TV Notebook
'Friday Night Lights' Shine on Applebee's
Placement Ranks in Top 5 in Viewer Engagement
By Jon Lafayette Television Week February 5, 2007

If the people who work at Applebee's had Nielsen meters in their homes, "Friday Night Lights" might have better ratings.

The chain made an advertising deal to have one of its restaurants in Austin serve as a set in the drama about small-town Texas high school football. Despite the show's low ratings, Applebee's considers its deal with NBC as money well spent.

"Of course we'd like to see the ratings a bit higher, but really there's not been a down side to the integration that we've seen," said Donna Josephson, executive director of field marketing for Applebee's.

The company hasn't gotten back formal research on the effectiveness of the integration deal, but the restaurant chain's employees get reminders to tune in and they're proud of the show and the way the restaurant is depicted, she said.

Ms. Josephson declined to say how much Applebee's has paid for its season-long commitment to the show. ITVX, a research company that tracks product placement, estimates that a scene in an October episode of the show in which a character working as an Applebee's waitress meets an interesting man, was worth $155,000. That compares with $135,000 for a 30-second spot.

ITVX said the Applebee's placement was one of the top five in terms of engaging viewers that week, out of 70 shows measured.

Last week, Applebee's got a prominent placement in the show again as a radio broadcast was seen originating in the restaurant, where the football team's booster club regularly meets. The announcer declared that he was broadcasting from Applebee's to set up the scene.

With digital video recorders taking a bigger bite out of traditional TV commercials, advertisers are looking at product placement as a way to put their brands in front of viewers. And networks see it as way to increase the value of the TV ad deals they provide to sponsors.

Product placement could even give a boost to a show like "Friday Night Lights," which despite its critical acclaim could have been canceled at midseason due to low ratings and might not live to see season two.

Last week, "Friday Night Lights" bounced back from a season low to register a 2.4 rating in the 18 to 49 demo, its best since October, but still finished fourth in its timeslot. TV executives say that while being advertiser friendly can help keep a show on the air, it is just one of many factors that go into that decision.

In addition to Applebee's, Gatorade, Toyota and Under Armour have integration deals with "Friday Night Lights."

Selling ad packages that include integration and extensions onto the Internet, VOD and mobile media is becoming more important at the broadcast networks as advertisers seek ways other than traditional commercials to connect with viewers.

"This has been a pivotal year for the marketing community and the television community to establish ways to work with our brands trying to offset the effects of the DVR," said Jim Hoffman, senior VP of network entertainment sales at NBC. "I think we're all on the same page with the same issues as far as clients looking to market their product to a more fragmented audience," he said.

Applebee's is a big TV spender. It bought about $27 million worth of ad time on NBC during the first 11 months of 2006, according to Nielsen Monitor Plus. This TV season the chain spent more than $3 million with NBC in September, October and November, with $550,000 worth of that coming in "Friday Night Lights," which premiered Oct. 3.

Ms. Josephson has concerns about the continuing effectiveness of commercials.

"One of the reasons we took on this partnership is because with traditional viewing patterns changing, we need to find new creative venues to catch viewers' attention and we thought this was an excellent way to do that," she said.

Commercials combined with integration deals stick with viewers two times better than spots by themselves, Mr. Hoffman said. The halo effect of having a product integrated into a show can last, boosting viewer engagement with a spot 15 percent to 20 percent a week later.

Applebee's media buying agency, Starcom, identified "Friday Night Lights" back in February and made a deal with NBC to secure the show for the restaurant category even before it was on the schedule.

"All the themes of football, family, neighbors are a perfect fit for what Applebee's really stands for," said Caroline Boes, associate director of Starcom Entertainment.

Mr. Hoffman declined to disclose the financial details of the integration package, but agency executives said that with a new show like "Friday Night Lights," NBC probably sought a reasonable fee on top of the cost of the commercials Applebee's planned to run.

(For more on Applebee's "Friday Night Lights" integration deal, visit TVWeek.com)

http://www.tvweek.com/article.cms?articleId=31453

The Business of Television
Meeting of NBC Board May Mean Change at Top
By Bill Carter The New York Times February 5, 2007

The board of NBC Universal has scheduled a meeting in New York tomorrow morning, fueling speculation that the long-awaited appointment of Jeff Zucker as the company’s new chairman and chief executive, succeeding Bob Wright, will be formally announced the same day.

One executive expected to participate in the meeting noted that three executives from the Vivendi Corporation, including its chief, Jean-Bernard Levy, are to travel from Paris to attend the meeting. Vivendi, which sold its main entertainment assets to NBC in 2003, remains a 20 percent owner of NBC Universal.

Mr. Zucker’s ascension to the top position at NBC Universal has been forecast for many months. The appointment, if it takes place as expected, will be consistent with most succession plans at the General Electric Company, the parent of NBC Universal, in that it will elevate a longtime insider who had been groomed specifically for the job for many years.

The coming retirement of Mr. Wright, who has led NBC for nearly 20 years and is now 63, and the appointment of Mr. Zucker, who is 41, were both presaged in an interview given to The New York Times in November by Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman of G.E.

“Bob’s done his job extremely well for a long period of time,” Mr. Immelt said, “and he’s getting close to retirement.” In the same interview, Mr. Immelt openly declared his backing for Mr. Zucker, saying, “I am today and have been a Jeff Zucker fan.”

The G.E. board discussed the succession plan at NBC Universal at its own meeting last month, a G.E. executive said. G.E. and NBC executives have emphasized in interviews over the last year that while Mr. Immelt would certainly consult with other members of the G.E. board, the decision to select Mr. Zucker rested with him alone.

Over the last year or so, names of several outside executives have surfaced as potential successors to Mr. Wright. They included Jeffrey L. Bewkes, the president of Time Warner; Peter A. Chernin, the president of the News Corporation; and Tom Freston, who was ousted in September as the chief executive of Viacom.

But none of them became a serious candidate for the position, executives at NBC and G.E. have said in interviews in recent months. The reason, they said, was Mr. Immelt’s unswerving confidence in Mr. Zucker.

The selection of Mr. Zucker would complete a spectacular rise for the young executive. He has worked at NBC for his entire career, coming up through the ranks in its sports and news divisions, where he began as a researcher for the 1988 Olympics.

Mr. Zucker became the executive producer of “Today” when he was only 26. The show, NBC’s most profitable, achieved its most dominant position in the ratings under him.

More recently he has guided NBC’s entertainment and cable divisions. His current title is chief executive of the NBC Universal Television Group, which includes the network as well as the cable channels USA, Bravo, Sci-Fi, CNBC and MSNBC. The NBC network has struggled lately, dropping from first to last in ratings at one point, clouding Mr. Zucker’s sterling reputation. But the network is now rebounding, with solid ratings for “Sunday Night Football” and several new shows, including “Heroes” and “The Office.”

Mr. Wright has enjoyed enormous success leading NBC, which for most of his two-decade tenure has been the most profitable of the television network companies. He engineered many acquisitions for NBC, including the Financial News Network in 1991 (which established CNBC as the dominant business news channel) and the Universal properties in 2003, including the film studio and theme park division. He is expected to remain vice chairman of G.E.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/05/business/media/05nbc.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=media&pagewanted=print

The Business of Television
Nascar Sponsorships Shift Into Overdrive
By John Consoli Media Week February 5, 2007

With the start of the Nascar season just two weeks away, advertisers appear to be ignoring last year’s TV ratings declines and a barrage of published speculation that interest in the sport may be waning. Instead, they’re lining up to run ad campaigns with the three Nascar TV rights-holders—Fox, TNT and ESPN/ABC.

Fox’s telecast of the Daytona 500 on Feb. 18 is just about sold out, with the network intentionally holding back a handful of units. Spots for the race, Fox sources say, have sold for as much as $500,000 per 30-second unit, with the average spot going for between $350,000 and $400,000. As for Fox’s entire 13-race telecast season, insiders say advertising is close to 80 percent sold.

ESPN—which will air seven Nextel Cup races beginning July 29, and will air the Busch Series throughout the season—is sold out for its first Busch race, the Daytona 300, on Feb. 17. And TNT is reporting that its sales of ad time on its six Nextel Cup races that begin on June 17 are pacing ahead of last year.

“The marketplace is very strong for Nascar both for the Nextel Cup and Busch Series races,” said Ed Erhardt, president of ESPN Customer Marketing and Sales. “Not only have many of the Nascar official sponsors expanded their ad spending, but new advertisers are coming in.”

Ten advertisers are expected to unveil new marketing campaigns on Fox’s Daytona 500 telecast. Chevron is one newcomer to Fox’s coverage, buying units in both the Daytona 500 telecast and all of the Nextel Cup races. John Deere is not in Daytona, but will be airing spots in the Cup telecasts. And Toyota, which has its cars running in races this season, will be airing spots in all TV rights-holders’ telecasts.

Having the rights to air the Daytona 500 every year (under the new eight-year TV rights deal) rather than alternating every other year with one of the other broadcast rights partners has let Fox put multiyear packages together, Fox sources said.

