View Full Version : Hot Off The Press! The Latest Television News and Info
The weekend prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted just under the HD Football listings near the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.
TV Sports in the 18-49 Demo
Where the boys are on Saturday night
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Oct 16, 2006
Saturday nights have long been a wasteland for the broadcast networks, filled with reruns, true-crime reality shows and the occasional low-rated newsmagazine.
So when ABC decided last May to replace “Wide World of Disney” with a weekly college football game, it seemed like a low-risk strategy, albeit one that likely wouldn’t result in a big ratings gain.
But the move has actually become one of the smartest scheduling decisions of the new season, and could well be a difference-maker come spring, when ABC and Fox are expected to be neck and neck for No. 1 among adults 18-49.
Season to date through Oct. 8, the most recent numbers available, “Saturday Night Football” has boosted ABC’s Saturday primetime average an impressive 50 percent, going from a 1.4 rating to a 2.1, according to Nielsen numbers analyzed by Fox.
The network consistently challenges longtime No. 1 Fox on the evening, trailing it by just 0.1 season to date, and has the year’s highest-rated Saturday telecast of the year, a 2.9 for the Notre Dame-Michigan State game the first week of the season.
That’s helped ABC to a 4.2 overall season-to-date average among adults 18-49 and has helped make up for the loss of “Monday Night Football.” The network is down 2.3 points compared with last year on Monday nights, but Saturdays are one of three nights for the network posting major gains that have helped offset the decline.
Considering that last year just 0.2 separated Fox and ABC, gains on any night of the week will make a difference come spring.
In fact, the move has been such a success that ABC is now considering moving sports full-time into the timeslot, according to reports. The network reportedly is looking at shifting some of its NBA coverage to Saturday nights once college football season ends in December.
That would mark the first time in years that any broadcast network has had basketball coverage in primetime outside of the playoffs, and it could well be a smart strategy.
Even the lowest-rated NBA games better ABC’s 2005-2006 Saturday night household average of 3.0.
Of course whether ABC continues its college football gains largely depends on the weekly match-up. Ratings for the regionally split USC-Arizona State and Michigan-Penn State games over the weekend were down somewhat from earlier games airing against NBC's NASCAR coverage.
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_7901.as
archiguy
10-16-06, 12:48 PM
1. Best new show: The Nine - Can't rave enough about this one!
2. Worst new show: Shark
3. New show you thought you would love -- but don't: 30 Rock
4. New show you are surprised you enjoy: Heroes
5. Returning show you are losing interest in: Nip/Tuck
6. Aside from categories 1 and 4, other additions to your TiVo or DVR: Jericho, Studio 60, Kidnapped, Veronica Mars, Dexter (for now...)
...Aside from categories 1 and 4, other additions to your TiVo or DVR: Discovery HD Atlas series
Glad you mentioned this one, shuttermaker. It is stunning IMO.
Jediphish
10-16-06, 12:56 PM
OK, time for your opinions again.:
On the broadcast networks in the new fall season:
1. Best new show: 30 Rock (comedy)/Friday Night Lights (drama)
2. Worst new show: Happy Hour
3. New show you thought you would love -- but don't: The Class
4. New show you are surprised you enjoy: Men In Trees
5. Returning show you are losing interest in: Lost
6. Aside from categories 1 and 4, other additions to your TiVo or DVR:
- The Nine
- Heroes
- Jericho
josejrp
10-16-06, 01:20 PM
1. Best new show:
Broadcast: Studio 60
Cable: Dexter
Kinda early for Dexter, but it is the only show so far that has impressed me where I have to watch it... no other show has had the "Lost" effect on me out of the gate :-)
2. Worst new show:
I've tried to avoid the clunkers, possibly missing some good shows in the result. I feel it is unfair to judge shows I have not seen, so I won't name a worst show. Cheating, I know... However, shows I have not watched are Ugly Betty, Men In Trees, The Class, Kidnapped, and Vanishing (among others, such as the entire MyNetwork lineup)... These shows may be great, but I didn't make time to watch them for one reason or the other.
3. New show you thought you would love -- but don't:
Jericho - I like it, but the plots have been underwhelming so far... of course, the scenario painted is pretty gripping, but the way it is unfolding is (IMHO) unrealistic. Then again, what do I know...
Haven't watched "The Nine" yet, because by the time "Lost" is done, I don't want to watch another "mysteries" show... I am TiVo'ing the episodes, though, and hope to get to them eventually. Hopefully it is a show I "love"...
4. New show you are surprised you enjoy:
Studio 60 - I really thought I couldn't stand one more "industry" show, but the old Sorking magic is still there - and it is nowhere near as preachy as West Wing could get sometimes.
5. Returning show you are losing interest in:
Boston Legal lost me when Alan Shore went after the Candice Bergen character.... but they had been losing me for a long time now. The Alan Shore character was an excellent addition to The Practice, but Boston Legal is just too farcical for me... took me three seasons to give it up, but I finally did.
6. Aside from categories 1 and 4, other additions to your TiVo or DVR:[/QUOTE]
Gilmore Girls is still o.k. even after the loss of the Sherman-Palladinos, suprisingly enough. Smallville is still probably the worst TV show I watch, just because it deals with the Supesverse... but man, is it awful! I still find Lost is my favorite show... and the only comedy so far this season where I've laughed out loud is The Office, particularly the season premiere.
I appreciate all the input, folks. (And keep it coming for those of you who haven't contributed.)
I try to be pretty wide-ranging in what I post, but it is good to be reminded about what you are actually watching so I can make sure to post appropriate material.
On the broadcast networks in the new fall season:
1. Best new show: Heroes
2. Worst new show: Well, like josejrp, I purposely avoided ones I figured would be stinkers, so I haven't seen Happy Hour or 20 Good Years. The Class and Til Death were a couple I watched the pilots for, but didn't care to continue.
3. New show you thought you would love -- but don't: 30 Rock wasn't as good as I was hoping, but I'll give it a few more episodes to see if it gets better.
4. New show you are surprised you enjoy: Justice--I planned on sampling it for Victor Garber, and I'm not usually into the legal drama genre, but so far the wife and I have really enjoyed it.
5. Returning show you are losing interest in: NCIS--still watching, but it doesn't feel like must see anymore.
6. Aside from categories 1 and 4, other additions to your TiVo or DVR: Jericho, Vanished, Studio 60, although I haven't actually watched that one yet
shuttermaker
10-16-06, 02:17 PM
Glad you mentioned this one, shuttermaker. It is stunning IMO.
Gorgous pictures and very educational.
The Business of TV
Fox News Gets Big Hike in Cablevision Renewal
By John M. Higgins Broadcasting & Cable 10/16/2006
In the first major deal to secure rate hikes from cable operators, Fox News Channel cut a carriage deal with Cablevision Systems that will nearly triple the network's license fee. Neither side would disclose the terms, but an industry executive familiar with the negotiations says that the deal will pay Fox News an average of more than 75 cents monthly, up from roughly 25 cents the network has been fetching.
Fox News executives have spoken frequently about demanding $1 per sub, but even Chairman Roger Ailes has acknowledged publicly that was a negotiating stance and that he expected large operators to pay substantially less. Wall Street analysts have generally said they'll be excited if Fox News fetches more than 50 cents per sub.
In a statement, Tim Carry, Fox News' senior VP of affiliate sales, said, "We’ve enjoyed a good relationship with Cablevision and look forward to continuing our partnership."
If the deals with other operators are anywhere close to as good, the series of renewals will create a substantial financial lift for Fox News. Even though Fox News' ratings are double CNN's , the No. 1 news network's revenues are substantially because CNN has much better license fee deals rooted in the early 1980s.
Cablevision was one of the first operators to agree to launch Fox News 10 years ago, so was the first up for renewal. The negotiations wee going badly, with even News Corp. Rupert Murdoch calling out Cablevision Systems Chairman Chuck Dolan in public last month about the risk of losing the channel.
The Cablevision deal sets the pace for negotiations with other operators. At three million subscribers, Cablevision is only the eighth-largest cable and satellite operator. However, because its systems are concentrated in the suburbs New York City -- home to many ad agency executives -- Cablevision tends to get volume discounts similar to those of much larger operators. Still, negotiations with Comcast, Time Warner and EchoStar will likely be very difficult because all three have been as willing to fight to lower programming fees as Fox News is to increase them.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6381509.html
archiguy
10-16-06, 03:17 PM
^Boy, that's just great. The first domino has fallen in the FOX News assault on cable carriers. When the rest of the carriers knuckle under to this, as they undoubtedly will, I can expect my cable bill to increase by $.50 a month just to pay for this loathsome propaganda channel I never watch. Just great. :rolleyes:
Let's cut back on the political debate. Folks on the other side could (and do) complain about what they see as the CNN agenda.
I think we get it that there are partisans on both sides.
TV Q&A
Ask Matt
(from the Ask (TV Critic) Matt (Roush) column at TVGuide.com
By Matt Roush TVGuide.com TV Critic
Question: I have a few opinions of my own about Heroes. First of all, as a huge Battlestar Galactica fan, I was offended that Tammie assumes that fans of Heroes probably "don't get" Battlestar. Although Battlestar is the superior show, I have been very impressed by Heroes, and it has exceeded my expectations. My main quibble is with the statement from one of your readers that "the writing is very bad and extremely pretentious." I disagree. This show is an epic! When ordinary people learn that they may have extraordinary abilities, they are bound to question their purpose and talk about destiny and making a difference. I also appreciate the comic-book touches (like subtitles), the music and everything about this show. I think it is intelligent and thrilling, with plenty of subtle and grandiose moments to enjoy. I have been happy to see that your opinion of this show has shifted in the past few weeks from mostly negative to more positive. Where does it stand now?— Emily
Matt Roush: I'm still stuck in the middle: Glad it's a success, amazed that it caught on immediately and is still building, but less than swept away. Ambivalence is an odd emotion for me, especially when it comes to genre series (which I understand one is only supposed to gush about). I'm usually passionate either for or against a series, but Heroes is such an odd bird. I find it awfully ungainly and unfocused, a bit of a fascinating mess. I've just seen the next two episodes (tonight's and next week's), and I'm especially encouraged by the fact that a number of characters finally begin to overlap or even meet (sometimes in very entertaining ways, especially when Hiro is involved). I'm intrigued by the show even when I'm not exactly engrossed. There is much to enjoy here, and I'm going to go along for the ride, curbing my impulse to rave or rant about it. Unlike a Buffy or a Battlestar, I don't see it making my top 10 list. But given the track record for these sorts of shows recently, I'll celebrate it, however cautiously.
Here's another analysis of why Heroes works for its fans, from Jason: "The appeal of Heroes is pretty simple to me: Smart, cleverly written dialogue in the science-fiction and comic-book genres are the exception, rather than the rule. People who grew up reading X-Men, The Justice League, The Avengers, The Fantastic Four or other team-oriented super-hero comics are quite used to stilted dialogue and one-dimensional characterizations. And frankly, most 'classic' sci-fi has bad dialogue and often wooden acting: See the Star Wars movies, most of the Star Trek and Stargate franchises, the Terminator movies, etc. Sure, there is also Lost, Buffy, the Spider-Man films, and the new BSG, but my point is that the typical young male sci-fi and comic-book fan does not like these sorts of shows for gripping acting or Gilmore/Dawson's/West Wing dialogue. They watch them for the concepts, the plots and the special effects. And sometimes the women are hot. Finally, just remember how long Walker, Texas Ranger, Yes, Dear and Married with Children were on the air. Not every show has to be geared toward the Studio 60 demo."
