part of a larger referendum on procedural dramas. Networks like ABC and Fox are still hungry to develop procedurals as a complement to their more serialized skeins, which don't repeat as well and generally can't be sustained as long.

Still, with a glut of procedurals on the market -- and pundits still wondering when the bottom will fall out of the crime-drama frenzy -- Wolf does acknowledge a squeeze on the genre.

"We're on against procedurals in every timeslot except for Sunday," he says. "Talk about procedurals: CBS has 11 of them. You can't get away from them. Has that affected (the 'L&O' franchise)? I guess."

Reilly says he has confidence in Wolf's ability to keep the "L&O" brand strong as NBC tries to mount a comeback. He also takes the blame for the show's ratings woes.

"The struggles of 'CI' and the mothership have really been tied to our primetime challenges," he says. "Any long-term partnership has conflicts and ups and downs."

But Reilly says there's no overestimating the value of the "Law & Order" franchise to NBC Universal.

While overall numbers are down, skein still is a mighty performer with the affluent auds favored by advertisers. Franchise also outperforms its national average in big cities where NBC owns stations.

"Without a doubt, this is our biggest television asset," he says.

It's also one of the most cost-effective. Veteran skeins (think "ER") are often loss-leaders for networks, as costs spiral out of control. But Wolf prides himself on keeping the three shows' budgets in check -- even though they're filmed in New York, a notoriously expensive city for film and TV production.

He keeps a tight rein on spending to ensure his skeins net tens of millions in primetime profit. (That doesn't even take into account the millions more in syndie coin the show generates each year for Peacock parent NBC Universal.)

Wolf points to an example of how he does business.

"When you go to craft services on 'Law & Order,' you'll find 48-ounce jumbo plastic jugs of soda," he says. "Watch most people on film sets, they take a 12-ounce can of Coke, take two sips and throw it away. That's emblematic of how everything is approached."

"When you've done 660 episodes, people better do it efficiently," Wolf concludes. "This is not a game."

Sports on TV
Even When It Rains, NASCAR Laps N.B.A.

By Richard Sandomir The New York Times May 7, 2006

If the sight of 43 cars driving hundreds of laps is mesmerizing to Nascar viewers, then what is the effect of 43 cars going nowhere? Will fans, faced with watching a screen with nothing happening, (a) stay tuned to inaction or (b) flee for basketball, golf, poker, baseball, a movie or a trip to the mall?

Overwhelmingly, the answer is (a).

Consider that twice this season, Nextel Cup rainouts on Fox — where, it must be repeated, absolutely nothing happened and no points were won — completely trounced N.B.A. games on ABC Sports.

Last Sunday, when nothing was happening at the Aaron's 499 at the Talladega Superspeedway, the rain delay attracted 7.2 million viewers from 2 to 4 p.m., while the Miami-Chicago playoff game, which started at 1 p.m., lured 3.6 million viewers. Nothing beats action. Nothing beats Shaq.

In Atlanta on March 19, the rainout compelled 5.7 million people to watch compared with the 2.2 million who watched the Lakers-Cavaliers or the Mavericks-Nets games. The recap: Nearly three times more people watched no laps than a Kobe Bryant-LeBron James matchup.

What were Nascar viewers watching? Live reporting, interviews with 13 drivers, a tutorial about restrictor plates and a 14-minute condensed version of last year's Talladega race. "To Nascar fans, the race is almost secondary," said David Hill, the chairman of the Fox Sports Television Group. "Being a Nascar fan is an entry into a wonderful world of technologies and personalities."

Still, the most that happened at Talladega was what happened last year. How can that be enough? How can that satisfy hungry sports viewers?

Jeff MacGregor, the author of "Sunday Money: Speed! Lust! Madness! Death! A Hot Lap Around America With Nascar," said in an e-mail message that the Nascar viewer "clings to the hope that the race'll eventually get run." He added, "Because the rain situation is sort of minute by minute, viewers hang around waiting to see if Nascar can get the track dry and run the thing."

Dick Glover, a Nascar vice president, was in Richmond, Va., on Friday for the Crown Royal 400. He said it was raining but insisted Nascar was not praying for race-delaying washouts. But he said rainouts like last Sunday's provided viewers with added access to the drivers because they were not doing much.

"So you get a rain delay, and fans get even more access even if it's a guy under an umbrella for three, five or seven minutes," Glover said. He added that N.B.A. and N.F.L. sideline reporters lacked the freedom that networks had in Nascar pits, making interviews, with or without rain, more compelling. But let's be fair here and delve a little below the quirkiness of Nextel Cup rainouts beating N.B.A. games. Nascar is a once-a-week television model and is second in national ratings to the N.F.L. The limited availability of those sports contrasts with the N.B.A., in which, especially in the playoffs, games are played every day in a league that has pursued a heavy cable strategy.

So it flows that if you can restrict access to Nascar races or N.F.L. games, the ratings will be higher, and if there are track rainouts, fans are liable to hang around with Darrell Waltrip and his Fox buddies. Still, you wonder if Fox or CBS viewers would stick with the studio crews if all their Sunday afternoon N.F.L. games were postponed because of lightning.

The N.B.A. is equipped to argue the anomalous cases of Rainouts versus Hoops. It points out that in the 2004-5 season, it reached 567.6 million viewers on all its national networks for the regular season and the postseason — which does not count local viewership — compared with 383 million for all Nextel and Busch series races on all Nascar networks. That total, remember, features a lot more basketball games than Nascar races. It may well be that Nascar and the N.B.A. are living in separate but parallel universes, one with older fans, one with younger fans, and there was little chance that bored Talladega rainout watchers would flip to hoops.

Len DeLuca, the senior vice president for program acquisition at ESPN and ABC Sports, fondly notes that in these playoffs, ABC is experiencing an early viewership renaissance, after falling a smidgen in the regular season.

The ABC games are averaging 4.4 million viewers, up 16 percent from 3.79 million a year ago. And, in the service of fairness, Fox's Talladega rainout rating finally took a 22 percent plunge when its coverage of absolutely nothing butted up against the first quarter of the Lakers' overtime victory against the Suns in Game 1 of their playoff series.

And Game 6 of the Lakers-Suns series — won by Phoenix, 126-118, in overtime on Thursday night on TNT — was the highest-rated first-round game in cable history. "What's important is that our partners are delivering for their advertisers," said Mike Bass, an N.B.A. spokesman.

Now imagine what Nascar sponsors and advertisers must have been thinking last week: "It's pouring, Jimmie and Dale and Dale and Tony and Kevin are doing nothing, and seven million folks are watching. Whoopee!"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/sports/othersports/07sandomir.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

You gotta love it, I'm still ROTFLMAO!

The Suns have obviously left you in a very good mood, Dave :)

TV Notebook
Their new adventures

Actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus and producer Kari Lizer are the simpatico - and satisfied - team of mothers behind this season's top new sitcom
By Jonathan Storm Philadelphia Inquirer Columnist

When you're a working mother, you can't always sweat the small stuff. At the end of every episode of The New Adventures of Old Christine, a black-and-white image flies by: "Kari's Logo Here."

Producers with big egos fine-tune their vanity logos to perfection. Kari Lizer decided to stick with the temporary filler that some technician had slipped in. "Come on, let's not do this anymore," she says she told the writers laboring to help her come up with something cute. "I have to get home and make spaghetti."

Motherly duties rank just about even with employment for Lizer, creator and executive producer of Christine, and her star, Julia Louis-Dreyfus.

They are but one area of common ground for the two seemingly different women, one famous, one virtually unknown, who have found each other deep into their careers. (Lizer's first movie role, in Smokey Bites the Dust, came in 1981; Louis-Dreyfus debuted on Saturday Night Live in 1982.) As a team, they seem perched on the verge of new, long-lasting success.

The New Adventures of Old Christine (Mondays at 9:30 p.m. on CBS) is the season's top-rated new sitcom (sorry, Earl), holding a healthy portion of the audience of the hit that precedes it, Two and a Half Men. With an average of nearly 13 million viewers, it is second only to Men (15.3 million) overall in the sitcom derby.

More important, though Lizer and Louis-Dreyfus are both in their mid-40s, Old Christine attracts younger viewers, snagging almost as many 18-to-49-year-olds, the advertisers' Holy Grail, as The Simpsons, and more than such shows as The Apprentice, The Amazing Race and Prison Break.

"Yeah, how about that?" Louis-Dreyfus says in that distinctive low-pitched chirp that gives her diminutive person some of its comic clout.

Lizer is 5-foot-8 and blonde; Louis-Dreyfus is 5-foot-3 (by the most generous report) and brunette. They're both wearing jeans on a Tuesday late last month, but the actress has neutral tones up top, white shirt, dark gray vest, while Lizer is frou-frou pink. Appearances are deceiving. Though they met less than a year ago, after Lizer sent Louis-Dreyfus a script, this Mutt-and-Jeff pair are two very happy peas in a comfortable pod.

"It is amazing how similar our tastes are," Lizer says. "The same things make us laugh, and we'll do things independently of each other and come to the same conclusion."

"It's very comfortable," Louis-Dreyfus says. "I can relax about decisions, not because I'm making them, but because they're being made well. So that's a huge relief and incredibly crucial when you're doing, hopefully, years and years of the show. We're in it for the long haul."

We're sitting in Lizer's rec-room-size office in Building 136 on the vast Warner Bros. lot. Louis-Dreyfus, the big star, defers completely to Lizer, the boss, when the topic is the show. But when personal matters come up, the two interrupt or complete each other's sentences as if they're living almost the same lives.

The office is surprisingly neat. Most show-runners live in a playpen.

"We cleaned up," Lizer says.

"We hired a team," Louis-Dreyfus says. "You know, those cleaning services. It cost, like, 400 bucks, but it was worth it."

"I'm pretty neat," Lizer says. "Otherwise, I'd go crazy. My house sometimes feels like it's going to explode... but I'm not a slob. I feel like I'm cleaning up every minute of my entire life, actually."

"Yeah, really," Louis-Dreyfus says. "That is so the truth."

The mother role is crucial to both, a big part of the reason they are doing a traditional sitcom. It also helps explain how their show's lead character, an offbeat gal constantly trying to do right by her school-age son, seems so relatable.

Lizer, in a "very civilized divorce" (like her creation, Christine), has 10-year-old twins, Annabel and Elias, and an 8-year-old son, Dayton. Louis-Dreyfus, married 19 years to former SNL costar Brad Hall (they met in college) is raising Henry, 13, and Charlie, 8.

Television dramas, with their punctilious set-ups, entail excruciating schedules, with workdays frequently running more than 12 hours. Sitcoms such as My Name is Earl or Malcolm in the Middle, filmed with the same single-camera technique, are somewhat easier, only because each show is half as long.

But traditional sitcoms have much more of a 9-to-5 rhythm. Actors see the script and rehearse without cameras as revisions are made for four days. On the fifth day, they perform before a live audience as four cameras shoot the action simultaneously from different perspectives. With persnickety producers, however, that can get dicey. Friends, for instance, was famous for plodding on almost to dawn as producers rewrote and re-shot scenes over and over.

You aren't going to see that on Old Christine. They start at 5 p.m., not the standard 7 or 8. The latest they went in filming 13 episodes last fall was 9 p.m.

"We keep old-people hours," Lizer says.

"A real early-bird special," Louis-Dreyfus says.

"Our kids come to the filming more often than not," Lizer says, "unless it's inappropriate."

"And they come most of the time then, too," Louis-Dreyfus says, breaking into that strange, sucking laugh that was an Elaine trademark on Seinfeld.

Louis-Dreyfus appears to have conquered the so-called Seinfeld curse, in part, perhaps, because Andy Ackerman, who directed the last five years of that show, directs Old Christine and is an executive producer. Until now, none of Seinfeld's supporting cast has had any sitcom success. Watching Ellie, Louis-Dreyfus' first post-Seinfeld show, created by Hall, kicked around for a few episodes in 2002 and 2003.

"I had no interest in working right after Seinfeld ended," she says. "I had two young kids and I couldn't really even imagine going back to work."

Eventually, the bug reattached itself. "It's exciting work. It's very thrilling to make people laugh, and this is what I love to do. It's just that basic."

After Smokey, Lizer appeared in the infamous Private School, what she called a "teenploitation" film, starring Phoebe Cates, and a couple of other B movies. Then, she segued to TV, where she had recurring and guest roles for 10 years on shows from Growing Pains through Matlock and Diagnosis Murder. She moved into writing in a syndicated sci-fi comedy, Weird Science.

In 1994, she married journeyman actor Robert Romanus (Mike Damone in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Snake Robinson in The Facts of Life), who guested in one episode of the show. For the last four years, she has been a writer-producer, and occasional actor, as Will's secretary, Connie, on Will & Grace.

Now, it's good to be the boss.

"It's the most fantastic job," Lizer says. "It can be a real grind, but I've figured out where I'm actually creating and running the show, then I also get to set the tone for how it goes. I can get all my work done, and for the most part, go home and be with my kids for dinner."

That spaghetti's waiting.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/entertainment/television//14508777.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

I missed this last Sunday – but it is still a good read…..
TV Notebook
Now you see them... now you don't

By Virginia Rohan Bergen Record Staff Writer Sunday, April 30, 2006

Is anyone safe on TV series anymore? Does the Grim Reaper have no regard for even regulars on hit shows?

Prime time, as you've probably noticed, has become an increasingly dangerous place lately. And not just on dark-alley dramas where you'd expect to encounter violence, like "The Sopranos."

This past season has been an unusually bloody one. A number of main characters have met their maker -- and the body count will no doubt rise again in the coming days, as May sweeps meets cliffhanger season finales. There will be, for example, shootouts on "ER" and "Conviction," and several other dramas are issuing vaguely ominous warnings about the impending loss of "one of their own."

Blame the trend on a number of factors -- shortened attention spans, a reality-show mentality and the age of interactivity. What's clear is that the old rules no longer apply.

Substantial death toll

Although no major character has died so far on "Sopranos" this sixth and final season -- surely bound to change soon -- the list of this season's dead on network TV series is long. It includes:

• Shannon (Maggie Grace), "Lost": She was fatally shot in November by Ana Lucia (Michelle Rodriguez), who mistook her for one of the dreaded Others. Soon "Lost" fans were calling for Ana Lucia's head.

• Jonathan Kent, "Smallville": Clark Kent's dad (John Schneider) suffered a fatal heart attack in January.

• Monica Mancuso, "Las Vegas": Reed-like Lara Flynn Boyle's character essentially got blown off a casino rooftop in November.

• About half the cast of "24": Kiefer Sutherland's thrill-a-minute drama takes the cake here. Never a show to spare an innocent life, "24" has killed off an amazing number of good guys this season. In the season opener, an assassin's bullet felled President Palmer (Dennis Haysbert), and Michelle Dessler (Reiko Aylesworth) was mortally wounded when her car exploded. Her husband, Tony Almeida (Carlos Bernard), also injured, lingered for a while, bent on revenge, only to have a terrorist plunge a hypodermic needle in his heart.

Since then, presidential adviser Walt Cummings (John Allen Nelson) was found hanging (a staged suicide to cover his murder, possibly by President Logan himself). The beloved Edgar Stiles (Louis Lombardi) died when exposed to nerve gas at CTU headquarters. The following week, Lynn McGill (Sean Astin) met the same fate. And this past Monday, Secretary of Defense James Heller (William Devane), about to be killed by terrorists in a helicopter, deliberately drove off a cliff and into a lake.

That's not even counting the evildoers Jack Bauer has justly dispatched to hell. And as the show approaches the conclusion of its deadliest season, the plot line will surely claim more victims.

The viewer factor

What gives?

One factor is television's new interactivity.

