Hot Off The Press! The Latest Television News and Info

[fredfa]

The Business of TV
DirecTV Rumor Mill Spins Its Way to CES
By Linda Moss MultiChannel News 1/1/2007

Next week at the nation’s biggest consumer-electronics confab, the chiefs of DirecTV Group and EchoStar Communications, Chase Carey and Charlie Ergen, are scheduled to appear on a “Pipelines Power” panel.

Carey and Ergen — along with several cable operators and broadcasters — are slated to discuss “the state of content delivery” and “what partnerships are in the works,” according to the agenda of the 2007 International Consumer Electronics Show.

The Jan. 8 panel in Las Vegas couldn’t be more timely. It comes in the wake of Liberty Media’s $11 billion deal late last month to swap its 16.3% stake in News Corp. for Rupert Murdoch’s 38.5% stake in DirecTV.

There’s been much speculation about “partnerships” since the pact was announced Dec. 22: Namely, whether Liberty chairman John Malone will seek to merge the nation’s largest satellite provider with Ergen’s Dish Network, the second-largest direct-broadcast satellite player. Such a union would create a satellite superpower with 28.6 million subscribers, a base that would exceed cable leader Comcast’s 24.1 million customers.

It remains to be seen whether Ergen and Carey address that topic, duck it or even cancel their scheduled appearances rather than be in the hot seat. They were still confirmed to appear as of deadline last Friday.

Wall Street and industry analysts all have their own theories about the mercurial Malone’s motives — and end goal — for DirecTV.

REGULATORY MUSTER

While a few analysts believe it’s a no-brainer that Malone will seek to merge DirecTV with EchoStar, the majority on Wall Street scoff at that notion. They argue that there is no way such a proposal would ever pass muster with the U.S. Department of Justice.

Others are predicting that Malone will flip DirecTV to a telco, with AT&T considered the most likely buyer in that scenario.

Some media analysts believe Malone, who sold cable giant Tele-Communications Inc. to AT&T in 1999, was motivated to once again be a distributor. Now he’ll regain a platform that he can use to launch new networks or to expand carriage of Liberty’s existing programming services.

And then there are the experts who claim that Malone’s interest in DirecTV is not as an operating entity, but is strictly a passive financial play.

Malone couldn’t be reached for comment last week, and EchoStar declined to comment.

But in a press release, Malone said that the DirecTV investment “will create financial, operating and strategic flexibility” for Liberty. The company also said Carey will continue to serve as the satellite provider’s president and CEO.

'ERGENOMICS’

Some analysts are banking that Malone will try to join forces with fellow Denver entrepreneur Ergen. As a merged entity, some experts believe, DirecTV and Dish Network could better compete — and perhaps devise a viable broadband strategy in response to cable’s highly successful bundle of video, telephone service and high-speed Internet access.

“In terms of synergies, it’s hard to imagine two companies who could get more out of a merger than DirecTV and EchoStar,” said Carmel Group chairman Jimmy Schaeffler. “The future would be one of a 900-pound gorilla in the video space, facing two 600-pound gorillas [Comcast and Time Warner] on the bundled side. And that’s why it makes sense.”

In 2002, due to antitrust issues, both the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice effectively put the kibosh on Ergen’s plan back then to merge his EchoStar and DirecTV. And many media analysts on Wall Street, including Craig Moffett at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. and Thomas Eagan of Oppenheimer & Co., said that the odds today of Washington approving any DirecTV-EchoStar merger haven’t improved.

“The idea that John Malone is going to be able to merge DirecTV with EchoStar is one of those rumors that just won’t die,” Moffett said. “But every single credible voice that has weighed in on this issue has given it an unequivocal no-go … No credible Washington insider has said that a deal can be done.”

FCC chairman Kevin Martin, FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, former FCC commissioner Kathleen Abernathy, and former DOJ prosecutors have all said that such a merger “is not feasible,” according to Moffett.

Schaeffler believes that the DOJ would give its OK to a combined DirecTV-EchoStar now because the phone companies, finally, seem to be getting a real foothold in video.

“The telcos give the DOJ and the FCC an out,” said Schaeffler, who also doubts that Carey has a long-term future at DirecTV.

AT&T ANGELS

In a Dec. 18 report, UBS Warburg analyst Aryeh Bourkoff suggested that AT&T, which is enmeshed in its BellSouth merger, could jump-start its video rollout by buying into a DBS company, and that DirecTV would be the ideal partner.

But Moffett is skeptical about the prospect of Malone selling DirecTV to AT&T. He doubts AT&T would have any interest in purchasing a DBS company, pointing out that the telco already has a current partnership with EchoStar, where they have teamed up on Homezone, a video-high-speed data service.

In a report, Eagan also expressed doubt that Malone would sell to AT&T, noting that Liberty might have to wait two years to do such a transaction in order to avoid paying taxes.

Analysts such as Jeff Wlodarczak at Wachovia characterized Malone’s interest in DirecTV as “a passive investment position.”

In his report, he wrote, “By swapping for DirecTV, Malone gets a massive step up in tax basis and a control stake in an underlevered DirecTV.” The satellite company could add $15 billion in debt, according to the analyst.

'MILKING’ ASSETS

Both Wlodarczak and Moffett predicted that Malone will “lever” DirecTV’s balance sheet to pay out a one-time special dividend. Liberty, obviously, would be a major beneficiary by virtue of its large DirecTV stake.

But Bruce Leichtman, president of Leichtman Research Group, said that Malone understands and will take full advantage of his new valuable asset, even without a merger with EchoStar.

“You’ve got an operator with over 15 million subs, and that’s one heck of a way to start,” Leichtman said. “You’re in a milk-it stage, and there’s nobody better at milking it than Malone.”

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6403282

[fredfa]

The Business of TV
Malone Boosts Liberty’s Distribution Portfolio

By Linda Moss MultiChannel News 1/1/2007

Through his stake in DirecTV, Liberty Media chairman John Malone will once again own a distribution platform, a 15.6 million-subscriber outlet to potentially expand carriage for his services.

Liberty’s portfolio includes home-shopping leader QVC, Starz Entertainment and stakes in Discovery Communications and GSN, as well as some new assets. As part of the DirecTV deal, along with $550 million in cash, Malone is getting three regional sports channels from News Corp: FSN Rocky Mountain, FSN Northwest and FSN Pittsburgh.

But Malone’s distribution upside may be limited, according to some experts. The core Discovery networks, such as Animal Planet, Discovery Channel, TLC and Travel Channel — as well as QVC and GSN — are already carried on Direc TV’s widely penetrated “Total Choice” package. And the satellite company is one of Starz’s biggest distributors, officials familiar with the situation said. And just because Malone will own nearly 39% of DirecTV doesn’t mean he can just put any channel, new or old, that he wants on it, according to Craig Moffett, a Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. analyst.

”DirecTV had to set up a special committee to review any News Corp.-related transactions,” he said. “Liberty would have to presumably set up exactly the same protection.”

That committee would make sure all Liberty deals with DirecTV are “arms-length,” to ensure that “DirecTV shareholders aren’t affectively footing the bill to the tune of 61 cents on the dollar for every transaction with Liberty,” according to Moffett.

Malone could also try to leverage Direc TV’s distribution, by telling Comcast, for example, that he will launch one of its networks in exchange for increased carriage for Liberty channels.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6403282

[dad1153]

Fred, I thought you were going early to the Rose Bowl. What happened? ;)

[fredfa]

I don't have to leave for while yet, dad.

[keenan]

The Business of TV
DirecTV Rumor Mill Spins Its Way to CES


'MILKING’ ASSETS

Both Wlodarczak and Moffett predicted that Malone will “lever” DirecTV’s balance sheet to pay out a one-time special dividend. Liberty, obviously, would be a major beneficiary by virtue of its large DirecTV stake.

But Bruce Leichtman, president of Leichtman Research Group, said that Malone understands and will take full advantage of his new valuable asset, even without a merger with EchoStar.

“You’ve got an operator with over 15 million subs, and that’s one heck of a way to start,” Leichtman said. “You’re in a milk-it stage, and there’s nobody better at milking it than Malone.”

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6403282
Doesn't seem like too many happy days ahead for DirecTV subs. While anything can happen I suppose, what I get from reading this and other articles on the subject is that there is a strong possibility Malone will sit on DirecTV until he can flip it in another 2 years while sucking cash out of it with the dividend payout to Liberty.

[fredfa]

(David Bott of AVS Forum gets quoted again)
Technology Notebook
Clearing the Air on Resolution
True HD' a Polarizing Factor to TV Buyers
By Natalie Finn (Special to TelevisionWeek January 1, 2007

One would be hard-pressed to find an HDTV expert who doesn't think that 1080p is the future, in both broadcasting and display. It's often referred to-by marketers in particular-as "true HD" or "full HD." What's polarizing consumers and industry insiders, however, is the question of whether it's worth investing now in a 1080p display when there's no 1080p television content capable of reaching it.

High-definition content is currently broadcast in either 720p or 1080i, with the numbers referring to how many horizontal resolution lines are in each frame and the letters designating either progressive scan or interlace technology. In a progressive scan format, lines of pixels scan into a frame in order, with each frame displayed on the screen for 1/60 of a second. Interlacing technology sends every odd-numbered scan line onto the screen, and then the even-numbered lines fill in the gaps, all within 1/30 of a second.

Most broadcasters and cable networks that currently produce content in HD have no plans to upgrade to 1080p anytime soon, though they all acknowledge that they will have to eventually.

1080i and 1080p monitors technically have the same level of resolution. Unlike tube displays, however, microdisplays (such as LCD rear-projections and digital light processing screens), flat-panel LCDs and plasma screens are inherently progressive, so those types of sets automatically convert incoming 1080i signals into progressive scans.

"The new devices are fixed pixel, meaning they're only in progressive," said Vincent Sollitto, CEO of HDTV maker Syntax-Brillian, whose Olevia brand has been in a programming partnership with ESPN HD. ESPN uses the 720p format. "While there isn't any 1080p content today, because the transmission mediums are all based on 720p and 1080i, I think when the Blu-ray/HD-DVD thing settles out, there will be a 1080p standard created." (Both Blu-ray and HD-DVD players utilize 1080p.)

Conversion Necessary

Strangely enough, while digital feature films and some prime-time series are produced in 1080p, there's no 1080p transmission format and therefore 1080p sets would be unable to receive the feed. Instead, the sets upconvert 720p and 1080i signals into 1080p. And 1080p productions must be downconverted into 1080i or 720p before they can be televised on cable or satellite networks.

"To show a 1080i signal, many consumer HDTVs do the conversion from interlaced to progressive scan using an economical, `quickie' approach that throws away half the vertical resolution in the 1080i image," Roam Consulting President Peter Putnam wrote last year on his Web site, HDExpert.com. So a 1080i signal played back on a 1080p display just "doesn't cut the mustard," he wrote. "You will quickly see the loss in resolution, not to mention motion and picture artifacts. Add to that other garbage such as mosquito noise and macroblocking and you've got a pretty sorry-looking signal on your new big-screen 1080p TV."

"As it stands now," he continued, "converting 1080p to 1080i for broadcast is a winning combination. Picture quality is quite good and the `film look' holds up well even when converted to interlaced scan."

But while all the stars are not in alignment just yet, the appeal of an HDTV set that promises a brighter, sharper and less pixilated picture is going to attract consumers no matter what.