Ratings for Nascar on Fox dipped 6.5 percent from a 6.0 in 2005 to a 5.6 in 2006, while ratings on TNT dropped from a 3.9 to a 3.7, down 5 percent. Fox representative Lou D’Ermilio tried to find some positive in the drop, noting that Fox’s 5.6 Nascar rating last season was still up 12 percent over the 5.0 it recorded in 2000 (its first year of Nascar coverage).

The biggest decline was on NBC, where Nascar ratings fell nearly 10 percent from a 5.2 to a 4.7, despite the net’s coverage of the final 10 “Race to the Cup” races, which were specifically instituted to increase fan and viewer interest.

Sam Sussman, senior vp, media director, at Starcom, who handles sports buying, noted that, other than for the National Football League, “A 5.6 rating for a sports telecast on Sunday afternoon is good in an absolute sense. Nascar is doing just fine.”

Sussman added that he sees last season’s ratings declines as “a temporary setback” for Nascar, pointing out that there were a few reasons viewership could have been off. Among them, two rain-outs resulted in races moved from Fox on Sunday to FX on Monday, and NBC’s lame-duck status, which many believe caused the network to use more of its promotion time to plug its new NFL schedule instead of Nascar. NBC has denied that was the case.

To foster interest in Nascar on a year-round basis, ESPN on Feb. 5 begins running Nascar Now, the network’s first-ever news show totally dedicated to the sport. The half-hour show, which runs six nights a week and resembles ESPN’s signature SportsCenter, will offer a different presenting sponsor for each night, among them Office Depot and Aaron’s.

Julie Sobieski, ESPN director of programming, said the network will air several special weeknight editions of Nascar Now leading up to the Daytona 500 during the week of Feb. 12-16, and those shows will originate from Daytona. ESPN during the Nascar season will also televise Cup practice and qualifying sessions, in addition to the races.

ESPN Original Entertainment is producing a history of Nascar documentary series that will air beginning in July and will be promoted with countdown moments that will air on SportsCenter for 100 straight days beginning in April. And Sobieski said, “We are continuing to look at all-types of anciliary programming for Nascar.”

ABC will air the last 11 Sunday Nextel Cup races, and six Bush races on Saturday afternoons, and the network is also looking at televising some anciliary Nascar programming

Nascar will also get extensive coverage on Fox Sports’ brother cable network, Speed, which will televise 75 hours of coverage surrounding the Daytona 500, and during the season will air the Speed Road Tour Challenge. That will involve four Nascar fans traveling to Cup series race locations and competing to win a new Toyota Tundra.

Speed recently completed deals with BFGoodrich Tires, Alltel Wireless and Sunoco as first-time advertisers on the network’s Nascar coverage. BF Goodrich will be the presenting sponsor of

The Speed Report on Sunday nights at 8, which will recap that day’s competition at the Nascar race. Sunoco will sponsor a pit strategy feature in the network’s pre-race coverage.

Home Depot and Wrangler are back for a second season on Speed, and Microsoft and Toyota will sponsor branded specials on the network.

In another advertiser-friendly move, ESPN/ABC, in its Nextel and Busch telecasts, is offering sponsorships of several information icons that will appear on the screen during the telecasts. ESPN is also selling Nascar packages across all platforms as part of its ESPN Surround.

David Levy, president of Turner Sports and Entertainment sales and marketing, said TNT during the season also will be experimenting with new ways for advertisers to appear in the telecasts. One will be a commercial-free telecast of the Pepsi 400 in prime time on July 7. Pepsi, DirecTV and 360 OTC have so far been locked in as advertisers; they will sponsor preproduced segments within the telecast, get enhanced signage around the studio desk and have product-placement enhancements within the telecasts. “Then we’ll see how much the viewers embrace this type of wide-open racing telecast,” Levy said.

TNT plans to begin promoting its Nascar coverage with on-air spots in the National Basketball Association Eastern Conference finals telecasts in May. “The NBA games get the highest ratings on our network so it will be a good vehicle to promote the start of the Nascar telecasts on June 10,” Levy said.

Turner also operates the Nascar.com Web site and plans to execute many tie-ins between TV coverage and the Web site.

“Nascar is still underdeveloped in the Top 20 markets and will continue to grow viewer interest there,” said Starcom’s Sussman. “And the sports’ efforts to bring in new drivers like [Formula 1 driver] Juan Pablo Montoya will also bring in new viewers.”

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003541436

The Business of Television
Meeting of NBC Board May Mean Change at Top
By Bill Carter The New York Times February 5, 2007

Mr. Wright has enjoyed enormous success leading NBC, which for most of his two-decade tenure has been the most profitable of the television network companies. He engineered many acquisitions for NBC, including the Financial News Network in 1991 (which established CNBC as the dominant business news channel) and the Universal properties in 2003, including the film studio and theme park division. He is expected to remain vice chairman of G.E.

The HD-DVD/Blu-ray forums are speculating whether Zucker's reach also includes the home video divisions of Universal Studios, the only major Hollywood studio that is currently an HD-DVD exclusive backer (every other studio is either neutral or Blu-ray exclusive). If Zucker were to make Universal neutral or BD-exclusive it would be close to the kiss of death to the HD-DVD format. So naturally BD supporters want him to do just that while the HD-DVD fanboys (like me!) hope he's either not involved in this process or decides to give HD-DVD time to prove itself.

Super Bowl XLI Notebook
Game was a break from the boring commercials
Mike Penner Los Angeles Times Columnist February 5, 2007

MANNING DIVISION

• Nationwide Mutual Insurance:
• Coca Cola:
• Bud Light:
• General Motors:
• Budweiser:

GROSSMAN DIVISION

• Sierra Mist:
• Bud Light:
• Snickers:
• Emerald Nuts:
• T-Mobile:

I hope Rex Grossman has Tony Romo's phone number (or Scott Norwood's for yer old-timers) so they can whale on each other's shoulders. :cool:

I hope Rex Grossman has Tony Romo's phone number (or Scott Norwood's for yer old-timers) so they can whale on each other's shoulders. :cool:

Hey, give Romo and Norwood a break...they came up small at ONE moment...Grossman came up small the entire GAME (except for 1 TD throw) :-)

Personally glad to see Peyton get that particular monkey off his back, now I don't have to hear about it anymore lol. It also shuts up Patriots fans who seem to revile Peyton for some reason, even when Peyton always lost to them lol.

The HD-DVD/Blu-ray forums are speculating whether Zucker's reach also includes the home video divisions of Universal Studios, the only major Hollywood studio that is currently an HD-DVD exclusive backer (every other studio is either neutral or Blu-ray exclusive). If Zucker were to make Universal neutral or BD-exclusive it would be close to the kiss of death to the HD-DVD format. So naturally BD supporters want him to do just that while the HD-DVD fanboys (like me!) hope he's either not involved in this process or decides to give HD-DVD time to prove itself.


Of course his reach includes Universal. It IS called NBC Universal, after all. The whole ball of wax will be his domain.

I know little about the BR/HDVD battle, except to wonder why any studio has cast its lot with one or the other format (aside from Sony, of course).

From a business point of view I don't understand the upside to making such a gamble.

(Of course it also puzzles me why people take such a personal -- and fanatic -- interest in such a battle of mega corporations. If seems to me a far more prudent way to deal with life is to wait until such battles shake out, and then decide which one to buy. Early adopting, as we all know, has its pitfalls.)

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

Super Bowl XLI
Bud Light Spots Top TiVo's Super Bowl List
By Glen Dickson Broadcasting & Cable,2/5/2007

Two humorous spots from brewer Anheuser-Busch were the most-viewed Super Bowl commercials among TiVo viewers, according to audience measurement data from the digital video recorder (DVR) supplier.

Bud Light's "Language Course with Carlos Mencia" and "Rock Paper Scissors" headed TiVo's Top 10 list, which is prepared using aggregated, anonymous, second-by-second audience measurement data about how TiVo subscribers watched the game. The analysis, based on a sample of 10,000 anonymous TiVo households, gauges the interest in programming content by measuring the percentage of the TiVo audience watching in “play” speed.

Two "user-generated" spots for Doritos also made TiVo's Top 10, which also included a much-touted spot for insurer Nationwide that featured erstwhile rapper Kevin Federline and a Schick ad that has been airing nationally for weeks.

The TiVo audience measurement analysis showed that TiVo households on average utilized the Trick Play features – pausing, rewinding, fast forwarding during live broadcasts – an average of 109 times during the game, a slight uptick from 100 times for last year's contest.

This Super Bowl was the first time subscribers were able to download their favorite commercials to their TiVo box via the Internet using its "Product Watch" service, which allowed viewers to use the TiVo interface to find their favorite ad online and record it to a broadband-enabled TiVo unit. Participating advertisers included Anheuser-Busch, Chrysler, Emerald Nuts, Fed Ex, GM, GoDaddy.com, Honda, Michelin, Nationwide, Sprint, and Taco Bell.

According to Todd Juenger, VP/GM of Audience Research and Measurement for TiVo, one interesting finding this year was that there didn't seem to be any controversial plays that caused TiVo users to frantically rewind the action, such as Ben Roethlisberger's disputed touchdown run last year.