So you're telling me to settle? Not my style. Again, I'm so torn about this show. At times it seems to transcend genre, at other times to be hobbled by the limitations of what we expect in terms of acting and writing. Honestly, Heroes aims much higher than Walker, Yes, Dear and Married. Different universes, my friend.
Question: While I am not as surprised as you that Jericho is doing well in the ratings — simply because I've been drawn into it — I have been stumped as to why. It certainly stretches my ability to "suspend disbelief," and some of the acting is a bit stiff, to say the least. After much thought, I think I figured it out, for me at least. The draw of this show is the uncertainty of the times in which we live: the 9/11 attacks, terrorist plots, the proliferation of nuclear material. The thing that intrigues me is that instead of a metaphor for a foreign attack as other shows have done (Invasion), or showing someone save the day before the attack happens (Alias, 24), this show's premise is a literal attack on the U.S. by a foreign enemy and its aftermath. The whole time I watch it I'm thinking, "What would I do? What would my hometown do?" While the material has been presented before, mostly in movies, it has been a while since it has been presented so literally, and not since the attacks of Sept. 11, at least that I can remember. It could definitely be done better, but I know that as long the premise of the show remains on topic, I'll keep tuning in.— Karen
Matt Roush: I was wondering when someone would weigh in with a post-9/11 analysis of Jericho, and this is certainly one of the more thoughtful ones to arrive in my mailbag. In concept, Jericho does sort of remind me of Rod Serling's Cold War allegories from The Twilight Zone (such as the classic "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street"), but in execution, Jericho seems to me far too crude, obvious and (thinking of that hostage situation at the farmhouse in Episode 2) ridiculous. Still, apocalypse is something new for a TV series to confront, so I'm sticking with it, even though I also find myself wondering if the show's popularity may also be rooted in a reactionary mindset among those who love the idea of a world in which all of the big cities have been incinerated. (Much as I enjoyed his villainous performance in Deadwood, I can't stomach the preachy, almost fascistic attitude of Gerald McRaney's mayor.)
Here's another defense of the show, from Daune R.: "Jericho is succeeding for a couple of reasons. These actors are inhabiting characters I would be interested in, no matter what plot device threw them together. Skeet Ulrich has a vulnerable quality that makes his path to redemption more compelling. Gerald McRaney and Pamela Reed have a nice chemistry. Erik Knudsen's orphaned Dale is heartbreaking. There's a whole backstory that is being revealed slowly, and it's a pleasure to watch. For the average American, it's not out of the realm of possibility that we could be victims of a nuclear attack. I wouldn't be surprised to see stories of people building bomb shelters again, not because of Jericho, but because of the world climate. Watching Jericho lets us visit that unthinkable possibility while watching fiction. Mind you, Stephen King's The Stand is one of my favorite books of all time, and I see some parallels. Sometimes a show just hits the right chord, taking us to a place we need to consider. And isn't it comforting that during a fictional apocalypse, people are still cheating and scheming and lying and falling in love?"
Some good points here, including the shout-out to the always welcome Pamela Reed. But a pleasure to watch? That's where we part company. I find the show and the characters (including their transparent personal lives) almost uniformly dreary, but my resistance may have something to do with the fact that if this scenario were actually happening, my Manhattan apartment and I would be reduced to ashes by now. Plus, a world without TV? Unbearable!
Question: Brothers & Sisters is getting better every week. The first episode I thought was so-so, the second I thought was good, but the third just blew me away. The final conversation between Ron Rifkin and Patricia Wettig broke my heart, and I thought that few series would do as skillful a job of showing how the dead father hurt both his wife and his mistress. Basically, this show has intelligent, deeply felt dialogue and one of the most talented casts on TV right now. It has only one problem, but it's a big one: Calista Flockhart. I don't know why, but her face doesn't move any more, and her character is shallow and off-putting compared to the others. And she's nominally the lead! Can an ensemble show (particularly one with an ensemble as talented as this) jettison its main character? Any chance this would happen?— Amy
Matt Roush: I agree that the third episode (in which Sally Field "outed" the mistress) was the best yet, and I also feel that Kitty (Flockhart) is the least realized of the sisters (the brothers are such bores, they defy comment), but if you read series creator Jon Robin Baitz's eloquent blog on this site, you'll sense his loyalty to the entire cast. So don't look for Flockhart to be written off anytime soon. I just hope she can be written more credibly. I find myself oddly ambivalent (again!) about this show, despite it being exactly the sort of adult family drama I wish there were more of on TV nowadays. The cast is terrific, especially the females, but most of the characters and their situations strike me as stubbornly ordinary so far. Still, I'm not giving up. But only because I've already seen the entire season of The Wire. Which brings us to the next question.
Question: From comments I read by TV critics before The Wire premiered, I got the sense that HBO sent the entire fourth season to critics (some seemed to talk about sitting down and watching 13 hours of television in their reviews). While this might have helped critics tout the series, I'm beginning to wonder if it wasn't a horrible mistake. Unlike with The Sopranos, where major critics seem to come out each Monday and dissect the last episode, with The Wire it seems like they already said they liked it five weeks ago, and now they've moved on to Desperate Housewives. Perhaps I'm making too much of this and HBO knew that the only way they could generate new viewers was to let critics praise the season as a whole before it started. Reading well-written critical reviews of a dense show like The Wire can help even this longtime fan understand how different people are reacting to this story.— Matt T.
Matt Roush: What an excellent observation. And mea culpa for falling into this trap. Same thing happened this summer when Showtime sent out all 11 episodes of the excellent The Brotherhood before the series premiered, helping many of us write what we felt were comprehensive reviews, knowing in advance how satisfying the entire package would be. But in terms of covering that show and The Wire (which indeed was sent out in advance in its entirely, and which I watched over the course of a single stimulating week), reviewing the entire show as if it were a miniseries may have served to inhibit many of us from reacting to the series week by week. The situation isn't helped by the fact that The Wire was programmed headfirst into the wave of the new season, and much of my (and other critics') energies are being spent watching the new (and returning) series develop week by week. It would be hard to focus much on The Wire's new season even if we weren't otherwise distracted. But because so many critics have seen the whole thing and may have moved on, it's true that the media buzz may have crested far too soon. Because trust me: With The Wire this season, the best is yet to come.
Question: Do you think Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip will make it? I can't even express how much I love it, which is a little strange because I typically reserve this passion for shows more like Lost, Alias or Buffy. I love the smart insider comments like: "Can we have this conversation walking?" or "She broke up with you because she didn't want to share your time with the girls of Delta Gamma" (which killed me because I happen to be a Delta Gamma and so is Christine Lahti). Michael Ausiello made me a bit nervous when he said he didn't think the show would make it. I heard so much hype about it since last spring that I kind of expected it to be a smash hit, and now I feel like it's an underdog because of shows like The Bachelor.— Kim
Matt Roush: It depends on what you mean by "make it." I honestly believe (cockeyed optimism?) that Studio 60 will "make it" through the season. So much is invested in the show that not giving it an entire season to prove itself seems like a terrible waste. The fact that it seemed to level off a bit in week four, albeit at a level far below its premiere numbers, is slightly encouraging. (If it kept dropping steeply, it could be all over in 13 weeks.) But will it see a second season? That's a much cloudier picture, and I would lean toward Ausiello's more negative outlook unless things pick up.
Zack also weighs in with another version of the programming-jigsaw question: "If NBC were to move Studio 60 to Mondays at 8 pm/ET, do you think it would do better, since the other shows in that time slot get relatively the same ratings as Studio 60 does?"
Without getting into the actual numbers here, I would be surprised if NBC moved the show to 8 pm, although it's true this would be much less competitive than having to face CSI: Miami every week. Studio 60 just doesn't feel like an early-evening show. I'm still thinking that if NBC does decide to move it, a more protected 9 pm time slot would be the ticket.
Question: How's this for an idea: Every Tuesday at 8 pm/ET, all networks go black except for NBC. Then people will have no choice but to watch Friday Night Lights. I'm not from Texas. I'm not in high school. I don't watch or play football, and I'm not Christian. Still, for two weeks in a row, this show has pulled me to the edge of my seat and knocked me to the ground. There's something so pure about it. There isn't a hint of irony, and it isn't trying to impress us with witty asides or self-deprecation. To me, it's a lot like The Wire, in the sense that it attempts to paint a complete portrait of one American town. The Wire paints Baltimore with cops and robbers because the city has been corrupted to its core by drugs and crime. Friday Night Lights paints with high-school football because the team represents all the town's values. Everyone should be watching. Tape Dancing with the Stars. TiVo Gilmore Girls. House, thankfully, is moving to 9 pm/ET. All bases covered. Just trying to get the word out.— Mark
Matt Roush: Happy to help you on your mission. I am more worried about Friday Night Lights than any other show on the schedule. I don't care this deeply about any other new show. The low ratings break my heart and wound my spirit. I understand that Dancing is great guilty-pleasure entertainment, and that NCIS and Gilmore Girls (even past its prime) have their escapist pleasures. But someday, people are going to look back at however many episodes were filmed (and aired) of Friday Night Lights and wonder what we were thinking to ignore a show of such rich quality and deep humanity. This week's third episode is possibly the best yet, and Kyle Chandler has never been better. You really believe him as a coach this week.
Question: Why have so many shows on ABC and NBC gotten rid of their opening theme songs and credits? Now there's a (longer) teaser followed by the show's name for a few seconds, then commercials. Some examples: Desperate Housewives, Brothers & Sisters, Studio 60, Grey's Anatomy, Six Degrees, Lost, even ER! The only shows that I can think of that still show their theme song and credits are House and the Law & Order franchise. I'm assuming it's somehow related to the fact that there is more advertising than ever, so TPTB cut the theme song for more show time. (I think most dramas are now 42-44 minutes, where they used to be 46-48.) What is the real reason?— Alissa
Matt Roush: There probably isn't one "real reason," but the prevailing conventional wisdom is that some producers (though the blame usually falls on itchy network execs) want to get the viewer directly into the show, and a credit sequence is often seen as an invitation to surf. The most startling omission this year is ER's, without a doubt. I confirmed with the studio, and it was the producer's call to go a different way. You might also notice that when ER was still a powerhouse, NBC began airing it at 9:59 pm, and now the show begins a minute past the hour. Dropping the credits is also a time-saver, as Alissa notes. Whatever the reasons, something is lost when credits and theme songs that once were an iconic cultural signature for a show (and sometimes a network) have been dropped for mercenary purposes. One show whose credits I do enjoy, though I find much of the rest of the show tiresomely silly, is Boston Legal, which incorporates its credits into an opening punch line. A few weeks ago, Denny Crane even said to a new arrival, "Welcome to Boston Legal. Cue the music." At least there was music to cue to.