Fans post reviews of series on countless Web sites, registering kudos, gripes and conspiracy theories. Producers often read these comments and sometimes even post their own messages (or red herrings). Presumably, they also take valid criticisms to heart. "Lost" co-creator Damon Lindelof has said that the fans' reaction has affected the pace at which the show's writers reveal answers to some mysteries.

Reality shows also have had an influence on scripted dramas, "24" executive producer Howard Gordon has acknowledged in interviews. Viewers who have a hand in determining winners on "American Idol" and see people getting voted off "Survivor" may grow restless with the status quo and yearn for "eliminations" on scripted series.

Last season, NBC's "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" experimented with giving viewers a say in a story's outcome. The network aired two endings to an episode -- one for the East Coast, another for the West Coast -- and had viewers vote on whether recurring villain Nicole Wallace should live or die. (She lived.)

The recent resurgence of serialized prime-time dramas with sprawling casts may also be a factor. With large ensembles, you don't get to know all the characters well. As a result, their passings don't have the same impact as the shocking death last summer of Nate Fisher on "Six Feet Under."

Exciting uncertainty

When it comes to dramas dealing with life or death issues, series writers argue that it heightens realism if viewers think that at any moment anyone could die. That scenario is certainly more lifelike than credulity-stretching story lines where characters miraculously rebound from life-threatening injuries or -- no offense, Tony -- linger in comas for purely creative reasons.

This we-know-not-the-hour approach may keep viewers on their toes and perhaps, more important, keep cast members on edge -- possibly deterring diva-like tantrums or salary-related sickouts.

But is the whole trend an exciting or unwelcome development?

That depends on the show -- and the character.

In the serialized realm, the "Lost" death of troubled Shannon, just as she was becoming more likable and had found love with Sayid, was sadder than the first-season death of her stepbrother, Boone. Still, it would grieve me far more to lose Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Locke, Sun or Jin.

On "Desperate Housewives," I still miss the meddling Mrs. Huber but would shed no tears if a tornado hit Wisteria Lane and carried away the Applewhites' house. (That dead-end story line is supposed to cease at season's end.)

Backlash from fans

On the other hand, killing off a beloved character could really backfire.

Many fans of FX's "The Shield" were incensed by the death of Detective Curtis "Lemonhead" Lemansky (Kenny Johnson) in the recent fifth season finale of "The Shield" -- and especially by the fact that he was killed (with a grenade) by his friend and fellow detective Shane Vendrell (Walton Goggins).

"24" producers have conceded they were taken aback by the outraged reaction to the decision to kill off chubby, lovably awkward Edgar Stiles, who had terrific chemistry with the prickly Chloe O'Brian (Mary Lynn Rajskub). Was his death really necessary?

I decried the hit-and-run death of Tommy Gavin's son, Connor, on "Rescue Me" last fall. But of all the scripted deaths in the past few years, the most heartbreaking was the execution of Adriana (Drea de Matteo) in Season 5 of "The Sopranos." The show is just not the same without her. Writers have little choice, of course, if a valuable actor dies, as Nancy Marchand did after only one season of "The Sopranos" (or the unexpected deaths of "Law & Order: Trial by Jury" star Jerry Orbach and John Spencer of "The West Wing"). But couldn't Adriana have just disappeared, leaving open the possibility of a return after the inevitable demise of De Matteo's NBC comedy, "Joey"?

What's for sure is that we're in for more mayhem.

On "Everwood," it's rumored that a longtime resident will die, and people close to main characters appear to be in grave danger on "CSI: Miami" and "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation."

And then, of course, there's "The Sopranos," which has dispatched a few minor characters but is long overdue for a really big whacking.

Expect the blood to flow this May.

E-mail: rohan@northjersey.com

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

WILL THEY STAY, OR WILL THEY GO?

Heading into May sweeps, a number of TV characters are on the endangered list. Here are three prominent characters whose fates look iffy:

Vito Spatafore (Joseph R. Gannascoli), "The Sopranos" -- Bisexual Vito was caught in a leather bar, and now Phil Leotardo (Frank Vincent) wants him dead.

Audrey Heller Raines (Kim Raver), "24" -- Nobody gets to live happily ever after with Jack Bauer. Then again, the victim could be first lady Martha Logan (Jean Smart) -- or just about anyone else except Bauer.

C-Note (Rockmond Dunbar), "Prison Break" -- Reportedly, the gang (or some members) will finally break out in the season finale. But what kind of future does C-Note have on the outside?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

R.I.P.

Here's a look at this season's major fatalities (so far) and their manner of death.

• Shannon (Maggie Grace), "Lost" -- Shot by Ana Lucia.
• Jonathan Kent (John Schneider), "Smallville" -- Fatal heart attack.
• Monica Mancuso (Lara Flynn Boyle), "Las Vegas" -- Blown off a roof.
• Dana (Erin Daniels), "The L Word" -- Breast cancer.
• Detective "Lem" Lemansky (Kenneth Johnson), "The Shield" -- Grenade explosion, orchestrated by his close friend Detective Shane Vendrell (Walton Goggins).

And then there's "24":
• President Palmer (Dennis Haysbert): Bullet to the neck.
• Michelle Dessler (Reiko Aylesworth): Car explosion.
• Tony Almeida (Carlos Bernard): Needle in the heart.
• Walt Cummings (John Allen Nelson): Murder made to look like suicide.
• Edgar Stiles (Louis Lombardi): Nerve gas.
• Lynn McGill (Sean Astin): Nerve gas.
• Secretary of Defense James Heller (William Devane): Fatal plunge off cliff.

http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk3JmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZU VFeXk2OTI2NDUy

The Suns have obviously left you in a very good mood, Dave :)Actually, I pretty much only watch racing (auto and horse) when I can, but I do root for the home teams in all sports and wish them well. The Suns performance though may get me to watch at least some of the next series. :)

The Digital Revolution
Verizon versus Comcast has benefit

Jay Hancock Baltimore Sun May 7, 2006

The next phase of the telecommunications revolution got to my street a couple of weeks ago, but it showed few signs of dissolving "all of the monopolies and hierarchies and pyramids and power grids of industrial society," as techno-seer George Gilder predicted a decade ago in Forbes magazine.

Instead, it was a dozen guys with shovels, working incredibly hard, digging 3-foot holes so one quasi-monopoly, Verizon, can swipe business from another quasi-monopoly, Comcast.

Whatever. I'm willing to wait for postindustrial anarcho-nirvana if I can save $20 on my cable bill. Rather than ending, the telecom revolution has descended from the stars, rolled up its sleeves and built fiber-optic lines that people will actually use, even if it's only to watch Nationals baseball games.

Verizon and the diligent people laying its fiber-optic cable have launched a significant upgrade to American infrastructure. People were amazed in the 1990s when Iridium spent $5 billion to launch 66 satellites for a planetwide phone system. NASA's annual budget is an impressive $16 billion.

Well, between now and 2010 Verizon will spend what Sanford Bernstein's Jeff Halpern estimates is $22 billion to lay fast cable to the doorstep of millions of homes; wrap phone, TV and Internet into one product; and attack Comcast, Cox, Time Warner and other cable monopolies.

Verizon is a former Baby Bell phone company (once Bell Atlantic and Nynex) that became a national giant through various mergers, most recently with for former MCI Inc. Its stock has suffered from the enormous sums it is investing. But to hear the company tell it, dissatisfied cable customers are responding to its FiOS TV broadband product like Parisians greeting the Allies in World War II.

In the six weeks since Verizon launched FiOS in Howard County, "the response has been great," says company spokesman Harry Mitchell, without offering figures. "We're extremely pleased with it."

Comcast, for its part, says its new phone service is enrolling customers by the thousands, and "our phone customers are coming from somebody," says spokesman Jim Gordon. Somebody such as Verizon, he's saying.

In the seven months since the phone company introduced its first cable TV offering - in Keller, Texas, outside Dallas - it has grabbed 24 percent of the available homes, Mitchell said.

Verizon's FiOS broadband Internet service, which it claims is faster than regular cable because the glass fiber goes all the way to the house, has gained an average share of 9 percent in markets where it has been available six months, he adds.

Seeking 30% share

The company wants a 30 percent share in its markets within five years, which seems doable. It is introducing FiOS TV and Internet in 16 states, including Virginia. By the end of last year, it had laid new cable to 3 million homes; it expects FiOS to be available to 6 million homes by the end of this year.

In Maryland, Verizon sells its Internet/TV combo in only Howard County but hopes to begin soon in Bowie, where it just got a TV franchise. Last week the company struck an agreement to lay cable on public land in Baltimore County, The Sun reported, and it hopes to score a TV franchise there soon.

In places where it has rolled out FiOS, Verizon has undercut prices of entrenched cable companies and prompted them to offer unadvertised deals to customers who threaten to switch, according to a report by Bank of America stock analysts issued in January.

Verizon's most attractive product may be its "triple play" - digital cable TV, broadband Internet and unlimited local and long-distance phone service for $105 per month before taxes. Many Maryland homes pay more than that to Comcast just for Internet and TV.

In other markets, "we discovered that incumbent cable customer sales reps were willing to offer more competitive pricing after mentioning FiOS" - even lower than the FiOS price, said the Bank of America report.

Comcast triple play

In Maryland, Comcast has responded with its own triple play: voice, Internet and TV for 12 months for $99 a month for new customers. Existing customers can add one or two of the products for $33 each. Unlike FiOS, Comcast's triple play is available almost everywhere in Maryland besides Baltimore and will soon be offered there, too, said Gordon. He said there are "no significant differences" between Comcast's lines and Verizon's.

Comcast, for its part, isn't standing still in the capital investment or product-upgrade categories, either. It says it has spent $39 billion on network improvements in recent years. It's rolling out new programs and features, including faster speeds, free antivirus software and video mail, and it says it "competes every day for every customer."

Phone, TV and Internet all on one, cheaper bill? Nirvana may not be here yet, but it gets closer when there is more than one company promising to deliver it.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/bal-bz.hancock07may07,0,5522554.column?coll=bal-artslife-tv

TV Notebook
Matthew Gilbert Chat Transcript

A few days ago the Boston Globe’s TV critic, Matthew Gilbert, hosted an online Q&A session. Here is the transcript:

Matthew_Gilbert Hello out there.

TheGodfather--Hi Matthew: Normally I love your reviews and insight but I have to disagree with you on The Sopranos this season. It's great if you love "Artsy" social issues stuff, but as a mob show, it's really going down hill fast. I find it pretty boring lately.
Matthew_Gilbert Thanks for the complimentation, G-Dfather. I hear you, but what do you mean by artsy social issues? The gay thing? The show has always been about family and psychology as much as mob action, and this season is no exception. Maybe you're uncomfortable with Tony's growing sense of conscience?

drz--what do you think will happen this season with sopranos?
Matthew_Gilbert I'm thinking something's going to happen with AJ, like maybe he'll express interest in his father's business. Sure, he's a bit of a dumbo, but then so is Christopher and he's pretty high up on the totem pole. THere will surely be fallout from the Vito thing, and Tony's defense of Vito could further alienate NY and NJ. What do you think, drz?

disco2k--I totally agree with you on this season, and I think it's been fascinating to watch- especially with this last episode showing AJ's increasing impotence as the son of a mob boss
Matthew_Gilbert Oh Disco2k, you had me at "I totally agree with you."

RIFan--I already miss West Wing...any chance for another smart political drama and no Commander
in Chief doesn't count
Matthew_Gilbert I hear you bigtime, RIFan. Commander in Chief is a sad knockoff of West Wing. It will be a long time, I'm sure, before we get another political drama as fine as The West Wing, because Aaron Sorkins don't come along every day.

couch_spud--What's your take on Sons & Daughters? Has it been picked up for next season?
Matthew_Gilbert No word on it yet, spud. Most of the renewals won't be announced until later this month. I wouldn't be shocked if Sons and Daughters disappeared; it failed to have much impact. But then again, if ABC gave Jake in Progress a second chance, it might take pity on Sons and Daughter and give it another round. I loved the show when it started, but then burned out on some of the drama amid the comedy. It's hard to pull dramedy off in a half hour; Scrubs is one of the rare sitcoms that can be as poignant as it is hysterical.

Rowleyguy--Hi Matthew: Two questions: Do you know when this season of The Sopranos officially ends? (These HBO bills are killing me with the high price of gas). Also, I really enjoy Battlestar Galactica. I'm wondering what you think of the series.
Matthew_Gilbert It ends on June 4, I think, Rowleyguy, and then returns in January for the last 8 episodes. I'm not the one to ask about Battlestar, I've only checked in periodically. I know that my colleague Suzanne Ryan is a BG freak, though...

lilCarm--How I Met Your Mother is really a great show but I feel it is another one of those CBS Monday night shows that will fade into oblivian, any thoughts
Matthew_Gilbert Lil Carm, I love it too, and guess what: it has already been renewed. No ticket to oblivion for this one.

disco2k--What are your thoughts on Adriana reappearing? I don't belive for a second that Syl really killed her- We never, ever saw her body, or the disposal of her body, something that the Sopranos always seems to feature when one of the main characters is killed. There was alot of talk about Adriana in the first few episodes...what do you think?
Matthew_Gilbert First let me know who shot Kennedy, disco, and then we'll have a nice long talk about Ade.

couch_spud--Where you satisfied w/ Alan Alda as Sec of State on the West Wing?
Matthew_Gilbert I was relieved, spud, because I was terrified he was going to be the VP. That would have undermined any realism the West Wing had left in it. Making Vinick Sec of State was easier to take, and it provided a nice resolution to that character; but it was a stretch indeed.

kate--Does reality TV have a shelf life, or are we doomed to reality our whole life? [no pun intended!] thanks--
Matthew_Gilbert No pun intended, kate? Freud might feel differently about that. My feeling is that reality TV has slowed down a bit. There are only two or three hot shows (Idol, Survivor) regularly on the networks; most of the junkier and meaner ones have been relegated to the smaller cable niches.

Ed_Sullivan--Matthew, where does '24' go from here in future seasons? Jack takes on God, who it turns out is not quite the deity he makes himself out to be?
Matthew_Gilbert Mr. Sullivan, I love your question. 24 has certainly crossed a line this season. The biggest surprise the show could pull is to make someone NOT a traitor, or to keep someone ALIVE. The show is getting too stunty.

lilCarm -- really enjoyed your article on the Sopranos and thought how funny it is that I am more afraid of characters killing themself then of them being killed. This whole story line of Tony's redemtion seems to foreshadow something devestating.
Matthew_Gilbert LilCarm, I agree with you about suicide this season. That PAINFUL opening episode, with Gene's struggling body dangling, has cast a pall of potential over all the characters.

kate--Has Desparate Housewives jumped the shark?
Matthew_Gilbert I'm a critic, so I'm always right. Ha ha. Kate, I think everyone has their own idea of when a show jumps. I burned out on DH early this season, and felt it jumped when Bree started drinking. What do you think? SOme of my friends are still loving it.

Sick_of_Lost--Matthew, what has happened to Lost? The whole season seems to be just spinning its wheels with way too many plots that are not particularly interesting. How can last season end with the taking of Walt, which was so stunning, and then not touch that subject at all for a whole season.?
Matthew_Gilbert I SO hear you, SOL. I'm still hoping Damon Lindeloff and JJ Abrams have a master plan, and I've enjoyed a lot of this season's episodes. But I also wish things would start coming together, if only to break apart all over again. This kind of stretching thin seems to be a built-in problem with network series television, which answers to popularity and advertisers more than to creative agenda. I wish "Lost" would head toward its conclusion and finish on top; instead, it may stretch on years beyond its natural life like the X Files.

lola23--what's your take on the insipid shows on Bravo like Blow Out and the Wives of Orange County??
Matthew_Gilbert Jonathan Antin makes me want to dry heave. And the Wives make me want to shoot spitballs at the screen. That's my take on the insipid shows on Bravo, lola, but don't you start trash talking Project Runway. Heidi rules.