"In years past, there have been big plays that caused giant spikes [in Trick Play usage]," says Juenger. "This year, there wasn't anything like that."

TiVo's Top 10:

1. Bud Light: Language Course with Carlos Mencia
2. Bud Light: Rock Paper Scissors
3. FedEx: Don’t Judge
4. Nationwide: Kevin Federline Rollin’ VIP
5. Doritos Crash the Super Bowl
6. CareerBuilder: Office Jungle
7. Blockbuster: Mouse
8. Doritos Crash The Super Bowl: Checkout Girl
9. Chevrolet: Everybody Loves a Chevy
10. Schick: Quarto Science

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6413247.html?display=Breaking+News

In case you missed the news…
TV Notebook
'Studio 60' and '30 Rock' headed for hiatus

NBC is swapping around its schedule, according to the network’s nbcumv.com web site, and it’s not a good sign for several struggling shows.

“Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” and “30 Rock” are headed for hiatus to make way for the new drama “The Black Donnellys” and “Andy Barker, P.I.”

The network insists in the release that both first-year programs will be back later this season, but it does not give a specific date for “Studio 60,” never a good sign.

“Donnellys” gets “Studio 60’s” plum Monday 10 p.m. spot leading out of the network’s biggest hit, “Heroes,” beginning on March 5. “Barker” lands behind “Scrubs” in NBC’s solid-if-unspectacular Thursday lineup, airing at 9:30 p.m. starting March 15. The network promised that “Rock” would return April 19.

Media people expect that “Rock” will make a second season despite low ratings because NBC Entertainment president Kevin Reilly sees potential in the show and it has grown a bit since moving to Thursdays.

But “Studio 60,” whose total viewers audience has dropped nearly in half since its debut despite being the season’s most anticipated new show, likely won’t be back. It reportedly is expensive to produce, in part because it has a star-heavy cast.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/cat_index_32.asp

Super Bowl XLI
Call on Simms: Hit & misses
By Neil Best Newsday Feb. 5, 2007

Phil Simms famously missed on only three passes when he led the Giants to their first Super Bowl title 20 years ago.

But last night he opened his fifth Super Bowl as an analyst with two misfires.

Simms said he thought the weather would not be much of a factor and that "maybe it was a blessing [for the Colts] losing the coin toss."

Oops.

The first rainy night in Super Bowl history turned out to be a huge factor, and the Bears' Devin Hester returned the opening kickoff 92 yards for a touchdown.

No harm, though.

Simms, as usual, was willing to poke fun at himself, especially about what became a deluge not forecast by weathermen. In the end, he and Jim Nantz logged their customary sound, level-headed effort.

Still, Hester's return was a nutty start that set the tone for a weird evening.

It was a game marked by turnovers, CBS lenses in need of regular squeegee-ing and an above-average halftime show by Prince that inspired a Nantz line about hearing "Purple Rain in a driving rain."

During the regular season, bad weather usually boosts ratings. The Super Bowl doesn't need that sort of help. So the elements mostly just made for a peculiar atmosphere, one that made it seem like a normal game rather than one named with a Roman numeral.

CBS helped create that atmosphere by limiting its use of gimmicks and graphics, whether by choice or partly because of the weather.

The network did what it could with the pictures under the awful conditions, something Nantz and Simms should have discussed in further detail before it began impacting the game with a botched extra-point hold followed by two consecutive fumbles in the first quarter.

Simms jokingly said after the Bears' second score: "I said the rain would not be a factor in the game."

And by the middle of the third quarter, Simms dryly noted, "Jim, it has not stopped raining."

Nantz seemed as shocked as everyone else in America when the first half ended with Adam Vinatieri missing a short field goal wide left.

"The kick is not perfect!" he said. "It is wide of the mark."

The best commercial of the first half was Colts fan David Letterman and Bears fan Oprah Winfrey cozily watching together on a loveseat.

At halftime, Prince's eclectic, relatively shtick-free performance was a good one for the genre, more so given the added challenge of the rain.

The game's impact on Peyton Manning's legacy was perhaps the most important subplot overall, and the most intriguing broadcasting subplot was how Nantz and Simms would handle the topic.

The two are not known for sharply criticizing coaches and players, especially quarterbacks. But after a shaky start, there was not much to complain about with Manning, who was named MVP after leading the team capably and leaning on his running game.

The Bears' Rex Grossman was another story.

As usual, CBS' halftime analysts were more blunt in looking at the big picture than Nantz and Simms, with Shannon Sharpe and Boomer Esiason blasting Grossman for his shaky play and Esiason reiterating a pregame warning about ball security.

Simms defended Grossman in the second half, saying he had not been allowed to get into a flow.

Simms' tone changed when Grossman coughed up the game for good by throwing an interception that Kelvin Hayden returned 56 yards for a touchdown to make it 29-17.

Said Simms: "There was no chance of the receiver catching that football."

Soon Simms was saying that Grossman might start playing better now that he would get more opportunities to pass.

Seconds later, he threw another interception - and Simms had matched his number of misses in Super Bowl XXI.

STRANGE BUT TRUE:

Puppies are jacked up!

Alas, the people, um, behind Lingerie Bowl IV canceled this year's game, leaving the alternative Super Bowl programming field open for other young performers, ones wearing nothing at all.

Yup, Animal Planet came through again yesterday with Puppy Bowl III, and the stars were as cuddly as ever. One even took a snooze at midfield.

One thing, though: The violence level seemed to be up from 2006, with some gratuitous replays of pups wrestling and biting and ramming into each other. Just like the way TV covers real football!

Meanwhile, on the official halftime show ... At least the NFL trotted out a headliner under 60 after two years of Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger.

Still, Prince is 48 and his debut album came out in 1978, two years before Rex Grossman was born.

JUST WONDERING:

Humidity fogs plans for CBS

There was much talk before the Super Bowl about how soggy weather might affect the players, but what about a guy who had to worry about 47 high-def cameras and other very expensive electronic toys?

That was Ken Aagaard's problem, and CBS' senior VP of operations did not sound too happy about it 3 1/2 hours before kickoff.

"When the weather gets bad everything is four times more difficult," he said.

And when there is as much equipment as at a Super Bowl?

"There are four times more things that can get screwed up."

As of 3 p.m., planned aerial shots and others from a 750-foot tower were off because of fog. (They got cleared for aerial shots at 5:15.)

Camera lenses had to be wiped off because of condensation, but the big concern was humidity affecting what Aagaard called "8 zillion miles of cable laid out here."

CBS even lost a generator and had to use a backup. "Generators don't like humidity," he said.

Nor, apparently, did Katie Couric's hair. Nothing Aagaard could do about that.

BEST'S BETS:

CBS' pregame road is uneven

CBS started all this 50 years ago, pioneering the idea of NFL pregame shows, with Bud Palmer hosting one that mercifully lasted only 15 minutes.

The network also was an innovator in Super Bowl pregames, offering two hours before SBVI.

This year the fun started at noon, or was it at 10:30 a.m., when Bob Schieffer of "Face the Nation" did what news types always do when around jocks: turn to mush.

Schieffer was so smitten with Phil Simms and Dan Marino it was a wonder he didn't lean over and hug them.

CBS Sports president Sean McManus recently put all this in perspective, when asked whether so many hours of filler risks nauseating viewers.

"Well, they may be nauseated," he said, "but they still watch."

It is extremely difficult to do anything groundbreaking in a Super Bowl pregame and CBS didn't, other than finding new ways to squeeze paid sponsorships into the festivities.

Randy Cross hosted a report from Iraq with U.S. troops, but unfortunately James Brown inadvertently talked over the soldiers' shouted message to the folks back home.

Hey, stuff happens. That wasn't as strange as Simms playing golf with the GEICO "caveman" during his "All-Iron" show, sponsored by ... GEICO.

CBS finished the pregame marathon nicely with a piece at 6 o'clock that featured greetings from friends and relatives of the players, including Peyton Manning's older brother, Cooper.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-spmedia5081348feb05,0,5888148,print.column?coll=ny-sports-columnists

Super Bowl XLI
Nantz's first call is successful, but Simms provides mouthful
By Dusty Saunders (Denver) Rocky Mountain News Feb. 5, 2007

It was a first for a Super Bowl and Jim Nantz.

The Bears' Devin Hester became the first player to run an opening Super Bowl kickoff back for a touchdown.

Nantz provided the play-by-play - his first Super Bowl call.

Involved in previous Super Bowl telecasts as a studio host, Nantz, who joined analyst Phil Simms in the 2004 season, was making his Super Bowl debut as a play-by-play man.

The kickoff return statistic is not one the CBS announcing crew had at its fingertips.

After the Bears kicked off and the Colts ran two plays, Nantz announced that Hester had set a record while refraining from announcing his own accomplishment of being in the right place at the right time.

Actually, Nantz, who has improved greatly from his rookie season in the booth three seasons ago, had a good day.

In the upper echelon of network sports broadcasters, Nantz nearly always displays a "viewer friendly" attitude while not being patronizing.

Nantz kept the game in focus, with his only small misstep coming before the half when, without saying so, he left the impression that Colts kicker Adam Vinatieri had an easy field-goal attempt. Vinatieri missed.