Question: It seems that Fox is going to be moving some shows around in their lineup after the World Series. House is being moved back to its original time slot, and Justice is being moved to Monday nights. Is there any reason for the changes? I know networks will move a new show to see if it will do better, but I don't understand moving a regular show, except that they simply want to put it back where it originally was. Also, it seems that Fox wants Justice to die by putting it up against Heroes. While the audiences might not be the same for both shows, I just don't see it faring well. Any idea what's going on?— Andrea B.
Matt Roush: First off, House was never intended to stay at 8 pm/ET on Tuesdays. It was scheduled in the first hour only through September, to help launch Standoff (wasted effort). From the start, House was always going to return to 9 pm on Oct. 31. That's where it belongs. The move of Justice isn't to kill it but a last hope to save it. It was being crushed on Wednesdays by Criminal Minds (don't get me started), and the prospect of facing Lost was also no picnic. Since Vanished was such a fiasco, Fox has decided to try Justice as a companion to Prison Break for a while. They seem compatible enough, and a procedural like this also seems like acceptable counterprogramming in the time period (against a fantasy drama, a reality show and a bunch of comedies). This is probably the best shot Justice is going to get.
Question: After seeing ratings for three of my favorite shows (Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Desperate Housewives), I'm disappointed with my fellow TV fans. At first I was shocked at how many fewer fans tuned in to each of these premieres and plenty of other shows (except Grey's Anatomy, it seems), but then listening to friends talk about each show, I became less puzzled and more disappointed. I find myself having to defend my love of these shows to friends who either don't watch them anymore or only watch out of habit and complain bitterly along the way. Why did BSG have to skip a year ahead? Why does it have to compare itself to the Iraq war? Why did the season premiere of Lost only feature the Jack-Kate-Sawyer triangle instead of Hurley, Locke, etc.? Why couldn't Lost have been two hours long? Why did Gaby lose another chance at having a baby, and why is Susan's love life always annoying? It's gotten to the point where I can't even talk to them about my shows any longer. I refuse to go on message boards because of whiners who seem to want these shows to fail. All I can do is watch and enjoy. But I hate the idea of a show like Lost getting torn down to bits by "fans" and ratings freaks who focus only on the negative. How do you take the negative fans' reactions, with a grain of salt?— James M.
Matt Roush: Grain? How about a silo? More and more these days, especially in this time of instant knee-jerk (emphasis on jerk) reactions online and elsewhere to the ebb and flow of weekly TV, it takes a thick skin to stick up for your faves when it seems like everyone else is trying to outdo each other poking holes in everything. Many of the questions you recited above are legitimate areas of debate about some terrific series. But I feel your pain, because the debate so often seems so petty, with almost a sense of pride in abandoning a show or declaring a "jump the shark" moment, as if that's what they were waiting for all along. But also, look at it from the other side. No one is forced to watch TV (well, except those of us who get paid for it, and I'd be foolish to complain about that), and if they bail on Battlestar because of its unnerving and daring topicality, or they choose to shun the grandeur of Lost for whatever reasons, that's their loss. And that's their right. All I can say is: Keep the faith. Enjoy what you enjoy. (And you're right to steer clear of places where piling on to see who can bitch loudest and snarkiest about TV is the latest cynical blood sport.) Finally, keep in mind that TV (especially drama) has rarely been better than it is right now, with so much variety on network and cable. Give your friends time. They'll be back.
Question: I remember hearing that Tamara Taylor would be guest-starring on Bones for six episodes. Well, she's done her six, but from the previews, it looks like she'll still be around. Is she joining the show as a regular cast member? Or has her stint as a guest star just been extended?— Lauren R.
Matt Roush: I'm not sure if this is good or bad news (my mail has been mixed about Dr. Saroyan), but the studio confirms that the new boss is signed on for the rest of the season, so consider her a regular. Can't say if or when she'll appear in the main titles, or if her "guest-star" status will stay intact, as it sometimes does in the confusing world of cast credits. But no matter how Bones herself feels about it, Camille is here to stay. At least this season.
http://tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-Matt/default.aspx
(From Marc Berman’s Monday, October 16 , 2006, Programming Insider column at Mediaweek.com )
Ratings Box:
What’s Hot/What’s Not
• A Growing Jimmy Kimmel Live on ABC:
Based on ratings for the week of Oct. 2, ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live perked up to 1.95 million viewers -- its largest weekly audience (and third highest ever) since the week of Feb. 17, 2003. Compared to the same week last year (and without the benefit of a boost from Monday Night Football), Kimmel was up by 490,000 viewers (1.46 to 1.95 million) and 17 percent among adults 18-49 (0.6/ 3 to 0.7/ 4). Kimmel has now delivered more viewers than the year-ago week in 39 of the last 40 weeks.
• Late Night Scorecard:
While we are on the topic of late night, here is the season to-date (Sept. 18 – Oct. 8, 2006) rating results for the daypart. NBC’s The Tonight Show With Jay Leno still rules the roost from 11:30 p.m.-12:30 a.m. despite ongoing audience erosion, while No. 2 The Late Show With David Letterman on CBS is up year-to-year in four of the five surveyed categories (excluding a 10 percent loss among adults 18-34). ABC’s Nightline and the aforementioned Jimmy Kimmel Live round off the block, while Late Night With Conan O’Brien has a healthy lead over CBS’ The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson at 12:30 a.m.
Here are the results (with percent change from the comparable year-ago period in parentheses):
Monday-Friday 11:30 p.m.-12:30 a.m.
ABC: Nightline (11:30 p.m.), Jimmy Kimmel Live (12:00 a.m.)
CBS: The Late Show With David Letterman
NBC: The Tonight Show With Jay Leno
• Households:
NBC: 4.1 rating/11 share (- 5)
CBS: 3.0/ 8 (+ 3)
ABC - Nightline: 2.8/ 7 (no change)
ABC - Jimmy Kimmel: 1.4/ 5 (+ 8)
• Total Viewers:
NBC: 5.70 million (- 3)
CBS: 4.09 (+ 3)
ABC – Nightline: 3.77 (+ 2)
ABC - Jimmy Kimmel: 1.88 (+19)
• Adults 18-49:
NBC: 1.9 rating/ 8 share (- 5)
CBS: 1.4/ 8 (+ 8)
ABC – Nightline: 1.2/ 5 (no change)
ABC - Jimmy Kimmel: 0.7/ 4 (+17)
• Adults 25-54:
NBC: 2.2/ 9 (- 4)
CBS: 1.7/ 7 (+ 6)
ABC – Nightline: 1.5/ 6 (no change)
ABC - Jimmy Kimmel: 0.8/ 4 (no change)
• Adults 18-34:
NBC: 1.4/ 7 (-13)
CBS: 0.9/ 4 (-10)
ABC – Nightline: 0.9/ 4 (+13)
ABC - Jimmy Kimmel: 0.6/ 3 (+20)
Monday-Friday 12:30-1:30 a.m.
CBS: The Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson
NBC: Late Night With Conan O’Brien
• Households:
NBC: 1.9 rating/ 7 share (no change)
CBS: 1.5/ 6 (+ 7)
• Total Viewers:
NBC: 2.56 million (+ 2)
CBS: 1.98 (+ 8)
• Adults 18-49:
NBC: 1.0/ 6 (- 9)
CBS: 0.7/ 5 (no change)
• Adults 25-54:
NBC: 1.1/ 7 (no change)
CBS: 0.9/ 5 (+13)
• Adults 18-34:
NBC: 1.0/ 6 (-17)
CBS: 0.5/ 3 (no change)
• Source: Nielsen Media Research data
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/newsletters/proginsider/index.jsp
archiguy
10-16-06, 03:44 PM
Let's cut back on the political debate. Folks on the other side could (and do) complain about what they see as the CNN agenda.
I think we get it that there are partisans on both sides.
That wasn't the primary purpose of the post - it was to complain that this huge increase is undoubtedly going to be passed on the customer, and if anything, I'd want FOX News purged from my lineup.
And, just to be ornery, just because there are partisans on both sides doesn't mean both sides' arguments carry equal weight or are equivilently just. There are those who deny the holocaust; are their arguments to be given equal weight to those who maintain it did happen? (just askin'....) ;)
That wasn't the primary purpose of the post - it was to complain that this huge increase is undoubtedly going to be passed on the customer, and if anything, I'd want FOX News purged from my lineup.
At least be genuine arch. Anybody that knows you knows the primary purpose of the post was to inflame and bait the conservatives into responding - nothing else. If this rate increase was concerning CNN, MSNBC or any of the numerous liberal mouthpieces, you wouldn't have said a word. Bad form hiding from the truth my friend, bad form.
TV Q&A
Ask Matt
(from the Ask (TV Critic) Matt (Roush) column at TVGuide.com
By Matt Roush TVGuide.com TV Critic
Question: From comments I read by TV critics before The Wire premiered, I got the sense that HBO sent the entire fourth season to critics (some seemed to talk about sitting down and watching 13 hours of television in their reviews)......... Reading well-written critical reviews of a dense show like The Wire can help even this longtime fan understand how different people are reacting to this story.— Matt T.
Regarding "The Wire", Matt T. should take a look each Monday at San Francisco Chronicle's Tim Goodman and his "de-construction" of each episode "The Wire". Outstanding stuff.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=24&entry_id=9899
Tim Goodman. The Bastard Machine : "Wire" Ep. 6: "Can I preach it like I feel it?"
jim tressler
10-16-06, 04:00 PM
the real question, and concern - are the news stations worth that much $$ - if cnn, fox and others can do it - what is stopping discovery, espn and others from raping us more than they have in the past..
archiguy
10-16-06, 04:08 PM
At least be genuine arch. Anybody that knows you knows the primary purpose of the post was to inflame and bait the conservatives into responding - nothing else. If this rate increase was concerning CNN, MSNBC or any of the numerous liberal mouthpieces, you wouldn't have said a word. Bad form hiding from the truth my friend, bad form.
Not at all, Sangs. I'd feel just as ripped off if an increase in my cable bill was perpetuated by CNN as FOX, MSNBC or any other single network. We have yet to see what the penalty to viewers is ultimately going to be from the hardball being played by The NFL Network - that will be far worse than FOX News, I'm sure. And I'm a football fan! Surely we've seen our bills increase because of ESPN's hardball tactics in the past. I rail against injustice wherever I find it, buddy. Somebody's got to. ;)
Let's cut back on the political debate. Folks on the other side could (and do) complain about what they see as the CNN agenda.
I think we get it that there are partisans on both sides.
In all fairness, this just brings FNC to the same cost as CNN for cablecos. That should make any partisan on either side happy in some way or another. :)
I'd feel just as ripped off if an increase in my cable bill was perpetuated by CNN as FOX, MSNBC or any other single network. We have yet to see what the penalty to viewers is ultimately going to be from the hardball being played by The NFL Network - that will be far worse than FOX News, I'm sure. And I'm a football fan! Surely we've seen our bills increase because of ESPN's hardball tactics in the past. I rail against injustice wherever I find it, buddy. Somebody's got to. ;)
Let's take that one step further. Why do I need 4 SD ESPNs and why should I pay for them? I don't watch all of them. I rarely watch the original and I am paying for all of them. I bet it is more than FNC and CNN and MSNBC combined. It is just the way things are. It isn't fair, but then life isn't fair. It is what it is.
the real question, and concern - are the news stations worth that much $$ - if cnn, fox and others can do it - what is stopping discovery, espn and others from raping us more than they have in the past..