Ms__Fit--Hi. I haven't seen anything from you on Heist. What do you think?
Matthew_Gilbert I didn't much like it, Ms Fit. It seemed like a Tarantino-esque knockoff. I recommend "Hustle," a British show that airs on AMC. It's Heist, but with a sense of humor and a great ensemble of characters.

lilCarm--I am semi-obsessed with Lost and feel that these next four episodes will either make or break this show. The finale last year was shocking and disturbing, do you have any theories on this years?
Matthew_Gilbert I very much agree. If the writers don't give us another big thrill, and maybe a reveal of some significant kind, they may lose a lot of viewers next season. Why do I still think there's some drug testing going on, and they are all sharing a hallucination in a Manchurian Candidate sort of way?

Julia--what do you think about TV on the iPOD?
Matthew_Gilbert It's... cute. Actually, I think it's a great idea, Julia. The more we can watch TV on our own terms, the more the networks will have to give us good things to capture us. I watched an episode of The Office on an iPod and thought it was an OK experience. Apple will need to find a way to enlargen the image, though...

Julia--hey matt, what do you think about Big Love?
Matthew_Gilbert I think it's a really good show. I love the acting, particularly Chloe Sevigny as Nicki, and it gets into some interesting psychological territory about family and marriage. To me, it's really about monogamy and whether it works or not.

Stacey--It breaks my TV-loving heart that Andre Braugher hasn't found a good outlet since Homicide went off the air!
Matthew_Gilbert I know what you mean, Stace. I wish he would find lighter vehicles than Gideon's Crossing and Thief. Both shows were so HEAVY and GLOOMY. If he found something less downbeat, he might be able to show his range, which I assume exists.

Ms__Fit--Any idea what the deal is with Dick Wolf and all those soap opera folks always showing up on his shows?
Matthew_Gilbert I think it must be a New York thing, Misfit. Wolf's shows are among the few prime time network series that film in the city, as are some soaps.

Boston_Viewer77--What do you think about TV On Demand? Who is doing the best job in your mind?
Matthew_Gilbert I think it is a GREAT THING, BV. The more we can create our own programming, the better. When I sit down to watch a night of TV, I don't have to watch junk simply because that's what's being served. I can watch any number of shows available on demand (as well as on my Tivo).

slb--Any thoughts on the new Julia L-D show, Christine? I think it's ok, not great, but there are a few laugh out loud moments. I'm really pulling for her... love her!
Matthew_Gilbert Yes, love her, slb. She was the best of the ensemble on Seinfeld, I think, and that's saying a lot. I agree, the show is not great, but she's just got a great sense of comic timing and a subtle way with physical comedy. She makes it worthwhile for sure.

Matthew_Gilbert This has been a lot of fun, and I thank each of you for showing up. Please come back next time, and email me anytime at gilbert@globe.com. Take care, MG

http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/packages/gilbert_chat_05022006/

Saturday’s network prime-time ratings are now at the top of RATINGS NEWS (the first post in this thread).

TV Notebook
Adios, adieu, bye, later, so long, ciao


But will this year's television series finales go out with a bang?
By Chuck Barney Contra Costa Times TV critic Sun, May. 07, 2006

When "Friends" producers Marta Kauffman and David Crane met more than two years ago to pen what was supposed to be the final scene for their wildly popular sitcom, they ran headlong into an impenetrable case of writer's block.

Try as they might, they sat for days, but the right words and tone just wouldn't come. "We kept pitching line after line, and ultimately we just decided not to do it," Crane said at the time. "We finally looked at each other and said, 'Well, obviously it can't be written' ... So we lopped off the final scene. It was just too hard."

Harder than some might imagine. When it comes to putting the finishing touches on a popular television show, producers and writers often find it extremely difficult to do goodbyes -- and even more difficult to do them well.

There's intense creative pressure to not only satisfy the expectations of fans who are emotionally invested in a show, but also the demands of network executives who crave the kind of big-event programming that will deliver substantial ratings.

"I think there's a temptation to do something clever -- something unexpected," says Tim Brooks, a television historian and co-author of "The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows." "The problem, however, is that by now we've all watched so many of these finales that it's very difficult to do anything that feels truly original. There's a whole list (of finales) everyone's got to compete with."

May, of course, has become the season for farewells. This month, seven prime-time shows, including NBC's groundbreaking "The West Wing" and "Will & Grace," will sail into the sunset. Other shows on their way out include "7th Heaven," which may get a reprieve (The WB); "Malcolm in the Middle" (Fox); "That '70s Show" (Fox); "Alias" (ABC); and "Charmed" (The WB). Unlike "Seinfeld" (1998) and "Friends" (2004), which were riding high in the ratings when they bid adieu, this season's crop of departing shows are all past their Nielsen prime. That means there will be considerably less blaring hype and fanfare attached to their farewells.

Still, these shows do have their intensely loyal followers, and in their heyday they were valuable pieces of property for their networks. So their production teams all will be hoping to put together a quality swan song and go out on a high note.

This wasn't always the case. For decades, TV shows didn't concern themselves with the grand finale. Every episode -- even the last ones -- would play out like the others. The conventional thinking was that building to some kind of climax would diminish the show's value in syndication.

"Even shows that cried out for an ending -- say, like 'Gilligan's Island' -- never ended," says Robert Thompson, a pop-culture professor at Syracuse University. "When that series went off the air, nothing had changed. Gilligan and the others were still stranded on that blasted island."

In the summer of 1967, ABC's serialized action series "The Fugitive" became the first show to demonstrate the seductive power of a finale. At last, Richard Kimble (David Janssen) caught up with the one-armed man who murdered his wife, and proved his innocence. The show-stopper was seen by more people than any single episode of a regular series up to that time.

"It was such a huge success that you would have thought television programmers would have jumped on that bandwagon like crazy," says Thompson. "But they didn't."

It wasn't until 10 years later and "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," with its weepy farewell and heart-tugging group hug, that the finale floodgates finally opened. Kauffman still regards it as the "gold standard" of TV finales, and Thompson says it was the episode that changed everything.

"At that point it finally clicked in the brains of TV executives: If you're going to live with these characters for so many years, it's only natural to want some kind of closure," he says. "When longtime neighbors decide to move, you throw them a farewell party. You just don't let them pass into the night."

And thus the era of the "big-event" finale began. In February of 1983, 125 million viewers tuned into the 21/2-hour swan song of "M*A*S*H" -- the largest audience ever for a single episode. In the years since, finales for series such as "The Cosby Show," "Dallas," "Cheers," "Seinfeld," "The X-Files," "Friends," "Sex and the City" and "Everybody Loves Raymond" have been treated like major pop-cultural events.

But as the TV finales pile up, it has become clear that the truly beloved ones are few and far between. While the hilarious and totally unexpected dream ending of "Newhart" may be fondly recalled, the surreal finish of "St. Elsewhere" probably turned off as many viewers as it pleased.

Meanwhile, many departures are so uneventful that they've become forgotten over time.

Part of the problem is that, no matter how hard producers and writers try, it's almost impossible to serve up a finale that will please everyone. Not only do heavy expectations sometimes throw things out of whack, but viewers tend to have varying opinions on how their show should end.

To wit: When "Sex and the City" was drawing to a close in 2004, fans were divided over the personal direction they desired Sarah Jessica Parker's Carrie to take. Some wanted her to stick with her Russian boyfriend. Some wanted her to wind up in the arms of her old flame, Mr. Big. And others wanted her to snub them both and defiantly sashay off into the sunset on her own. (The writers went for sentiment and chose Big.)

And then there was the polarizing finale of "Seinfeld," which flatly refused to reach for the Kleenex. Writer Larry David thought he was keeping the show true to itself 'til the very end when he had Jerry and his insensitive pals jailed for violating a small town's Good Samaritan law. Some fans and critics ate it up, but many others were left with a bitter aftertaste.

The key to creating a satisfying sendoff, says Brooks, is to avoid self-indulgence and stay true to the spirit of the show. "You want to tie up some loose ends and make it feel like a natural fit," he says. "Too many shows try to be overly clever and cutesy in their desire to go out with a bang. Audiences see right through that."

Thompson agrees. He says the era of the "throw-'em-a-big-curveball" finale has faded, and that understated farewells such as the one "Everybody Loves Raymond" produced last May will most likely become the norm.

"There was nothing particularly memorable that stands out with that ("Raymond") episode, but in many ways it was the perfect ending," he says. "It was a touching episode that stayed consistent with what the show is all about."

Of this month's TV departures, "The West Wing" is easily the most distinctive case. Producers earlier had to deal with the challenge of working Leo's (John Spencer) death into the last few episodes, and have already provided the big plot payoff with Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits) capturing the presidential election. The only thing left to do, it would seem, is usher President Bartlet (Martin Sheen) out of office and Santos in.

"It has been an interesting run for 'The West Wing,'" says Thompson. "After four brilliant seasons, it went through a couple of down seasons and now, in Season 7, has really reinvigorated itself to the point where you'd almost like to see it go on a little further with the new president. It deserves to have a good-sized audience turn out for its farewell."

Of the other finales, Thompson believes "Will & Grace" has the potential to be the most excruciating ("it has already gone into its baroque tailspin"), and "Alias" is the wild card.

"That's the one I'm most curious to see," he says. "We already know those producers are prone to break rules. Just look at the history of that show and you know they're capable of doing just about anything."

Then again, the next finale that will truly face gigantic expectations from critics and fans alike won't happen this month, but early next year. That's when HBO's superb mob series, "The Sopranos," is scheduled to bow out.

"That show has been so good for so long that everyone is going to be looking for something that's nothing short of spectacular," Thompson says. "If I was a writer on 'The Sopranos,' I'd already be sweating bullets."

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/entertainment/columnists/chuck_barney/14511891.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

The 2005-06 TV Season
Sunday Night’s Season Finale
Crossing Jordan 10 PM ET/PT NBC

TV Notebook
Will Semi-Retirement Tame Mike Wallace? Not Likely

CBS' sharp-tongued '60 Minutes' veteran turns 88 this week.
There's no way he's quitting. He might slow down. A little.
By Matea Gold Los Angeles Times Staff Writer May 8, 2006

NEW YORK -- Mike Wallace sure doesn't act like someone on the cusp of retirement.

The veteran CBS broadcaster, who turns 88 on Tuesday, officially becomes "correspondent emeritus" at the end of this month, but when a visitor stopped by on a recent afternoon, he said he has no plans to pack up the memorabilia and Emmy Awards that line the walls of his "60 Minutes" office.

Instead, Wallace rummaged through the papers on his desk and pulled out a draft of a letter he had composed that morning, scribbled in felt-tip pen across the front page of the New York Times. It was a missive to incoming White House press secretary Tony Snow requesting time with President Bush, who has until now declined all of Wallace's interview requests.

"I've talked to every president since Abe Lincoln," Wallace said with mock indignation. (In truth, his record stretches back to John F. Kennedy.)

Bush is just one of the subjects the newsman — a legend for his pugnacious and penetrating interview style — hopes to corner in the coming year. After reporting stories for "60 Minutes" for 38 years, Wallace recently signed another multiyear contract to contribute several pieces a year to the program, a deal that also allows him to do separate cable channel specials. CBS wasn't the only network that wanted his services; NBC recently approached him with an offer to do "anything I wanted," Wallace said, but loyalty to "the mother church" prevailed.

"I'm going to stay here," he said firmly. "There's an understanding that I'm not going to be getting on airplanes and flying all over the world, but there are going to be certain important interviews I will do for '60 Minutes.' "

Indeed, the thought of quitting work altogether isn't wired into Wallace's DNA.

"My sense is that six months from now, the story is not going to be how little he's working, but how much," said his son, Chris Wallace, host of "Fox News Sunday." "He's incapable of just stopping. It's just who he is."

"He's not going to retire," added fellow "60 Minutes" correspondent Morley Safer. "That's like asking a tiger or a cobra to retire."

Still, after nearly six decades in television, Wallace said he has come to accept that he can't keep up the pace that he used to. This spring, he decided to scale back his workload, which he had already cut in half a few years ago. On May 21, in his last regularly scheduled appearance on "60 Minutes," the show will feature a retrospective of his career.

"When you're about to be 88, some of those things that are absolutely vital to get around begin to fail a trifle," he said. "You begin to say, 'Is it sensible to try to keep the same type of work schedule?' There used to be a time when I would say, 'I'm going to Omaha, Neb., or Beirut.' Now I say, 'My Lord, I have to fly to Washington.' "

Friends say he seems content with his decision. But the longtime broadcaster shrugged off a reporter's effort to get him to define this next phase, or even when it begins, noting that he plans to come back to work this fall after his annual summer vacation at Martha's Vineyard.

"I will continue to do what I have been doing," he said a bit testily after being pressed on the subject.

Wallace's semi-retirement, such as it is, comes at a time of substantial transition for CBS News, whose anchor Bob Schieffer is set to hand off the evening newscast this fall to Katie Couric, who will also do pieces for "60 Minutes."

"I suppose it has to happen," said "60 Minutes" commentator Andy Rooney of Wallace cutting back. "I have an old fogy view; I don't like changes. I don't think it will be as good without him. It's like a football team that loses its star quarterback — it's not the same team."

But News President Sean McManus said Wallace will remain a full-time CBS employee, one who he hopes will still play a significant role at the network.

"There's never been a more distinctive voice in the business, and my only hope is that we can continue to get as much of his contributions as he's able to give us," he said.

In person, Wallace appears remarkably youthful, dapper in a crisp navy-blue suit and sharply knotted red tie, his skin tanned, his thick hair still neatly combed back. Signs of his age surface only occasionally, when he fiddles with his hearing aids.

The job, he said, has kept him vital.

"This is not work," Wallace said. "You can go any place in the world, with CBS picking up the tab, and talk to just about anybody. You have enough time to do it justice on the air. Can you think of a better reportorial job?"

Media minded

It wasn't a career Myron Leon Wallace could have envisioned growing up in Brookline, Mass., the youngest of four children born to Jewish immigrants from Russia. After graduating from the University of Michigan in 1939 with a liberal arts degree, he was uncertain about his career path but landed a job as a radio news reader in Grand Rapids.

"That was the first time I began to understand, you know, this could be fun," he recalled with a gravelly chuckle. "I must have liked the sound of my own voice."

Other radio gigs followed. After serving as a Navy communications officer during World War II, Wallace returned to his job as a news reporter in Chicago. But he quickly grasped that broadcasting was changing.

"I suddenly realized, 'Hey, you need to be on television. Television is going to happen, and you don't want to get left behind, do you?' "

Wallace started out at a Chicago station, where he did everything from read commercials to act in a police drama, and then did a stint at CBS, where he hosted an interview show with his then-wife, Buff Cobb.

It wasn't until 1956 that Wallace first hit on his unique talent for quizzing newsmakers. At the time, he was working as an anchor for a local New York station and his producer, Ted Yates, suggested they develop a late-night interview program that forced celebrities and politicians to answer tough questions. "Night Beat" was an immediate success, and Wallace found himself getting cheered on by cab drivers as he walked through Manhattan.

He took the program to ABC for a year, where it was called "The Mike Wallace Interview," and then sampled a variety of broadcasting jobs until 1962, when his older son Peter, just 19, died in a hiking accident in Greece. In his grief, Wallace vowed to devote himself solely to journalism.

"I thought to myself, 'Hey, do something that would make Peter proud of you,' " he recalled. " 'C'mon, you can do something more interesting than reading other people's words about peanut butter.' "

In 1963, he returned to CBS as a special correspondent, reporting from Vietnam and then covering the 1968 presidential campaign of Richard Nixon, who asked him to be his White House press secretary.

Wallace declined and instead decided to help launch a new prime-time magazine show being developed by a producer named Don Hewitt. "60 Minutes" premiered in 1968, co-hosted by Harry Reasoner and Wallace.

Hewitt described the pair as "the perfect fit — the guy you love and the guy you love to hate."