Simms, a keen student of the game, was, as always, a bit verbose, providing 50-word analyses when 20 words would do.

And he wasn't as critical as he should have been of the play of Bears quarterback Rex Grossman, who threw two key interceptions in the second half.

In the second quarter, when Chicago fell behind for the first time (16-14), Simms said Grossman was off "to a pretty good start."

He should have noted that the pressure was on the often-maligned quarterback, who now had to come from behind.

On the positive side, Simms was quick to note that Colts offensive coordinator Tom Moore stressed that the first possession of the second half was always a key. The Colts' initial second-half drive resulted in an important field goal.

Technically, the high definition coverage, under coordinating producer Lance Barrow and director Mike Arnold, was superb, including key replays like the one that showed the Colts' Kelvin Hayden stayed in bounds on his interception for a touchdown.

In this age of electronic magic, such first-rate coverage in controversial situations is expected.

Keep in mind, CBS Sports utilized three VizRT Graphix Engines. My electronics pals tell me that every decent sports network needs at least one of those.

'LOST' SUPER BOWL: Sunday's game will be replayed again . . . and again . . . and again (add as many "agains" as you want.)

The NFL Films crew was on hand to cover every play from various camera angles.

Ever wonder why only a few excerpts from Super Bowl I, played in the Los Angeles Coliseum 40 years ago, are shown on TV?

Although the game was broadcast by both CBS and NBC, neither network has a complete tape of the game. According to both networks, the game tapes were accidentally erased or discarded.

Storage costs of the bulky 2-inch tapes used in the '60s were expensive.

However, former CBS Sports president Neal Pilson, who now runs a sports marketing firm, "guesses" there was an inadvertent erasure.

A bit of television irony is connected with the "lost" Super Bowl.

The game was the first and only time two networks competed in coverage of a national sports championship.

FIVE COMRADES: It's not surprising that CBS' Sunday Morning would broadcast an entertaining feature away from the bloated, predictable Super Bowl pregame stuff. The irrepressible Bill Geist provided a colorful Miami interview with a quintet of NFL fans from around the nation, including one from Denver, who have attended every Super Bowl while becoming close friends in the process.

LOGICAL QUESTION: In a pregame interview, Dan Marino asked Colts quarterback Peyton Manning: "Assuming you win, is there any way you can do more TV commercials?"

Peyton's answer: A shrug of the shoulders and a laugh.

So what other sporting events were televised on Super Bowl Sunday?

ESPN2 spent part of the afternoon covering food-eating competition, timely TV considering that many couch potatoes were gorging themselves while watching Indianapolis beat Chicago.

Competition started at noon with a brats-eating contest as the ESPN announcers actually played it straight while introducing contestants who ran through a crowd of avid supporters.

One superstar eater had recently slammed down 20 brats in 18 minutes of competition.

A real athlete.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/spotlight_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23962_5329327,00.html

TV Review
Ignorable ' 'Rules'
Obnoxious New Sitcom Gets Old Fast
By Tom Shales Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 5, 2007

Every now and then, it seems reasonable to stop and wonder, "Where have all the sitcoms gone?" Then one network or another will introduce a new one, it will fall to earth with a sad "splat," and you are reminded that perhaps the only thing worse than a bad sitcom is a bad reality show. It's a race too close to call.

Take tonight's CBS debut. Please. The new show, "Rules of Engagement," (9:30 ET/PT) does not rule. It tends instead to reek, emitting the aroma of a decaying clone. Essentially it's the umpty-umpth attempt to imitate "Friends," with the friends in this case being two couples (one married, one engaged) and a swinging single guy who can't imagine being tied down.

Actually, he can imagine being tied down, but only to the bed as part of some naughty sex play. The alleged comedy derives from the uncertainty built into relationships and the little things in life that make people alternately love and loathe one another.

In addition, and hewing to a relatively new sitcom tradition, there are lots of gay jokes and references. The first scene of the first episode, in fact, depends on gayness for a couple of wee laughs: We're in a diner and Russell, the single guy (David Spade), is joining his friend Adam (Oliver Hudson) for lunch.

Russell: "You ordered for me? Why don't we just make out?"

Adam announces his engagement to girlfriend Jennifer (Bianca Kajlich): "I proposed to her because I love her."

Russell: " So gay."
Adam: "Being in love with a girl is gay?"
Russell: "No -- but saying it out loud to another guy is."

And so writer Tom Hertz is off and stumbling with dialogue from the Book of Cheap and Easy Laughs. The gay references persist, and although individually they might not be offensive or crude, in profusion they just become obnoxious. They're also signs of lazy writing.

In next week's second episode, the words "annual" and "anal" are confused in an attempt at rib tickling.

This episode is called "The Birthday Deal," a reference to a special annual treat, presumably sexual, that Jeff (Patrick Warburton), married for 12 years, receives from his wife, Audrey (Megyn Price). Jeff won't tell Adam exactly what the "deal" is, but Adam tells Jeff: "I'm getting a deal," too, "and every year when I'm doing it, I'm going to think of you." Oh-ho, that's rich.

Later, at a furniture store, Adam tells Jeff that he has talked his fiancee into not one but two "birthday deals" each year. The writers try not to stray from the topic of sex for more than two minutes or so; they seem to feel helplessly adrift without a sex joke nearby. Thus is there talk of "crazy sex fantasies" and "kinky" sex practices.

And the long-suffering Jeff laments, during chitchat at a cocktail party, that "we sort of wrapped up the sex portion of our marriage" some time ago and moved on to a kind of convivial void. A few jokes border on funny, some really are funny, none are hilarious and most are laborious.

Warburton, so amusingly deadpan as Puddy on "Seinfeld," seems merely a bitter grouch here, and viewers might well wonder what makes the slight and disheveled Spade so attractive to gorgeous women. Perhaps they're farsighted.

Kajlich and Price are cheerfully innocuous, whereas Hudson comes across limply and wimpily. No one in the cast is likely to be your new favorite actor.

Every time a new sitcom is announced, some of us, giddy with optimism, wonder, "Will this be the new 'Seinfeld'?" Or, "Will this at least be the new 'Friends'?" But "Rules of Engagement" is neither. It's the new nothing, and it seems not only old at first encounter, but dead on arrival.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020401290_pf.html

Super Bowl XLI
Bud Light Spots Top TiVo's Super Bowl List
By Glen Dickson Broadcasting & Cable,2/5/2007



http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6413247.html?display=Breaking+News

I was just glad to not see another barrage of Pepsi commercials attacking Coke.

Super Bowl XLI
The Rain in Miami Falls Mainly On the Players
By Ray Richmond The Hollywood Reporter in his blog “Past Deadline”

So the above headline ain't exactly poetry. It's accurate, at least. Super Bowl XLI was nothing if not all wet. And slippery. And typically hard-hitting. And very entertaining -- for the usual first 30 minutes. The final 30? Not so much. But at least we had those commercials, though are you like me? Do you have to remind yourself every time there's an advertising break, "Ooooh! Ooooh! Commercials. Gotta watch." And then you can hear about 35% of it, because the kids are running around, people are telling stories, laughing and crunching chips, and the truth is that only half of your brain is inspired to give a rat's arse even if you know these are supposed to be cooler-than-usual ads.

All of that said, there was plenty of entertainment to be had here on Super Bowl Sunday. And it had nothing to do with the halftime entertainment from Prince, who is one of those performers whom you either get or don't get (and I don't). Yeah, it was really appropriate for him to sing "Purple Rain" because -- hey! -- it was raining. But you have to care about "Purple Rain" and its lyrics for that to matter beyond thinking, "Hey, it's raining, and the little guy wearing the scarf on his head is singing a rain song!"

I don't have the Prince gene. Is it just me, or does he appear to have no evident personality apart from his earnest stage persona? He's also really really short, and if we've learned anything from Randy Newman, it's that short people got no reason to live. So pardon me if I don't go all gaga that Prince graced America and the world with his presence. I still hear his name and wonder, "Prince what? Charles? Now there's one guy I'd pay to see go electric."

So anyway, here are the commercials I liked best (in order):

1. The Bud Light ad featuring the couple who pick up the guy wielding an ax and another one with a chainsaw. A perfect blend of farce and ridiculosity (which I know isn't a real word and I don't care).

2. The Taco Bell spot with the talking lions with the rollllllling tongues. Highly amusing, even if most actual lions you see today are lukewarm over fast food carne asadas.

3. That was one superb advertisement for the American Heart Association where we see diabetes and obesity and cholesterol beat up on the poor guy until he's barely beating. Great point, delivered with mirth, verve and intelligence.

4. Robert Goulet for Emerald nuts. I've watched it a few times and I'm still not even sure what the point of the ad was -- lack of energy? -- but that doesn't matter as much as seeing Goulet crawling, cat-like, on a ceiling. Remind me to tell you my Robert Goulet story sometime.

5. The spot for Budweiser featuring the fake Dalmatian who gets to lead his own parade was cute too, if a little bit drawn out.

6. It was a little dumb, but I still liked the Bud Light ad that had all of those guys slapping each other instead of bumping fists. An amusing concept.