Good question. This being a free market, it is what the market will bare. If not, the next time around, a price drop will be in order.
Let's take that one step further. ...I bet it is more than FNC and CNN and MSNBC combined. It is just the way things are. It isn't fair, but then life isn't fair. It is what it is.
Let's assume FNC gets 75 cents. Add the 44 cents from CNN and the 35 cents from MSNBC and you have a grand total of $1.54 a month.
And based on the ratings, if FNC is worth 75 cents, CNN is not quite worth 45 cents and MSNBC is probably worth about 20 cents.
.... I rail against injustice wherever I find it, buddy. Somebody's got to. ;)
Then I would assume the entire cable/DBS pricing structure makes you crazy.
The only way to remedy the situation is a la carte pricing.
You would get what you pay for, not what the providers insist you get.
That would mean some (including most of the sports-crazy folks on this board) will pay more.
It would also mean the people who spend most of their time with the broadcast nets and a handful of cable channels will spend less.
(My bad – I neglected to post this hours ago. Sorry.)
Sunday Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Family woes for 'Brothers and Sisters' '
New ABC soap continues to weaken in ratings
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Oct 16, 2006
ABC’s once-unbeatable Sunday night was bound to suffer when the network moved “Grey’s Anatomy” to prop up Thursday. But with “Desperate Housewives” falling and “Grey’s” replacement, “Brothers & Sisters,” continuing to lose audience week after week, ABC’s Sunday night is starting to look almost vulnerable.
“Sisters” declined another 8 percent from its previous outing last night, averaging a series-low 4.9 rating, according to Nielsen overnights. That was down from a 5.3 last week and 21 percent off the 6.2 it averaged for its Sept. 24 premiere.
It’s also losing a good deal of its “Desperate Housewives” lead-in, though that show is also off from its premiere, down 16 percent over four outings from a 9.5 debut to a season-low 8.0 last night.
Though ABC still led among viewers 18-49 last night, its advantage is shrinking. It’s down from a 6.4 premiere night to a 5.4 the past two weeks, and even finished behind CBS in households last night, when the network got a good bump from NFL overrun and the “60 Minutes” segment about the Duke lacrosse rape case.
But while “Sisters’” decline is certainly alarming, it’s interesting to note that two years ago, “Boston Legal” was drawing even lower ratings in the post-“Housewives” slot, when “Housewives” was drawing better ratings. “Legal” ran through the spring and then was replaced by “Grey’s,” but “Legal” is still on ABC’s schedule two years later.
Thus ABC could stick with “Sisters” and try a new show in the timeslot later this year without necessarily killing off the former. Though a 4.9 is not what you’d hope for after “Housewives,” it’s still helping ABC stay No. 1 this season among adults 18-49.
For the evening, CBS took second to ABC’s 5.4 rating and 13 share with a 4.2/11, followed by NBC at 3.6/9, Fox’s National League Championship Series coverage at 2.1/5, Univision at 1.1/3 and the newly revamped CW schedule at a disappointing 0.9/2.
The CW averaged a 0.9 in its target 18-34s, down 10 percent from the 1.0 the network averaged two weeks ago with the premiere of its urban sitcom block, which was moved to Monday shortly thereafter. Last night “Seventh Heaven” and “Runaway” slipped into those slots.
As a reminder, ratings for Fox, CBS and NBC are approximate, as fast nationals measure timeslot data and not actual program data, and live coverage of baseball and football bled into other timeslots.
At 7 p.m., CBS’s NFL runover and the start of “60 Minutes” led with a 4.8, followed by ABC’s “America’s Funniest Home Videos” at 3.1, NBC’s “Football Night in America” at 2.7, Fox’s local programming and baseball pregame show at 1.3, Univision’s “Hora Pico” at 1.1, and CW’s “America’s Next Top Model” rerun at 0.9.
At 8 p.m., ABC’s “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” led at 5.5, followed by CBS’s “60 Minutes” and “Amazing Race” at 4.0, NBC’s “America” and the start of “Sunday Night Football” at 3.8, Fox’s NLCS at 2.2, the CW’s “7th Heaven” at 1.1, and Univision’s “Cantando por un Sueno” at 1.0.
At 9 p.m., “Housewives” led with an 8.0, followed by NBC’s “SNF” at 4.4, CBS’s “Race” and “Cold Case” at 3.8, Fox’s NLCS at 2.6, Univision’s “Sueno” at 1.1, and CW’s “Runaway” at 0.7.
At 10 p.m., “Sisters” led at 4.9, followed by CBS’s "Case" and “Without a Trace” at 4.3, NBC’s “SNF” at 3.4, and Fox’s NLCS at 2.5.
Among households, CBS topped ABC, 9.4/15 to the latter’s 8.9/14. NBC was third at 6.1/10, followed by Fox at 5.0/8, CW at 1.5/2 and Univision at 1.4/2.
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_7927.asp
archiguy
10-16-06, 05:06 PM
Then I would assume the entire cable/DBS pricing structure makes you crazy.
The only way to remedy the situation is a la carte pricing.
Indeed it does. I pay over $120/mo for my cable lineup (TWC); it's ridiculous. But a la carte is never going to happen, not as long as a cable lobbiest still draws breath on K-Street. ;)
Let's assume FNC gets 75 cents. Add the 44 cents from CNN and the 35 cents from MSNBC and you have a grand total of $1.54 a month.
And Disney wants $2 for ESPN. Is ESPN worth that? I think not. But if the market will bear it , then that is what it is worth. The way it always has been.
My point isn't is it worth it. My point is if the market thinks it is worth it, it is.
But there is no free "Market" and that is the problem.
(And Disney is getting over $2.60 for just the basic ESPN, not to mention ESPN2, News, Classic, etc.)
Indeed it does. I pay over $120/mo for my cable lineup (TWC); it's ridiculous. But a la carte is never going to happen, not as long as a cable lobbiest still draws breath on K-Street. ;)
Don't give up hope. The abundant, new (and still-to-be-announced) delivery systems here now or on the horizon and a changed atmopshere on Capitol Hill have the cable cos very, very nervous about a la carte.
Even Senator Ted Stevens indicated that although he opposes a la carte now, he would not be necessarily be opposed to it in the future.
There is fascinating coalition of liberal groups (Consumers Union and many others) aligning with strong conservative religious organizations to back a la carte.
The Dolans at Cablevision have broken ranks and said they support it, as have some of the telcos.
Critic’s Notebook
'Nightly' weathers Hurricane Kate
By Brian Lowry Variety
Brian Williams is an aviation buff, so he likes to use an analogy about the gaze-narrowing hood worn during flight training to explain his singular focus on the "NBC Nightly News" -- blocking out matters beyond his control, which range from the fading challenge posed by Katie Couric to NBC's primetime fortunes.
"We have to stick to our knitting," he says.
The anchor is probably wise not to peer too deeply into the periphery, because even at NBC, the news purist in him won't care for what he finds.
Despite all the talk and tumult surrounding Couric's jump from NBC to CBS, the evening newscasts have surely waned in importance from a bottom-line standpoint, eclipsed by the morning programs, which by virtue of sheer tonnage -- those three hours of "Today" to peddle daily -- have become massive profit centers. Hell, even Mel Gibson's latest apology came on "Good Morning America," not primetime.
Yet even if the chairs Rather, Jennings and Brokaw long occupied yield less gold, as the news becomes tarnished and tabloid-ized around them, they increasingly represent TV's journalistic gold standard.
Nowhere is this truer than NBC, where Williams presides over a stately, globally aware broadcast that reflects the years he spent as Tom Brokaw's understudy. At the same time, primetime newsmag "Dateline" and ABC's counterparts have responded to a scary world by turning inward, becoming preoccupied with predators and salacious crime; "Nightline" has taken a stupid pill; and NBC's morning jewel has become even giddier and less substantial, hard as that is to imagine, with the baton pass to Meredith Vieira.
That Williams enjoys seniority six weeks short of his second anniversary speaks to the turmoil evening news has endured, following two decades of Mt. Rushmore-like stability. But it's not only the nightly news that has undergone a makeover.
The house Roone Arledge built at ABC News has shifted from a mix of high and low to a heavy emphasis on the latter, pushing "20/20" and "Primetime" in that direction and revamping "Nightline" in a manner that truly is, to quote one of its more annoying new features, a "sign of the times."
As for Couric, the trajectory of her personality-driven leap to CBS has proven strangely predictable: enormous initial curiosity followed by a dawning realization there's not much "there" there -- a point starkly underscored by her "How does one go about asking the secretary of state out on a date?" interview with Condoleezza Rice on "60 Minutes."
Small wonder so many who sampled Couric's "CBS Evening News" since abandoned it, leaving her with 7 million viewers during the Oct. 2-6 week -- 1.6 million behind front-running NBC, and back in the third-place hole Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer occupied.
CBS will undoubtedly tinker with the broadcast, but playing to Couric's strengths will only make it softer. Indeed, Rice's return to discuss the North Korean crisis last week underscored Couric's limitations when interviewing world leaders as opposed to lead singers and movie stars.
That places pressure to hold the journalistic line on Williams and ABC's Charles Gibson -- who peculiarly groused about the ads that air during his program to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Seriously, dude, ABC could run spots for "Mortal Kombat" and "Grand Theft Auto" and the "World News" audience would still skew old.
Given that Gibson is a stopgap anchor after ABC's extraordinary string of bad luck, the best hope is thus Williams, who spruced up the place with his own blog and other online accoutrements but ultimately remains a throwback. Stylistically, "Nightly News" mirrors a newspaper front page with the requisite feel-good garnishes, delivered in that unflappable "voice of God" that's received such a bad rap lately.
Mindful of this link, Williams' office contains various reminders of broadcasting's past, including a director's chair signed by Walter Cronkite. He also displays a desk placard courtesy of the Truman Library that reads "The buck stops here"-- indicating that he takes his managing editor title seriously.
Having weathered the promotional waves from Hurricane Katie, Williams appears well positioned to carry the broadcast news standard until some whippersnapper is ready to elbow him toward retirement. Given the flying circus around him, though, he really should avoid looking up or down -- much less left or right -- so by all means, stay under that hood.
http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=print_story&articleid=VR1117951879&categoryid=1682
But there is no free "Market" and that is the problem.
(And Disney is getting over $2.60 for just the basic ESPN, not to mention ESPN2, News, Classic, etc.)
Sure there is free market. If a cable system doesnt want to pay for it, then don't take it. It seems to be working for the HD signals of OTA stations. Many cablcos don't think it is worth the what the stations want for local HD but they feel that $2.60 is just fine for ESPN. Sounds like free market is alive and well and that is my point. If the market thinks $2.60 is worth it for ESPN, they will pay for it. If not, they won't.