The show took a while to gain a following, but by 1978, "60 Minutes" ranked among the top 10 programs in the country, a position it held for 23 seasons.

A bruising style

Wallace's unapologetic interviewing technique emerged as the program's trademark. He asked Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini about the fact that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat regarded him as "a lunatic" and quizzed Ronald Reagan about the dearth of African Americans on his campaign staff, angering Nancy Reagan, a longtime friend.

"I don't think there would a '60 Minutes' if Don hadn't found Mike," said Jeff Fager, the show's current executive producer. "Mike was never afraid to ask a question, to ask anybody whatever he felt like and say what he thought."

Some of Wallace's stories did more than rankle guests. His 1982 documentary about the efforts of U.S. military leaders to undercount the number of enemy troops in Vietnam led to a libel lawsuit (later withdrawn) and eventually pushed him into such a deep depression that he was hospitalized. A decade later, he sparred with CBS executives over the network's refusal to air an interview with a tobacco whistle-blower.

He's still not shy about voicing his opinions about the goings-on at CBS News. Wallace made headlines in November when he said Dan Rather should have resigned after four newsroom employees were forced out in the wake of CBS' broadcast of a controversial report about President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard.

Although he says he has "great respect" for Couric and is curious to see how the news will fare with her at the helm, he's fairly glum about the state of television news as a whole.

"There is so much that is tabloid, so much infotainment," Wallace said. "It's the race to the bottom instead of the race to the top in order to get ratings and make a living."

His colleagues said they're counting on hearing such sharp opinions from Wallace for some time to come.

"He's still going to be around, letting me and everyone else know what he thought of last night's broadcast, and I welcome that — to a degree," Fager said with a chuckle. "Part of what he's done is to show the way to the other correspondents. We all try to make sure that we don't get too soft, that there's always a little edge, a little skepticism — that's what he teaches us."

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-wallace8may08,0,1567933.story?coll=cl-tv-features

The Business of TV
Study: Commercial Rating Is 7% Lower Than Ave. Program Performance

By John Consoli MediaWeek.com MAY 07, 2006 -

A study of television commercial pod performance versus program performance by media agency Magna Global USA reveals that the average commercial pod rating for the six broadcast networks was 7 percent lower than the average program rating. The study also found that among the broadcast networks, scripted series on CBS have kept the most viewership when going from programming to a commercial pod.

Viewers tend to continue to watch commercials during breaks on the broadcast networks at a greater level than on the 25 cable networks examined, except for cable networks Court TV, Bravo and Fox News which were at similar levels to broadcast, the study showed.

In analyzing the findings, the Magna researchers concluded that program rating levels seem to have little impact on commercial audience fall-offs during commercial pods in comedies, but lower-rated dramas and reality series did tend to have more audience defection during commercials than higher-rated dramas. Among dramas, audience defections for the first commercial pod in the show were higher when there was more time before the first commercial. The opposite was true for reality shows.

Another finding was that when there were longer program segments before a commercial pod, those pods tended to have higher commercial viewing when the commercial pods came on. And procedural dramas like CSI and Law & Order posted their highest commercial ratings in the next to the last commercial pod which airs right after the climax of the show, prior to the final act. In reality shows, commercial ratings build throughout the show, with the highest rated commercial pod being the last one on the show, after contest results or a winner is reveled.

While most broadcast networks currently have five commercial pods within an hour show, most of the cable networks have only four, meaning the cable network commercial pods are longer. Magna concluded that this could have an effect on why commercial viewing on cable relative to program viewing indexes lower on cable than on broadcast.

Among the reality shows on the broadcast networks, Magna found that CBS' Survivor had the most non-program time per hour, followed by Fox's American Idol. The WB's Beauty & The Geek and NBC's The Apprentice had the least non-program time. Among dramas, ABC had the most non-program time, Fox has the least. Among comedies, UPN had the most non-program time, NBC had the least. For newsmagazines, ABC's 20/20 had more non-program time than both NBC's Dateline and CBS' 60 Minutes.

Among the non-program time, ABC had the highest percentage of national commercials and the lowest percentage of local commercials. Fox had the highest percentage of local commercials "by far," and the lowest percentage of national commercials. CBS and ABC dramas had the highest percentage of network promos, while Fox dramas and CBS comedies had the lowest percentage of promos.

Magna also compared this season's results with last season's, and found that among two-thirds of the returning series, commercial viewing patterns overall were basically the same among viewers. But because the networks tend to fluctuate the number of non-program minutes in the same show from week-to-week or month-to-month, and also to shift the ratio of national and local commercials and promos within particular pod locations, there were differences in viewing patterns for the same pod locations within shows across multiple episodes.

The Magna study also found that there are substantial differences in the first spot run in the commercial pods between broadcast and cable networks. More than half of all cable network commercial pod "A" positions were devoted to network promos all of the time. In sharp contrast, UPN had the most "A" position promos, doing it 21 percent of the time, followed by ABC, 12 percent of the time, with the other broadcast nets lower.

The study found that viewing of the cable network "A" position spots were viewed 6 percent higher than the rest of the pod, while viewing of the broadcast network "A" position spots were viewed only 2 percent higher.

Finally, the study found that DVR homes watch more programming and slightly more commercials than non-DVR homes, but that 75 percent of all played back commercials are skipped.

The Magna research staff recorded and timed about 60 prime-time programs on the six broadcast networks for the study and examined one episode per month of each show from November 2005 through February 2006. For cable, the staff examined 60 programs across 25 networks. In total, for both cable and broadcast, about 320 telecasts were examined for the study.

The team then matched its logging and breakouts with corresponding data in Nielsen Media Research's NPower system to get ratings data for every program segment and commercial pod.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002463979

The Business of TV
Satellite May Be Reaching Plateau

DirecTV's Slip in New Subs a Bad Sign as Cable Rebounds
By Jay Sherman TVWeek.com May 8, 2006

DirecTV Group's first-quarter slowdown in subscriber additions is the clearest signal yet that the stratospheric growth of the satellite TV industry is running out of steam.

After a decade of fast-paced growth, largely at the expense of the cable sector, DirecTV is showing signs of topping out just as a reborn cable industry is gearing up to do battle armed with a three-product bundle of television, high-speed Internet and telephone services. The top satellite company, of which Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. owns a controlling 34 percent stake, reportedly added 255,000 new customers in the first quarter (off 50 percent from a year ago) to reach 15.4 million subscribers.

Many analysts believe things could get even more challenging once Regional Bell Operating Cos. such as Verizon Communications and AT&T begin offering their own three-pronged bundle over the next few years.

"The satellite industry, I think, faces a very uphill slog from here," said Bernstein Research cable and satellite analyst Craig Moffett. "It's going to be harder and harder to win subscribers."

This altered landscape comes at a particularly delicate time for DirecTV President and CEO Chase Carey, who is betting big that the satellite company can reach 20 million subscribers by 2010, even if it can't match head-to-head the product mix being sold by cable.

Mr. Carey dismisses the notion that cable's triple play will derail his company's plans. He noted that DirecTV has relationships with the RBOCs to complement the Bells' high-speed Internet and telephone services with DirecTV's video product. He said he expects those relationships to continue to be strong even as the phone companies roll out their own video service, since it will take the phone companies years to fully upgrade their networks to offer video services.

"While we will see an impact, the impact will be at the margin," Mr. Carey said.

However, in a sign that he clearly recognizes the competition has intensified, Mr. Carey appeared to hedge on an earlier goal of adding 1 million subscribers in 2006, saying during last Thursday's first-quarter earnings call that the actual number might be shy of that mark.

The challenges now confronting DirecTV and rival EchoStar Communications represent a turning of the tables for both companies. Ten years ago satellite, with its all-digital network, was able to boast of offering more channels at a lower price than cable's analog offering. Today cable has gone digital and has taken things several steps further. In addition to a more robust channel lineup, cable companies are offering high-speed Internet and telephone service as well as advanced services such as video-on-demand-all products that satellite operators can't match.

"Cable's ability to offer a triple-play suite of video, high-speed Internet and telephony services is appealing to consumers and allows a certain degree of price flexibility that satellite does not have," Prudential Securities analyst Katherine Styponias said in a research note.

What's more, even if DirecTV were to overcome its lack of a broadband product by either building or buying a wireless high-speed data provider, the company would still be at a competitive disadvantage to cable because the broadband product would operate on a network separate from DirecTV's TV service, Mr. Moffett noted.

"Cable's advantage in the triple play is not from the fact that it offers three products and satellite offers only one, it's that they can offer three services on one network and the marginal costs of each incremental product is nearly zero," Mr. Moffett said.

http://www.tvweek.com/article.cms?articleId=29804

The Business of TV
Warner to Let TV Stations Offer Sitcom Reruns Online

Computer users will be able to watch, but not download, old episodes of 'Two and a Half Men.'
By Meg James Los Angeles Times Staff Writer May 8, 2006

As television networks and producers scramble to catch the wave of video-on-demand programming, local TV stations have been left stranded on the beach.

But today, Warner Bros. Television Group is throwing a line to stations eager to test the waters. Warner plans to offer broadcasters the right to stream on their own websites older episodes of its popular sitcom "Two and a Half Men."

The deal is significant because it represents the first major syndication package that bundles a program's over-the-air broadcast rights with its broadband rights. It also shows how Hollywood is aggressively exploring how best to exploit technology to wring as much money as possible from its shows.

Until now, most of the network video-on-demand deals have bypassed stations, and only recently have started to include advertising. Last week, CBS Corp. launched its own ad-supported broadband channel, Innertube. It will offer CBS programs and features such as "Survivor," original shows produced for the Web and, possibly, even old episodes of "The Brady Bunch" or "I Love Lucy."

Walt Disney Co.'s ABC network also is running its own two-month experiment: a mini "theater" on its website where viewers can watch episodes of "Lost," "Desperate Housewives" and "Alias." The move comes six months after Disney, and then NBC Universal, struck separate deals with Apple Computer Inc. to sell downloads of their popular shows, without commercials, on the iTunes store.

But those deals riled station owners, who have long been the backbone of the TV distribution system. They worry that too many viewers will click a computer mouse in lieu of a TV remote to watch their favorite shows. If that happens, commercial time could diminish in value, driving down ad rates.

"The stations have sort of been out there as dinosaurs, left to perish in this new digital world," said Stacey Lynn Koerner, president of Interpublic Media's viewer research unit, the Consumer Experience Practice.

Warner is offering its sweetener on the theory that it will enhance the value of its syndication packages to stations, which hopefully can use the broadband offerings to build a lucrative Web business.

"What we are saying to the local stations is that 'you are going to be our partner,' " said Bruce Rosenblum, president of Warner Bros. Television Group. "We are going to provide stations with A-level content for their websites, to maximize the value of their websites, and provide them a second revenue stream."

To be sure, the Time Warner Inc. division also hopes to protect its syndication sales to stations, a lucrative profit center. Studios potentially can earn huge amounts selling reruns of their hits. Since 1998, for example, the Warner sitcom "Friends" has hauled in about $2 billion.

Warner is expected to cash in on "Two and a Half Men," starring Charlie Sheen and Jon Cryer as brothers living like a present-day "Odd Couple," albeit not to the extent it did with "Friends."

Later this week, Warner will begin an auction among the station groups for its 90-episode collection of the series. The company is hoping that with the Internet streams added as a bonus, station groups will bid more than $2 million an episode. (The deal does not include original first-run episodes since those have already been sold to the CBS network.)

Warner's approach is intriguing in that it attempts to preserve the traditional way studios make money through syndication, said Leland Westerfield, a broadcasting analyst with Harris Nesbitt.

"This respects the integrity of the syndication window and reassures TV station owners, who are putting down large commitments for programming, that they will still play a central role in program distribution," Westerfield said. "It suggests that perhaps the stations are less threatened by Internet platforms than most people believe."

Warner said that beginning in the fall of 2007, stations would begin airing the reruns of "Two and a Half Men." The deal would allow the local TV stations to stream five episodes a week on their websites. Computer users would be able to watch, but not download, episodes and would be able to fast-forward or rewind portions of the show.

The episodes would contain commercials, Rosenblum said, with Warner getting 50% of the online ad revenue. Internet users would not be able to skip or fast-forward through the ads.

"You're going to see a lot of interest from local advertisers," said Brad Adgate, research director for ad-buying firm Horizon Media.

He said Warner's deal was particularly attractive because "Two and a Half Men" was TV's highest-rated comedy. "It's going to be affordable for a lot of people who could not afford to buy time in the show in syndication, let alone during its network run," Adgate said.

TV station groups are watching closely.

"Everyone is experimenting with different forms of distribution right now," said Dunia Shive, president of media operations for Dallas-based Belo Corp. "I believe there is, and will continue to be, an acknowledgment of the strong promotional platform a local affiliate can provide to its network partner, and I expect us all to find ways to work together."

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-fi-warner8may08,0,4880335.story?coll=cl-tvent

The May Sweep
Gasping for air: David Blaine stunting

By Jae-Ha Kim MediaLifeMagazine.com May 7, 2006

There used to be a time when magicians were happy to pull a rabbit out of their hats. These days they don't seem to be pleased unless they've tortured themselves to the top of the ratings.

Which brings us to David Blaine, the attention-loving Gen Y magician who doesn't mind being buried alive, frozen, or drowned--all for the sake of good TV, or at least good ratings.

In "David Blaine: Drowned Alive," which airs at 8 tonight on ABC, Leonardo DiCaprio's sleight-of-hand buddy will attempt to hold his breath underwater longer than any human being in history.
It's one of a slew of sweeps stunts on ABC this month as the network attempts to regain sole possession of first place among adults 18-49 after slipping into a tie with Fox. Other stunts include an Oprah special next week, tomorrow's bird flu movie and multiple super-sized episodes of its biggest hits. Tonight's special could produce decent ratings. Blaine's "Vertigo" May sweeps special four years ago on ABC averaged a 4.1 adults 18-49 rating.

Now onto the other big question: Will Blaine be able to break the record by holding his breath for longer than 8 minutes 58 seconds? Yes. He's not in this business to fail. Is there really any chance of him drowning? No. There may come a time when real-life deaths make for great primetime TV, but we're not quite there yet.

To prep for this stunt, Blaine has spent the past week living in a gigantic fishbowl in Manhattan for all to see because what's the point of doing this if no one can watch? For now, he has the benefit of a breathing device.

Blaine's day-to-day routine is tedious at best. As he tells ABC News: "I would wake up and hold my breath for 48 minutes out of the course of every hour. I'd breathe for a minute, hold my breath for five minutes immediately after, and then right after that, breathe a minute, hold for six minutes and keep going for all the way up to an hour."

The clock's ticking, David. As for viewers, they don't need to hold their breath out of fear that it might be Blaine's last stunt.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_4569.asp

Commentary on The Digital Revolution
Why your laptop will never replace your TV

By Séan Captain slate.com Posted Monday, May 8, 2006

In the last few months, the quality and diversity of Internet video has soared. Sites like YouTube have made it easy to watch user-generated content and dubbed TV clips. The old-line media is going online, too. ABC just began offering episodes of four current shows online as an "experiment," and Fox will soon make 60 percent of its shows available for download the day after they air. As Internet video has grown, so has high-definition television. Big-screen HDTVs have now hit the mainstream: Costco has 42-inch HD plasma panels starting at $1,900.

The next logical step, it seems, would be to stream high-definition video via the Internet. In the long term—10 years or more—perhaps. But for the foreseeable future, that won't happen. That's because the very properties that make the Internet great make it a lousy video-distribution network, especially for the high-def era.

The Net doesn't play favorites. All data packets are handled the same way; none get preferential treatment for faster delivery. That's fine for nearly every type of traffic. A fraction-of-a-second delay due to network congestion has no practical impact on an e-mail or even a 100-megabyte program download. But the same hiccup can mean the difference between premium and intolerable video. The various broadcast systems that handle traditional television distribution, on the other hand, are closed networks designed specifically to ensure smooth video delivery.