7. The otherwise drab commercial for Sprint that coined the phrase "Connectile Dysfunction." That alone deserves a medal.

8. I also kinda liked the Snickers ad where the auto mechanics accidentally kiss and need to "do something manly" to ward off the evil gay spirits. But then it was pointed out to me how homophobic this was, and I felt shame for even thinking about liking it. And that's the truth, so help me Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

I also thought that Coca-Cola did a swell job creatively with its series of ads, even if none of them stood out individually in a huge way with their cleverness. It was, all in all, a decent enough (though hardly exceptional) series of commercials by the various advertisers who plunked down over $2.5 million for 30 seconds of face time with the viewing public, though I still wonder about the actual value of them from a marketing perspective aside from ego and name recognition (and if you're Doritos or Coke or Bud, you probably don't need much of that).

As an annual television event, Super Bowl Sunday remains unparalleled, and it speaks to the uncanny promotional might of former NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle (and less his successor Paul Tagliabue). I used to be a football fan back when Los Angeles had a team. I've pretty much given up on the sport professionally. Yet it's fairly inconceivable that I'd miss a Super Bowl even if I didn't have money on the game.

The outlandish pomp and hype are so outsized to the actual human importance of the thing that it approaches the realm of surrealism each and every year. It also speaks to America's penchant for doing everything bigger, longer and with greater intensity. By that measure, the Super Bowl is us in a nutshell. But I refuse to try to wax any more poetic or profound than that, lest anyone accuse me of similar outsized hyperbole.

Whoops. Too late.

http://www.pastdeadline.com/

The Business of Television
Added Nielsen College Viewers to Have Little Impact
By John Consoli Media Week February 5, 2007

Media buyers expect little impact on overall TV ratings as a result of Nielsen Media Research’s inclusion of college student viewing into its national people meter sample, which began on Jan. 29.

“With the exception of MTV, Comedy Central and a few other cable networks that actually sell ads based on that particular 18-24 demo, the rating points for the other networks are not going to change that much,” said Lyle Schwartz, senior vp, media research director for GroupM.

Preliminary Nielsen results during the test period showed that college viewers increased adults 18-24 ratings between 3 percent and 5 percent. But when that was factored into the typical broadcast or cable network adults 18-34 or 18-49 ad-buy, ratings grew only 1 percent, Schwartz said. “Daytime ratings, particularly soap operas, will be helped maybe another few percentage points, because there are a lot more college kids watching daytime than people realize,” he added.

Generally speaking, agency research executives believe that the addition of college viewing will offer a more accurate overall indicator of who is watching, but it won’t generate any new windfall of ad revenue for the TV networks. “I would think the impact on the broader demos 18-34 and 18-49 will be minimal, particularly for the higher rated programs,” argued Steve Sternberg, executive vp of audience analysis for Magna Global USA. “But for smaller, more targeted cable shows or networks, like Adult Swim or MTV2, the percent gains among 18-24s could be more significant.”

According to Nielsen pilot data (Nielsen, like Mediaweek, is owned by The Nielsen Co.), the show that got the biggest bump from the inclusion of college women 18-24 was ABC’s Grey’s Anatomy, which rose by 4.6 rating points, or 5.3 percent in the demo. Among men 18-24, Comedy Central’s Drawn Together grew the most, with college viewing adding 1.2 rating points or 6.3 percent. More generally, the pilot data showed that college viewers had the greatest impact on football telecasts and animated programming.

Media agency researchers believe it’s going to take awhile before any viewing patterns are established. “We’ve only seen limited data from Nielsen so far, so we really need to wait and see what the actual impact will be,” Sternberg said.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003541435

Super Bowl XLI
The Rain in Miami Falls Mainly On the Players
By Ray Richmond The Hollywood Reporter in his blog “Past Deadline”

8. I also kinda liked the Snickers ad where the auto mechanics accidentally kiss and need to "do something manly" to ward off the evil gay spirits. But then it was pointed out to me how homophobic this was, and I felt shame for even thinking about liking it. And that's the truth, so help me Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

Good Lord. Do you guys in California actually feel that any man that doesn't appreciate kissing another man is a homophobe?

I was going to reply that Ray's comment was meant to be tongue in cheek -- then I realized that might not be the best term to use.

But you get my drift.

TV Notebook
Turner Broadcasting to pay $2M in Boston bomb scare
By Casey Ross, Jessica Fargen and Peter Gelzinis Boston Herald Monday, February 5, 2007

Turner Broadcasting Corp. will pay back Massachusetts $2 million for the Cartoon Network guerilla marketing campaign that prompted a rash of bomb scares across the city last week.

Attorney General Martha Coakley announced the agreement this morning, which absolves the entertainment giant of any civil or criminal claims with the state and local agencies who were a part of the settlement.

Half of the cash will be used to pay back the law enforcement agencies that provided a full response to the bomb scares, while the other half will go toward homeland security and other programs.

The controversy began last Wednesday morning, when an MBTA employee spotted a circuit board with wires stuck on a steel girder under Interstate 93 at Somerville Square station in Charlestown. Over the course of the day, 10 similar suspicious devices were found in sensitive locations across Boston, Somerville and Cambridge. Late in the afternoon, Turner Broadcasting contacted city officials to report that the devices were actually mini billboards featuring a cartoon character named “Err” from the Cartoon Network’s “Aqua Teen Hunger Force.”

By that time, local, state and federal authorities had already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars investigating each device.

Today, Coakley defended the police response to what turned out to be an advertising campaign.

“I believe the actions that were taken by law enforcement were appropriate and in proportion to the perceived threat as we saw it at the time,” she said.

Meanwhile, Coakley said the case against two men arrested for installing the magnetic signs across Boston is being negotiated. Peter Berdovsky, 27, an Arlington art college graduate, and Sean Stevens, 28, of Charlestown, are charged with placing the Lite-Brite-esque devices under bridges and near MBTA stations in the Boston area.

Coakley said she hopes to reach some agreement with both soon.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=181185

TV Review
'Rules' of thumb:
Warburton is worth watching, but CBS' new sitcom feels tired
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher” Monday, February 5, 2007

There’s good news regarding CBS’ new sitcom “The Rules of Engagement” (9:30 ET/PT, CBS). It’s not awful, which most new network sitcoms are.

At no point will you feel like scratching your own eyes out rather than sitting through an episode. So there’s that.

One very large plus is in the form of the man-mountain known as Patrick Warburton, a ubiquitous voice actor who also appeared in “The Tick” and on “Seinfeld.” Warburton has a wonderful way of underselling a line, yet using his sonorous voice to wring the most dry wit from it. This thinly constructed show may be worth watching for the sly Warburton alone.

Also on the scene is David Spade, whose snarky lech act (not to mention his strangely feminine hair) is showing its age but still has a modicum of life left in it. Spade plays Russell, a semi-creepy middle-age lothario who is the improbable sidekick of two couples who live in the same building.

The first couple is Jeff and Audrey (Warburton and Megyn Price). Hitched a dozen years ago, they’re grizzled veterans of married life.

“We’ve sort of wrapped up the sex part of the marriage,” Jeff confides to his neighbor, Adam. “It’s been replaced by Letterman.”

Adam (Oliver Hudson) is half of the other couple on the show; he and Jennifer (Bianca Kajlich) are starry-eyed lovers who’ve just gotten engaged.

And there’s the bad news. That premise - cynical married couple mocks the romantic naivete of a younger couple - has been done to death, most recently by the black-hearted Fox sitcom “’Til Death.”

Thankfully, “Rules” is no “’Til Death”: There are funny moments on the CBS comedy. Spade and especially Warburton are genuinely enjoyable, and Oliver Hudson is intermittently charming as the nervous Adam.

The problem with this show is the whiff of tiresome sexism that hangs over it. The female characters on “Rules,” as on so many other TV comedies, are either unattainable sex objects or critical, disappointed harpies who exist to deprive the menfolk of good times. Ha ha, that’s so funny I forgot to laugh.

Not every comedy sees the world this way; for all its faults (which lessened over the course of its first season), TBS’ “My Boys” posited that a woman could be as narcissistic, confident and clueless as a man - and as kind and guileless.

In case we’re too stupid to get where “Rules” is coming from, Adam wears a shirt decorated with images of handcuffs in the second episode. Then again, that episode is the strongest of the first three. In it, a comically uncomfortable Adam wonders what his wife’s most secret fantasy could be - what if it’s so weird that he just can’t wrap his mind around it?

It’s an unfortunate fact that Price and Kajlich aren’t nearly as entertaining to watch as the male actors on “Rules,” and it doesn’t help that some of their lines could have been lifted from any tired married-life sitcom from the last, oh, 40 years.

“Why do you have to put a price tag on everything?” Audrey wails when Jeff complains about her spending. Honestly, in this day and age, is that line still supposed to be funny?

If CBS wants to put a hammerlock on the much-desired 18-49 demographic, it shouldn’t commission comedies that have such a musty, retro view of gender politics.