"While broadcast is going to lag, [1080p] is going to help differentiate products on the marketplace for the holiday season," said Michael Gartenberg, VP and research director for JupiterResearch in New York. Consumers don't have very short replacement cycles for things like big-screen TVs, he said, "so if you're plunking down several thousand dollars for a 42-inch set, this notion of getting a 1080p is something the manufacturers are going to try to encourage pe ple to do as a way of future-proofing.

"It probably makes sense given things like Blu-ray and HD-DVD, [PlayStation 3] and Xbox support the highest resolution standards."

"I say if the display is larger than 50 inches and the price point is right, go for it," AVS Forum founder David Bott said, echoing product reviewers who have said that consumers won't see much of a difference in resolution when viewing 720p or 1080i content on a 1080p set unless they're seeing the image on a larger screen.

http://www.tvweek.com/article.cms?articleId=31194

[dad1153]

(International) TV Notebook
Nonrenewal of TV License Stokes Debate in Venezuela
By Simon Romero, The New York Times January 1, 2007

CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chávez’s decision not to renew the broadcast license of RCTV, one of this country’s oldest television stations and a frequent critic of his government, has fueled a fierce debate over whether he is stifling dissent in Venezuela as he strengthens his control of the broadcasting industry.

Senior officials in Mr. Chávez’s government moved quickly to react to growing international and domestic criticism of the decision. Reporters Without Borders, the Paris-based press freedom group, said the move, which Mr. Chávez announced in a speech before military officers last week, was a “serious attack on editorial pluralism.” The group asked Mr. Chávez’s government “to reconsider its stance and guarantee an independent system of concessions and renewals of licenses.”

Vice President José Vicente Rangel said the decision was not political retaliation but a “right of the state for reasons that are justified.” Others officials, however, made it clear that the decision was a reaction to RCTV’s editorial policies, particularly in relation to a coup in April 2002 that briefly removed Mr. Chávez as president.

“RCTV’s determining role during the events of the 2002 coup must be remembered,” Willian Lara, the communications minister, said at a news conference on Friday. “That irresponsible attitude hasn’t changed at RCTV.”

The actions of RCTV and other private broadcasters during the chaotic days of the coup are at the heart of their tension with Mr. Chávez’s government. Several of the broadcasters appeared to support the coup, substituting coverage of the coup’s collapse and Mr. Chávez’s return to power with reruns of American movies and Walt Disney cartoons.

Since then, Mr. Chávez has accused the broadcasters of waging a “psychological war” against his administration, describing the country’s main channels, Globovisión, Televen, Venevisión and RCTV, as “horsemen of the apocalypse.” His re-election this month to a six-year term has not tempered his disdain for the traditional news media elite and for RCTV in particular.

“This decision can only be seen as a control strategy and an abuse of power,” said Ewald Scharfenberg, executive director of the Institute for Press and Society, a group here that examines press freedom issues.

Through elections and personnel changes over the past eight years, Mr. Chávez and his supporters have consolidated power across Venezuela’s political institutions, controlling Congress, the Supreme Court and every state government but two. The privately controlled media are one of the areas of society, along with private enterprise, religious institutions and professional sports, outside of Mr. Chávez’s control.

Teodoro Petkoff, editor of the opposition-aligned newspaper Tal Cual, described Venezuela’s political system as an “autocracy” advancing toward “light totalitarianism,” in comments this month that inflamed Mr. Chávez’s government.

With their vociferous criticism of Mr. Chávez and his policies, private newspapers, television stations and radio broadcasters, along with a small community of Internet bloggers, offer daily evidence that freedom of expression still exists here.

Still, pro-Chávez legislation has enhanced the government’s ability to clamp down on critics through legal action or threats of prosecution, creating a “climate of self-censorship,” according to Human Rights Watch. A 2004 law subjects television and radio stations to heavy fines or suspension of their licenses for broadcasts deemed to “condone or incite” public disturbances.

Similarly, legislators amended the criminal code last year to increase penalties for criminal defamation and libel. Napoleón Bravo, a well-known television journalist, was charged under those new provisions this year for denigrating the Supreme Court by claiming that it was inefficient and suggesting that it be replaced with a brothel.

Since the coup in 2002, two private stations, RCTV and Globovisión, have remained critical of Mr. Chávez while two others, Venevisión and Televen, have become decidedly less so. RCTV’s contentious relationship with Mr. Chávez worsened during the coup, when Andrés Izarra, the news operations manager for RCTV, resigned after he said his superiors suppressed coverage of developments about the coup.

Mr. Izarra went on to become Mr. Chávez’s communications minister and is now head of Telesur, a pan-Latin American news station that is one of numerous media ventures supported by Venezuela’s government in recent years. Federal and regional governments now control five television stations, including one used to broadcast all of Mr. Chávez’s domestic speeches and an influential talk show that pillories his critics.

The government also controls eight radio broadcasters and a news agency, and is building a communications satellite with assistance from China that is scheduled to be launched into orbit by 2008. Mr. Lara, the communications minister, said one option for RCTV once its license expires in 2007 would be for Venezuela de Televisión, the government’s main broadcaster, to take control of its operations.

Some of Mr. Chávez’s dislike for RCTV appears to stem in part from how Marcel Granier, the broadcaster’s chief executive, has publicly referred to him as a “lieutenant colonel.” The term refers to the rank Mr. Chávez achieved in Venezuela’s army, but is also an attempt to mock him as militaristic.

In his speech announcing his decision to not renew RCTV’s license, Mr. Chávez, dressed in a military uniform and red beret, appeared to jab at the reference. “When they try to say that someone is a gorilla, an ignoramus,” Mr. Chávez said, “they say he is a lieutenant colonel.”

The tension created by the RCTV decision left some wondering how Mr. Chávez will treat other critics as he starts a new term. “It leaves a very bad taste that we end the year with this anxiety,” Archbishop Roberto Luckert of Coro said in comments on private radio. “This is a trampling of freedom of expression.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/01/world/americas/01venez.html?ref=business

[dad1153]

Critic's Notebook
You Watch That Trash?
There is little new to stare at in Courteney Cox’s smooth Dirt—save for the show’s troubled paparazzo
By John Leonard, New York Magazine - 1/8/97 Issue

Dirt
FX. Premieres Tuesday, January 2. 10 p.m.

Ian Hart is the best thing Dirt has going for it. As Don Konkey, a schizophrenic paparazzo who will do absolutely anything he’s asked to by his editor-in-chief at a down-and-dirty Hollywood scandal sheet, he brings back X-rated pictures of the quick (rooftop midnight hot-tub sex), the dead (the corpse of an OD’d starlet), and the merely hypocritical (the power couple, being far too fast-track to mess with pregnancy or parturition, who pick up a surrogate baby as if the kid were a baguette). But he is also reluctant to open his mouth, because the words he speaks have been known to turn into worms. And he almost never takes his hat off, because the sky has a way of drizzling blood drops. And going to the drugstore is a trial, because aspirin talks back at him and prescription bottles burst into song. Even going to bed is kind of necrophiliac, because there’s a girl ghost who likes to cuddle.

This is not neurotic shtick of a Monk-ish sort. Don is one sick puppy—with, as it happens, a very dead cat. When he isn’t up a tree, snapshooting hanky-panky, we have no idea what he’ll do, say, or think next, and neither does he. Whether we are meant to understand his sickness as a metaphor for false consciousness and bad faith in tabloid journalism I couldn’t tell you after only three hours. But Hart, whom you may recall from Neil Jordan’s Michael Collins and The Butcher Boy, or as a professor of dark arts in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, gives us a character we can’t stop watching and wondering about. And Dirt is never more interesting to look at than when it hallucinates on Don’s behalf.

Whereas you will certainly recognize the editor-in-chief—the one who tells Don where to go—from hundreds of Friends and three Screams. For the purposes of Dirt, Courteney Cox channels more of Gale Weathers, Wes Craven’s TV reporter, than of Monica Geller, the sitcom hysteric. Her Lucy Spiller, part Sphinx, part Slinky, as glam as Anna Wintour and as gotcha as Bonnie Fuller, actually seems to believe that the lowest of denominators and the basest of instincts add up to a higher truth, “preferably with photographs.” Of course, she must report to a publisher, Jeffrey Nordling, with a taste for jailbait, and an owner, Timothy Bottoms, who bought Dirt and hired Lucy only to improve his social standing. But neither of them has read Marcel Proust. Nor is it likely that you would find in their bedrooms a vibrator, a stun gun, and the occasional rock musician.

Let’s see—blackmail, action stars, painkillers, tattletales, erotomania, cocaine addiction, car wrecks, bubble baths … the usual. Professional as it is, like a Parisian streetwalker, there is nothing in Dirt to look at or think about that we haven’t looked at and decided not to think about before, except Ian Hart’s hallucinations. A decade ago, Mariel Hemingway starred in Central Park West as the editor of a Condé Nastie sort of slick whose table of contents included John-John softball and helicopter sex. Téa Leoni starred in The Naked Truth as a newly divorced and hyperkinetic photojournalist reduced from getting nominated for a Pulitzer to whining at a sleazy tabloid called The Comet. David Alan Grier starred in The Preston Episodes as an African-American university professor signed on as house grammarian at a gossip magazine called Stuff. Nobody wanted any of these programs, although Téa Leoni hung on longer than Hemingway and Grier. We seem, as a nation and a Nielsen sample, to prefer our scandal sheets in supermarkets, with real aliens, rather than on television screens, with actors.

Dirt wants us to believe that Courteney/Lucy has feelings that get hurt. On one occasion and very briefly, she seems to experience a soupçon of regret and a smidgen of shame. So we know that Dirt is fiction. I’ve stood in the lobby of places like the midtown Fox building, and I’ve looked into the faces of the people who work there as they emerge from elevators and grope toward sunlight, and I’ve hoped for a shadow of shame on a single face. But there is not an Ian Hart among them. They are proud of themselves.

http://nymag.com/arts/tv/reviews/26007/index.html

[dad1153]

TV Notebook
Isn't It Ironic?
Five years ago, pundits declared it dead, but 2006 saw the re-emergence of sarcastic humor with an exaggerated message
By Gina Kim, Sacramento Bee - January 1, 2007

The reports of its death were greatly exaggerated.

Pundits declared irony dead after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but five years later, not only is it alive -- it ruled 2006.

"Given the way the world has gone, we're in more need of irony," says Jerry Herron, a professor of English and American studies at Wayne State University in Detroit. "What 9/11 produced was a world where pettifoggery, obfuscation, half-truths and double dealing are more rampant than ever before."

Irony, the grand dame of the zeitgeist, is pop culture's weapon against hopelessness, experts say. It's a tool that transfers power to the powerless. And in a time of a continuing war, citizens jailed without charges, and a government that knows what we're checking out at the library and searching for on the Internet, it's a key to understanding what's happening to the world -- with a little humor, too.

"The reason irony is more fun than the truth is that it's more fun than the truth," says Herron. "Jon Stewart is fun to watch because it seems to give the feeling of being in a club where everyone's smarter than everyone else. And the whole world seems to be pretty dumb."

Along with raised eyebrows and knowing looks, irony puts us in the know. We become members of the sorority of sagacity. And it gives us some semblance of controlling what we're being told, experts say.

But what is irony?