It is possible to change how the Internet works. New routing equipment is smart enough to analyze the contents of data packets nearly instantaneously and to assign each one an appropriate priority level. But installing these routers across the entire Net would require a massive infrastructure upgrade, and it would require the companies that run the Net to come to an unlikely consensus on how to hand off data between their systems.

Money is a better motivator than technological idealism. A more likely scenario is that the Internet will eventually prioritize traffic based on the customers who send and receive the data, with those who pay more getting faster service. (Network providers like Verizon may also give preference to their own video services.) This would improve video delivery for big players like the TV networks but would probably shut out low-rent sites that distribute unique, Web-only offerings.

With or without a fast-tracking system, the Net will need a lot more bandwidth to deliver standard-definition quality TV, let alone high-def. Today's Web video looks rather good because we see it on very small screens. In reality, most Web video is lucky to reach VHS quality at a time when your grandma is leaving her old VCR on the curb. ABC's 700-by-394 pixel videos may look decent in a small window on a laptop but will likely be unwatchable on a 1280-by-768 pixel, 50-inch plasma TV.

Streaming standard DVD-quality video requires a data rate of 1.5 to 5 megabits per second (depending on whom you ask). That's far more bandwidth than most homes with broadband receive. Delivering HD quality requires 5 to 7 megabits per second. But even that seems stingy compared with the roughly 19-megabit-per-second rate of network HDTV broadcasts—an amount of bandwidth that you can get for free with a set-top antenna. Keep in mind that most homes have more than one TV—if you wanted to show different programs on different TV's, the bandwidth requirements would be two, three, or four times as high. This amount of bandwidth will be possible some day. Cablevision and Verizon already offer up to 30 megabits per second to a smattering of communities around the country. However, it will be a long time (if ever) before such services reach the same number of people who can already receive HDTV via antenna, cable, or satellite.

While streaming shows the weaknesses of the Internet, downloading plays to its strengths. Bandwidth requirements are far less critical with a download-and-play model than with real-time streaming, and downloading allows you to watch what you want when you want. A company called Akimbo recently started offering high-definition TV downloads from a set-top box. In April, AT&T announced that it would bundle the Akimbo service and movie downloads from MovieLink into its upcoming Homezone package, which will offer high-speed Internet service, video downloads, and satellite TV from DISH Network via a single box.

But the download-and-play model isn't a real solution to the Internet/HDTV intersection problem. The more time-sensitive a program is—sports, the news—the less sense downloading makes. The same goes for massively popular shows: Who wants to wait a day to download American Idol? Plus, why would broadcasters want to support 30 million simultaneous, bandwidth-hogging downloads when they could send out a single broadcast signal instead?

So, how will the Web and HDTV get reconciled? It's instructive to look at what is happening with cell phones. Wireless carriers now provide cell-phone videos as individual downloads, which increasingly threaten to swamp their data networks. In response, companies like Verizon Wireless are building separate digital broadcast networks to offer television channels specifically formatted for cell phones. These channels won't have high-enough resolution for living room TVs, but they'll offer a better picture than what cell phones currently receive. Wireless carriers will reserve data downloads for niche offerings that customers order individually.

That's a likely model for the big-screen TV system, too. Set-top boxes like TiVo already supplement traditional television with download capabilities, and such options will undoubtedly grow. In most cases, the quality will be lower than what comes in over broadcast. But as the popularity of today's low-fi Web video already shows, people will trade quality for convenience in some cases—to catch a missed TV episode that won't hit DVD for a year, or to watch Internet-only gems like the hilarious news blog Rocketboom.

But given the choice between the Web and traditional broadcasts, most people will pick the higher performance (and instant gratification) of traditional TV. And don't just assume that the Web will catch up in a year or two. While Internet bandwidth and video quality will improve, so will our standards. There's already talk of increasing the color gamut and resolution of HDTV. Television quality is a moving target that the Internet already fails to hit.

http://www.slate.com/id/2140930

The May Sweep
Fox jumps ahead in May sweeps race

By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 8, 2006

Many media people expected the May sweeps to be very tight as ABC and Fox pushed to break their season-long tie among adults 18-49. So far, it’s not even close.

Fox has jumped to a dominating lead after the first full week of sweeps, with ABC sitting in third place and down significantly from the same time last year. Though three full weeks still remain, it may be difficult for ABC to bounce back, which means Fox could take sweeps and the full year with greater ease than anticipated.

Through May 3, the most recent numbers available, Fox led with a 4.5 average rating and 12 share. CBS was second at 3.6/10, followed by ABC at 3.2/9 and NBC at 3.0/8.

The big difference maker thus far has been sweeps stunting. Fox’s has worked while ABC’s has failed.

On Wednesday, Fox aired its Tuesday hit “House” in a special 8 p.m. episode. The show averaged a 6.4, and it helped boost Fox’s usual Wednesday night average by 43 percent, from a 5.4 to a 7.7.

ABC, on the other hand, struggled that night, with “House” eating into its “Alias” audience at 8 and dropping the show to season lows. The network averaged a 3.7 on the night, down 20 percent from its usual 4.6 average.

ABC’s other big woes came on the first night of sweeps. Though the network had given last Friday’s Daytime Emmys a makeover, moving them from New York City to Los Angeles for the first time to up the glamour factor and stretching them to three full hours, the show was a huge flop.

It averaged just a 1.7, down 29 percent from ABC’s usual 2.4 average on Friday nights.

Thus on two of the first seven nights of sweeps, ABC’s numbers were off, not the best way to win the period.

ABC still has loads of stunting left, including tonight’s David Blaine underwater tricks special, a three-hour “Grey’s Anatomy” finale next week and a two-hour “Desperate Housewives” ender the week after.

But the network’s other problem is that “Housewives,” so hot this time last year, has cooled considerably. Last week’s episode averaged a still-strong 8.9, but that’s about a third off the 11.5 the first May sweeps “Housewives” episode averaged last year.

Because of that, ABC is down 14 percent from its first-week average from last year, a 3.7. Meanwhile, Fox is up 7 percent from last year’s 4.2.

Fox is tied for the lead in 25-54s with CBS at a 4.7/12. NBC and ABC are tied for third at 3.7/9. Among 18-34s, Fox has a big lead with a 4.3/14, followed by ABC at 2.7/9, NBC at 2.4/8 and CBS at 2.3/7.

The WB has pulled ahead of UPN in all three major demos in their final sweeps period before merging into the CW. Sweeps ends on May 24.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_4573.asp

A Critical View
“The West Wing” & “Sopranos”

By Rich Heldenfels in his Akron Beacon Journal TV blog

I may be overthinking this, but when I look at ''Sopranos'' or ''The Shield,'' or tonight's ''West Wing,'' I see shows where the people involved know they're near the end and they want to go out great. Everyone on ''WW'' was on his and her game tonight, and I don't mean they were chasing Big Moments. They were just working -- working together, playing off each other.

Think of the scene where Joshua Malina (Will) and Mary McCormack (Kate) talk about him running for Congress. Timothy Busfield (Danny) on the street. Busfield in the apartment with Allison Janney (CJ). Janney and Richard Schiff (Toby). And what about the way that Jimmy Smits (Santos) is morphing into Bartlet -- like in that moment where Santos gives CJ a won't-take-no speech? I will really miss seeing these guys go at it.

'"The Sopranos'' was a dud for me, the first one this season. The best explanation I can give is that the show was so intent on showing us why Tony was bored, it made the show boring. The Christopher stuff felt flat. We know he's the victim of his own demons. The scenes at the street fair may have been touching on their own, but in the larger context they didn't really tell us anything. And the flashback to his betrayal of Adriana, while filling in a gap, didn't fill it in a way that brought us a new insight into what happened. And guess what, Pauly is cheap and selfish and mean, and Janice is selfish. Not great.

http://blogs.ohio.com/beacon_tv/

TV Notebook
Sad Finales

By Marc Berman MediaWeek.com MAY 08, 2006 -

At the risk of getting more hate mail, i predict that the season finale of UPN's Veronica Mars on Tuesday will be the final episode. After two seasons, 44 episodes and nonstop critical acclaim, the young-adult mystery has yet to catch on. With only 2.3 million viewers tuning in on average this season, it ranks a lowly No. 194 out of 213 shows. Earlier this season, UPN was busy hawking year-to-year growth on Wednesday out of America's Next Top Model. But the minimal momentum stalled and Veronica was shipped back to Tuesday out of repeats of Top Model. With weaker lead-in support, Veronica Mars could not even top the WB's competing and dead-on-arrival Pepper Dennis. If you can't beat Pepper Dennis, then it's time to go.

I don't think that the fledgling CW network needs to inherit a show few people are watching. Critical praise is good, but it can only carry a struggling series for so long. Everyone tried, but the masses were just not interested. Even corporate cousin CBS pitched in and aired Veronica in a series of Friday 8 p.m. airings last summer, but it didn't help. If Veronica does indeed find a spot on CW's fall (or midseason) schedule, consider it Les Moonves making nice with entertainment president Dawn Ostroff, who spearheaded the series.

Truth be known, I was surprised that Veronica Mars has never caught on. It had the prerequisite attractive female lead (Kristen Bell), a cast of appealing teenage supporting players, a unique father-daughter relationship, and ongoing plots that had readers emailing me in droves, begging me to ask the network to keep it on the air. If only Mr. TV had that kind of power!

The reason why I believe Veronica Mars is failing (other than being buried on UPN) is the serialized nature of the show. Viewers who have not followed it from the beginning might think they can't join it in progress. Whatever the explanation, the show is most likely over, kaput. It's time to move on to the next show that everyone loves, but no one is watching.

The lives of TV fans are riddled with shows they loved that could never find a big audience. My biggest disappointment was a family drama called A Year in the Life, which aired on NBC in 1987-88 after a successful miniseries launch. And I remember becoming addicted to the soapy nostalgia of a drama called Sons and Daughters in 1974, only to have the show pulled after just eight episodes. I loved Norman Lear's sitcom The Hot L Baltimore, which came and went after just 13 episodes on ABC in early 1975. To this day, Lear still refers to the James Cromwell/Conchata Ferrell show as his favorite "child."

I also remember the ahead-of-its-time drama My So-Called Life with Claire Danes, which aired on ABC in 1994-95. Although it did eventually find an afterlife on MTV, we only had 19 episodes to sink our teeth into. And 1999-2000 NBC dramedy Freaks and Geeks, truly the best new show that season, was never even given a fighting chance.

Sometimes a critical favorite with an initial limited audience does manage to catch on, as witnessed by shows like All in the Family, M*A*S*H, Cagney & Lacey, Cheers and Seinfeld. Every so often a well-respected series like The Paper Chase, Fame and The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd manages to find an afterlife in first-run syndication or on cable. And once in a blue moon a show like Alias, which never had much of an audience, manages to fool everyone into thinking it's a hit. But Veronica Mars may not be so lucky.

Fortunately, failed shows don't always disappear. Instead, they head over to TV Land, to live on forever in repeats or appear on DVDs for people to watch over and over. Even a short-lived series can now find an afterlife. In fact, if you were one of the lucky few to receive cable network Trio, a series called Brilliant But Canceled featured airings of some short-lived, critical favorites like EZ Streets, Gun, Kolchak: The Night Stalker and Eastside, Westside—a veritable buffet of beloved duds. But like the shows it showcased, Trio was also given a premature pink slip (unless you want to find it in broadband land).

We can rave all we want, but more often than not, great reviews will not save a show. It can be a critical hit, but without critical mass, the show is not going to survive.

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Bummer of a finale for NBC's 'Jordan'

Down 11 percent in adults 18-49 to just a 3.1
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer May 8, 2006

You’d usually expect a finale to boost ratings. But in the case of NBC’s “Crossing Jordan,” last night’s season finale actually recorded the show’s lowest rating in recent weeks and even down a bit from the program’s season average.

“Jordan” averaged a 3.1 overnight rating among adults 18-49, its lowest rating in at least a month and down 6 percent from the show’s season average.

In fact, over the last four weeks, the show had been trending up, with a 3.5 average. Last night’s episode was down 11 percent from that average.

Certainly “Jordan” benefited three of the previous weeks from not facing an original “Grey’s Anatomy” on ABC. Last night an original “Grey’s” more than tripled “Jordan’s” average with a 9.6 in the 10 p.m. timeslot.

NBC has already renewed “Jordan” for a sixth season, but no show wants to go out on a down note, especially when the network will be placing the show on a new night next year when “Sunday Night Football” takes over Sunday nights.

It’s unclear where “Jordan” will end up, though Fridays seem an increasingly likely possibility. NBC may not want to waste a spot on Monday through Thursday on the show after the lackluster finale.

Another option would be for “Jordan” to go on an extended hiatus to start the season, as it did a few years ago when series star Jill Hennessy went on maternity leave. It returned to very strong ratings after the time off.

Meanwhile, ABC won every hour of the night to finish first among 18-49s with a 6.4 rating and 17 share. Fox was next with a 3.2/9, followed by CBS with a 2.9/8, NBC with a 2.5/7, Univision with a 2.0/5 and WB with a 0.9/3.

ABC kicked off the night in the lead at 7 p.m. with a 2.7 for “Funniest Home Videos.” CBS was second with a 2.2 for “60 Minutes,” Fox third with a 2.1 for “The Simpsons” (2.0) and “King of the Hill” (2.3), NBC fourth with a 1.8 for “Dateline,” Univision fifth with a 1.2 for “Hora Pico” (1.2) and “Chiquitibum” (1.2), and WB sixth with 0.8 for two episodes of “Reba” (0.7 and 0.9).

At 8 p.m., ABC was first with a 4.8 for “Extreme Makeover” followed by Fox with a 3.9 for “Simpsons” (4.0) and a repeat of “Family Guy” (3.9). CBS was third with a 3.3 for “Cold Case,” followed by NBC with a 2.3 for the penultimate “West Wing,” Univision with a 1.9 for the first hour of the three-hour finale for “Bailando por un Sueno.” WB was sixth with a 1.4 for “Charmed.”

At 9 p.m., ABC widened its lead with an 8.5 for “Housewives.” Fox followed with a 3.6 for “Family Guy” (4.0) and “American Dad” (3.2), CBS with a 3.0 for a repeat of “CSI: Miami,” NBC with a 2.8 for “Law & Order: Criminal Intent,” Univision with a 2.5 for the second hour of “Bailando,” and WB with a 0.7 for a repeat of “Charmed.”

At 10 p.m., ABC completed its sweep with a 9.6 for “Anatomy.” CBS was second with 3.3 for a repeat of “CSI: NY,” NBC third with “Jordan,” and Univision fourth with a 2.5 for the last hour of “Bailando.”

ABC also led the night among households with a 9.6 rating and 16 share. CBS was second with a 7.6/12, NBC third with a 5.9/10, Fox fourth with a 4.1/7, Univision fifth with a 2.0/3 and WB sixth with a 0.9/3.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_4574.asp

Sunday’s network prime-time ratings are now at the top of RATINGS NEWS (the first post in this thread).

The 2006-2007 TV Season
Upfront Schedule

Beginning a week from today the networks will unveil their fall prime time schedules to advertisers and the press in New York.

Of course there will be lots of items posted in this thread during the entire upfront process.

Here is the schedule for network presentations:

Monday, May 15:
NBC
Azteca

Tuesday, May 16:
ABC
MyNetworkTV
Telemundo

Wednesday, May 17:
CBS
Univision

Thursday, May 18
Fox
CW

The 2005-2006 TV Season
OK, freshmen. Grades are in. No mercy -- and no crying

By Tim Goodman San Francisco Chronicle Monday, May 8, 2006

The freshman crop of broadcast television series typically clocks in at an 80 percent failure rate, so it's not like you have to be hard on the new kids come grading time.