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

Critic’s Notebook
Super Bowl Sunday:
Après le Déluge
By Matt Roush: TVGuide.com TV Critic Feb. 5, 2007

The best thing I saw on Super Bowl Sunday? Pan’s Labyrinth. But that’s a different story (or a different column). Anything to get out of doors (even in the frigid cold) to skip the first few hours of pre-Super Bowl hype.

The worst thing I saw on Super Bowl Sunday? A typically unpleasant, thoroughly predictable episode of Criminal Minds that followed the big game. More on that later.

In between, we had a game played in torrential rain that had plenty of reversals (how slippery was that football, anyway?) and was plenty exciting, especially to a former Indiana resident and current Peyton Manning fan. The buzz about Super Bowls is that this is usually the one night of the year when you actually watch the ads and zip your TiVo through the game. This year, that would have been a mistake.

I lost count of the number of moronic Bud Light ads I had to sit through just to get to the two memorable ads for classic Budweiser. As usual, there was a classy one involving Clydesdales, this year focusing on a mutt who, when splattered and spotted with mud, gets to pretend to be a Dalmatian and thus ride in a parade with the mighty horses (and the beauty queens). Later in the game, another clever Budweiser ad (clever because the animals didn’t actually speak) offered up a gathering of crabs on the beach who scuttle away with a cooler of Buds; when the sun hits the cooler and two longneck bottles, casting a shadow that resembles a godlike crab, the crabs mimic and bow to it.

The celebrity ads seemed a bit of a bust. I’d heard that Robert Goulet was spoofing his fame (such as it is) in an Emerald Nuts ad, but the concept was awfully random, casting the singer as an office gremlin who messes things up while employees take their afternoon nap. He didn’t sing a note, which made me wonder: Is Goulet truly that iconic? What gives? The other quasi-celebrity ad of note featured Kevin Federline dreaming of rap stardom while pushing fast-food fries in his more humbled post-Britney existence. I guess that's more funny than sad. Hard to say.

The only star sighting I truly enjoyed, because it was such a surprise, was the quickie David Letterman promo that showed him and Oprah curled up on a couch watching the game. “Honey, don’t talk with your mouth full,” she said. Great gag. (Almost as funny as Jim Gaffigan’s beard comb-over in a Sierra Mist Free ad.)

Of the many talking-animals ads, a Super Bowl staple, the best were for Blockbuster, which gave new meaning to “dragging the mouse”; Bud Light, in which a gorilla is too busy posing for pictures to participate in a smash-and-grab plot; and Taco Bell, with lions jawing about the pronunciation of “carnes” (with a fun swipe at Ricardo Montalban) while watching campers chow down.

If the ads were mostly ho-hum, at least the game had its moments and moved relatively swiftly. As for halftime, CBS’ first since the Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake debacle, Prince kept his clothes and his groove on, in what may go down as the most memorable superstar performance in the driving rain since Diana Ross’ infamous Central Park concert.

From a purely TV perspective, and regardless of what the ratings reveal today, I am still so disappointed in CBS for giving Criminal Minds the post-game position. I know why they did it. A year ago, ABC took a second-season rising star, Grey’s Anatomy, and programmed the first of a two-parter after the game, and the show’s fortunes climbed. The same could happen here. The difference, however, being that Grey’s is fabulous entertainment with one of the most appealing casts in all of TV, while Minds is the grimmest and grossest of CBS’ soul-numbing surplus of crime dramas, featuring an ensemble that often looks like it’s in a competition to see who can look the most constipated.

Where Grey’s stepped up with a gripping (albeit melodramatic) crowd-pleaser that may very well have won Chandra Wilson her SAG Award of a week ago (and perhaps the cast its ensemble trophy as well), Minds delivered a particularly derivative time-waster that borrowed more than a little from Psycho, featuring former Dawson’s Creek throb James Van der Beek as a transparent clone of Norman Bates. Even if the shot of blood going down the shower drain wasn’t a giveaway we were in Psycho territory, only a novice to this genre would have been surprised by the reveal that our tormented Dawson (frequently flashing back to childhood scenes of abuse by a religious zealot father) was two villains in one, channeling the spirit of his mad father as well as his more timid tech-support self. The cliff-hanger climax was especially silly, in which nerdy Reid tried to go all action-hero but was felled in a cornfield by split-personality Dawson; meanwhile, JJ was in a barn, facing down killer dogs who had devoured an earlier victim in a typically nauseating scene.

What I really hate about Criminal Minds is its smug, smarmy hypocrisy. Here’s a show that’s produced as cheesily as any slasher flick, but when these FBI hacks are told that this week’s murders have become the most downloaded videos on the Internet, Mandy Patinkin’s dour Gideon clucks his tongue: “Murder as entertainment.” As if Criminal Minds isn’t all about serving up a weekly diet of gruesome tableaux for the audience’s voyeuristic amusement.

After a night of good sportsmanship from two coaches who seem the epitome of decency, and amid a tone of overall celebration and revelry, CBS bungled badly with this deadly choice. I know the network wants to position this show as an even bigger hit, especially with the American Idol juggernaut facing it for the rest of the season, and this may have done the trick (although I’d like to think it scared away more viewers than it attracted). But by putting it on this most high-profile of nights, CBS has basically anointed Criminal Minds as a signature show, something to be proud of. For shame.

When you watch How I Met Your Mother tonight, in a silly but enjoyable farce that’s themed to the Super Bowl, try to convince me that it wouldn’t have been a much better choice to close out this Sunday. Heck, I’d even have settled for a CSI: Miami two-parter. At least it would have been location-appropriate. And after all that rain, I could have used a little sun.

http://community.tvguide.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800007765

Critic’s Notebook
Super Bowl Sunday:
Après le Déluge
By Matt Roush: TVGuide.com TV Critic Feb. 5, 2007



The worst thing I saw on Super Bowl Sunday? A typically unpleasant, thoroughly predictable episode of Criminal Minds that followed the big game. More on that later.


From a purely TV perspective, and regardless of what the ratings reveal today, I am still so disappointed in CBS for giving Criminal Minds the post-game position. I know why they did it. A year ago, ABC took a second-season rising star, Grey’s Anatomy, and programmed the first of a two-parter after the game, and the show’s fortunes climbed. The same could happen here. The difference, however, being that Grey’s is fabulous entertainment with one of the most appealing casts in all of TV, while Minds is the grimmest and grossest of CBS’ soul-numbing surplus of crime dramas, featuring an ensemble that often looks like it’s in a competition to see who can look the most constipated.



While I don't agree with his overall opinion of CM (I think it's a great show, and not really a procedural at all. It's more Manhunter than CSI), I do have to agree that this was NOT their best ep. It was very predictable, and this show generally isn't. I think they dumbed it down a bit for first-time viewers and took it too far.

I don't think it will negatively effect their ratings, but I don't expect to see a Grey's Anatomy effect either. It will hold it's own against AI because some people just don't care about AI and enjoy CM.

TV Review
Couple A, meet couple B.
Cue the single dude.
By Tim Goodman San Francisco Chronicle Television Critic Monday, February 5, 2007

It's a curious thing what CBS does to comedies. Instead of reinventing a tired genre or suffusing it with fresh genius, the network seems content to work up the kind of chemistry that produces something good, not great -- a work of safety, of above-average ambition, but one without any sharp corners or dangerous ideas.

In some circles, that's akin to taking a Prius and giving it an iPod and some flashy rims. It's better but not exactly something from Porsche and many people simply won't take the ride.

But there's something crafty and even admirable in what CBS is doing. The network knows its audience, knows what works and is too smart to be something it's not. For CBS, good is good. Period.

And why not? It's far better to have "How I Met Your Mother" than Fox's "The War at Home." It's far better to have "The New Adventures of Old Christine" than Fox's " 'Til Death." While Fox flounders at being hip and funny, CBS usually delivers better-than-expected sitcoms that sometimes but not always end up on your TiVo to-do list. (Granted, the network also fails. "The Class" was dumb when it started and not much better now.)

Tonight, CBS unveils its latest sitcom, "Rules of Engagement" -- not very impressive but it manages to overcome that mediocrity in the next two episodes and settles right into that gray area where it passes a half hour with decent speed and makes you laugh once or twice.

You might not remember to record it every week, but if you stumble upon it, you might stay.

So, what to make of "Rules of Engagement?" (9:30 ET/PT). It's CBS good.

The very premise of the series guarantees it will be no better than that. A sitcom about "the different phases of male/female relationships" isn't exactly groundbreaking. Adding an oppressive laugh track does not help. And coming out of the gate a little wobbly doesn't inspire much confidence. But the series does improve and it does have Patrick Warburton ("The Tick," "Seinfeld") who all but saves it by being, well, Patrick Warburton.

"Rules of Engagement" revolves around a young couple who just got engaged -- Adam (Oliver Hudson) and Jennifer (Bianca Kajlich) -- a couple who have been married for more than a decade -- Jeff (Warburton) and Audrey (Megyn Price) -- and an aging lone-wolf lothario, Russell (David Spade).

True, it sounds partly like Fox's " 'Til Death" -- except that it doesn't make you want to poke your eyes out -- and a little bit like CBS' "How I Met Your Mother" -- except it's not as good yet.