Merriam-Webster says it's using words to mean the opposite of their literal meaning. But in today's cultural climate, irony is anything said with your tongue firmly planted in your cheek. It's sarcastic humor with an exaggerated message.

"At a time when people feel they're being lied to and treated as though they're too stupid to get it, it lets you regain the claim on your own intelligence," Herron says. "I'm going to tell a lie, too, but I'm going to tell it knowingly and as a joke."

Seeds of irony

Irony has existed in western culture ever since there was a Western culture, says author Ken Kalfus.

"I'm not sure what ironic forms there are in, say, Afghan culture," he says. "You need a pretty well-developed idea of the individual. ... Irony is one of the first things that goes in a dictatorship."

The smug smile of irony bares its teeth when conditions are ripe -- there's overarching disillusionment with the establishment and the public is trying to separate fact from fiction.

"You can look historically at times that seem to be caught up in not telling the truth and irony flourishes," says Herron. "Like in 18th century England, when King George was going mad on the throne and the world was falling apart, irony was a thriving form."

It came to dominate our culture in the 1970s as a way to question authority, says Martin Kaplan, associate dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California.

"It was a response to things like governmental lying and to the commercialization and commoditization and corporatization of everything," he says. "The only appropriate way to react to what was going on was to be a smart aleck and to say, 'Yeah, right,' to any assertion by the powerful. There was always someone trying to make a sucker out of you."

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Graydon Carter, editor of Vanity Fair magazine and co-founder of the defunct satirical Spy magazine, was quoted as saying, "It's the end of the age of irony. Things that were considered fringe and frivolous are going to disappear."

But instead of ushering in an age of sincerity, when people help each other, join together and believe in a better world, we're more interested than ever in whether celebrities wear underwear on a regular basis and have no qualms elbowing that person reaching for the last PlayStation 3 on the shelf.

"Many people, I was probably among them, said irony was dead and in the face of horrors unimaginable, the only appropriate response was authenticity and realism -- postmodern winking was no longer appropriate," Kaplan says. "It probably was about six months that that lasted. Irony is very much alive and well."

Feeding the beast

It's an era in which comedian Stephen Colbert's ironic roast of President Bush at a White House correspondents dinner is now legend. And, according to a study by Harvard University's Institute of Politics, more 18- to 24-year-olds watch "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" than read the print edition of a major newspaper.

"It's become very hard to figure out what is real and what isn't," says stand-up comic Marc Maron. "By nature of that, there's more irony.

"The idea that O.J. Simpson was about to publish a book about what he would have done had he killed his wife and her (friend), that should be an ironic joke, but it's completely real and horrifying."

The lines of reality are so blurred, irony is the only way to formulate some type of understanding, says Maron, who will be on Comedy Central's "Comedy Central Presents" on Jan. 12.

"That's why fake news is resonating much more with people than the real news," he says. "Because when you can exaggerate or be sarcastic or be ironic, the real message is revealed. Sometimes it takes irony to cut through a lot of the bull."

Plus, it can sometimes drive messages home more efficiently than the truth.

"People don't like honesty. They find it boring or too draining for them to engage with," Maron says. "If something's put across in a smug or condescending way, it's got some safety built into it -- you can take it in, laugh at it, and it assumes you're in on the joke."

Today's irony can run the gamut from a simple wisecrack, knee-jerk and silly, to something much darker, says John Tomasic, managing editor of the online pop culture commentary Pop and Politics. But in the process, it can bring people together, as long as you know you're not immune.

"You use it to mock, but you use it best if you're prepared to be mocked," he says.

While irony cuts across all age groups, ethnicities and both genders, it is best understood by the younger generation, who have known irony their entire lives, Tomasic says.

"Young people, by and large, are not confused about the rules of the game. They have grown up with irony. It's their best friend and worst enemy. It's their playground pal, their video game instructor, their movie script writer," he says. "Young people are not at all confused, for example, about 'The Daily Show,' a source of bafflement to the serious men and women in the skyboxes of life."

Debunking myths

In the months after the 9/11 attacks, author Kalfus began to formulate a novel in his head based on the media's glorification of each victim.

"Everyone who was killed supposedly was a perfect husband, a perfect wife, a perfect father or mother. They were all heroes," says Kalfus. "I wanted to see them as people, not the way they were killed but by the way they lived their lives. And most probably lived messy lives, like the rest of us."

Kalfus' book, "A Disorder Peculiar to the Country" (Ecco, $24.95, 256 pages), was published in July and is based on a couple who both thought the other spouse had been killed in the terrorist attacks, and both were secretly happy about it.

"Loosely speaking, irony is a method of humor that deflates a cliché or deflates a particular way of thinking by showing that it's taking itself too seriously," he says. "It's just one literary method of making us see the world a little more clearly in the fog of myths."

Irony never accepts anything at face value. Instead, it delves deeper, looks further and questions every premise, Kalfus says. And in the process, some form of the truth is discovered.

"You try to puncture a cliché in a straightforward way, you only dent it," Kalfus says. "Irony, by ridiculing the supports for the cliché, can actually bring it down."

Irony shifts the reins of power -- taking information from the top, altering it, changing it, and maybe in the process, getting closer to the truth. Like a sword of disillusionment, irony is a defense mechanism that gives the public some say in world events that are unfolding.

"What has happened since 9/11 to promote the recidivism of our ironic culture was the run-up to the war," says USC's Kaplan. "It's hard to see what's going on and when you do see what's going on, to not be cynical about the nature of the world and the nature of power.

"And so making fun of it, using it as the grist for parody, as masters like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are doing, seems to be the best way to let the air out of the balloon of power."

http://www.sacbee.com/127/story/99776.html

[dad1153]

TV Notebook
Why Did Viewers OD on ‘The O.C.’ ?
By Emma Rosenblum, New York Magazine - 1/8/07 Issue

Was it only three years ago that The O.C. premiered and became an instant phenomenon? The country went mad for the sunny teen soap: It was like 90210—but funny! And self-aware! The show launched a catchphrase (“Welcome to the O.C., bitch!”), a holiday (Christmukkah), and a barrage of imitators (The Real Housewives of Orange County and MTV’s Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County). But now, The O.C. is in real danger of cancellation: In November, its fourth season debuted to its lowest ratings ever—a mere 3.38 million fans, and the numbers haven’t gotten better since.

To understand what went so wrong with the show, we should revisit what it once got so right. For starters, The O.C. had great timing; in 2003, there was a gaping hole in the market for smart teen dramas, as Dawson’s Creek had just gone off the air. The O.C. improved on Dawson’s formula of love-triangle angst set to an indie-band soundtrack, then added a smart mix of sarcasm and pop-culture knowingness that didn’t sound like adults writing for teens. (It helped that the show’s creator, Josh Schwartz, was a mere 26.) Not only was The O.C. the first teen drama that didn’t take itself too seriously, it was the first one that understood its audience had grown up watching soapy teen dramas.

There are concrete reasons for the show’s quick decline: Schwartz became distracted by other projects, and lead-character Marissa (Mischa Barton) was killed off last year. But in hindsight, these seem like symptoms, not the disease. The O.C.’s main problem—what took the show from phenomenon to failure—was that it became too cool too fast. Its hipster audience, initially seduced by the show’s self-referential wittiness, was repelled by its mainstream success. And mainstream fans, drawn in by the soap opera, were turned off by increasingly absurdist plot twists. Ironically, the super-hip O.C. failed where Aaron Spelling’s less-intelligent shows succeeded—it was too ironic to be a soap, but too soapy to be a parody. Take this season’s dismal debut: a clunky, dark hour in which hunky Ryan brooded, fought, and mourned the death of Marissa. He should have mourned instead the loss of the show’s last, best quality—an ability to make fun of itself. More recently, Ryan fell into an It’s a Wonderful Life–like coma, dreaming that his character had never arrived in the O.C. If only such a do-over were possible.

http://nymag.com/arts/tv/features/26009/index.html

[fredfa]

TV Notebook
Networks 'pull together' for Ford funeral coverage
By Paul J. Gough The Hollywood Reporter Jan 2, 2007

NEW YORK -- Tuesday's state funeral for President Gerald R. Ford has been years in the making, a result of the wishes of Ford and his family and, in the coverage, years of work by TV networks.

Ford's six days of memorials began Friday, when his casket was brought to a Palm Springs church and continued during the weekend in Washington, where his body lay at state in the Capitol Rotunda. After Tuesday's funeral, it will be brought to Grand Rapids, Mich., where another service will be held and then interment at the president's library and museum.

Even though they didn't know when it would occur, network TV's preparations for Ford's services were in the planning stages since before President Ronald Reagan's passing in 2004. Ford at 93 was the longest-living former president and had been in ill health for a while.

"We've been having pool conversations about this story for a while now," said Phil Alongi, executive producer of NBC News special coverage. "This has been in the planning stages for years."

Like such other big national events as inaugurations and State of the Union Addresses, a presidential funeral is covered by the so-called network pool that includes ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News Channel, CNN and MSNBC. Each network takes responsibility for a portion of the event, which will take place in three regions of the country and in four states and the District of Columbia.

"These logistically are very, very big projects," Alongi said. "This is one time when all the networks pull together."

CBS is the pool network for the motorcade and Andrews Air Force Base, where the casket was to be flown to Saturday and flown out of Tuesday. NBC is the pool for the Capitol, ABC for the Washington National Cathedral and Fox News Channel handles the pool for the initial viewing in California and the burial in Grand Rapids. CNN is the overall pool producer.

"The assignments are done and the right people have been to Grand Rapids a couple of times, they've known where the cameras are going to be," CNN Washington bureau chief David Bohrman said.

Planning began in earnest after Reagan's state funeral in June 2004, when executives from the networks discussed how the coverage went and what could be improved. Network personnel have gone to the Ford museum and library, where the former president will be buried, several times over the years to organize the coverage when the time came. The networks have met several times since 2004 about the coverage of the state funeral; those calls became daily and more frequently after Ford died.

While the networks waited until well after the family announced the plans Wednesday, executives said it generally was understood what each of the former presidents wish when their time comes.

"We know as much as the (National) Military District and each presidents' library has decided to share with us," Bohrman said. "It's usually a lot. The planning is complex and it's in everybody's best interest."

There haven't been many state funerals in recent years, with the first in 30 years for President Reagan. (The last one was in 1973 for President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Richard M. Nixon declined to have a state funeral when he died in 1994.) But Bohrman and Alongi said that in many ways, covering state funerals are like televising inaugurations that occur every four years.

There are differences, even between state funerals. Reagan's casket was carried by horse-drawn caisson; Ford's body will be driven via motorcade to the National Cathedral. Ford's body arrived Saturday at Andrews Air Force Base in suburban Maryland -- and through Alexandria, Va., on its way to the Capitol -- in the late afternoon when it's dark in Washington.

That could cause a bit of challenge, not just for the spectators but also for the networks covering it.

"The arrival motorcade is going to be hard for people to see when they line Constitution (Avenue)," CNN's Bohrman said last week before Ford's casket arrived in Washington.

"One of the reasons we're picking up coverage Saturday at the Capitol is that the actual viewing experience on the motorcade route won't be very good (because of the dark) so it won't lend itself to live television coverage," ABC News senior vp Bob Murphy said last week. "President Reagan's was during the day."

Even with the discussions and the run-throughs, there was some work being done during the holiday weekend by the networks who called in people who were on vacation to make sure it would all be done in time.