They make it easy for you.

But still, it must be done. And not all of the grades will reflect rating highs or lows. It's a combination of critical merit and whether they are adding value of some kind to their respective networks -- be it holding the audience of a lead-in series, lowering the demographic or establishing a beachhead on a heretofore dead night.

More weight will be given, however, to whether they are lousy or not. The red pencil is sharpened. The smiley (or frowney) stickers have been bought in bulk. Now, as the freshman season nears its end, let's bust out the letters.

• "The War at Home," Fox, Sundays. Grade: D. The network will no doubt disagree, saying the ratings have been modest or hopeful, but this series is flat-out awful. And it degrades Fox by even being on the schedule.

• "How I Met Your Mother," CBS, Mondays. Grade: B+. Easily one of the most underrated of the mainstream TV comedies. Who knew Neil Patrick Harris was this funny?

• "Kitchen Confidential," Fox, canceled. Grade: B-. Don't blame the show -- based on the book and life of its writer, chef Anthony Bourdain. Blame Fox. This was a decently funny series with a lot of upside that went untapped, of course.

• "Out of Practice," CBS, Mondays. Grade: C-. This is the network being its old self: star-studded pilot, traditional (and boring and trite) execution, with dull swipes at broad, predictable humor.

• "Prison Break," Fox, Mondays. Grade: C+. It found a decent audience, but not much else. The premise was ludicrous -- successful white-collar professional robs a bank so he can get sent to prison and bust out his brother on death row -- the writing weak, the acting bad and the execution seriously flawed.

• "Courting Alex," CBS, Mondays. Grade: C-. How any show can ruin the efforts of Jenna Elfman is mystifying, but this one does.

• "The New Adventures of Old Christine," CBS, Mondays. Grade: B+. Finally a workable vehicle for "Seinfeld" alum Julia Louis-Dreyfus. The series is growing and getting better.

• "Just Legal," WB, canceled. Grade: B-. Right show, wrong network. If Don Johnson as an aging, drunken lawyer paired with young, idealistic Jay Baruchel had been on CBS, it may have played for eight seasons. These kinds of programming miscues are why the WB is folding.

• "Commander in Chief," ABC, on hiatus. Grade: C. Don't read much hope into "on hiatus." This series, an out-of-the-box hit that ruined itself with behind-the-scenes wrangling, then awful writing, is dead.

• "Sex, Lies & Secrets," UPN, canceled. Grade: F. Deserved its fate. Then again, it never deserved to air.

• "Free Ride," Fox, Wednesdays. Grade: D. This could have been a great series, but it tried too hard and the network allowed an obviously ill-conceived character to drag the whole thing down. A case of not enough notes, no guiding hand.

• "Freddie," ABC, Wednesdays. Grade: D. Moronic and excessively awful, but enough people actually watched it so it has been renewed. As a reminder -- that doesn't make it good.

• "Invasion," ABC, Wednesdays. Grade: B. Solidly entertaining, well-written and acted, the series never really caught on behind "Lost" when almost everyone believed that was a successful pairing. Still, you can't fault ABC on this one.

• "The Loop," Fox, hopefully canceled. Grade: F. One word: Asinine. But the theme song, "Hockey Monkey," was great.

• "Pepper Dennis," WB, hopefully canceled. Grade: D. Rebecca Romijn couldn't save this because she couldn't hire better writers on her own. She played a TV reporter. Here's the news of the day: The WB may have had one of the worst development seasons in recent memory.

• "The Unit," CBS, Tuesdays. Grade: B+. David Mamet and Shawn Ryan ("The Shield") have taken their R-rated sensibilities and made a compelling series about Delta Force soldiers, led by Dennis Haysbert. Very entertaining.

• "Teachers," NBC, hopefully canceled. Grade: D+. Why the plus part? Sarah Shahi from "The L Word" was in this. Still, not enough to merely dislike it.

• "E-Ring," NBC, canceled. Grade: D. Benjamin Bratt, Dennis Hopper, the military ... no. Leave that to CBS. It just never seemed realistic. Or compelling.

• "Criminal Minds," CBS, Wednesdays. Grade: B. Who knew CBS could tap into the FBI profiler bucket one more time and pull up a hit? Excessively violent and at times pretentious, it still had enough good performances from a disparate cast to win viewers.

• "The Apprentice: Martha Stewart," NBC, canceled. Grade: C-. A good idea (Stewart) gone bad (taking the zing out of her). In retrospect, she was held down by the concept and let down by NBC.

• "The Bedford Diaries," WB, canceled. Grade: F. One of the worst dramas of the year, which caught some headlines about censorship because WB cut content against the producers' wishes. They should have cut it all.

• "Related," WB, Wednesdays. Grade: C+. It's not going to make the jump to the CW, but it was better than its ratings. A good cast needed better writing and more time.

• "Bones," Fox, Wednesdays. Grade: B. More forensics, but also more funny. There's witticisms, chemistry and solvable crimes, but there's a fluff factor that prevents it from moving up a notch.

• "The Night Stalker," ABC, canceled. Grade: D. What a woeful "reimagining" of the cult TV series. It was boring and lifeless and, ultimately, pointless.

• "What About Brian," ABC, hopefully canceled. Grade: C-. What about him? He's gone missing. Maybe he's looking for love (the premise) because he sure didn't find it here.

• "My Name Is Earl," NBC, Thursdays. Grade: A+. Finally, a hit sitcom that's actually funny and, not to be too wonkish about it, saved NBC's backside on Thursday night. The series also helped along "The Office" until people could find it, love it and jump on board. So "Earl" is a triple threat. For critics, there's much to love, but on the simplistic end, "Earl" gets belly laughs every week and that's a rarity. And even better, it's a single-camera comedy with no laugh track. Because of the success of "Earl," a record number of similar-styled comedies were made as pilots. Let's hope they get picked up.

• "Reunion," Fox, canceled. Grade: D. Laughably bad, convoluted and stylistically limiting, this series set out to follow high school seniors as they grew up -- one eventually killing another. It was DOA.

• "Everybody Hates Chris," UPN, Thursdays. Grade: A. One of the buzz shows of the fall morphed into a funny and touching coming-of-age series based on the childhood of comedian Chris Rock. Easily one of the best network shows that nobody watched, it will get a second chance on the CW.

• "Sons & Daughters," ABC, canceled. Grade: A. Brilliant, ridiculously funny, improvised and inspired, this was a series that was too smart for the room and you just can't do that on network television.

• "Supernatural," WB, Thursdays. Grade: B. Entertaining and scary, this urban legend thrill ride was a big surprise (and bright spot) for the WB. Look for it to make the cut at the CW.

• "The Evidence," ABC, hopefully canceled. Grade: D. The best thing about this cookie-cutter cop show was that it was set in San Francisco. After those two minutes of enjoyment, things became very mediocre.

• "Heist," NBC, canceled. Grade: D-. A bad series about thieves made worse by trying to make them coy and cool instead of believable or interesting.

• "Four Kings," NBC, canceled. Grade: D. Faux chemistry, bad boy jokes and unbelievable actors. Seth Green was better than the material, but not enough to overcome it.

• "Love, Inc.," UPN. Grade: D. There's no love here. It tried too hard and failed easy.

• "The Book of Daniel," NBC, canceled. Grade: C. Pill-popping priest talks with Jesus. Aidan Quinn was great, but the series tried to hit seven or eight controversial topics at once but never got good at any of them.

• "Hot Properties," ABC, canceled. Grade: D-. Yet another series that tried to take the magic of "Sex and the City" and transfer it to broadcast television. What they forgot was the writing, acting, premise and overall quality.

• "Emily's Reasons Why Not," ABC, canceled. Grade: C-. Heather Graham was a welcome addition to the small screen, but not believable as a woman desperate for attention. That's actually funnier than the show.

• "South Beach," UPN, canceled. Grade: F. Executive produced by J.Lo. Still awful.

• "Crumbs," NBC, canceled. Grade: D. Fred "Wonder Years" Savage as a gay writer. Cliche filled and humorless, it's a show you probably barely remember. (Well, that could be said about most of these.)

• "Modern Men," WB, canceled. Grade: F. Yet another example of why the WB is no longer in business at the end of this month. Three guys, modern, who need love help. Vapid and unoriginal and cruel to endure.

• "Ghost Whisperer," CBS, Fridays. Grade: C. Uncommonly lame, this series should be a C- at best, but a whole lot of people found and liked it on a Friday night. Jennifer Love Hewitt's breasts were prominent stars in most episodes, so maybe there's your real clue. It couldn't have been the writing or the believability -- she talks to dead people. Ah, but the show lived. CBS won.

• "Love Monkey," CBS, canceled. Grade: A-. Tom Cavanagh played a record company executive who loved music, had cool friends, lived in Manhattan, spoke believable and funny dialogue but just happened to live on a network that doesn't make shows like that. Had he carried an M-16 or worked for the FBI, he'd still be on. One of the bigger shames of the fall.

• "Close to Home," CBS, Fridays. Grade: B. You have to hand it to CBS. The network knows how to make crime and punishment series that people will watch, even on Fridays. Do they make too many? See: "Love Monkey." But "Close to Home" is a solid show, worth seeking out.

• "Three Wishes," NBC, Fridays. Grade: B. This should have been a smash hit. People love feel-good, helpful reality shows. Who knows what went wrong.

• "Threshold," CBS, canceled. Grade: B. Initially a buzz show in a pack of paranormal offerings for the fall, the series lacked the spark that made people want to watch more, and it just faded away.

• "Inconceivable," NBC, canceled. Grade: F. The title says a lot about why it was even on the air. This fertility series wanted to be a broadcast version of FX's "Nip/Tuck," but was poorly, conceived.

• "In Justice," ABC, probably canceled. Grade: C-. This show was set in Oakland. But even that's a blur, now. Kyle MacLachlan as a crusader for justice, if memory serves. It didn't really know what it wanted to be and probably won't get a chance to figure that out next season.

• "Killer Instinct," Fox, canceled. Grade: F. Woeful. Set in San Francisco, so the Bay Area just went 0-3 in the fall.

• "Twins," WB, canceled. Grade: F. Astonishingly bad. The WB was sold inferior product by producers David Kohan and Max Mutchnick ("Will & Grace"), who were allowed to do pretty much anything, including write bad jokes.

Well, something was probably forgotten in that jumble of mostly forgettable shows. Some of those D grades were generous -- even dubious. Take your pick. Here's hoping that you picked well this season and avoided either the pain of time-sucking lameness (most of what the WB offered) or the pain of finding something great in the dreck (poor "Love Monkey" and "Sons & Daughters") only to watch helplessly as it failed.

Starting next week, most of this class will be dismissed. From then until fall, every network will be looking forward to the new freshman.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/08/DDGM9IMFLC1.DTL&type=printable

One note about the Variety articles: They tend to have good info in them, but who in the heck can understand them when the writer decides to make up his own words. I read the articles and I see words like aud, prexy, skein, sked. I'm trying to figure out what the guy thinks he gaining from making up these silly words that leaves the reader wondering what the hell the guy was trying to say. Maybe he should put a article key at the top of each of his writings that read: Aud=audience, Prexy=President, Skein=show, Sked=schedule. That would help everyone out. ;)

Variety has long used strange abbreviations.
Since it is a very small circulation publication, the vast majority of its readers are able to easily decipher its bizarre (and often almost self-consciously arrogant) lingo.
As a note, Antonio, perhaps the most famous of the Variety headlines was back in the day when the headline on a story about residents of smaller communities not turning out for movies with rural themes read: "Stix Nix Hick Pix".
So words like skein, etc. can seem fairly tame by comparison.

HDTV Notebook
inDemand Gets Its MOJO On

Anne Becker Broadcasting & Cable 5/8/2006

In Demand Networks is launching a primetime block of original series for the young, upscale, male audience it targets with its INHD high-definition network. The block, “MOJO”, is slated to launch June 18 on INHD and run Sundays and Wednesdays from 9 p.m. to midnight.

The company is developing nine lifestyle series for the block, and aims to have six ready for MOJO’s launch. They include Three Sheets, a comedic travel series on local drinking customs; Decades, a 90-minute concert series; Technical Difficulties, a scavenger hunt reality series involving hot gadgets; and Wall Street Warriors, a documentary series about hotshot finance execs.

In Demand’s INHD reaches some 4 million homes with digital cable and high-definition TVs. The sports, movies and music displaced by the new MOJO programming will likely run on companion network INHD2.

(From Marc Berman’s Monday, May 8, 2006, Programming Insider column at Mediaweek.com )
Primetime Ratings For Sunday, May 7th

Reader Feedback: The West Wing and Veronica Mars

THE WEST WING

"When The West Wing was canceled NBC announced there would be a retrospective clips special airing as a lead-in to the series-finale. But current promos now state that the network will be showing the pilot episode instead of this retrospective on May 14. The pilot is repeated frequently in syndication and is also available on DVD, so there is really no incentive to watch the first episode again. In the last couple of years NBC has given retrospective episodes to every long running show that has gone off the air (including upcoming Will & Grace), so can you explain why The West Wing is being shunned?" -T.C.

-The P.I.: Unfortunately, I have no clue why NBC nixed the retrospective. Given the importance of this political drama (including the multiple Emmy wins), this is a definite -- and unexplained -- snub.


VERONICA MARS

"We hope you are wrong. but we also fear that poor ratings will keep the critically acclaimed Veronica Mars from joining the upcoming CW line-up. In a last minute aggressive push to save our favorite show, we hired a plane to fly over Los Angeles carrying our message. The banner will visible from the 405 freeway between Wilshire Blvd. and the 101 during peak commuting hours tomorrow -- the day of the Veronica Mars season-finale.

The final piece of our campaign, of course, is ensuring that someone covers the event. Lead organizers are available for comment, but we feel that the story is Veronica Mars and why the drama deserves to be saved. The plane merely serves as a news hook for bringing that discussion to the forefront. So if you want your prediction to be wrong, help us spread the word around." -K.S., Boston, MA

-The P.I.: Taking my research hat off for a moment, I do hope my prediction is wrong. And I admire the gusto of the countless fans of Veronica Mars who have tried to save it.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/newsletters/proginsider/index.jsp

Usually I post Marc Berman’s Programming Insider column at the top of the Ratings section, the first post in this thread. But it was delayed today, so I’ll post it here – without the usual formatting -- instead:

(From Marc Berman’s Monday, May 8, 2006, Programming Insider column at Mediaweek.com )
Primetime Ratings For Sunday, May 7th

Primetime Ratings: Weekend Highlights

Friday 5/05/06

Note: The following results are based on the fast national ratings (Live Plus Same Day data).

Household Rating/Share
CBS: 7.4/13, NBC: 5.9/11, ABC: 4.3/ 8, Fox: 2.8/ 5, UPN: 2.3/ 4, WB: 1.4/ 3

-Total Viewers:
CBS: 11.32 million, NBC: 8.92, ABC: 6.57, Fox: 4.48, UPN: 3.49, WB: 2.03

-Adults 18-49:
CBS: 3.1 rating/10 share, NBC: 2.6/ 9, ABC: 2.0/ 7, Fox: 1.9/ 6, UPN: 1.1/ 4, WB: 0.8/ 3

-Friday's Winners:
Deal or No Deal (NBC), Ghost Whisperer (CBS), Close To Home (CBS), Num3rs (CBS)

-Friday's Losers (excluding repeats):
Survival of the Richest (WB), Conviction (NBC)

-Ratings Breakdown:

CBS remains the network to beat on Friday courtesy of compatible dramas Ghost Whisperer, Close To Home and Numb3rs. Ghost Whisperer closed a successful first season with a 7.2/14 in households, 10.76 million viewers, and a 3.1/12 among adults 18-49. Comparably, that was second behind NBC game show Deal or No Deal (HH: 7.7/15; Viewers: 11.96 million; A18-49: 3.4/13). Close To Home (HH: 7.4/14; Viewers: 11.21 million; A18-49: 2.9/ 9) and Numb3rs (HH: 7.8/14; Viewers: 11.97 million; A18-49: 3.3/11) were, meanwhile, dominant from 9-11 p.m.