(It also looks, strangely enough, like "Seinfeld," with similar New York exteriors and apartments and a convenient corner diner where everyone can meet. And Puddy, too.)

Too bad about that premise. A young couple on the verge of getting married, with all the attendant worries and nervous hopes, who just happen to live next door to a grounded (but thankfully not bitter) married couple in the same apartment complex. Who would have guessed? And look, their mutual friend Russell just pops in conveniently with his bimbos to make the two other guys feel slightly (but not always) jealous.

Hmm.

At first, Spade seems an odd choice to be an amoral, shallow swinger. And he is. Yet, if the writers continue to make him out to be more pathetic than enviable, it will work. Still, these well-worn sitcom constraints are not easily surmounted (and that laugh track does nothing but remind you that, yes, you have seen this 1,694 times before).

But Hudson's panicky Adam character becomes less annoying, while Warburton and Price step in to add a comedic comfort level. Even Spade elevates his game from merely hitting sharp singles off the material the writers give him to smacking a steady diet of doubles. CBS likes doubles.

The series begins to click as Warburton's dourly sensible, longtime married guy routine gets more space. The reason people fall in love (or at least stay loyal) to well-worn premises and safe comedies is that some element of truth is spoken back to them as they watch. In Warburton's character, "Rules of Engagement" finds a likable reflection of a guy's guy. As Jeff, he's accepting of the fact that there's little or no mystique or freshness left in a marriage that's chugging solidly along. He's not out at the bars with Russell, but, then again, he's not out at the bars with Russell. He may scoff at Adam's idealistic notions of how life won't change or how it might actually get better when he marries Jennifer, yet his bitterness isn't overstated like most longtime married sitcom men who seek to advise newbies.

He doesn't tell Adam that life is over and that Jennifer will turn into a raving nag -- accepted sitcom wisdom. Nor is he weary or defeated in revealing his own condition. He accepts the trappings of marriage as what they are. Some good, some not so good. You'll watch more Letterman than you'll get sex, he says. The cake plate on the registry will never have a cake on it. Just deal with it.

If "Rules of Engagement" works, it will pair up well with CBS' other Monday sitcoms. So if the ratings are there for these seven episodes, then a future might be there as well.

And that's a good thing -- a CBS good thing -- in the end. Better to have a decent diversion you can count on than yet another sitcom that fails at a revolution.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/05/DDGF7NU0VA1.DTL&type=printable

The Digital Revolution
TV Retail Prices Tumble
In Final Week Of Super Bowl Promos
by Alan Wolf –TWICE

New York — Consumer eletctronic chains finally pulled the trigger on TV price promotions in the last few days before the Super Bowl in a final push to clear out old inventory.

While price points had generally held firm through most of January, the final week of the month brought with it another round of price declines that saw 42W-inch, tier-three plasma displays fall below $1,000 (Maxent), and 40W-inch tier-one LCD panels fall below $1,500 (Samsung).

Although Panasonic took much of the heat for the disruptive holiday season, the Super Bowl promotions were led largely by Samsung, Sony and Toshiba. Among the more striking price cuts: Sony’s highly-touted SXRD rear-projection line. Best Buy offered the 50W-inch 1,080p Grand Wega for $1,800 shipped in an online special, and the 55W-inch model for $2,025.

Other rear-projection TVs that were footballed this week included Samsung’s 50W-inch 720p DLP ($1,250 online at Circuit City); JVC’s 52W-inch, 1,080p HD-ILA ($1,500 at hhgregg); and Mitsubishi’s 57W-inch 1,080p DLP ($2,000, also at hhgregg).

Toshiba sets also hit new lows, with its 37W-inch REGZA LCD-TV/DVD combo selling for $1,498 at Abt Electronics, while the company offered a $200 incentive on combined purchases of its HD DVD players and HDTVs 42W-inches and higher.

Plasma price points also fell, with tier-one displays generally retailing for $1,300 in 42W-inch sizes and $1,800 for 50W-inch sets.

The promotions and pre-game hoopla apparently had their effect. David Morrish, merchandising senior VP for Best Buy, who visited one of the chain’s Manhattan stores with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer this week to herald Vista’s launch, said the location enjoyed “a surprising amount of traffic for big-screen TVs” as the new operating system launched.

Zero-percent financing offers also played a major role in Super Bowl promotions. Morrish said the plans are important to mass market consumers who are suddenly finding HDTVs within their reach.

http://www.twice.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6413116

Turner Broadcasting Corp. will pay back Massachusetts $2 million for the Cartoon Network guerilla marketing campaign that prompted a rash of bomb scares across the city last week.

Cheaper then a Superbowl commercial, and still getting them plenty of exposure.

Yes, but I don't think it was a bargain in any sense of the word.

At a time when mega corporations face increasing hostility in Washington (and media companies perhaps more than most) Turner and Time Warner didn't need this debacle -- especially with its uncomfortable (and in my opinion incredibly dumb) reminder of terrorism.

It just served to reinforce the feeling in many that the big media corporations care about nothing but their bottom line. And Washington can easily cause problems with the bottom line.

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Early word: Super Bowl flat in Demo
Demo up less than a point
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Feb. 5, 2007

It looks as though last night’s highly anticipated Super Bowl between the Chicago Bears and the victorious Indianapolis Colts on CBS may match the strong numbers from last year’s game on ABC.

The Super Bowl averaged a 42 household rating and 63 share, according to Nielsen data collected from the top 55 markets and released by CBS this afternoon. That’s down half a percent from last year’s 42.2/63.

In fast national ratings from 7 to 10 p.m., the game averaged a 32.4 adults 18-49 rating, up slightly from last year’s 31.8 on ABC in the same time period.

The game ran from 6:25 p.m. to around 10 p.m., and it peaked with a 44.0/63 at 9 p.m. It dipped just 0.1 from 9:30 to 10 p.m., as the Colts ran out their victory.

The game started with a 38.2/61 at 6:30, then built to a 43.2 by 8:30 p.m., obliterating the competition.

CBS also said that “Criminal Minds,” the drama it aired in the hour after the game, averaged a 15.3/26, its best-ever rating in the 55 metered markets.

Final numbers, including total viewers, are expected to be available late today or early tomorrow. Last year’s game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and Seattle Seahawks was seen by 90.7 million total viewers, the best tally in 10 years and one of just five games ever to hit 90 million or above.

Of course, CBS finished first for the night among 18-49s, averaging a 28.0 rating and a 57 share in primetime, according to fast nationals. ABC was second at 1.8/4, Univision third at 1.4/3, Fox fourth at 1.1/2, NBC fifth at 1.0/2 and CW sixth at 0.5/1.

At 7 p.m. CBS led with a 32.7 rating for the Super Bowl. ABC was second with a 1.3 for a repeat of “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” Univision third with a 1.2 for “Hora Pico” and Fox fourth with a 0.9 for a repeat of “The Simpsons” and the first 30 minutes of the movie “X2: X-Men United.” NBC was fifth with a 0.5 for a repeat of “Grease: You’re the One That I Want” and CW sixth with a 0.3 for a repeat of “Beauty and the Geek.”

At 8 p.m. CBS fell a little, leading with a 32.5 for the Super Bowl. ABC was second with a 1.6 for a repeat of “America’s Funniest Home Videos,” Univision third with a 1.3 for the first hour of “Bailando por la Boda de Mis Suenos” and Fox fourth with a 1.2 for “X-Men.” NBC was fifth with a 0.9 for another repeat of “Grease” and CW sixth with a 0.5 for another “Beauty and the Geek” repeat.

CBS declined once more at 9 p.m. with a 31.9 for the Super Bowl. ABC was second with a 1.7 for the first hour of the movie “Old School” with Univision third with a 1.5 for the second hour of “Bailando,” Fox fourth with a 1.3 for the end of “X-Men,” NBC fifth with a 1.1 for another “Grease” rerun and CW sixth with a 0.7 for yet another repeat of “Beauty and the Geek.”

At 10 p.m. CBS was on top with a 14.7 for the postgame show and “Criminal Minds,” with ABC second with a 2.4 for “Old School” and Univision and NBC tied for third at 1.5, Univision for the last hour of “Bailando” and NBC for another “Grease” repeat.

Among households, CBS led with a 34.6 average rating and a 52 share. ABC was second at 3.0/5, NBC third at 2.3/4, Fox fourth at 1.9/3, Univision fifth at 1.6/2 and CW sixth at 0.8/1.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_9984.asp

Yes, but I don't think it was a bargain in any sense of the word.

At a time when mega corporations face increasing hostility in Washington (and media companies perhaps more than most) Turner and Time Warner didn't need this debacle -- especially with its uncomfortable (and in my opinion incredibly dumb) reminder of terrorism.

It just served to reinforce the feeling in many that the big media corporations care about nothing but their bottom line. And Washington can easily cause problems with the bottom line.
I don't know. It's not like all the cities that had these ads hidden throughout went into panic mode, just Boston. I think it would've been very bad if they all flipped out, but as it stands only one did. I'd chalk it up to Bostonian stupidity more than Turner stupidity.