"What we've run into in two locations is that in the cathedral there is construction going on and there's ongoing construction at the Capitol," Alongi said. "Some of that hinders what we would like to do ... and we have to figure out unique ways of doing that."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ied0764c52ea0c6b7bab59ccec049cb95

[fredfa]

TV Notebook
EchoStar gavels off Court TV
By Andrew Wallenstein The Hollywood ReporterJan 2, 2007

EchoStar Communications Corp. yanked Time Warner-owned Court TV from its Dish Network channel lineup effective Monday as a result of stalled carriage negotiations.

But sources indicated that this isn't the typical squabble between programr and distributor over rate increases; EchoStar is intent on getting a rate decrease by downgrading Court TV to a channel tier available in 3 million homes fewer than the 13 million to whom the channel was previously offered.

That would impact the amount of revenue Court TV generates, which is based on audience guarantees to advertisers.

Andrew Heller, president of domestic distribution at Turner Broadcasting, which oversees Court TV, expressed regret that an agreement could not be reached. "I've been doing this a long time," he said. "For the first time in my career a channel has gone dark on a major distributor. This is very disheartening."

"We are working hard to negotiate a fair contract with Turner Networks and CourtTV," EchoStar senior vp programming Eric Sahl said in a statement released Monday. "But we must also protect our customers from unreasonable demands. It is not fair to ask our customers to pay a DBS premium for a channel owned by the second-largest cable operator, Time Warner."

Turner issued a statement, saying, "They were unwilling to pay the standard industry rate for a popular network that is currently ranked in the Top 20. We are disappointed with their decision, and hope that we can reach resolution, but in the meantime, our cable operator partners and DirecTV are able to provide this network to Court TV fans."

Sources indicated that months of talks were aborted just two hours before the channel was pulled, at midnight Eastern time. Court TV's carriage deal with Dish expired Dec. 31.

EchoStar's statement expressed that it had offered Turner an extension in which to work out the deal but was rebuffed. Sources indicate Turner was not happy with the terms of the extension, which were offered in two ways: a one-week extension for which EchoStar would not be charged, or a drop to Dish Network's lower tier, known as America's Top 120, at a rate to be determined by EchoStar.

Court TV was on Dish's America's Top 60 tier. How to pay for a drop to Top 120 is the crux of the disagreement; while EchoStar is seeking to pay less to reach fewer subscribers, Turner could see the rate it had locked in for the maximum amount of subscribers as a volume discount.

The Turner-EchoStar standoff is almost a virtual replay of the situation Lifetime Entertainment Services found itself in on New Year's Day 2006, when EchoStar yanked carriage of both Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network the day after their deals expired. However, that disagreement was over determining a rate increase. The channels were not reinstated until a settlement was reached a month later.

Over the years, EchoStar chairman and CEO Charles Ergen has demonstrated a willingness to pull programrs from his service, second in reach only to Comcast Corp. and DirecTV among multichannel distributors. In 2005, EchoStar tossed Comcast's outdoor-oriented OLN, now known as Vs. The year before, Viacom's entire channel lineup went by the wayside on Dish.

In Turner, EchoStar faces a programming powerhouse with top-rated networks that could become leverage in future negotiations, including TNT, TBS and CNN. Turner assumed full control of Court TV in May when Liberty Media sold its half of the channel to Time Warner for $735 million.

EchoStar has since replaced Court TV with Biography Channel. In December, the company said it would have to raise its subscription rates by about 3%.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3idc037a751cbc621277e17e2e2f660b55

[fredfa]

Forecast 2007:
Network TV
By John Consoli MediaWeek January 1, 2007

The broadcast networks have spent the past few years reinventing their business models and the way they distribute their content, and, according to Wall Street analysts, those moves will never be more important than this year.

“The broadcast networks have done a great job of recognizing that the Internet is the new window for distributing their programming,” says Lee Westerfield, managing director and senior research analyst at Harris-Nesbitt. “And in 2007, the ball will move even further forward in broadband. I would speculate that for the new television season in fall 2007, we will see new shows premiering in broadband.”

That projection is independently supported by data gathered by CBS, through its online entertainment panel, which numbers 28,000 TV viewers. Dave Poltrack, executive vp and chief research officer for CBS Corp., says 53 percent of viewers who watched a new show this season online, did so before viewing any episode of that show on a broadcast network. “That means Internet access is providing a new means to expand the sampling of new programs,” Poltrack argues.

CBS is not using the Internet simply to stream its new shows—it is also offering content from shows that is not available in the broadcast versions, and using the Web to stretch 22 episodes of a serialized program across a 35-week season. CBS decided not to air repeats of its new drama Jericho, but wanted to put the show on hiatus beginning in mid-December. So it created a Web site for the show on which it will offer original material that will move the storyline forward and engage the viewer until the show returns on air with first-run episodes. Poltrack notes that on the first two days after the fall finale of Jericho, traffic on the site increased tenfold.

Poltrack also says the market for advertising surrounding online streaming of TV shows is on the upswing, with demand exceeding supply for top-rated shows. “Analysts estimate the market to be in the $300 million–$400 million area today,” he says, adding they project growth to about $2 billion to $3 billion by 2010. “If this market materializes to the extent these analysts predict, it will add a second revenue stream for broadcasters.”

Video-on-demand via cable of the broadcast network shows is another untapped revenue stream. After all the networks tested the benefits of a pay-per-view model versus an ad-supported model, it appears the ad-supported model is winning out. Westerfield believes viewers will accept advertising in their VOD selection if it’s a show they really want to see. “Viewers channel-surf during television commercials not because they don’t like the commercials but because they don’t like the show they are watching,” he says. “If the content is interesting, viewers will accept advertising in it.”

While the networks are offering more content online, broadcast viewership over the air is up this season, with ABC and NBC both showing increases in households, adults 18-49 and total viewers, while CBS is down slightly, and Fox a bit more so, but expected to show its usual midseason bump beginning in two weeks when 24 and American Idol make their return. And CBS has the Super Bowl this season.

Advertisers have noticed and reacted. Johnson & Johnson, which sat out last May’s upfront buying period, was very active this fall, spending heavily in scatter. Cancellation options for first quarter of 2007 were exercised at low levels, meaning nearly all the client holds placed during the upfront were converted to orders.

Despite the strength of the marketplace, however, most analysts are not projecting much overall ad growth for the broadcast networks in 2007. Part of that is because there will be no Olympic Games to cover in 2007 as there were in 2006 on NBC, which traditionally brings in an additional influx of ad dollars. And, the merging of UPN and the WB into The CW network means there are far fewer ratings points in the market in 2007 than there were in 2006.
Media agency Universal McCann projects that ad revenue for the Big Four nets will increase 3 percent in 2007 to $17.4 billion, following a 5 percent increase in 2006. Another media agency, ZenithOptimedia, is projecting network TV ad spending in 2007 to decline by 1.5 percent over this year. And Harris-Nesbitt’s Westerfield projects that 2007 ad revenue will be flat over 2006.

But with all the focus on the Internet, it is not too soon to begin speculating on how it will impact the 2007-08 broadcast TV season. Westerfield, for one, believes that as the networks increasingly use broadband to create buzz for their new shows, the importance of on-air lead-in and lead-out scheduling will diminish. “It’s eventually going to come down to if a show has enough buzz created going into a season, it will succeed out of the gate, and if it doesn’t it will rapidly fail,” Westerfield argues. “That does not bode well for second- and third-tier shows in the future.”

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003526040

[dad1153]

TV Notebook
Dick Clark rocks the eve
Diane Werts' Newsday "The TV Zone" Blog - January 1, 2007

Right-hand shake! How great was it to see Dick Clark able enough to shake hands the standard way with heir apparent Ryan Seacrest as the elder tube statesman signed off his live studio segment of “Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve” on ABC Sunday night?

He’d definitely made progress from his return to Times Square a year earlier, after a major stroke a year before that. When time ticked down to 2006, Clark had had to give his customary salute to the audience with his left arm, while his right remained fairly immobile. This time, as 2007 began, he was gesturing with both hands and finally engaged in that celebratory shake, too.

Nice to see “America’s oldest teenager” making progress in the old age that awaits all of us ex-teens. His speech still sounds raspy and labored, but hey, we’ll take this grand old 35-year tradition any way we can. [Note: ABC promo photo here was made available by the network prior to New Year's Eve.]

Seacrest stands in Clark’s stead well, out in the drizzle, chaperoning the likes of Christina Aguilera to and from the live-concert stage crammed in amid the revelers. Like Clark, he’s slick enough to satisfy, yet smart enough not to position himself as the center of attention.

Best of all, ABC saw fit to show us the festivities in high-definition, unlike NBC’s rival Carson Daly soiree or Fox’ abominable Cat Deeley plug-fest in Times Square for Fox-telecast bowl games, Planet Hollywood and other sundry product placements. MTV rocked the house hardest in its Broadway studio overlooking the mayhem, with guest after musical guest slamming the indoor stage. But ABC’s HD clarity put us viscerally on the street for the big countdown ball-drop.

Until they can resurrect Guy Lombardo, that’s still TV’s New Year’s Eve tradition to beat.

http://weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/blog/

[fredfa]

TV Sports
Ebersol: SNF Key to NBC's Turnaround
By John Consoli MediaWeek January 1, 2007

Dick Ebersol, chairman of NBC Universal Sports & Olympics, said the first season of Sunday Night Football on the network “more than met corporate goals” by bringing in more male viewers, shoring up the entire Sunday night, and serving as a solid promotional platform for freshman drama hit Heroes.

Calling SNF the “cornerstone of the prime time turnaround at NBC,” Ebersol said the successful launch of Heroes can be attributed “more than anything else” to the promotion the show received on SNF geared toward young men in the first three SNF games before Heroes premiered.

“The Save the Cheerleader, Save the World promo campaign [for Heroes] was created specifically to appeal to the Sunday Night Football audience,” he said. SNF, through the first 16 weeks of the regular season, averaged a 9.4 rating among men18-49, according to Nielsen Media Research data, 262 percent higher than the network averaged last year in the same time period.

SNF was the third best among all prime-time programming in adults 18-49 in fourth quarter, with an 8.9 rating, and assisted by the NFL’s new flexible scheduling system, recorded ratings increases in Weeks 14-16 of 39 percent, 21 percent and 32 percent, respectively, each higher than the comparable weeks for Monday Night Football on ABC last season, when there was no flex schedule system in effect. Ebersol said the success of the flex schedule games in December allowed the network to charge as much as $400,000 per 30-second spot for scatter advertising.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/networktv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003526041

[fredfa]

TV Sports
Ebersol: 'SNF' green for NBC
By Paul J. Gough The Hollywood Reporter Jan 2, 2007

NEW YORK -- As NBC's first season of "Sunday Night Football" draws to a close, NBC Sports chairman Dick Ebersol is happy with what has been accomplished.

Through its first 16 telecasts, "SNF" is averaging 17.7 million viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research. That is up 8% compared with last year's "Monday Night Football" on ABC. "SNF" also is up 6% in adults 18-49 and men 18-49.

Ebersol said he is pleased by how "SNF" has done in accomplishing its goals: Turning the NFL game into a cornerstone of NBC Sports and helping the network recover some of what it had lost in the two years of its primetime decline.