Critic’s Notebook
State of the Season is so-so
By Verne Gay Newsday October 16, 2006 (Note: all times area ET/PT)
Admittedly there are more important things in the world - such as whether the Mets have Cleaned the Collective Clocks of the Cursed Cardinals by the time you read these words. But there must still be someone out there besides Ted Danson who cares whether "Help Me Help You" will survive (or meet a deserved demise), or whether reasonably decent shows like "Friday Night Lights" or "The Nine" will make it to November.
This column, then, is dedicated to them - and, oh yeah, Ted, too.
What follows is our annual state-of-the-new-fall-schedule analysis, looking at what's working, what's not, and based - as usual - on a careful tracking of the numbers, leavened by years of experience.
Which is to say, it's mostly pure guesswork. But our guesswork is just as good as the networks'. And the indisputable fact remains that four weeks into the new fall season, the late-summer, new-show hype has been sloughed off like the skin of a shedding snake. What's left now is the cold brutal truth: Most of this season's new shows will not survive.
Before we plunge in, a couple of notes. This analysis is based mostly on time-period performance - that is, how one time period performed versus a year go, and also takes into account young adult ratings (which is basically all the networks care about anyway.) By this measure, ABC gets an A- so far, while CBS and NBC each get a B-. Fox? Incomplete, due to baseball, but among new dramas, only "Justice" looks (likely) to survive.
And away we go ...
Sunday: As everyone pretty much expected, "Desperate Housewives" (about 21 million viewers) is down from this moment a year ago (27 mill) but "Brothers & Sisters" at 10 is still doing OK (just over 13 million) with a reasonable number of viewers 18 to 49. So, barring a disaster last night, this newcomer should survive nicely. NBC - natch - is thrilled with NFL football (and should be - around 15 mill), while CBS' new "Cold Case"/
"Without a Trace" workforce block has clicked too.
Monday: It stretches credulity to imagine CBS is happy with "The Class" at 8:30 (only 7.8 mill last week), but this show cost the network a bundle (NBC badly wanted it, too), so we give it more time.
NBC? Good news first. "Heroes" at 8 (13 mill last week) is a solid 18-49 hit, with a 5.7 rating versus "Las Vegas'" 4 rating last year. The network, meanwhile, talks a good game with "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," though not a particularly convincing one. In the absence of great numbers, it's been telling the press that at least rich people watch. (The rest of us working stiffs are apparently slumming it over at "CSI: Miami.") In raw numbers, "Studio 60" is settling around a disappointing 8 million, with a so-so 18-49 rating of around four. If that melts to a three, expect the hook.
Tuesday: NBC's "Friday Night Lights" (8 p.m., just over 7 mill on Oct. 4) is already staring into the abyss, though widespread critical favor could buy it a few more weeks. (8 p.m., by the way, has mostly been a black hole for NBC of late anyway.) Meanwhile, "Dancing With the Stars" (8 p.m.) has turned into a major hit for ABC (around 18 million hoofer-wanna-be's) even if that's mostly an older (read: less ad-friendly) audience. Most of those viewers bail by the time "Help Me Help You" rolls around at 9:30, which has hurt "Boston Legal" at 10. "Help Me," as a result, is a goner. Oh, and wondering about "Gilmore Girls," CW's signature show? It's tracking just under 5 million - a shocking decline from just under 6 million a year ago. The durable (former UPN) hit "Veronica Mars" is doing fine - recently around 3.6 mill, or better than its performance this time last year.
Wednesday: CBS' "Jericho" (around 10 million viewers) is the standout success of the night, mostly because it has so dramatically improved the onetime 8 p.m. CBS quagmire ("Yes, Dear," and "Still Standing" were former losers here.) The show, by the way, just got a full season pickup.
But we don't like "The Nine's" chances (ABC, 10, about 12 or so mill). Why? The audience literally evaporates when "Lost" (weakened versus early last year) wraps at 10.
Over at NBC, it's too early to call the 8 p.m. twofers, "30 Rock" (bowing to over 8 mill last week) and "Twenty Good Years" (well under 8). The former may get a new time period, though, if it slides much further.
Meanwhile, struggling CW finally sees some light on this night with "America's Next Top Model" (at 8; over 5 mill).
Thursday: The night! Or, should we say: The NIGHT! The most competitive Thursday in a lifetime, several lifetimes, a dozen lifetimes. The hyperboles just keep coming. And the night belongs to ABC, or mostly. First, "Grey's Anatomy" beat "CSI" by 1.2 million viewers last week (22.8 mill), and has won the past three out of the four weeks. Translation: We can now officially declare "G.A." the winner, and TV's top dog. "Ugly Betty" is doing fine (13.8 mill last week) but continues to slide a bit, week to week. At 10, "Six Degrees" (9.1 mill) looks terrifically troubled, considering that it continues to lose more than half of "Grey's" lead-in. "Shark" is settling in around a far more reasonable 14 mill.
Friday: Poor old Friday. Doesn't anyone watch TV on this night anymore? (And forget Saturday.) Maybe everyone's exhausted after Thursday. In any event, the only newcomer of note here is ABC's "Men in Trees" - with around 7 million viewers, and not an expected keeper for the long term.
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/ny-ettel4935144oct16,0,3256398,print.column?coll=ny-television-headlines
Critic’s Notebook
More high-powered drama
'Heroes' keeps getting better
By David Bianculli New York Daily News TV Critic
One of the biggest compliments a TV critic can pay to a weekly series - especially a show in its freshman season - is to add it to the already bloated list of must-watch programs. This year, the most surprising entrant on that elite list (earning a Season Pass on my TiVo DVR) is NBC's "Heroes."
What can I say? Based on the first three episodes (the last of which, with its killer autopsy-table cliffhanger, was televised last Monday), I gave "Heroes" a very supportive and enthusiastic three-star ranking. At the time, I thought I was going out on a limb, perhaps getting swept away by a show that hits all the right buttons of a former Marvel Comics-reading
kid who loves unpredictable and unusual television.
To my shock and delight, "Heroes" is one of the few serialized dramas embraced, rather than rejected, by the American public this season. Not only does "Heroes" improve substantially on its "Deal or No Deal" lead-in,
but after three weeks on the air, it has emerged as the top-rated new series in the all-important 18-49 age group. Last week, in that same category, it made the top 10 overall - not just against new series, but against all of them.
With "Smith" already pulled by CBS, and "Vanished" and "Kidnapped" banished to less competitive nights by Fox and NBC, respectively, the breakout success of "Heroes" is even more impressive. In one way, though, it makes sense. "Vanished" and "Kidnapped" sound like the same show (and were, essentially, though "Kidnapped" is far superior). And while NBC may have two shows about the making of a late-night sketch series, no one but NBC has a show this year about a bunch of ordinary people who find themselves suddenly endowed with extraordinary powers.
NBC has provided the next two shows for preview: tonight's "Chapter Four" (at 9), and next week's "Chapter Five." They're good enough to warrant a second review, with an extra half-star added. It's not too late to hop aboard this series, but if you wait any longer, you'll be missing out on a wild ride. (Each week, NBC makes the latest episode available free on its Web site, www.nbc.com).
The characters in "Heroes" still are coming to grips with the extent of their powers and how to use them. It's part of what makes them human, and a lot of what makes this show interesting. We know already, thanks to visions by two of the characters, that a nuclear blast is due to hit New York just after Election Day. But who's behind it? And how can our "Heroes" find each other in time, much less agree on the combined mission to prevent the disaster?
Sometimes they're tempted to use their new abilities for less than heroic ends, as when time-warping Hiro (Masi Oka) visits Las Vegas and manipulates the roulette wheel, or when cheerleader Claire (Hayden Panettiere), the girl with the astounding healing powers who found herself on the autopsy table last week, takes revenge on her attacker by taking him on the kind of drive usually reserved for crash-test dummies. Other times they're drawn, like animals in migration, to the same general direction.
"Heroes" contains too many enjoyable surprises to spoil any of them - but the paths of these people keep crossing, in much more entertaining a fashion than on, say, "Six Degrees." And yes, those cliffhanger endings are clear signatures now. Watch for them, wait for them, and enjoy them. Just like the rest of the show.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/ent_radio/story/461979p-388688c.html
Sure there is free market. If a cable system doesnt want to pay for it, then don't take it. It seems to be working for the HD signals of OTA stations. Many cablcos don't think it is worth the what the stations want for local HD but they feel that $2.60 is just fine for ESPN. Sounds like free market is alive and well and that is my point. If the market thinks $2.60 is worth it for ESPN, they will pay for it. If not, they won't.
There is no free market for the consumer -- just for the corporations which provide the programming. And until recently many consumers had no choice in providers -- take it or leave it.
The fundamental change in the delivery system is what will spell the death-knell for such wide bundling.
HDTVChallenged
10-16-06, 06:22 PM
The only way to remedy the situation is a la carte pricing.
You would get what you pay for, not what the providers insist you get..
Hey, it works great in the world of cellular telecom ... well as long as you're not one of those folks that seem to have a cell phone permanently attached to your ear. ;) :D
flint350
10-16-06, 06:26 PM
to pay for this loathsome propaganda channel I never watch. Just great....Not at all, Sangs. I'd feel just as ripped off if an increase in my cable bill was perpetuated by CNN as FOX, MSNBC or any other single network.
That may be true, but it wouldn't afford the same opportunity to append a political viewpoint where it has no place. It seems any mention whatever of Fox often results in unnecessarily skewing the thread's purpose to a personal political slant. That is what fredfa was talking about and sangs, and now me. This is a frequent occurrence and apparently difficult to keep bottled up, where it belongs. No one was talking politics prior to this and they shouldn't be now IMO. Let's get back on point please.
CPanther95
10-16-06, 06:50 PM
We all knew the day would come when they'd have to pay the piper. 10 years ago, FNC had to beg, borrow and steal just to get carriage. Now they are one of the highest rated cable networks out there - now it's payback time. ;)
The $10 FNC paid per sub to get carriage means that the first 40 months (assuming $0.25 per month) of FNC were provided at no charge. $0.75 is ridiculous, but what's more ridiculous is the fact that it is a bargain compared to the fee charged by CNN for the past 10 years.
Let's just cool the political rhetoric. The fact is that no one's political beliefs are going to be changed by posts in a TV thread.
On top of that, this really isn't the place, the real moderators have always allowed me tremendous leeway, and from day one almost everyone has refrained from the obvious political shots. So let's keep to that tradition.
There are many posts I simply don't make because they contain obvious hostility to CNN or Fox News or MSNBC or other programmers. Today's post was simply about an interesting business deal which has been on the horizon for months. And you have read posts about it here for months without going for the political shot.
Comment all you like on programming (or my taste in shows) but please let's do our best to keep the political posturing -- of whatever side -- out of the thread.
TV Notbook
“BROTHERS & SISTERS” PICKED UP FOR A FULL SEASON
(ABC News Release)October 16, 2006
ABC’s new hit series “Brothers & Sisters” was picked up for a full season order, Stephen McPherson, president of ABC Entertainment, announced today. The critically acclaimed drama marking Calista Flockhart’s triumphant return to primetime television focuses on the Walker family, five complicated adult siblings who embrace one another unconditionally while striving to reflect the perceived perfection of their role model parents. The series is executive-produced by Ken Olin, playwright Jon Robin Baitz and Greg Berlanti.