Although NBC's Las Vegas (HH: #2, 5.7/10; Viewers: #2, 8.36 million; A18-49: #2, 2.5/ 8) got some mileage at 9 p.m., on-the-fence lead-out drama Conviction dipped to a last-place 4.5/ 8 in households, 6.44 million viewers, and a 2.1/ 7 among adults 18-49. Comparably, retention for Conviction out of the already renewed Las Vegas was 79 percent in households, 77 percent in total viewers, and 84 percent among adults 18-49.

On ABC, back-to-back repeats of veteran America's Funniest Home Videos (HH: #3, 3.8/ 7; Viewers: #3, 5.86 million; A18-49: #3, 1.8/ 6 from 8-10 p.m.) led into another long-running occupant, 20/20 (HH: #2, 5.3/10; Viewers: #2, 7.86 million; A18-49: #2, 2.6/ 8 at 10 p.m.).

Movie School of Rock on Fox took the No. 4 spot at a 2.8/ 5 in households, 4.48 million viewers, and a 1.9/ 6 among adults 18-49 from 8-10 p.m. Fifth was Friday Night Smackdown! on UPN at a 2.3/ 4 in households, 3.49 million viewers, and a 1.1/ 4 among adults 18-49, also from 8-10 p.m.

Last, and very least in every half-hour, was the WB's combination of the series-finale of reality dud Survival of the Richest (HH: 0.9/ 2; Viewers: 1.13 million; A18-49: 0.5/ 2), the season (or series) finale of Reba (HH: 2.0/ 4; Viewers: 2.98 million; A18-49: 1.1/ 4), and a repeat of Reba (HH: 1.9/ 3; Viewers: 2.87 million; A18-49: 1.0/ 3). Although double-digit growth for Reba out of Survival of the Richest saves the five-year-old sitcom from being labeled a loser, barely 3 million viewers for a season-ender may not be worthy of a spot on upcoming The CW.

Saturday 5/06/06

Note: The following results are based on the fast national ratings (Live Plus Same Day data).

Household Rating/Share
CBS: 4.4/ 8, NBC: 4.1/ 8, ABC: 3.8/ 7, Fox: 3.6/ 7

-Total Viewers:
CBS: 6.31 million, NBC: 5.83, ABC: 5.81, Fox: 5.53

-Adults 18-49:
Fox: 2.2 rating/ 8 share, CBS: 1.7/ 6, NBC: 1.6/ 5, ABC: 1.4/ 5

-Saturday's Winners:
Nothing

-Saturday's Losers (excluding repeats):
The night overall.

-Ratings Breakdown:

CBS and Fox shared leadership on Saturday, with CBS first in households and total viewers, and Fox No. 1 among adults 18-49. CBS opened the evening with a repeat of CSI: NY (HH: #2, 3.6/ 8; Viewers: #2, 5.16 million; A18-49: #3, 1.2/ 5), followed by a repeat of CSI (HH: #1, 4.8/ 9; Viewers: #1, 7.03 million; A18-49: #2, 2.0/ 7), and 48 Hours Investigates (HH: #1, 4.9/ 8; Viewers: #2, 6.72 million; A18-49: #2, 1.8/ 5) from 9-11 p.m. Fox's perennial combination of Cops (HH: #3, 3.2/ 7; Viewers: #3, 5.00 million; A18-49: #1, 2.1/ 8) and America?s Most Wanted (HH: #2, 4.0/ 7; Viewers: #2, 6.06 million; A18-49: #1, 2.3/ 7) were at typical levels.

Tied for the No. 3 and 4 spots was a repeat of theatrical Seabiscuit on ABC (HH: #3, 3.8/ 7; Viewers: #3, 5.81 million; A18-49: #4, 1.4/ 5 from 8-11 p.m.), and NBC?s line-up of Dateline (HH: #1, 3.8/ 7; Viewers: #1, 5.33 million; A18-49: #2, 1.3/ 5), a repeat of Law & Order: SVU (HH: #3t, 3.8/ 7; Viewers: #4, 5.53 million; A18-49: #3t, 1.4/ 5), and a repeat of Law & Order: Criminal Intent (HH: #2, 4.7/ 8; Viewers: #3, 6.64 million; A18-49: #1, 2.0/ 6).

Sunday 5/07/06
Metered Market Ratings

Household Rating/Share
ABC: 10.3/16, CBS: 8.3/13, NBC: 6.8/11, Fox: 4.8/ 7, WB: 1.9/ 3

-Percent Change From the Comparable Year-Ago Evening (Sunday 5/08/05):
NBC: + 5, WB: -10, ABC and: - 9 each, CBS: -13

Fast National Ratings (Live Plus Same Day data).

-Total Viewers:
ABC: 15.82 million, CBS: 11.62, NBC: 8.89, Fox: 6.80, WB: 2.29

-Adults 18-49:
ABC: 6.4 rating/17 share, Fox: 3.2/ 9, CBS: 2.9/ 8, NBC: 2.5/ 7, WB: 0.9/ 3

-Yesterday's Winners:
60 Minutes (CBS), Cold Case (CBS), Extreme Makeover: Home Edition (ABC), Desperate Housewives (ABC), Grey's Anatomy (ABC)

-Honorable Mention:
America's Funniest Home Videos (ABC), The Simpsons (Fox), Family Guy (Fox)

-Yesterday's Losers (excluding repeats):
Dateline (NBC), The West Wing (NBC), Charmed (WB)

-Ratings Breakdown:

ABC stayed in the Sunday winners circle, while CBS was a comfortable No. 2 in households and total viewers despite replacing its perennial Sunday movie for a two-hour repeat of CSI from 9-11 p.m. Fox finished second among adults 18-49.

America's Funniest Home Videos opened the evening for ABC with a typical 4.7/ 8 in the overnights (#3), 8.25 million viewers (#2), and a first-place 2.7/ 9 among adults 18-49 at 7 p.m., followed by Extreme Makeover: Home Edition (Overnights: #2, 7.5/11 ; Viewers: #2,12.16 million; A18-49: #1, 4.8/13), Desperate Housewives (Overnights: #1, 14.5/21; Viewers: #1, 21.16 million; A18-49: #1, 8.5/20), and Grey?s Anatomy (Overnights: #1, 14.5/22; Viewers: #1, 21.73 million; A18-49: #1, 9.6/23) from 8-11 p.m.

Older-skewing CBS faithful 60 Minutes kicked-off with an 8.7/15 in the overnights (#1), 11.36 million viewers (), and a 2.2/ 7 among adults 18-49 (#2) at 7 p.m., followed by underrated Cold Case (Overnights: #1, 10.2/16; Viewers: #1, 14.41 million; 18-49: #3, 3.3/ 9), and the two-hour CSI repeat (Overnights: #3, 7.2/11; Viewers: #2, 10.34 million; A18-49: #2, 3.1/ 7) from 8-11 p.m. Am I the one only one who has noticed how CBS cut back on the number of Sunday movies this season?

NBC, which will replace its Sunday programming in fourth quarter for NFL football, ended the week on a typically modest note with its line-up of Dateline (Overnights: #2, 5.5/10; Viewers: #3, 6.94 million; A18-49: #4, 1.8/ 6), soon-to-conclude The West Wing (Overnights: #3, 6.3/10; Viewers: #4, 7.80 million; A18-49: #4, 2.3/ 6), Law & Order: Criminal Intent (Overnights: #2, 8.1/12; Viewers: #3, 10.15 million; A18-49: #4, 2.8/ 7), and Crossing Jordan (Overnights: #2t, 7.4/11; Viewers: #2, 10.50 million; A18-49: #3, 3.1/ 7).

Fox got some leverage out of a repeat of Family Guy at 8:30 p.m. in place of The War at Home, with an improved 5.7/ 8 in the overnights (#4), 8.19 million viewers (#4), and a 3.9/10 among adults 18-49 (#2). Comparably that was on par with lead-in The Simpsons (Overnights: #4, 5.7/ 9; Viewers: #3, 8.50 million; A18-49: #2, 4.0/11 at 8 p.m.), and the regularly scheduled edition of Family Guy at 9 p.m. (Overnights: #4, 5.9/ 8; Viewers: #4, 8.42 million; A18-49: #3, 4.0/10). Family Guy led into American Dad (which just came out in DVD, by the way) at a 4.8/ 7 in the overnights (#4), 6.52 million viewers (#4), and a 3.2/ 7 among adults 18-49 (#2) at 9:30 p.m. Earlier in the evening, a repeat of The Simpsons (Overnights: #4, 3.1/ 6; Viewers: #4, 4.07 million; A18-49: #2, 2.0/ 7 at 7 p.m.) led into the already renewed King of the Hill (Overnights: #4, 3.4/ 6; Viewers: #4, 5.09 million; A18-49: #3, 2.3/ 7) at 7:30 p.m.

The WB scored a typically lackluster (and, of course, last-place) Sunday as a result of two repeat episodes of Reba (Overnights: 1.8/ 3; Viewers: 2.09 million; A18-49: 0.8/ 3), the soon-to-conclude Charmed (Overnights: 2.7/ 4; Viewers: 3.16 million; A18-49: 1.4/ 4), and a repeat of Charmed (Overnights: 1.3/ 2; Viewers: 1.63 million; A18-49: 0.7/ 2).

Source: Nielsen Media Research data

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/newsletters/proginsider/index.jsp

TV Notebook
Sawyer Staying Put at 'GMA'

Gibson Also Expected to Be Onboard
By Michele Greppi TVWeek.com May 8, 2006

Diane Sawyer, the ABC News star who is scoring the network's biggest celebrity interviews, plans to remain on "Good Morning America" into 2007 and favors keeping co-host Charlie Gibson with her, people familiar with the situation said.

Last week at a "GMA" staff meeting, ice cream was served along with word that both Ms. Sawyer and Mr. Gibson, the ABC News division's two biggest names, are expected to be onboard come fall, people who attended the meeting said.

Ms. Sawyer, whose contract with The Walt Disney Co.'s ABC runs almost two more years, hasn't decided how long after 2007 she'll be interested in staying with "GMA," one of the sources said.

Securing the services of Ms. Sawyer will buttress "GMA" as it prepares for renewed competition from top-rated "Today, where Meredith Vieira will replace Katie Couric. ABC's news division is struggling to find the right combination of on-air talent to keep both "GMA" and its "World News Tonight" from losing more ground with audiences.

Ms. Sawyer's wishes will affect how ABC News President David Westin resolves the talent-staffing problems that have followed the death of evening anchor Peter Jennings. Since then he's had to grapple with injuries to Bob Woodruff, one of Jennings' replacements and the approaching maternity leave of Mr. Woodruff's partner, Elizabeth Vargas.

Ms. Sawyer is intent on getting second-place "GMA," which pulled to within 40,000 viewers of "Today" last spring only to see the gap reopen to about 1 million this season, into a position where a new team can take over the hosting duties without losing more ground, the person said.

Ms. Sawyer is particularly valuable to ABC News right now because she can play dual roles, said Robert Thompson, founding director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University.

"She is able to really walk the line" and do the job of a tabloid journalist or a serious professional, Mr. Thompson said. "Let's face it: Network news has got a seriously bipolar set of expectations."

Ms. Sawyer declined to comment, as did ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider. Mr. Westin and ABC Networks CEO Anne Sweeney weren't available for comment. Calls to the offices of third "GMA" co-host Robin Roberts and Mr. Gibson were directed to the show's publicist, who declined to comment.

Ms. Sawyer's desire to stay with "GMA" for now marks a shift from last winter, when she told executives she wanted to leave in early summer, people familiar with the matter said. Those discussions prompted talks with ABC Networks CEO Anne Sweeney about what might keep Ms. Sawyer happy-and productive.

One possibility broached during those talks was a role for Ms. Sawyer on "World News Tonight."

Those talks were taking place amid a shuffle in evening news anchors, as Ms. Couric moved toward making history as the first woman to solo-anchor the "CBS Evening News."

Recently, Ms. Sawyer has bagged one big interview after another, including actor Tom Cruise and Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter, Mary.

Ms. Sawyer has indicated she's still game to advance her career with big scoops, a person familiar with her thinking said. The 60-year-old news veteran may, however, be looking for a more rational pace, the source said.

http://www.tvweek.com/article.cms?articleId=29800

Sports On TV
Derby ratings stumble with 10% drop-off

By Paul J. Gough The Hollywood Reporter May 09, 2006

NEW YORK -- Without a clear front-runner, NBC's ratings for the 132nd Kentucky Derby slightly disappointed.

Saturday's broadcast averaged a 7.4 overnight household rating/17 share, according to data released Monday by Nielsen Media Research. That's down 10% from last year's 8.2/19 in the overnights.

While unbeaten Barbaro streaked to a victory by six-and-a-half lengths Saturday evening at Churchill Downs, this year's Derby didn't have the same buzz as it has had in recent years. There was no story line like last year, when Yankees owner George Steinbrenner's horse, Bellamy Road, was the 5-2 favorite. Last year was won by Giacomo.

NBC wouldn't comment about whether the lack of a clear favorite affected the ratings. Ratings for the race, which started at 6:10 p.m. EDT, couldn't be broken out in the overnights. (Final ratings are due Tuesday.) But between 6 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., NBC averaged an 8.9/20, down from the 10.0/23 last year.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/television/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002464613

TV Notebook
"West Wing" retro a no-go

By Aaron Barnhart Kansas City Star in his blog “TV Barn”

"I was really looking forward to the hour-long "The West Wing" retrospective that NBC has been promising since they announced the cancellation of the show at TCA Winter Press Tour," writes Sandy Snyder. Now NBC has issued a press release saying that the pilot of "The West Wing" will air during the time slot that the retrospective was slated. This is supremely disappointing, to say the least! The pilot is terrific to be sure, but what fan hasn't already seen it a half dozen times (and probably owns it on DVD)? I would much rather watch a retrospective celebrating this great show with interviews from the cast and crew. Can you find out what's going on? Why would they do this after months of promising the retrospective? Would the actors not cooperate? Or is this one final slap in the face by NBC to fans?"

Well, Sandy, I have not heard back from NBC yet. But I think it is safe to say that, yes, this is one final slap in the face to people who helped make "The West Wing" a huge hit. That, by the way, would include millions of onetime "West Wing" fans who might have been lured back to the tube for one last two-hour finale. That's something NBC did many times in the past (albeit for programs that were still going strong at the end, like "Seinfeld" and "Friends"). The fact that NBC's not doing it now, I think, reflects the overall conservatism and loss of nerve at TV's number four network.

http://www.tvbarn.com/

TV Notebook
There's a meeting in the ladies room on 'Grey's'

By Maureen Ryan from the Chicago Tribune TV blog May 08, 2006

I apologize in advance to the people who arrive at this site after doing a Web search for “Grey’s Anatomy” and “naked.” Those people are bound to be sorely disappointed.

So anyway, give me a break. I cannot believe what Dr. Callie did in last night’s “Grey’s” episode.

I’m not going to revive the whole handwashing-after-using-the-toilet debate. It’s what she did before she used the toilet that wigged me out.

How many women, on one of the first overnights at the home her new significant other, would wander around the other’s house nearly naked? Callie knows that George lives with two female roommates, yet she walks to the bathroom only in her undies. Please. That is just weird.

But that’s not even the weirdest part. She opens the bathroom door, sees Meredith and Izzie sitting there gossiping. And she walks in anyway!