"SNF" has helped NBC not only on Sunday nights -- whether the network was a nonentity against "Desperate Housewives" and "Grey's Anatomy" last season -- but also boosting its entire schedule. NBC averaged 10.1 million viewers so far this season compared with 9.2 million a year ago, according to Nielsen Media Research. That is up 9% year-over-year.

But removing the impact of football, NBC is flat in viewers and adults 18-49. And that is with a strong "Deal or No Deal" and NBC's owning of the season's breakout hit, "Heroes."

NBC also is sure to miss football when it goes away. NBC's postfootball Sunday schedule includes reality series that don't seem like they're going to catch on with men 18-49 or draw the same numbers that "SNF" has been earning.

Ebersol said that "SNF" would make money this season, though he didn't say how much. He said it also is on track to make money next season, despite ABC's contention that its "Monday Night Football" telecasts lost $150 million a year. NBC pays $50 million a year more than ABC did for "Monday Night Football."

Ebersol said that he and Zucker were able to make money by cutting back elsewhere at the network. Also no doubt helping is NBC's parent company, General Electric, which made a significant marketing commitment to the NFL in the categories of healthcare technology, electrical products and financial services.

It has been a good year for football, with each of the networks (CBS, Fox, ESPN and NBC) seeing year-over-year ratings increases. But Ebersol thinks that the impact of flex scheduling -- which guarantees NBC a good matchup into the waning days of the season -- has been a wonderful thing. ABC last season started off well with "Monday Night Football" but, without flex scheduling, had been stuck with miserable matchups in the last weeks of the season.

NBC faced a somewhat tough sell with "SNF" to a Madison Avenue that wasn't convinced that "SNF" would outperform what "MNF" had done on ABC. Some advertisers balked at paying what ABC had gotten for a 30-second spot and sources said NBC retrenched.

But Ebersol said that as buyers saw the strength of NBC's football package and the benefits of flex scheduling, it has been seeing more success.

"By early October, they (advertisers) were both delighted and surprised when they saw we were the clear new destination to reach men on Sunday," Ebersol said.

NBC's regular-season inventory has been sold out for weeks and the cost per spot has been topping $400,000 per 30-second commercial.

"It was a great success and it sets it up for next year," Ebersol said.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ied0764c52ea0c6b7d767d3839dd51764

[fredfa]

TV Notebook
Will stoop for scoop
FX's new series 'Dirt' delves into an unsavory world: the tabloids
By Robin Abcarian Los Angeles Times Staff Writer January 2, 2007

In real life, Courteney Cox, who plays the rapaciously ambitious editor of a tabloid magazine on the new FX series "Dirt," has pretty much gotten used to the guys with cameras who lie in wait as she exercises on the streets near her home. But what creeps her out most about this weird price of fame is not being able to spend a carefree day at the beach with her little girl. (And don't even ask about Coco's paparazzi-studded 2nd birthday trip to Disneyland earlier this year.)

Likewise, Matthew Carnahan, the attractively disheveled creator and executive producer of "Dirt," has also had his brushes with paparazzi. When Helen Hunt, the woman he jokingly called his "baby mama," was pregnant with their toddler in 2004, photographers would leap out at her, brandishing their cameras like weapons, causing something to rise up in him that, uncontrolled, might have led to litigation.

Now, after creating "Dirt's" protagonists — the cold editor, the unhinged paparazzo — Cox and Carnahan are finding that they feel ever so slightly sympathetic toward the intensely competitive tabloid editors and photographers whose job it is to make life hell for celebrities so that we may enjoy their fashions and foibles.

"The thing I understand more that has allowed me not to be a hard ... with paparazzi or people in that industry is that everybody is just doing their job," said Carnahan during a break at a Hollywood sound studio. He paused. "You know, I don't know if that's actually really how I feel," he said with a chuckle. After a moment he added, "It's just a fact of life, like the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, there will always be, certainly for our lifetimes, people lurking in the bushes trying to get pictures of people the world deems celebrities."

It would seem that "Dirt" — in a salacious and successor-to-"Nip/Tuck"-ish way — is very much a show of this moment and, certainly, this place. As Carnahan has said, "We're either at the pinnacle or the nadir of tabloid culture, so it's a really good time to be doing this show."

"Dirt" is an exploration of the weird symbiosis and Faustian trade-offs between parts of the star machinery — the B-listers who sell out the A-listers in exchange for media consideration, the modestly paid network of valets, shopkeepers and workers at restaurants and clubs who keep the photo agencies tipped off about stars' whereabouts, the stars' dependence on being in the public eye.

There is probably no story line in this series so far-fetched that it hasn't already happened in real life. Rick Fox plays a pro basketball player who is set up when Dirt hires a hooker to pose as a fan and get him into an outdoor hot tub for a sex romp. Click! (Remember Frank Gifford's moment of shame in a New York hotel with a woman paid by a tabloid to entice him into a tryst? And not to put too fine a point on it, but even Fox has been there, done that. In 2004, tabs published shots of Fox, then married to Vanessa Williams, kissing a blond woman in a bar. His marriage to Williams crumbled later that year.)

Cox and her husband, David Arquette, both executive producers of "Dirt," bring their experience to the table. For instance, Cox said she has a friend (not a "Friend" friend, she insisted) whose honeymoon was beset by a paparazzo who dug what was essentially a grave on the property to shoot the newlyweds in, yes, a hot tub. In exchange for not printing the shots, the magazine that had commissioned the photos (she wouldn't say which) demanded that a favor be returned.

Fleshing out the unsavory protagonists — particularly Cox's editor, Lucy Spiller, and the photographer Don Konkey, played by Ian Hart — was a challenge for Carnahan. When he first set out to create the photographer's character, he said, both Cox and producer Thea Mann insisted that the shooter be "the lowest of the low."

Carnahan could not write a character that he couldn't love. And so, drawing on research he'd been doing for another project about mental illness, he invented a somewhat endearing character, a "functional schizophrenic" whose illness often puts him in the grip of hallucinations and paranoia. For viewers, this adds a surrealistic component to the show: Girls on Clairol boxes become a Greek chorus; raindrops spatter like blood.

Cox ended up recruiting some of the paparazzi who were bothering her and invited them to be interviewed about their work.

As for the editor, it's not clear in the first several episodes what, exactly, will be lovable about Lucy Spiller, who is frigid in all the usual senses. She Tasers a lover after a one-night stand, casually engages in blackmail, fires subordinates for minor infractions and reads page proofs in bed while masturbating. Monica? Is that you? ("I am faking it, obviously," Cox said, "but I remember sweating about that one.")

In their research for the show, Carnahan and Cox met with several high-profile editors, including Janice Min of Us Weekly and Rebekah Wade of Rupert Murdoch's Sun tabloid, which has the highest circulation of any English-language newspaper in the world.

"I was knocked out by how brilliant she was," Carnahan said. "Smart, funny, engaging, mischievous, clever. Not morally corrupt. Morally complex."

Cox spent time with Jane Pratt, the founding editor of Sassy and Jane magazines (and, incidentally, the short-lived Dirt, which was aimed at teenage boys), who is one of her closest friends.

The one major editor they don't mention hovers over the show as a sort of ghostly inspiration.

Carnahan and Cox say they have never met her, but it's hard to get away from the idea that Spiller is a fictional spawn of Bonnie Fuller, the calculating and driven magazine editor who has not just sated but helped create the appetite for empty-calorie celebrity coverage and who currently sits atop the heap at American Media, the conglomerate that owns Star and the National Enquirer. Her formula of sex, photos and grabby captions was developed during her meteoric rise, which has included stints at Marie Claire, Cosmopolitan, Glamour and US Weekly.

"I never met Bonnie Fuller," Carnahan said. But, he added, "Her reputation looms large over this world. So I am sure there are pieces of Bonnie Fuller in there, and there is so much great apocrypha."

Added Cox: "People will make assumptions, and it's so not about her."

But like Fuller, Spiller rationalizes that what she prints is defensible as the truth. "It's not really her right to expose people's truths, but in her mind it is," Cox said of her character. "In her mind, she has a job to do."

And the fruits of that job, as even the most put-upon celebrity will attest, are ravenously consumed by an insatiable public. Cox, whose 2 1/2-year-old daughter knows the word "paparazzi," loathes unflattering photos of herself but is tickled by flattering ones. "It's a human impulse," Cox said. "I like to look at the pictures."

Carnahan said there is not a moment in the writers' room when one of them is not lost, utterly lost, in the pages of a glossy weekly or one of the tabs. "I started reading the tabs for research," Carnahan said, "but I'm like the actor who decided to try heroin because I was playing a junkie."

Nearly 10 years ago, after Princess Diana was killed in an alcohol- and paparazzi-fueled car chase in Paris, Carnahan remembers thinking that some sort of cultural apocalypse had taken place, that the celebrity obsession that so clearly contributed to her death would change. "I thought, now we are going to shift into something more elegant, more distanced, more objective, more human," he said.

"Boy, was I wrong."

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/la-et-dirt2jan02,0,7539911,print.story?coll=cl-tvent

[fredfa]

TV Review
'Dirt': More titillation than examination
Though grimly determined, the show never feels quite credible
By Robert Lloyd Los Angeles Times Staff Writer January 2, 2007

"Dirt," which premieres tonight on FX, is a new series about tabloid celebrity journalism set in the Sodom and/or Gomorrah that is Hollywood. There's no question that the milieu, which reflects not only our pop-cultural preoccupations but our compulsion to devour what we deplore, is a rich subject, ripe for satire or melodrama. But instead of examining the moralizing titillation that fuels the gossip press, "Dirt" just follows its lead: The show takes basic-cable porn about as far as you can imagine, and there are drugs and deception and other displays of human weakness that we somehow account more awful and interesting when magnified by stardom.

It does not help that executive producer Courteney Cox has miscast herself in a lead role that plays to none of her demonstrated strengths or sparkle. As Lucy Spiller, editor in chief of Dirt magazine — the character bears a certain professional resemblance to Bonnie Fuller, commander in chief of the Star and the National Enquirer and notoriously a tough boss, to say it nicely — she seems just grimly determined and never quite credible. In fact, "grimly determined and never quite credible" pretty well describes the show.
Alongside the transient scoops and scandals each week is a long-arc story line involving a troubled "good actor" (Josh Stewart) who is so desperate to get back on the A-list that he essentially sells his soul to Spiller, signing on as an informant in return for good press.

"I'm an actor — that's all I ever wanted to do," he tells her ruefully, having already precipitated the overdose of one actress and the career slide of his bigger-star girlfriend (Laura Allen).

"No, you wanted to be famous — there's a big difference," says Lucy from atop the high horse she rides pretty much the whole time, in spite of the fact that she uses blackmail, bribery and entrapment to get the stories she wants. She looks down not only upon the people her magazine writes about, but also the people who buy it ("the Wal-Mart mommies") and the people who make it, browbeating staffers who won't go for blood. "Is this too hard-core for you Columbia J-school grads? This isn't Tiger Beat."

Which isn't to say that this doesn't reflect a reality of contemporary publishing — the war of Giving People What They Want to Know versus Giving Them What They Ought to Know — as does the top-down pressure for Spiller to cut costs. The mere fact that she's battling the suits is supposed to lend her substance — that she might be expending this energy on an enterprise that is fundamentally insignificant is never broached — as is, for instance, the fact that she knows something about Proust. But Lucy's moral authority is more tenuous than the show is ready to admit. A series like "The Sopranos" or "Deadwood" can involve you in its parallel moral universe to a degree to which you need to check your own compass every so often. Here, you merely get a bunch of people who think they're right, and none of them very convincing.