“‘Brothers & Sisters’ is a great addition to our Sunday night lineup and has given us a strong complement to ‘Desperate Housewives,’” said McPherson.
This past Sunday “Brothers & Sisters” won the 10 o’clock hour among Adults 18-49 (4.9/12) and across key women (W18-34 - 5.3/14, W18-49 - 7.2/17 & W25-54 - 8.2/18), defeating both CBS and NBC in the hour (fast affiliate ratings for 10/15). The ABC freshman is the top new program on any night in the 10 o’clock hour among Adults 18-49 and is the second-highest-rated new series of the season among Adults 18-49. “Brothers & Sisters” leads its CBS drama competition in the time period across key adults demos by 47% in Adults 18-34 (4.4/12 vs. 3.0/8) and 22% with Adults 18-49 (5.5/14 vs. 4.5/11).
(My bad – I neglected to post this hours ago. Sorry.)
Sunday Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Family woes for 'Brothers and Sisters' '
New ABC soap continues to weaken in ratings
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Oct 16, 2006
Bummer.
TV Notbook
“BROTHERS & SISTERS” PICKED UP FOR A FULL SEASON
(ABC News Release)October 16, 2006
Yea!!
I'm not really sure why, but I really like this one, probably the great female cast, I think Sally Fields could potentially be a Emmy contender with her role.
The games networks play….
TV Notebook
ABC Irked by NBC's NFL Scheduling Plan
By John Consoli MediaWeek Oct. 16, 2006
NBC is airing only local commercials in the first half-hour of its hour-long Sunday Football Night in America National Football League pregame show, which means Nielsen Media Research is not including one of the network’s lowest half-hours of the week in its national ratings. Rivals contend that leaving out that low-rated half-hour artificially lifts NBC’s national ratings profile.
Over the past three weeks, the show has averaged a 2.1 rating in adults 18-49 from 7-7:30 p.m., according to Nielsen fast-affiliate data which does measure that half-hour. The second half-hour, which contains national commercials, is averaging a 3.0.
Nielsen’s policy allows NBC to legitimately pursue its strategy—permitting live sports shoulder programming leading up to live sports telecasts to be commercially divided this way. But rival ABC is upset because on one of those past three Sundays, eliminating the 7-7:30 p.m. time period enabled NBC to beat ABC in the 18-49 demo for the night. Sunday is one of strongest nights on ABC’s schedule.
On Sunday evening Oct. 1, according to Nielsen’s fast-affiliate ratings, ABC recorded a 5.6 18-49 rating for the night and NBC recorded a 4.9 rating. But when Nielsen’s national ratings were released, excluding the 7-7:30 time period for NBC, it gave the network a ratings win, boosting its 18-49 demo to a 5.9. In that half-hour, NBC recorded only a 2.3 in the 18-49 demo.
“It just doesn’t seem like full disclosure,” argued Jeff Bader, executive vp of ABC Entertainment, who added that NBC gains what he considers an unfair advantage. Under Nielsen rules, networks cannot drop ratings for scripted shows. “If we could exclude the first half-hour of our 7 p.m. Sunday show, America’s Funniest Home Videos, the hour ratings would be a 4.0 versus a 2.8,” Bader added.
NBC representative Liz Fischer said the network gave all the commercial time in the first half-hour of its NFL pregame show to its affiliates to sell locally as part of its deal with affiliates, which contributed to help pay for the network’s $600 million per year TV rights deal for Sunday Night Football. While NBC would not release specifics, one NBC station executive said the network gave the affiliates three commercial spots in the half-hour and also moved the two spots the affiliates would normally get in the hour, up into the first half-hour.
But ABC insiders said they are skeptical of that explanation, wondering why then the network wouldn’t give the affiliates units they could sell at higher rates in better rated shows spread across the schedule. “This artificially juices their national averages and it is just not playing fair,” said one ABC official. “And it can have implications on the entire season’s 18-49 ratings race.”
One NBC station executive, speaking on condition of anonymity, even conceded, “While we’re happy with the arrangement, I wouldn’t say that the network’s whole strategy was just to be nice to its affiliates.”
Nielsen representative Laura James said NBC “is within its rights to do this” under Nielsen regulations. “What they have done is legitimate.”
What gives NBC an advantage is that on many Sundays during the NFL season, the
4 p.m. NFL games on Fox and CBS overrun into the 7-7:30 p.m. time period, which means a ratings windfall for them, and lower ratings for other networks.
For example, on Oct. 8, the Fox NFL telecast overrun from 7-7:30 p.m. recorded an 8.6 18-49 rating, while the other four networks each averaged a 2.0 or lower in the demo. NBC, in that time period, averaged a 1.8—and, playing by Nielsen’s rulebook, simply wiped that number off its national ledger.
With the 18-49 ratings race for the season again expected to be decided by as little as a tenth of a rating point, NBC’s elimination of 14 low-rated prime-time half-hours could indeed have an impact on the outcome.
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/networktv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003254739
Bummer.
Yea!!
I'm not really sure why, but I really like this one, probably the great female cast, I think Sally Fields could potentially be a Emmy contender with her role.
Interesting how both Berman and Fitzgerald got it so wrong.
But if I were ABC, I'd switch "Men In Trees" to Sunday following "DH" and move "Brothers & Sisters" to Thursday at 10 PM after "Grey's Anatomy". I think the flow for each would be better.
Oh yeah, and move either "The Nine" or "Six Degrees" to 9 PM Fridays, where their ratings wouldn't be such a problem.
There is no free market for the consumer -- just for the corporations which provide the programming. And until recently many consumers had no choice in providers -- take it or leave it.
Well.... I don't know if that is true or not. As has been shown in the HD programming, if D* doesn't have INHD and your local cableco does, and you want INHD, you as the consumer DO have a choice. Change providers (just ask all of the people here who change providers at the drop of a hat for reasons beyond programming choice). Looks like that is free market for the consumer. Not any different if you have a favorate beer and store A doesn't carry it but store B does, you go to store B. Sounds like free market to me.
Davinleeds
10-16-06, 07:53 PM
Sorry, except your choice of ABC,CBS, Etc.
Interesting how both Berman and Fitzgerald got it so wrong.
But if I were ABC, I'd switch "Men In Trees" to Sunday following "DH" and move "Brothers & Sisters" to Thursday at 10 PM after "Grey's Anatomy". I think the flow for each would be better.
I agree, it would have better flow.
archiguy
10-16-06, 07:56 PM
That may be true, but it wouldn't afford you quite the same opportunity to append your ever-anticipated and always foaming-at-the-mouth over-stated political viewpoint where it has no place.
Feel better now flint? Glad I could help. :rolleyes: If you have any further advice for me, I recommend PM. A bit more civilized than personal attacks in an open forum.
TV Sports
ESPN Monday Night Football Rushes to Record Ratings
By Anthon Crupi MediaWeek Oct. 16, 2006
With a quarter of the 2006-’07 National Football League schedule on the books, ESPN appears to have made good on its $8.8 billion gambit to bring the hallowed Monday Night Football franchise to cable.
Over the course of six games—ESPN kicked off its stewardship of MNF on Sept. 11 with a regional doubleheader slate split between the AFC and the NFC—the network is averaging 12.9 million total viewers and 7.1 million adults 18-49, making it the No. 1 network on Monday nights in the demo and putting the lie to the notion that the prime-time pigskin audience would plummet outside of broadcast’s protective halo.
Indeed, early forecasts of a loss of a quarter or more of MNF’s viewership have proved to be as ill-conceived as the retro porn ’stache Denver Broncos’ quarterback Jake Plummer tends to sport in the latter part of the season. Compared to the 15.1 million total viewers ABC averaged with its final season of MNF over the comparable time period, the show is down just 15 percent, a trifle when ESPN’s reach is factored in. (The net reaches 92.2 million households, or just about 84 percent of all U.S. TV homes.)
As expected, ESPN’s early success has made MNF a must-have for its ad clients, and inventory is “all but sold out,” said Ed Erhardt, president of ESPN/ABC Sports customer marketing and sales. Moreover, the network is outpacing its sell-out rate of a year ago. “We were in the low-90 percent range at this point last year with our Sunday Night Football inventory,” Erhardt said.
Ed Gentner, senior vp and group director, MediaVest USA, said what’s different this year is that MNF doesn’t call for ESPN to have to do business with a divergent client roster. “When ABC sold Monday Night Football, they had a different advertiser profile for those games than they did for rest of their schedule,” Gentner said. “With ESPN, it’s almost like they’re working with a pure client base. The viewers who come to Monday Night Football are the same people who are watching their other programming.”
Another new factor is the amount of MNF inventory ESPN has up for sale. Because ESPN enjoys a second revenue stream from its carriage fees, the NFL puts a ceiling on its national avails, limiting it to 43 in-game spots versus the 60 to 65 opportunities broadcast enjoys. The remainder goes to the operators, which sell their parcel as local avails.
As Erhardt noted, ESPN conformed to the same strategy last year, selling 43 avails on Sunday nights, while ABC Sports sold the requisite 60-65 in-game spots on Monday nights. “I’m selling both nights, so in the bigger picture, our inventory hasn’t changed,” Erhardt said. That notwithstanding, ESPN has also been able to add virtual inventory around the MNF games themselves as part of its “surround” strategy, which begins teasing the game of the week beginning at 3 p.m. Monday afternoons with a special two-hour edition of SportsCenter, which in turn leads into another three-and-a-half hours of pre-game content.
“The effect Monday Night Football has had on their ancillary football programming is impressive,” Gentner said. “All of that is up as well, and that’s huge for them.”
The network is also spreading the wealth to its non-linear properties, inking deals that incorporate ESPN.com, ESPN Radio, ESPN: The Magazine and podcasts. Just days before the regular season began, ESPN said it had cut a multiplatform deal with Wal-Mart, marking the retailer’s largest sports buy to-date.
“Wal-Mart had never really bought the NFL before, so their committing to Monday nights is big for us,” Erhardt said. Designed to highlight Wal-Mart’s selection of high-definition TV models, the deal attaches the retailer’s HDTV messaging to the SportsCenter “Pump Up the Volume” football highlights segment and NFL Countdown’s “Soundtracks” feature. Wal-Mart will also pitch its HDTV sets on ESPN’s digital platforms.
Presenting sponsors include Toyota/Lexus, which underwrites the MNF halftime show and General Motors, which has undertaken its largest promotion to date with “Keys to Victory,” a campaign supporting the launch of its 2007 Sierra pickup. The GMC brand and the Sierra are featured prominently throughout MNF’s opening montage and both appear in a co-branded spot produced by ESPN to promote the Monday night game.
Besides auto and the always reliable endemic, beer, Erhardt said that financial services have been particularly active on MNF, as have wireless and consumer electronics.