Now, OK, even if I could buy that she was so laid-back that she walked around the house nearly nekkid, I cannot buy that when she saw the other girls in the bathroom, she’d just waltz right in. Wouldn’t a normal person have seen those two and scurried away? I mean, she works with them and all. She really doesn’t care if her co-workers see all her junk? Come on!

So, George could have been a little more forceful in defending his girl against the lack-of-handwashing charge from Meredith and Izzie, but the bigger issue is that Callie is just, well, kind of freaky. Am I wrong here?

Oh, and one more “Grey’s” quibble -- after last week’s drama about Dr. Addison Shepard and the patient who wanted her tubes tied, this week, we hear nothing about that? Oh, that -- just the huge malpractice suit that’s hanging over the hospital and over the flame-haired doc for giving the woman the procedure behind her husband’s back? I thought at least we’d hear a peep about that this week, and that it might even turn into a story line that would last a couple weeks or so. But… no. Just a few references to Alex and Addie’s ongoing feud.

But seriously, how great would it be if Denny Crane or Alan Shore from “Boston Legal” were hired to defend Addison? Too frakkin’ cool. I know the lawyers and the docs are from separate cities, just let me have my unrealistic TV fantasy, OK?

Well, despite my quibbles, some of which Shonda Rhimes addresses on the greywriters.com blog, you will only pry me away from “Grey’s Anatomy” when it comes time to put me in the ground. I am stuck on this show like white on rice and I don’t care who knows it.

Of course Rhimes has to be mean and tease us about all the huge stuff that’s going to happen in the 4-hour (correction: 3-hour), two-night “Grey’s” finale next week. Cruel woman!

Here’s what she can talk about: “I can talk about how cute and hot Finn is and how much I love it when he says ‘I never said I wasn’t scary and damaged too,’” she writes. “Because he is like Meredith. And that gives her a little bit of hope. It may give you hope too. Or it may give you a seizure because you want your Mer and your Der BACK TOGETHER and you want them back together NOW.”

Or you may just want Callie to put a dang shirt on.

http://tempo.typepad.com/entertainment_tv/

(Here is the Shonda Rhimes entry in the greyswriters blog that Maureen Ryan references in the posting above.)

TV Notebook
Shonda on "Damage Case"

Original Airdate: May 7, 2006

I gotta be honest.

I have no idea what to say in this here, our blog entry for tonight’s episode “Damage Case.”

No. Freaking. Idea.

Why?

Because I’m scared I might spill the beans. About the finale. The gi-normous two-night, three hour finale the writers and the cast and the crew have been working their butts off on. I’m usually good with the secrets. I didn’t tell you about Meredith and George. I didn’t let it slip that Dylan was gonna explode. I kept the food-eating contest to myself.

But I’m a tiny bit tired from making 27 episodes of television. And my mind is all crazy because fourteen days from now, it has become clear that everyone around me thinks I’m going to take time off. That I’m going to stop thinking about my friends at Seattle Grace. That I won’t get in the car, drive to the studio and obsess about Meredith and George and Izzie and Cristina and Derek and everybody. That I’m going to…I don’t know…SLEEP. Or see my actual three-dimensional friends who, while lovable, get kinda cranky when I write dialogue and ask them to say it out loud. I’m supposed to go on vacation? Are you serious?

Anyway, my point is, I’m weak. I’m a weak pathetic shell of my former self so my super-hero-secret-keeping powers are not working so good. They are broken. But I will do my best. I will do my best to just chat calmly and quietly about “Damage Case” and pretend those other future episodes don’t exist.

This episode was originally borne of an idea one of our writers Mimi Schmir had about this amazing damage control surgery. I think it was Krista Vernoff who suggested that what would be cool is if our interns are all working on patients from a single family. Which is how I ended up writing “hillbilly” dialogue. I love the big-haired Southern girl and her family. I love the Mama who says “good girl” instead of “vagina” and I love Big Jim who screams “Melly!! MELLY!!!” in a crazy Deliverance way. But what I got the most joy from is humanizing them. What starts out as a funny hillybilly picnic story where you kind of mock this family slowly turns into a story about loss, love and forgiveness. Mama gives that wonderful speech about how a mother should be in on making decisions for her daughter. Big Jim offers a moment of grace to the boy who killed his daughter. And Noah breaks my heart every time when I think of him left with a baby but without the love of his life. I love this family. And I love even more how in the midst of all of their tragedy and pain, we watch our characters struggle through.

“Yeah, yeah,” you’re thinking, “get to that argument with Meredith and Derek!”

I’m getting there. But first I have to make a detour. A detour over to the Land of Callie Peeing. You know I have to go there. This may be one of my favorite moments of our show EVER. It’s right up there with George gets the syph for me. Maybe not for you. But for me…Callie walking into that bathroom topless and peeing in front of Meredith and Izzie was SO GREAT. Because it was SO HORRIBLE. I love that Mer and Izzie respond with all the trauma of having viewed a car crash. And I love even more the very sweet moment at the end where Callie says that she did wash her hands but she did it in the kitchen because those girls were looking at her like…

You know who Callie was in high school, right? You know she was the outsider, the loner rebel chick who didn’t have many friends and wore weird clothes and was just tortured by the cool kids. Callie, as played with Sara Ramirez …dudes, Sara won a TONY AWARD for Spamalot – I saw her in the show and she ROCKED and then we met for breakfast and discovered that we were like best friends who’d never ever met and talked for hours and hours and hours and…okay, I digress. My point is that Sara makes Callie so vulnerable in her kickass toughness. And when I, in near terror, asked her take off her clothes and do a scene where she pees in front of Meredith and Izzie, she was all, “I’m on it” and threw herself into the scene. I am frankly hoping that the ABC shopping site tells us where we can buy those panties she was wearing because those were the best panties EVER next to Izzie’s Season One Hello Kitty panties and I have to own some. I think I would be less angry about going on vacation if I had some cool Callie panties. I would never pee in front of other people but I would be happy.

Once again, I’m losing the point. The point…the point…the point is Callie pees and Izzie tortures her a tiny bit about the hand washing and that made me overjoyed because that’s the kind of thing people do.

The other detour I wanna make is over to Denny-ville. I love Denny. In a dangerous way. Denny is very real to me. He’s no character I made up. He’s DENNY. He’s human for me in a way that makes the actor Jeffrey Dean Morgan nervous when I get within fifty feet of him. See, when Denny gets all depressed about being an invalid, I want to climb in bed with him just like Izzie does. What’s shocking about Denny’s depression is that we are so not used to seeing him angry. He’s so sweet. But being an invalid wears down the spirit – that’s what our doctors tell us, that’s what we all know from seeing it happen to people we know. And I wanted us to see a little of that. I wanted us to see that Denny is starting to despair of ever getting a heart. That Denny is about to give up. Which breaks my Denny-loving heart because he’s Denny and I just want to watch him play Scrabble and say things in that drawl of his.

Okay, last detour: Alex saving the baby. I love that we have a character who can do something wonderful but still be a selfish cranky ass about it. Alex gets to be complex in ways most characters don’t because even though he’s got a moral code, his moral code is totally twisted and dark. But he’s essentially good – deep down inside.

And now, finally, the Mer/Der of it all. He’s so angry. And that anger has been kinda building since all the way back when Meredith told him about George. And it just gets SO much worse when he sees her at Finn’s and assumes she is sleeping with him. The man is jealous. McDreamy is jealous. Beyond all reason or sanity or any rational thought. He’s just jealous. And that fight they have in the stairwell…oh, I was proud of Meredith for standing up for herself. I was a proud, proud Mama. But my little heart was also breaking. Because he’s so angry. And she’s so angry. And then in the next episode…

Oh, yeah, right. No talk about the next episode. But it’s a big one. That gets bigger. And then it gets even bigger. But I can’t talk about it.

I can talk about how cute and hot Finn is and how much I love it when he says “I never said I wasn’t scary and damaged too.” Because he is like Meredith. And that gives her a little bit of hope. It may give you hope too. Or it may give you a seizure because you want your Mer and your Der BACK TOGETHER and you want them back together NOW.

I could tell you so many things. So many. If I could. Which I can. But I won’t.

We’ll talk more later. After you’ve seen the stuff you haven’t seen yet. I’ll explain everything. I promise.

Right now, I have to go and figure out a way to survive the next six weeks without my friends from Seattle Grace in my life. Maybe I’ll form a support group…

http://www.greyswriters.com/

(As always, when I post items about Fox News, a disclaimer. This is not meant to set off a fist fight over the legitimacy of FNC. It is posted solely for its news value and Scott Collins’ opinions. So let’s please keep any discussion at the thread’s usual higher level. Thanks. )

TV Notebook
A ratings downer for Fox News


By Scott Collins Los Angeles Times Staff Writer May 8, 2006

Some recent ratings news no doubt gladdened the hearts of Fox News Channel haters.

First, Nielsen Media Research reported that Fox News' overall prime-time lineup dropped 17% last month compared with a year ago (MSNBC grew 16% during the same period, while CNN plummeted by 38%).

Late last week, a reliable television industry website, TVNewser.com, reported that in April, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly had his worst month in nearly five years among viewers age 25 to 54, the most coveted audience in TV news.

Although the network still churns out ratings light-years ahead of competitors' and O'Reilly remains cable news' No. 1 host, Fox News' explosive growth appears to be, like the president's 90% approval rating in the days following Sept. 11, a relic from the first Bush term.

That's the elephant in the room, of course — the broadly assumed, and occasionally documented, affinity between Fox News and the current administration (Vice President Dick Cheney's office prepared a hotel checklist, recently posted on TheSmokingGun.com, that ordered "all televisions tuned to Fox News" during Cheney visits). Could it be mere coincidence that O'Reilly, populist scourge of both Clintons and countless left-wing causes, is seeing his still-formidable nightly audience of 2.1 million or so start to shrink in tandem with the Bush/GOP's rapidly fading grip on the electorate?

O'Reilly's thoroughly delighted rivals think not.

"When the stock market was through the roof in the '90s, people used to sit around and watch CNBC and slap high fives and say, 'I made another hundred bucks today!' " said MSNBC host and O'Reilly foe Keith Olbermann, adding that CNBC's ratings quickly went south when the tech bubble burst.

"I think the same psychology applies to Fox. They'll always have their hard-core audience that wants to hear, 'Everything's great! [Bush is] doing a great job.' " But less-partisan viewers are drifting away, Olbermann argued.

Jonathan Klein, president of CNN/US, agrees. "Maybe this is part of the deal with the devil you make when a supposed news network allies itself so closely with one point of view," he said.

To be fair and balanced here: Olbermann's "Countdown" competes head to head with "The O'Reilly Factor" and the two hosts have been engaged in a months-long feud. Although Olbermann's ratings climbed 35% last month, his total audience remains less than one-fourth the size of O'Reilly's.

As for CNN, its lineup showed far greater erosion last month than Fox's. "We're down because we had such a phenomenal year last year," Klein said. The one major growth story at CNN? Lou Dobbs, whose program seems to add viewers in direct proportion to its host's fiercely expressed views against illegal immigration.

Fox News says CNN is merely trying to deflect attention from its own woes. "It's always amusing to watch Jon whistle past his graveyard of failures like Anderson Cooper and 'American Morning' as Fox trounces CNN in breaking news and ratings," Fox spokeswoman Irena Briganti wrote in an e-mail. "We suspect Dick Parsons isn't nearly as entertained." Parsons is the chief of Time Warner, CNN's parent.

Fox News says it's hardly surprising its ratings are down this year, arguing that recent weeks have been fairly tame news-wise compared with April 2005, when Pope John Paul II died and his successor was chosen. What's more, O'Reilly took seven nights off last month, the network says, leading to lower ratings overall for his program. But Fox has clearly reached some sort of turning point in audience dynamics. Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the network soared as if wearing flubber shoes, with gravity-defying, double-digit growth during news cycles slow and fast. Now it's subject to the same laws of physics that encumber every mature network.

It's possible, of course, that Fox's loud, primary-color style of news packaging has gotten stale. It's also true that there are limits on how big any TV programming can get, especially in a world of endless media fragmentation.

Maybe the real point, though, is not that Bush's sinking poll numbers are hurting Fox News. Perhaps it's that the network isn't thoroughly engaging the issues that are giving the administration so many troubles.

Consider O'Reilly, whose program has been the bellwether of Fox's overall rise. Yes, he's devoted plenty of time lately to such topics as immigration and the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.

Yet on Friday, with Washington abuzz about the abrupt resignation of CIA Chief Porter Goss and Cheney's combative speech on Thursday assailing Russia over human rights and other matters, "The O'Reilly Factor" temporized with segments about a sex offender registration law, the evidence behind date-rape claims and a controversy over Condoleezza Rice's getting an honorary degree. (Larry King, who hosts CNN's top-rated program, was only slightly more topical, by the way; after chatting with Christopher Kennedy Lawford about whether there might be a family curse given Rep. Patrick Kennedy's recent drug-related traffic accident, King turned to attorney Robert Shapiro, who discussed his son's death from a drug overdose.)

Each of these subjects has its own merits, but few would claim they dominate Americans' thinking these days, during times of a growing energy debate, ongoing controversy over Bush's handling of the Iraq war, worries over Iran's nuclear aims and pending midterm elections. Talk about changing the subject.

Fox News didn't get to be No. 1 by avoiding tough issues. Why start now?

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-channel8may08,0,1938475,print.story?coll=cl-tvent

This one is for all New York baseball fans, or ex-New Yorkers, or anyone who has ever had any dealings with one of the true gentlemen of sports, long-time Mets announcer (and Hall of Fame player) Ralph Kiner:

Sports On TV
In Kiner’s Korner

By Michael Malone at bcbeat.com

Ralph Kiner, who’s been calling New York Mets games since the team began in 1962, showed Friday night on SportsNet NY why he still deserves his spot in the booth at 83.

Slowed by Bell’s Palsy, Kiner contributes an inning or two a week these days. And thanks to his sense of humor and uncanny recall of baseball history, the Hall of Famer makes the most of his limited air time.

When former Dodgers slugger Steve Garvey was mentioned as the answer to a trivia question during the broadcast, Kiner immediately produced an amusing tale of Garvey and his old teammate, pitcher Don Sutton, coming to blows over a woman decades before.

Then, as Mets second baseman Kaz Matsui stepped up to the plate, an announcer mentioned Matsui’s “rough” previous trip to the plate, when he was caught looking on a three-and-two curveball with two men on base. While conventional baseball wisdom would say that no one in his right mind would expect a curveball on a full count, Kiner disagreed. He chastised Matsui for not looking curve, with the pitcher due up next and a base open.

And just a minute after that, Mets pitcher Steve Trachsel got on base, then asked for his jacket on a gorgeous 70 degree evening. As his fellow announcers poked fun at Trachsel (pitchers often wear jackets on warm nights to keep their arm loose), Kiner took it a step further. “Pitchers won’t even let you put the air conditioner on in the car,” he quipped.

Funny and insightful, Kiner produced all of the above in the span of about two minutes.

http://www.bcbeat.com/

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: Invasion just keeps getting better. After excellent episodes of Alias and Lost, Invasion ends up topping them all, in my opinion. I could seriously feel the storm growing through the TV set — what a great, chilling, suspenseful story that's been unraveling over the course of this season. The thought of not seeing it back next season is the only thing that terrifies me more than an underwater hybrid army. I need Invasion Season 2, or at least a fully realized end to this story! — Nick

Matt Roush: I certainly agree with this (well, maybe not Invasion topping Lost), but since it isn't exactly a question, here's this from Chris: "I just want to say that I love your column. I just wonder if ABC is bringing back Invasion. I am starting to really get into the show but I was also into Sons & Daughters until ABC canceled it. So what does the future of Invasion look like?"

I don't want to give false hope here, but what I'm hearing is that the collapse of Commander in Chief (which ABC pulled from the schedule last week for the remainder of the season) might have opened up a slot for Invasion to get a reprieve for a second season.