We do see that Lucy is lonely at the top. Her only friends are her kid brother (Will McCormack) and her chief photographer Don Konkey (Ian Hart), a name one letter away from being an anagram of "Donkey Kong." Konkey is called "the last pap to shoot on film," which is clearly meant to indicate a kind of integrity, as do the facts that he listens to Hawaiian music on vinyl, loves his cat and — given the sort of money actually paid for the pictures he routinely delivers — lives well below his means. He is also a "functional schizophrenic," a malady that makes his role more a study in pathology than in paparazzi, but allows him to date a dead starlet he had previously photographed.

Director David Fincher makes a cameo appearance in the first episode, but for the most part the Hollywood atmosphere depends on random name-dropping ("Altman film," "Mr. Clooney") and what might be called "celebrity sorta-likes." (Ex-Laker Rick Fox, who was married to Vanessa Williams until the Enquirer published pictures of him getting a little too cozy with another woman, does come weirdly close to playing himself.)

As Young Hollywood's drug dealer of choice, Carly Pope (from "Popular") makes a relaxed good impression, as does Alex Breckenridge as a budding Lois Lane. Mariette Hartley will eventually arrive to play Lucy's mother, which is encouraging — Lucy needs some kind of context — as is a coming appearance by Paul Reubens, who has had his own history with the tabloids, and is always worth watching.

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-dirtreview2jan02,0,5220892.story?coll=cl-tvent

[RussTC3]

TV Notebook
EchoStar gavels off Court TV
By Andrew Wallenstein The Hollywood ReporterJan 2, 2007

EchoStar Communications Corp. yanked Time Warner-owned Court TV from its Dish Network channel lineup effective Monday as a result of stalled carriage negotiations.
I actually just seen a commercial of this as I was watching my Dish. The commericial was worded to imply that Court TV pulled the channel from the lineup.

[fredfa]

Sunday’s fast national over night prime-time ratings have been posted just under the HD Football listings near the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.

[dad1153]

I actually just seen a commercial of this as I was watching my Dish. The commericial was worded to imply that Court TV pulled the channel from the lineup.

TNT was plastered with 'Dish took Court TV Off' commercials during the Law & Order marathon on Monday. Maybe it was the holidays but I had not heard anything about Dish and Court TV having problems.

[fredfa]

Me either.

[fredfa]

Cable TV Notebook
Films in cable crunch
Pay TV executives want to change terms of deal

By Gabriel Snyder, John Dempsey Variety January 1, 2007

Armed with his new stake in DirecTV, John Malone will no doubt change the landscape of the cable and satellite biz. But the ripple effect extends into some unexpected places -- including the sale of theatrical films to Malone's Starz pay TV network and its HBO and Showtime competitors.

With plans to become a bigger player in films, Malone had hired Chris McGurk, former vice chairman and chief operating officer of MGM, to buy or produce up to 12 movies a year, all of which will end up on Starz.

Showtime also is emphasizing original programming, not just movies but series.

In both cases, Starz and Showtime will be less dependent on Hollywood, which is in danger of losing a longtime cash cow: theatrical movie sales to pay cable.

Some of the major studios' deals at HBO, Showtime and Starz expire in 2008 and '09, and the three networks are seriously weighing whether they want to renew.

If they decide to tear up their current theatrical contracts, which ensure a multimillion-dollar payday for each movie, Hollywood would be forced to rethink some of its economics.

The pay cablers' money makes the difference between profit and loss for many theatricals. And, just as crucially, any potential loss of pay TV money would affect studios' decisions on what future films get made.

The 2008-09 expiration dates may seem a long way off, but as studios develop movie scripts years in advance, they automatically build in the anticipated pay TV revenues. But some of those far-off projects could be scrapped if there's any prospect the pay TV dollars will go away or be drastically reduced.

"You're effectively planning to greenlight movies based on deals that are expiring," says a studio exec.

Especially at risk are low to midrange films. A loss of a few million bucks could mean these films won't get made.

"If you have a big hit, a movie makes money everywhere, but if you have average box office on a movie, your profit is going to be in the pay deal," says one studio chief.

For years, virtually every studio release was included in lucrative long-term output deals with HBO, Showtime and Starz.

It's not likely these outputs will just disappear. Whatever happens, pay networks will still have an insatiable demand for movies -- they're just tiring of the nature of the deals: Take one movie, take 'em all.

The industry expects Starz to renegotiate its Disney deal in some form when it expires in 2009 because, unlike HBO and Showtime, Starz hasn't produced a lot of original series.

HBO's deal with Fox also ends in 2009, and network execs have said movies will remain a vital part of HBO's service to subscribers. HBO may produce plenty of original series, movies and sports events, but movies make up 70% of its overall schedule.

In fact, each of the three pay nets has more than a dozen multiplex channels, and each also programs a robust on-demand service.

"What's happening today is that pay TV networks are changing their priorities," says a studio exec. "They want a certain amount of movies, they just don't want too many."

Some cable execs say the value of movies is declining for two reasons: The networks are using more original programming, and subscribers can see the pictures in a variety of formats, from DVDs to streaming video online, months before the films arrive on pay TV.

Output deals vary, but the networks pay an average of $7 million a picture. The fee can go much higher, based on a box office formula. Starz could end up paying $20 million for "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," for example. Even a low-budget film with a tidy gross, like "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," could harvest well over $10 million from HBO.

In December, CBS Corp. chief financial officer Fred Reynolds revealed that Showtime funnels more than $300 million a year to its three main suppliers: Paramount, MGM and Lionsgate.

These output deals, which expire in 2008, run up against the fact that CBS is planning its own feature production unit -- and all of the CBS titles would end up on Showtime.

Naturally, CBS' plans have created nervousness among studio execs. "We're in a situation where if it's true that pay TV networks are going to cut their payments," says the exec, "it's absolutely going to have an effect on the number of movies that can be released theatrically in the U.S."

If Showtime doesn't renew its deals, studios like MGM and Lionsgate will be hard hit, as will the Weinstein Co. (which has not engineered an output deal since it opened for business in 2005).

Weinstein Co., Lakeshore Entertainment and Sidney Kimmel Entertainment are the most notable indie producers whose current titles go to Showtime as part of the network's MGM output.

In less jeopardy are HBO's deal with Fox and Starz's pact with Disney, each of which expire in 2009. But these renewals won't be slam-dunks: HBO and Starz are sure to insist on big discounts.

HBO and Starz also have made it clear that they have no plans to sign any more output deals.

HBO, Showtime and Starz are adamant that, over the next few years, the studios will begin harvesting real money from streaming movies on the Internet and downloading them to iPods, cell phones and portable media players.

"This has a lot to do with changing windows," says a producer who is involved in some of the deals. "In a world that includes other pre-pay windows like downloads and iPods, why are the cable networks paying what they're paying for these movies?"

The pay networks say the dollars flowing from these fresh revenue streams will more than make up for any diminution in the amount of money the studios pocket from pay TV license fees.

"Showtime's appetite for movies has diminished because its priorities have shifted somewhat in favor of original series like 'Weeds,' " says Randy Manis, senior VP of acquisitions and business affairs for ThinkFilm, which doesn't have an output deal with Showtime but recently sold it the Edward Norton movie "Down in the Valley."

Showtime and Starz want to own their movies, not just rent them in the pay window.

Reynolds and his boss at CBS Corp., Leslie Moonves, are convinced that some of the money they pay to Paramount and others might be better spent on producing five or six movies a year, which CBS Corp. then would own in perpetuity. However, Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone likely would step in if Moonves' strategy threatened to put a severe dent in Paramount's bottom line.

"A lot of financing" for Moonves' low-budgeted movies would come from banks, Reyolds says, adding that CBS would end up shouldering "very little risk."

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=print_story&articleid=VR1117956457&categoryid=13

[fredfa]

Forecast 2007:
Cable TV
By Anthony Crupi MediaWeek January 1, 2007

For those whose fortunes are aligned with TV ad sales, there came a moment during the cable upfront of 2006 when the marketplace assumed the deliberate pace of a daytime soap opera, as any move toward advancing the narrative was stalled by (metaphorical) organ swells and the odd exchange of meaningful glances.

As a result, the conversation between media buyers and network ad sales execs stretched from mid-March, when the kids networks gave their upfront presentations in New York, through the end of summer, when the last cable nets limped past the finish. This year, the drama promises to unfold earlier than ever before, as Oxygen Media announced it will hold its first official upfront presentation in its nine-year history on Jan. 23, a good four months before the broadcast nets kick off the selling season. As such, Oxygen is clearly adding its voice to the “52-week market” refrain, a chorus that at once trumpets the undeniable strength of the cable scatter market while acknowledging that the traditional ad sales calendar is fast becoming an irrelevancy.

Nothing will cause more frisson in this year’s cable ad sales market than the intro of commercial ratings as trading currency, a system that Nielsen Media Research claims will be in place by April 24, (barely) in time for the start of the broadcast upfront. Media buyers say the target date will not give them sufficient time to analyze the minute-by-minute data to their satisfaction, while many network ad sales chiefs believe that although they may be cutting it close, there will be sufficient preliminary data available with which to serve clients looking to buy time based on the controversial ratings.

“Commercial ratings will be part of this coming upfront in one way, shape or form,” says David Levy, president of Turner entertainment ad sales and marketing and president of Turner Sports. “With the right data and the right methodology, I’m fine with commercial ratings.”

Although the upfront could prove to be even more protracted than last year’s scrum, there are some indications that year-over-year growth should continue to be healthy if not spectacular.
Automotive spending should limp along in 2007—Merrill Lynch projects overall growth of 1.6 percent in the category, as GM and Ford work toward revitalizing their respective brands––while Anheuser-Busch has vowed to go after the sports opportunities that continue to crop up on cable. By and large, Wall Street anticipates continued year-over-year growth for cable this year. Merrill forecasts cable should grow by 5.8 percent, to $26.5 billion, down from an earlier prediction of plus 6 percent.

While last year saw a number of cable networks breaking ratings records with their original programming efforts, cable continues to lag far behind the broadcast nets in terms of its share of prime-time ad dollars. According to Nielsen data crunched by Turner chief research officer Jack Wakshlag, although cable captured a 55.5 share of the overall prime-time audience, the measured nets are getting a mere 31 percent of advertisers’ prime-time spend, versus the 69 percent that goes over to broadcast.

The networks aren’t the only competition cable faces. Just before Christmas, the Federal Communications Commission voted to speed the entry of telcos like Verizon looking to muscle into subscription-TV space by streamlining the local franchise approval process, limiting the time of negotiation to no more than 90 days.

That said, Verizon and the other telcos trying to compete with the MSOs haven’t made much headway in terms of actual deployments. According to Leichtman Research president and principal analyst Bruce Leichtman, the four top telcos added just over 1 million video subs last year, 90 percent of which came as a result of DBS pacts. If the Verizon threat remains muted, cable still has to keep an eye on satellite. According to the Television Bureau of Advertising, in November 2006, the MSOs saw some 2.6 million subs churn away, while wired cable’s penetration fell to 64.8 percent, a 16-year low.