According to a consensus of media buyers, ESPN commands somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000 for each of its 30-second spots on Monday nights. By comparison, as the only other network that boasts an exclusive prime-time game, NBC is said to be averaging anywhere from $350,000 to $400,000 per spot during its Sunday night pre-game show Football Night in America and the game itself.
Being the only game in town isn’t the only factor heating up ESPN’s fall. Larry Novenstern, executive vp, director of national electronic media, Optimedia U.S., said MNF has been given a lift by major-market games. “So far, the only small-market game was the Steelers-Jaguars game [Sept. 18],” Novenstern said.
“Historically, in the first year of a new contract, the NFL usually tries to give their partners a good schedule going in.”
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003254737
shuttermaker
10-16-06, 08:13 PM
TV Notbook
“BROTHERS & SISTERS” PICKED UP FOR A FULL SEASON
(ABC News Release)October 16, 2006
My wife appreciates this update. You just made her night. I on the other hand, just found an extra hour to sit on the computer...lol
Glad I could cheer one of you up! :)
As for me, I guess I now should start going back and taking a look at the TiVo'd episodes. I frankly thought it wasn't going to make it.
GeorgeLV
10-16-06, 08:28 PM
Well.... I don't know if that is true or not. As has been shown in the HD programming, if D* doesn't have INHD and your local cableco does, and you want INHD, you as the consumer DO have a choice. Change providers (just ask all of the people here who change providers at the drop of a hat for reasons beyond programming choice). Looks like that is free market for the consumer. Not any different if you have a favorate beer and store A doesn't carry it but store B does, you go to store B. Sounds like free market to me.
No, it doesn't sound anything at all like a free market. You can't just buy a "beer" from store A or store B, they'll only sell you the variety pack, even though you just want a Heineken. Oh, and store B doesn't have cooler capacity* problem so they don't have bottles, just unsatisfyings cans. Sure sounds like a free market to me...
*that's a thinly veiled analogy to bandwidth and HD-lite
I thought it was a very apt analogy, GeorgeLV -- but I am not sure I agree it was "thinly-veiled"! :)
Davinleeds
10-16-06, 08:43 PM
My wife appreciates this update. You just made her night. I on the other hand, just found an extra hour to sit on the computer...lol
Ditto, she likes it, more quiet time for me.
CPanther95
10-16-06, 08:47 PM
The games networks play….
TV Notebook
ABC Irked by NBC's NFL Scheduling Plan
By John Consoli MediaWeek Oct. 16, 2006
The whole Nielsen system is smoke and mirrors and all the networks manipulate the system (sweeps stunts, 1:01 run times, etc.). Can anyone really fault NBC for playing the game?
It's like ABC pulled an "ace" out of their sleve, but is pissed that someone changed it to a "2".
Davinleeds
10-16-06, 09:00 PM
I can see NBC and CBS do take the weekend games, and the forum is affected when the pigskin is in the air. The rotation of time will return to ABC. etc.
I can see NBC and CBS do take the weekend games, and the forum is affected when the pigskin is in the air. The rotation of time will return to ABC. etc.
You have noticed, too, Dave?
Sundays from 1-7:30 PM ET, I could post every five minutes here and it wouldn't boost page views a bit.
Of course I often post a lot Sunday anyway, but that is my problem. :)
The whole Nielsen system is smoke and mirrors and all the networks manipulate the system (sweeps stunts, 1:01 run times, etc.). Can anyone really fault NBC for playing the game?
It's like ABC pulled an "ace" out of their sleve, but is pissed that someone changed it to a "2".
Agreed. They all play the game as best they can. It seems to me NBC made a good move -- the 7-7:30 half hour is usually dominated by NFL runovers on CBS or Fox anyhow. And both those networks are happy to have the extra ratings.
No, it doesn't sound anything at all like a free market. You can't just buy a "beer" from store A or store B, they'll only sell you the variety pack, even though you just want a Heineken. Oh, and store B doesn't have cooler capacity* problem so they don't have bottles, just unsatisfyings cans. Sure sounds like a free market to me...
*that's a thinly veiled analogy to bandwidth and HD-lite
I stand by my statement.
I think it's time to get off the a la carte discussion, too.
We all know where we stand, and we aren't changing anyone's opinions.
I will continue to post interesting items -- pro and con -- about the issue as warranted, even though it is clear where I stand.
^Boy, that's just great. The first domino has fallen in the FOX News assault on cable carriers. When the rest of the carriers knuckle under to this, as they undoubtedly will, I can expect my cable bill to increase by $.50 a month just to pay for this loathsome propaganda channel I never watch. Just great. :rolleyes:
Another person who probably doesn't bother to actually watch. The channel is more than just O-Reilly. The Sunday Morning news show, Beltway Boys, etc.
IF CNN (speaking of propaganda) has to lower its rates, because the channel stinks, then maybe it'll balance.
Anyway, why can't the otherside have "A" news channel? It's always OK....for ONE side, never the other.
And Eric Burns' weekly look at the media...but let's get off the Fox News bashing and Fox News praising.
Please.
TV Notebook
Reality Intrudes on ABC’s Big Reality Hit
By Edward Wyatt The New York Times October 17, 2006
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 16 — “Dancing With the Stars,” the ABC hit that is the highest-rated reality show on television this fall, will go on without one of the six final couples this week. Sara Evans, a country music star, has dropped out after filing for divorce from her husband of 13 years.
Ms. Evans, named female vocalist of the year by the Academy of Country Music earlier this year, filed for divorce in state court in Tennessee on Thursday from her husband, Craig L. Schelske, a Republican fund-raiser.
Ms. Evans, 35, informed the show’s producers and ABC executives last week that she would drop out of the competition, Hope Hartman, an ABC spokeswoman, said Monday. Ms. Hartman said the network would not otherwise comment on the withdrawal’s effect on the show until after this week’s installments, which will be broadcast Tuesday and Wednesday.
The Tennessean newspaper quoted Ms. Evans’s lawyer, John Hollins Jr., on Saturday as saying that the singer would tape an interview with ABC about her withdrawal, to be broadcast during Tuesday’s show. Mr. Hollins did not respond to a telephone message yesterday.
In unusually explicit court papers, Ms. Evans accused her husband of adultery with the couple’s former nanny, excessive drinking, soliciting sex via an Internet site and maintaining a library of pornography that included pictures of him having sex with other women.
Mr. Schelske, 43, could not be reached for comment. In a statement issued through a spokesman, he said: “I adamantly deny the allegations that are being made. As distressing as it is to have to communicate about this matter publicly, Sara has unfortunately become a dramatically different person over the last year, and it is something we have struggled to deal with. Sadly, it appears we have failed.”
According to court filings from Williamson County, Tenn., a state judge on Thursday approved a temporary restraining order and custody order based on the allegations in Ms. Evans’s divorce request.
The couple and their three children, who live near Nashville, had been residing in Beverly Hills, Calif., while Ms. Evans was participating in “Dancing With the Stars,” a ballroom-dance competition that is broadcast live Tuesday nights at 8 Eastern time on ABC. A results show, which combines viewer voting with the recommendations of a panel of professional dance judges, is shown live on Wednesdays, following the two-night format popularized by “American Idol,” last year’s top-rated television show.
According to Nielsen Media Research, “Dancing With the Stars” was the fourth-highest-rated show and the top-rated reality show in the first three weeks of the fall television season, drawing an average of 18.2 million viewers each week and trailing only “Grey’s Anatomy,” “CSI” and “Desperate Housewives.” The results show ranked seventh over all, with 16.1 million viewers.
In the 2005-6 television season, “Dancing With the Stars” ranked seventh over all, drawing an average of 18.5 million viewers each week. “American Idol” drew an average of 31 million viewers each week.
Although she was only one of the 11 celebrity contestants who began the season, each paired with a professional ballroom dancer for training and competition, Ms. Evans attracted more than the usual amount of attention. Tom DeLay, the former United States Congressman and Republican leader from Texas, recently sent out a mass e-mail message asking supporters to watch the show and vote for Ms. Evans, whom he called “a good friend of mine, country music singer and G.O.P. supporter.”
Saying that Ms. Evans “represents good American values in the media” and noting that one of her opponents in the competition was “ultra-liberal talk show host Jerry Springer,” Mr. DeLay added: “We need to send a message to Hollywood and the media that smut has no place on television by supporting good people like Sara Evans.”
Ms. Evans’s divorce filing says Mr. Schelske is unemployed, but he is listed online as the chairman of CraigPAC, a political action committee dedicated to electing Republicans in state and national races, whose name stands for Conservative Reform Agenda in Government. The committee’s Web site also says that Mr. Schelske is president of Gingerdog Inc., which promotes Ms. Evans’s singing career.
Mr. Schelske, who ran unsuccessfully in 2002 for the Republican nomination for the Fifth Congressional District in Oregon, is also listed online as the executive director of American Destiny, a nonprofit organization that promotes the role of religion in the founding of the United States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/arts/television/17star.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=television&pagewanted=print
i still get a kick out of the fact that a Spanish soap (Ugly Betty) is a hit show on network television. i have to admit the title sounds horrible in english.
i remember watching the soap and it was very entertaining. one nice thing about spanish soaps is that they air at night and the entire family gathers around to watch it. haven't watched one in a while, but when my kids are older i plan to restart the tradition from my youth.
well, i'm still in italy. keeping my fingers crossed my tivo is recording everything i set up before i left.
i thought i would miss watching tv, but strangely enough i haven't missed it a bit.
Good to hear from you, slocko!
I hope things are going well -- have you tried watching any of your favorites online?
strange thing is that once you break that cord that tethers you to the TV, watching TV just doesn't seem that important anymore. maybe it's the fact i know that everything that i want to watch is probably being recorded, if not i can download it from ********** and watch it on my big screen tv when i get back sometime next year.
also, i guess you get spoiled by watching tv on a 67 inch screen with a decent 5.1 system and rather wait until i can watch them in that medium.
grittree
10-17-06, 10:45 AM
Too bad ABC didn't insert Stacy Keibler for Evans. I'd vote for her even if she just stood there. :>
strange thing is that once you break that cord that tethers you to the TV, watching TV just doesn't seem that important anymore. maybe it's the fact i know that everything that i want to watch is probably being recorded, if not i can download it from ********** and watch it on my big screen tv when i get back sometime next year.
also, i guess you get spoiled by watching tv on a 67 inch screen with a decent 5.1 system and rather wait until i can watch them in that medium.
Whatever.
I miss your posts, and hope you are doing well.
TV Sports
CBS and Fox Play Favorites as N.F.L. Flexes Its Schedule
By Richard Sandomir The New York Times October 17, 2006
Only 14 shopping days until the flexible schedule season starts.
That is when the National Football League will decide whether to replace the game now penciled into NBC’s Sunday night slate Nov. 12 with a potentially better one from CBS or Fox schedules that afternoon.
The process that begins with the selection of the Nov. 12 game in Week 10 will be repeated in Weeks 11 to 15, and once more in Week 17.
A decision to stick with the game tentatively situated on NBC’s schedule, or to jettison it, will be made no later than 12 days in advance.
The excitement of the inaugural Season of the Flex will not be seen on television. NBC is not planning a selection show. Neither is the NFL Network.