If some of this appears to cast a pall over cable’s prospects for the near future, the industry still seems to enjoy a sort of rude health. Perhaps the biggest question facing cable in 2007 will be answered as early as next week, when The Sopranos makes its ad-supported cable debut (Jan. 10 at 9 p.m.). While A&E made a gamble with its $200 million investment in the HBO mob drama, one buyer says that the series is selling steadily, with top-flight sponsors like Ford and Paramount on board for the premiere.

“You’re probably going to see a lot of people waiting out on the sidelines to see if this is going to click,” says the buyer. “There are an awful lot of people who didn’t catch it on HBO the first time around…and an awful lot of clients who want to get in with Tony Soprano.”

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003526035

[fredfa]

Forecast 2007:
TV Production
By A.J. Frutkin MediaWeek January 1, 2007

As pilot production nears for fall 2007, reviving comedy remains a top priority for broadcasters. And with the critical success of sitcoms such as NBC’s The Office and 30 Rock, the networks see a glimmer of hope. Now if they can just get the ratings back up to Friends levels.

To do that, programmers are pushing at the boundaries of the format. At least a half-dozen comedy projects are so-called hybrids, either mixing scripted with nonscripted elements, or single-cam with multi-cam elements. Perhaps hoping to strengthen its Thursday comedy block, NBC is taking the most out-of-the-box shots. In the nonscripted comedy pilot Bad Judge, Jon Lovitz will preside over actual court cases—à la Judge Judy—but with more yuks. Along with Endemol USA, the network also is developing the hybrid scripted/nonscripted show Traveling Salesman, which will include nonscripted scenes in which the central character—a salesman—interacts with real people. As well, the multi/single-cam hybrid IT Crowd centers on a company’s underappreciated tech workers.

Meanwhile, Fox is developing a part-scripted, part-improv comedy about a reluctant politician. CBS is trying out the single/multi-cam style with My Name Is Earl creator Greg Garcia’s Fugly, about beauty-challenged sisters, one of whom undergoes an extreme makeover. And ABC is developing a real-time comedy about paramedics, from real-time pioneers Joel Surnow and Bob Cochran, of 24 fame.

Along with these experiments, there is the usual assortment of family comedies, singles comedies and workplace comedies. And even though advertisers have encouraged the networks to take risks in the past, many are beginning to throw their support behind more standard fare. “Most of the seminal sitcoms have revolved around scenarios that were highly relatable to viewers,” says John Rash, Campbell Mithun’s chief broadcast negotiator. “Too many shows are either high concept or don’t bear any resemblance to the lives most viewers lead, which is why I think the failure rate for comedy has been so high.”

Following the fiascos that most serialized dramas experienced this fall, advertisers said it was unlikely many new ones would make next fall’s schedules. Still, drama as a genre continues to thrive. And more certain is a return to close-ended shows.

With the success both of ABC’s Lost and NBC’s Heroes, the networks could make a bigger push into sci-fi this coming fall. Several projects deal with the supernatural, like Demons, the exorcist drama CBS greenlit to pilot last month. Time travel is used as a device in at least three other series at the networks, including an untitled hour for Fox, exec produced by Steven Spielberg. In a class by its own is NBC’s revival of The Bionic Woman.

Character-based dramas also are prevalent. Among them are ABC’s sports-themed Football Wives, CBS’ sex-themed, ’70s-set Swingtown and The CW’s teen-themed Gossip Girl.

And if the networks couldn’t make hay of 24’s serialized structure this season, they still believe there’s room for more action- and suspense-themed programs, including NBC’s reverse-time thriller Deadline and CBS’ untitled action-archaeology hour from Jerry Bruckheimer.

Also on tap are more traditional franchise shows featuring cops, lawyers and doctors. Several advertisers said the life-or-death situations these stock characters face seem to resonate with each new generation of viewers. “Crime, law, medicine—they’re not going away,” says Shari Anne Brill, vp, director of programming at Carat USA. “Those remain subjects of fascination for people.”

Although the nonscripted field may have contracted over the past few seasons, the contest genre continues to flourish with more on the way, including NBC’s Grease: You’re the One That I Want; Fox’s filmmaking contest show On the Lot, from Steven Spielberg and Mark Burnett and The CW’s Search for the Next Pussycat Doll.

Despite ABC’s recent cancellation of Show Me the Money, game shows are in high demand. Among the game shows in development are ABC’s Wanna Bet, from a German format and CBS’ revival of Name that Tune. The network also announced a show pitting adult contestants against a group of child prodigies. Fox, along with Mark Burnett, announced a similarly themed show, except without the prodigies—just a regular class of fifth graders.

Although other nonscripted formats have had less success network-wide—including aspirational shows like NBC’s flopped Three Wishes, or docu-soaps like Fox’s The Casino—most advertisers believe the nonscripted genre as a whole remains healthy.

“The networks increasingly are looking for a profit margin,” says Brad Adgate, Horizon Media’s senior vp, director of corporate research. “And because reality shows are inexpensive to produce, even if you get a moderately successful hit, these programs make a lot of money.”

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/networktv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003526039

[RussB]

Jan. 1, 2007, 2:33AM

Break in that 2007 wall calendar

A slew of new TV is coming our way in January. Here are the ones we know about.

By MIKE McDANIEL
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

January start dates for new and returning series.

NEW SHOWS IN ALL CAPS

TODAY (January 1, 2007)

Wildfire, Season 3, ABC Family

TUESDAY

DIRT, Courteney Cox, drama, FX

WEDNESDAY

Beauty and the Geek, Season 3, The CW

THE KNIGHTS OF PROSPERITY, sitcom, ABC

IN CASE OF EMERGENCY, sitcom, ABC

THURSDAY

AFRO SAMURAI, Samuel L. Jackson, animé, Spike TV

FRIDAY

BEYOND THE BREAK, teen drama, Disney

GUNSLINGER GIRL, animé, IFC

BASILISK, animé, IFC

SATURDAY

Dirty Dancing, Season 2, WE

SUNDAY

GREASE: YOU'RE THE ONE THAT I WANT, reality, NBC

The Apprentice, Season 6, NBC

The L Word, Season 4, Showtime

I'M FROM ROLLING STONE, reality drama, MTV

The Surreal Life, Season 4, VH1

JAN. 8

LINCOLN HEIGHTS, family drama, ABC Family

GAY, STRAIGHT OR TAKEN?, dating show, Lifetime

THE (WHITE) RAPPER SHOW, reality, VH1

I LOVE NEW YORK, reality, VH1

JAN. 10

The Sopranos, edited reruns, A&E

ARMED & FAMOUS, celebrity reality, CBS

Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency, Season 2, Oxygen

JAN. 11

Nashville Star, Season 5, USA

JAN. 12:

CORY IN THE HOUSE, teen sitcom, Disney

JAN. 13:

JOHNNY AND THE SPRITES, live-action puppet series, Disney

Little Einsteins, Season 2, Disney

JAN. 14:

24, Season 6, Fox

Extras, Season 2, HBO

Rome, Season 2, HBO

JAN. 15:

High Stakes Poker, Season 3, GSN

My Super Sweet 16, teen reality drama, MTV

DANCELIFE, reality series with Jennifer Lopez, MTV

The Hills, teen drama, MTV

JAN. 16:

American Idol, Fox

Real Housewives of Orange County, Season 2, Bravo

JAN. 17:

THE NAKED TRUCKER AND T-BONES SHOW, comedy, Comedy Central

JAN. 19:

Psyche, Season 2, USA

JAN. 21:

Crossing Jordan, Season 6, NBC

DRESDEN FILES, drama, Sci Fi

Battlestar Galactica returns, Sci Fi

JAN. 22:

Prison Break returns, Fox

Heroes returns, NBC

ENGAGED & UNDERAGE, documentary series, MTV

E-VET INTERNS, documentary series, Animal Planet

JAN. 27:

THE NAKED BROTHERS BAND, mockumentary series, Nickelodeon

JAN. 28:

King of the Hill, animated series, Fox

JAN. 30:

Road Rules, reality, MTV

BAM'S UNHOLY UNION, reality, MTV

Two-a-Days, Season 2, MTV

WRESTLING SOCIETY X, reality, MTV

JAN. 31:

TOP DESIGN, competition, Bravo

America's Ballroom Challenge, reality, PBS

ADVENTURES IN HOLLYWOOD, reality comedy, MTV

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/tv/4437316.html

Note: The link will only be correct until the story is archived. This happens after about a week or so.

[fredfa]

Forecast 2007:
Syndication
By Marc Berman MediaWeek January 1, 2007

Like other media, the challenge syndicators face in 2007 (and beyond) is attracting a sizeable, demographically appealing audience in an increasingly competitive and fragmented landscape.

Fortunately, syndication overall continues to survive on the heels of its veteran first-run mix, with ad sales spending gains projected at margins of 3 percent to 4 percent each year through 2010 (to an estimated $3.44 billion by 2010, according to PQ Media). But there have been no new first-run breakout hits since King World’s Dr. Phil, and the absence of hit sitcoms on the broadcast networks in recent years has taken its toll in the off-network marketplace.

Even top-tier occupants Everybody Loves Raymond, Seinfeld and Friends have sprung leaks, dipping by double-digit percentages year-to-year, according to Nielsen Media Research data. And the pending arrivals of King World’s Half and Half and Warner Bros.’ All of Us, George Lopez and What I Like About You offer lackluster content for the future.

First-run programming has stood the test of time better than off-network. But after decades of veteran first-run hits like King World’s Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy and Oprah and CBS Paramount’s Judge Judy and Entertainment Tonight—and minus anything new of note in recent years, including King World’s highly touted The Rachael Ray Show—one has to wonder how much longer can these same strips continue to carry the marketplace?

“Shows can only last so long,” says Brad Adgate, senior vp, director of corporate research at Horizon Media. “Oprah, after all, won’t be doing her show forever. And neither will Regis Philbin, Judge Judy, Pat Sajak, Alex Trebek or any of the long-running hosts in any genre. So, there really must be more of an emphasis on finding the next generation of first-run hits.”

Unfortunately, what’s new in first-run will be slim again next season. With the annual National Association of Television Program Executives conference just around the corner (Jan. 15-18 in Las Vegas), only one new show—Judge David Young from Sony Pictures Television—is a confirmed go at press time. And even that announcement comes as a surprise to many, given the lackluster freshman results for the syndicator’s Judge Maria Lopez, which to date remains last in the court show genre at a 0.9 household rating.

“There are other projects in the works, so I imagine there will be last-minute arrivals,” says Garnet Losak, vp, director of programming, Petry Media Corp. “The current restructuring at companies like King World and Paramount [which have merged into the CBS Television Distribution Group] and Warner Bros. might be the cause of some of the delays.”

NBC Universal may launch a daytime version of game show Deal or No Deal (with Arsenio Hall or former Hangin’ With Mr. Cooper star Mark Curry as host); Warner Bros. is high on Celebrity Court, a new twist on court with celebrities as the jury; and The CBS Television Distribution Group has hinted of a new one-hour game show block (featuring a revival of The Joker’s Wild and a new strip called Combination Lock. But even if all four shows (plus Judge David Young) managed to get on the air—and the odds of that are highly unlikely—what’s new in first-run at NATPE 2006 will pale in comparison to the more populated days of yesteryear.

“The obstacle for distributors is finding available time periods in syndication,” says Bill Carroll, vp and director of programming for the Katz Television Group. “That’s a reflection of economics; syndicators are not as quick to cancel low-rated programming as they have been in the past. But what could help redefine the daytime landscape are the upcoming off-network arrivals of Law & Order: Criminal Intent, De Grassi: The Next Generation and the relaunch of Baywatch.”

With eight of the top 10 rated syndicated shows now housed under the recently formed CBS Television Distribution Group, a concern for anyone outside of the merger, of course, is trying to leverage itself in the marketplace. But even the house of hits realizes the only way to stay ahead is to constantly look for new and innovative ways to keep your product fresh.

“Never rest on your laurels,” says Terry Wood, president of creative affairs and development for the CBS Television Distribution Group. “We are blessed with success and not under the same pressure to introduce new product. But that does not mean we have the luxury to ignore our audience.”

Or new technology. Syndicated programming has been slow to be streamed online or on mobile phones. “I imagine the syndicators are taking a backseat to wait and see how the broadcasters fare,” says Dr. Leo Kivijarv, vp, head of research for PQ Media. “But if the networks can turn this into a revenue-producing stream, syndication will ultimately follow. Syndication is more of a follower than a leader, so it could take some time.”

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/networktv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003526038

[fredfa]

TV Review
FX makes a mess with drab 'Dirt'
By Robert Bianco USA Today Jan. 2, 2007

If you think dishing dirt is fun, think again.

Alas, amusements, ribald or otherwise, are the last things on the mind of star Courteney Cox (who also is an executive producer with husband David Arquette). She seems far less interested in entertaining us than in lecturing us on the evils of all-star gossip — except, that is, when she and her show attempt to revel in it.

Sanctimonious yet salacious, tawdry yet preachy, and dull as, well, dirt, this haltingly comic drama has as much trouble finding a workable tone as it does making a coherent point. Is the problem supposed to be that we dig too deeply into celebrity lives (the star who overdoses when her pregnancy is revealed) or not deeply enough (the star who uses a fake pregnancy as a publicity stunt)?

Though the debate may be interesting, Dirt never is. And the problem starts with Cox's Lucy Spiller, editor of the tabloidy Drrt and its more upscale sister magazine, Now. It's brave of Cox to choose such an unsympathetic character for her post-Friends TV return, but her performance does neither herself nor her show any favors.

Playing an almost absurdly tightly wound career woman, Cox gives full play to the most strident side of her acting style, and the harshness overwhelms even those few scenes that might have been funny in softer hands. When she does soften, as when she goes doe-eyed the instant someone accuses her of sacrificing love for power, it's inappropriate: That's an attack powerful women have heard for eons.

In her defense, Cox is trapped in a show that takes itself woefully seriously, without having the chops to pull that posture off.

The best performance comes from Ian Hart, who plays the most ridiculous character: Don Konkey, a schizophrenic photographer subject to necrophiliac hallucinations. Like so much of creator Matthew Carnahan's script, Konkey's affliction comes across as a sad, strained attempt to make a subpar show stand out, which may explain Dirt's cable-ready fascination with masturbation and vibrators.

In the end, Dirt is a serious stumble for a network that had supplanted HBO as the go-to cable stop for intriguing new series. What FX may be learning is the same lesson HBO has learned: that somewhere around the fourth or fifth series attempt, hits become harder to find, and quality begins to ebb.

Not that you should count the show out. There are people, after all, who love dish and dirt and stars, even of the fake variety. For all we know, Dirt will fly.

Just be careful not to get any on you.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/reviews/2007-01-01-dirt-review_x.htm

[dad1153]

TV Notebook
What to watch Tuesday
Robert Bianco's USA Today "Media Mix" Column - January 1, 2007

Football throws its weight around tonight in more ways than one, taking up all of Fox's evening and chasing most competitors into reruns.

•Big Day (ABC, 9 ET/PT) has two new episodes, but that's only because the network is rushing to get the show wrapped up and off the air. Still, new counts for something.

•Many of you will be happier with an original episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent (NBC, 9 ET/PT) — especially because this is a Chris Noth week. Tonight, Logan (Noth) and Wheeler (Julianne Nicholson) investigate the murder of a Pakistani woman who may have been the victim of an ethnic family feud.

•NBC follows with a new outing of Law & Order: SVU (10 ET/PT) built around a guest appearance by Brian Dennehy. He's a dying man who confesses to murder.

•Willing to watch reruns if they're classics? TV Land has a 12-hour M*A*S*H (8 ET/PT) marathon that skips around the show's run, mixing some first-season episodes with the famous finale.

•If you're not in a M*A*S*H mood, how about another go with one of the best "B" sci-fi movies of all time: Tremors (Cinemax, 8:15 ET/PT). Don't stick around, though, for the sequel that follows; it diminishes the experience.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/criticscorner/column.htm

[fredfa]

Forecast 2007:
TV Stations
By Katy Bachman MediaWeek January 1, 2007

For local TV, 2007 will be anything but business as usual. In the final days of 2006, news was slow with two exceptions: There was a flurry of new positions created to manage TV station digital media initiatives and the retransmission battle between Sinclair Broadcast Group and Mediacom Communications raged on. Both portended trends that are likely to define the TV business going forward.

Without political dollars, which shattered records in 2006, and coping with ailing automotive and retail categories, local TV’s pursuit of a second revenue stream is where the action will be in 2007.

Across the board, forecasts for the core business are grim. The Television Bureau of Advertising is forecasting total TV spot to decline between 1 percent and 3 percent with national spot down 4 percent and local flat. Not only are rates expected to remain flat in 2007, but both broadcasters and buyers will need to remain flexible. “Over the last couple of years, clients are working closer and closer to deadline,” says Steve Kalb, senior vp and director of broadcast media for Mullen’s mediaHUB. “Directionally media is planned, but you’re always optimizing down to the wire.”

Local TV is suffering from consolidation in the retail business. “Advertisers are moving from spot to national, especially if it’s more of a national brand,” says Kalb. “They might supplement with spot, but that’s a major hit.”

Although auto advertising in 2006 was down overall, particularly among domestic auto spenders, auto spending on spot TV was up 10 percent in third quarter.
“Car sales will be down because the market is saturated, but when that’s the case, they have to work harder to hold onto share. So it will be a pretty good year for automotive,” explains Chris Rohrs, president of the TVB. “Local TV and the Internet are the most complementary of media for the auto category.”

While digital media represents less than 5 percent of revenue, broadcasters are looking at double-digit growth. Local online advertising is expected grow to $7.7 billion this year, a 31.6 percent gain over 2006, according to Borrell Associates. Automotive currently accounts for 12.7 percent of local online ads but is poised to overtake real estate, now at 21.8 percent of dollars, as the top category.

“Everyone is looking for lightning in a bottle,” says Terry Mackin, executive vp and head of digital media for Hearst-Argyle Television. Hearst-Argyle is one of many TV groups taking its digital future seriously by investing significant resources. Last year, for example, NBCU announced NBC 2.0, changing the focus of its strategy to digital. NBCU has a number of local digital initiatives in the pipeline, from NBC Weather Plus to the more recent launch of iVillage Live, the industry’s first multiplatform interactive talk show that melds online and traditional channels. Gannett created Gannett Video Enterprises to provide customized and local video to other media on-air, online and wireless. CBS TV began to experiment with local mobile video offerings. TV affiliates of the major networks began to forge new kinds of relationships with the networks for content and revenue sharing. Those and other initiatives will become more defined as the year progresses.

Buyers are open to the dual buy on the local level, but executing the buy isn’t as easy as the concept sounds. “It’s one-stop shopping for national [digital] buys, but locally, you have to do it market-by-market,” cautions Kalb.

To both lure viewers and provide a more attractive environment for advertisers on the traditional TV channel, stations are working to strengthen dayparts and experiment with inventory. “All of us are looking at different models and length of commercials. We’re using a lot more :15s than in the past and you’re seeing different content client partnerships,” says Larry Wert, president and general manager of WMAQ, NBC Universal’s owned-and-operated outlet in Chicago, which is set to debut Barely Today, an early morning news half-hour at 4:30 a.m. on Jan. 15.

The other potential source of revenue: getting financial compensation from cable for carrying local stations, which took on greater importance in 2006. At the close of the year, several agreements remained in limbo. “Retransmission consent goes right to the bottom line. So even if it’s 3 to 5 percent of revenue, it’s 10 to 15 percent of cash flow,” notes Mark Fratrik, vp of BIA Financial Network.

The industry also is moving forward with e-business, which should ease local TV transactions, and help the business cope with the mountain of daily ratings data generated by the rollout of local people meter markets growing from 10 to 13 in 2007. “We’re poised for a breakout year with some real solutions. These won’t have a dramatic impact for 2007, but it will set the stage for the future,” says Rohrs.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/tvstations/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003526033

[fredfa]

Cable TV Notrebook
Court No Longer in Session on DISH
By Anne Becker & John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 1/1/2007

Court TV has been pulled from the Echostar satellite service after the two sides failed to agree on a new contract. Court TV went dark on Dish as of 12:01 Jan. 1.

Court TV parent company Turner issued the following statement: “We were unable to reach an agreement with Echostar and, as a result, we had no choice but to discontinue their carriage of Court TV."

Turner suggested that customers could switch to competitor DirecTV, or cable, if they wanted to keep getting Court TV.

"They were unwilling to pay the standard industry rate for a popular network that is currently ranked in the Top 20. We are disappointed with their decision, and hope that we can reach resolution," said Turner, "but in the meantime, our cable operator partners and DirecTV are able to provide this network to Court TV fans.”

For its part, Echostar says it continues to negotiate but that Turner was asking too much and that it was only looking out for the best interests of its customers, which it said it must protect "from unreasonable demands," according to senior VP, programming for DISH Network, Eric Sahl. "It is not fair to ask our customers to pay a DBS premium for a channel owned by the second largest cable operator, Time Warner," said Sahl in a statesment. "We take pride in offering consumers the best value for pay TV service in the industry, and we remain committed to keeping our cost structure low to the benefit of our customers.”

In the meantime, EchoStar will fill the Court TV vacancy with a freeview of Biography.

Turner wasted no time trying to drum up viewer support for its side. In a spot on CNN Jan. 1, Turner showed the image of a banging gavel with the tag line "don't stand for this injustice" as it urged viewers to register their disaffection with the disappearance of the channel.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6403317

[RussTC3]

That's the commercial I seen. It aired during Larry King.

[fredfa]

TV Review
'Dirt'
Exposed: Celebrities, Tabloids and Sleaze!
By Alessandra Stanley The New York Times Jan. 2, 2007

There is no role as delicious as a truly nasty, sneaky gossipmonger. Burt Lancaster shone as J. J. Hunsecker, the Walter Winchellesque villain of “Sweet Smell of Success.” George Sanders stole scenes as the poison pen Addison DeWitt in “All About Eve,” and Henry Daniell was weasel incarnate as Sidney Kidd, the editor of Spy magazine in “The Philadelphia Story.”

Then there is Courteney Cox.

On a new FX series that begins tonight, Ms. Cox, a “Friends” alumna, plays Lucy Spiller, the ruthless and relentless editor of Drrt, a celebrity gossip magazine.

The character is based, not so loosely, on Bonnie Fuller, the bold and relentless edito