There isn’t even a sponsor for it. Yet. The league will simply issue a news release. Howard Katz, the league’s senior vice president for media operations, said, “We want to get the information out to our teams and our fans out as quickly as we can.”
The 12-day window is designed to let the league analyze the impact of the previous Monday night’s game, but NBC’s game could be selected and announced 13 or more days in advance.
The first phase of the Flex season has been completed, and it largely escaped the notice of those more interested in Terrell Owens.
After Week 4, CBS and Fox had to submit to the league four games they wanted to protect in Weeks 10 through 15, leaving two unprotected. That’s a lot of mandatory forecasting with a quarter of the season elapsed.
“It’s really difficult,” said Tony Petitti, the executive vice president of CBS Sports. “We looked at whether there was a dominating game we had to protect; at NBC’s games to see how likely they would hold up; and at our schedule, even when NBC’s game looks pretty good, to see what would happen if we lost X game.”
Before the season, Ed Goren, the president of Fox Sports, said, “Why should our crystal ball be better than NBC’s in trying to figure out which games are protected?”
Katz said that requiring the protected lists so early might have been overly conservative, but the league was guided by the possibility that another team would emerge from the cellar, as Cincinnati did last season.
“The concern was that if you let CBS and Fox protect too late in the season, a surprise team couldn’t play its way onto the prime-time schedule,” Katz said, “because they would always be protected.”
CBS and Fox will be called upon to protect a fifth game, but not until 6 to 12 days before the Pittsburgh-Cincinnati game in Week 17, which, for now, looks as if it is not going to be replaced.
The N.F.L. has never released NBC’s tentative schedule. They are all spaceholders in a way, although heading into Week 7, NBC seems to have four games it would want to keep: Chicago-Giants on Nov. 12, Philadelphia-Indianapolis on Nov. 26, Seattle-Denver on Dec. 3 and Pittsburgh-Cincinnati on Dec. 31. But injuries and other vagaries could render some of these games unattractive.
In Week 11, NBC is saddled with a weak-looking game: Washington (2-4) against Tampa Bay (1-4). In weeks like this, CBS and Fox will be tested for how intelligently they protect their best games. Has CBS used one of its protected picks to keep Indianapolis-Dallas out of NBC’s clutches? Has Fox kept Atlanta-Baltimore for that Sunday? Would the league then slide Cincinnati-New Orleans, Chicago-Jets or San Diego-Denver to NBC?
In Week 14, NBC has New England-Miami, but Miami’s 1-5 start is not a good omen. If CBS retains Indianapolis-Jacksonville, would Fox leave New Orleans-Dallas or Giants-Carolina unguarded?
In Week 15, common sense dictates that CBS has protected its Pittsburgh-Carolina game and that Fox would have designated the Giants-Philadelphia game as off limits. What would be left to slide over to NBC if the Kansas City-San Diego game is not solid enough to retain? Maybe Tampa Bay-Chicago, if the Bears remain hot and the Buccaneers improve.
Katz said that NBC would not get everything it wanted.
“We have to look at what losing a game will do to the competitive balance between CBS and Fox,” he said. “NBC can’t say, ‘I want this game because it’s unprotected.’ ” (Those are debates I’d want to see on “Flexible Selection Day in America.”)
A firm restriction is the limit on the number of times a team can appear in prime-time games. Currently, the basic limit is five total, on NBC, ESPN and the NFL Network, but three teams are exempt to appear six times. So NBC cannot load up on hot or popular teams like Pittsburgh, Dallas, Chicago or New England, which already have three to five prime-time commitments.
How much the Flex will matter to NBC’s viewership is unknown. For now, it’s good for chatter, a bit of an amusing Rubik’s Cube of scheduling.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/sports/17sandomir.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1161097168-U439q/eQEk5HWjs8upKKnw&pagewanted=print
TV Notebook
Pick-up game: ABC won't disown "Brothers & Sisters"
By Melanie McFarland Seattle Post-Intelligencer TV Critic in her TV blog
Television makes its stars, not the other way around.
Don't believe me? Ask Ray Liotta and Virginia Madsen, recently pink-slipped from CBS when "Smith" got canned.
That said, there are some cases in which a series gets granted a reprieve strictly on the basis of the faith a network has in its cast, if not the show's ratings. Put "Brothers & Sisters" in that column. The series stars Calista Flockhart, Rachel Griffiths and Sally Field, and in spite of decent acting, gets only so-so ratings. Undaunted, ABC gave it a full season pick-up.
Now, a little behind-the-scenes confessing: Many TV sponges get a good deal of help from a fine daily newsletter called The Programming Insider, written by industry soothsayer and Mediaweek columnist Marc Berman. Every day he gets the overnight ratings from Nielsen and crunches the numbers, breaking down the math on total viewers, households and pertinent demos, i.e., the all-important 18-49 and 25-54 categories.
(Note to self: Add Mr. Berman to holiday list of beef-log recipients.)
Anyhoo, because of his excellent work, I can tell you that ABC is doing "Brothers & Sisters" a favor here, because it ain't looking so hot. Sunday's episode averaged an 8.4 in the ratings, coming in second to "Without a Trace." To put this in perspective, its lead-in, "Desperate Housewives," earned a 13.7. The show kept only about 61 percent of that audience, and lost about 12 percent more halfway through the hour.
On the upside, according to ABC, it is the network's second-highest-rated new show. There are worse candidates to stick with, I suppose -- although Anne Heche's "Men in Trees" might defy the odds and squeak by for a season, too. It actually grows its audience out of its lead-in, a rerun of "Grey's Anatomy." Then again, that repeat attracted fewer than 6 million viewers last Friday. If a new show can't beat that, it doesn't deserve to live.
Congratulations, "Brothers & Sisters." Now you have enough time to liven things up a little.
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/print.asp?entryID=107741
TV Notebook
CBS Schedule Reality Show Finales
By Ben Grossman Broadcasting & Cable 10/17/2006
CBS has scheduled the finales for reality series Amazing Race and Survivor for Sunday, December 10 and Sunday, December 17, respectively.
Race signs off on December 10th with a one-hour finale from 8-9, its regular time slot this season.
Survivor gets a full three hours a week later with the finale from 8-10 and a live reunion show from Los Angeles at 10.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6381920
Critic’s Notebook
“Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip”
By Rich Heldenfels in his Akron Beacon Journal TV blog
…As for ''Studio 60,'' I still think Matthew Perry is terrific. Am already tired of Maureen Dowd, or whatever it is they're calling the Christine Lahti character. Sarah Paulson's Nancy Grace isn't as good as her Holly Hunter, but I almost laughed at the premise of that sketch, which may be the only time I have even thought about laughing at one of the sketches within ''Studio 60.'' Didn't for a second believe the whole reality show/HBO show storyline.
Mildly amused by the shout-out to my colleague David Bianculli (you may have noticed ''Bianculli'' in the crawl in the Grace bit) and by the ''bad cack in the schoolyard'' line, which is the comment that caused Aaron Sorkin so much embarrassment on the TV critics' press tour this summer, but those are both way inside baseball.
Summing up, it wasn't good but it wasn't quite as annoying as last week's episode. Then again, I wasn't stufffing envelopes during last week. All things considered, I could have spent my time better by just watching last week's ''The Office'' again, twice….
http://blogs.ohio.com/beacon_tv/
TV Sports
CBS and Fox Play Favorites as N.F.L. Flexes Its Schedule
By Richard Sandomir The New York Times October 17, 2006
The N.F.L. has never released NBC’s tentative schedule. They are all spaceholders in a way, although heading into Week 7, NBC seems to have four games it would want to keep: Chicago-Giants on Nov. 12, Philadelphia-Indianapolis on Nov. 26, Seattle-Denver on Dec. 3 and Pittsburgh-Cincinnati on Dec. 31. But injuries and other vagaries could render some of these games unattractive.
This is my problem with this whole flex schedule thing. I don't like that it is so secretive. It would have been nice to know back when the schedule came out that the Giants vs Bears on Nov 12 was penciled in for NBC. I share Giants season tickets and I hate going the Sunday and Monday night games because you get home between 1 and 2 am and have to work the next day. I would have never picked that as one of my games had I known. What, they don't want to hurt the fans feelings when they drop their teams game for a better one. Don't worry, we know when our teams stink and don't deserve prime time showing. I'd be much happier if my game is moved from 8:30 to 1:00, then the other way around. Tell us what games are protected now too so we don't have to worry about them moving.
Sadly, RemyM, the fans who actually buy tickets are far, far down the list of priorities in most major sports.
shuttermaker
10-17-06, 11:47 AM
This is my problem with this whole flex schedule thing. I don't like that it is so secretive. It would have been nice to know back when the schedule came out that the Giants vs Bears on Nov 12 was penciled in for NBC. I share Giants season tickets and I hate going the Sunday and Monday night games because you get home between 1 and 2 am and have to work the next day. I would have never picked that as one of my games had I known. What, they don't want to hurt the fans feelings when they drop their teams game for a better one. Don't worry, we know when our teams stink and don't deserve prime time showing. I'd be much happier if my game is moved from 8:30 to 1:00, then the other way around. Tell us what games are protected now too so we don't have to worry about them moving.
At some point I may feel your pain. I drive about 250 miles from S.C to Jax for all of the Jags home games. Not sure if this flex will be affecting me yet but, the night games DO take their toll on weekday mornings.
All other polls are interesting in their way, but a poll of advertising people probably is far more relevant about what will be happening to the new TV shows than any other. Here is a look at how some people on Madison Avenue them are feeling:
The New Season
Readers: TV-wise, an excess of riches
This season it's a case of too many good shows
By Diego Vasquez medialifemagazine staff writer Oct 17, 2006
Ever since TV began, the fall beef was always the same: too little quality television and way too much dreck. So critics complained, and so did viewers and pretty much everyone else.
This year, in what is surely a historic departure, there in fact may be too many good shows on television, new and returning, and simply not enough hours in the day to watch them. And in this competition for eyeballs, it means new shows that in other years stood a good chance of becoming hits are struggling to win even decent ratings.
That's the thinking of media planners and buyers in a Media Life poll last week. How else can one explain the number of shows with good reviews from critics, as well as media buyers, that just aren't bringing in audiences, such as "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," the high-concept NBC drama whose ratings may be stabilizing but are well below what media buyers had expected?
"There are too many good options. People are selecting their absolute favorites and sticking with them," wrote one respondent, while another opined. "People don't have the time to watch all. They have to be very selective. Also, cable is stronger than ever."
Wrote another: "I think too many shows required too much of viewers in terms of paying attention during the shows and not missing any episodes. There are only so many can't-miss shows viewers are willing to invest in. Sitcoms used to fill the void of shows which required no viewer loyalty to comprehend. The problem here is once one's missed the premiere, it seems pointless to try watching episode 2."
And yet another: "It's simply not possible to watch all of the good network TV these days. Ten years ago, I'd have been thrilled to have ‘Kidnapped’ or even ‘Men In Trees,’ but not now when there are quality drama/dramedies almost every night of the week."
But that said, media planners and buyers have little trouble deciding this early what are the new hits and the big disappoint