The ones that went up for sale on Ebay looked awesome, not terror-inducing. I wish I could've burned through the thousands of dollars that they ended up selling for and gotten one myself.

You could be right, Matt, we'll find out somewhere down the road.

But a lot of very influential people on Capitol Hill are not amused. And it is in TW's best interests not to rile those folks up for no reason.

TV Q&A
Ask Matt
(from the Ask Matt column at TVGuide.com
By Matt Roush: TVGuide.com TV Critic Monday, February 5, 2007

Question: Do you think the powers that be at Fox would ever consider giving Jayne Atkinson and James Morrison a 24 spin-off series? Bill Buchanan and Karen Hayes really need to be in the same room before the end of the day. My friends keep saying it's too early for me to start obsessing over this, but if it's going to take her four to five episodes to get to L.A., she needs to get those airplane tickets soon. (PS. You look a lot like my international relations teacher.)— Bel

Matt Roush: This question came in before last week's twist, in which Karen was forced to resign and requested to be flown, via military transport, back to CTU. Part of Bel's wish has been granted: a Karen-and-Bill reunion. But a spin-off? Not likely. Characters like these are lucky to make it from season to season, and carrying their own show would truly be too much to ask. And what would you call a 24 spin-off anyway? "12"? "48"? Not a good idea. (And is looking like your teacher a good thing? I almost fear asking.)

Question: I'm kind of dismayed at your reaction to Monday's 24. If I'm not mistaken, you enjoyed the first five hours. That's five good episodes to one stinker, and you're already calling for "cautious optimism"? I also thought the episode was a dud, but then every season has duds like this. You're telling me this was worse than the horrific Russian sex-slave episode last year? That was early in the season, and the show was obviously resting on its laurels. It wasn't until Episode 9, when Martha got into the motorcade, that things picked up again. I know this is 24, and we expect excellence week in and week out, but give the show one bad episode. Two or three episodes from now, if the show is still spinning its wheels, it'll be time to take a long hard look at what's wrong. But until then, give the show some breathing room. Heck, I'm expecting it to kick back into high gear next week. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.— Luis C.

Matt Roush: I think it's pretty well known by now that I'm the last person who would pile on to nitpick or slam 24, but I figured that Dispatch was worth writing because of all the hubbub over the plot twists involving Jack's family. This was an episode that should have capitalized on that twist, and to a degree it did. But not in a way that gave me great confidence or even rooting interest in what's to come. Combine that with the lame resolution of the Islamic detention center subplot (although as I said, maybe there's more there than met the eye) and Karen's sheepish resignation, and I think my critical reaction was fair at this specific moment in time. That's why I call those columns "Dispatches." They're not meant to be the final word. As much as I like 24, I don't have time to obsess over any one show, so I barely even remember the episode from last season to which you refer. There may have been some slow stretches last season — there almost always are — but the cumulative impact of the full year was such that any flaws fade into memory. I'm hoping the same will be said of this season.

And here's another question, which also reflects on that same Dispatch from last Tuesday (at least I think it does)....

Question: Here's my opinion of why Studio 60 is not doing well and why I gave up on it last week (and I was a huge West Wing/Aaron Sorkin fan!): There are no characters who evoke any sympathy from viewers, at least not this one. The shows I love have characters whom viewers can relate to and have empathy for. What are your thoughts on this?— Jason

Matt Roush: Again referring to my Dispatch, I'll stand by my opinion that I'm with Jack Rudolph (Steven Weber) in his disdain for and disinterest in everything happening on the "Studio 60" set these days. Who knew he'd be my hero? Abhorring all the characters, who have for the most part been singularly ill-developed on this series, is certainly a major obstacle.

Question: I'm glad you mentioned Danny's off-putting stalker tactics on Studio 60. Everyone I know who saw it had the same puzzled reaction. I get that Sorkin was probably thinking, "It's not stalking if she really does love him back, deep down," but then that totally sounds like the justification of a stalker. And between Jordan changing her phone number and Danny's "no" when she told him to stop, it was more than a little creepy. That same week on TV also provided Allison sympathizing a bit too much with the ghost of a stalker on Medium, and Taylor following Ryan around with binoculars and a logbook on The O.C. I don't take television seriously enough to actually get offended by it — I just thought it was a weird mini-trend in the depiction of TV romance, and I felt a little sorry for any previously stalked viewers who caught these shows. At least ER is still representing this particular mental illness in a realistic (totally scary) way.— Dave

Matt Roush: You win this week's I Watch More TV than Matt Roush award! Either that or you Googled the listings for stalker story lines, which I doubt. Either way, bravo for the trend-spotting. Of all these, I find Studio 60 by far the most objectionable, because these characters are supposed to resemble real people once in a while (apologies to Allison Dubois). As I noted in my Dispatch after last week's episode, the scene of Danny and Jordan locked out on the roof may have hit a new low, almost as bad as those two episodes in Nevada.

Question: Well, Aaron Sorkin has taken another potshot at reality TV on Studio 60 (calling it "illiterate programming"), and once again the online forums and blogosphere are spewing venom that he would dare to do such a thing. True, some of this reaction probably has to do with the fact that Studio 60 isn't living up to its potential — if it were a better show, people would probably give him more slack. Still, I don't understand why people get so worked up about the fact that Sorkin doesn't like reality TV. Why should he? He's a writer of scripted shows, some of them very good. It's no surprise if he thinks scripted TV is better than reality TV. The real question, to me, is why the online community is so easily offended. Sorkin doesn't have the exact same TV tastes as they do — so what? The irony is that you would think taking part in online discussions would make people more accepting of differing opinions. Instead, the opposite seems to be true. Your thoughts?— Julie

Matt Roush: You're just now catching on to the poisonous nature of the blogosphere? This is hardly confined to Studio 60 and Aaron Sorkin. (And yes, I know, this is an awful lot of questions devoted to such a marginally rated show.) In this case, it may not be just a matter of Sorkin taking on reality TV, which is fair game. It's how self-righteous and tin-eared the show is on the subject. Nearly every pitch you hear Jordan take, and dismiss, is for an appallingly caricatured version of a reality show. What if she had the option to produce something as lavish and entertaining as The Amazing Race? There is good and bad, wretched and sublime, in reality TV as there is in any other TV genre, but the way Sorkin demonizes it is just another example of how off-base and off-putting this show so often is. Ditto the targeting of the FCC, again fair game, with the ludicrous example of the network being fined for a news clip involving a soldier shouting an expletive while under attack.

Question: Is it true that Adam Beach is joining Law & Order: Special Victims Unit? This is my favorite crime show, and I can't help but feel like he is eventually going to be a show-killer. I hated his character and his interactions with Finn a couple of weeks ago, and as a result I thought that was one of the show's weakest episodes in a long time. SVU is a character-driven crime show, unlike the original, so one new character would make a big difference and completely affect the show. I like Benson and Stabler and am glad that they are usually front and center. I like Munch and Finn, who are great as supporting players. Casey Novak can be annoying, but her role is necessary for court scenes. I enjoy the psychiatrist and, finally, I even love when Judith Light appears as a judge from time to time. In order for Adam Beach to join, either Munch or Finn would have to go, and I don't want that. Also, the flirting between Novak and Beach's character was ewwww! Please tell me this is not true.— Nicole

Matt Roush: Sorry, it's true. After getting a number of e-mails about this episode, I went back and watched, and while it certainly wasn't my favorite SVU ever, I was mildly intrigued by Adam Beach's character. Having enjoyed him in the PBS adaptations of Tony Hillerman's mysteries, and finding him the most compelling aspect of Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers, I'm more concerned that he'll be wasted in the margins of the show rather than upstage the two leads, who now that they've signed rich new contracts aren't likely to concede ground to the show's underused ensemble. And I haven't read or heard anything to indicate that either Ice-T or Richard Belzer are leaving to make room for Beach. (In fact, given the grudging respect Finn showed toward the new guy from Brooklyn by the end of that episode, I imagine they'll be working some cases together.) Let's see how it plays out before we start freaking out, OK?

Question: What is up with FX? Dirt is just not that great! It is just another one of FX's "shock-skank" shows. What is so annoying, though, is that you can't even watch any of the network's quality programming without them constantly cramming this new show and its previews down your throat at every commercial break. And FX is canceling other programs to show the same stupid episode over and over. I'm sick of Dirt and don't even watch FX anymore. Is this network really that desperate?— Deborah W.

Matt Roush: Seems to me that FX always builds its schedule and its promotional muscle around whatever original programming happens to be airing at the time. Nothing new in that. It might not be so annoying if the promos were for something wonderful, like The Shield or Rescue Me, but for the moment, FX is in the unfortunate position of having an utter piece of junk as its centerpiece, which will be the sad case until the Eddie Izzard-Minnie Driver vehicle The Riches shows up mid-March. It looks like The Shield will finally return sometime around April 3, once Dirt signs off. Speaking of Dirt, here's a comment from Brian, bravely sticking up for it:

"Everyone has the right to their opinion, so here's mine. I think that both you and Mark are way off the mark about Dirt. This show is a guilty pleasure that fills the void until Nip/Tuck returns. This is Courteney Cox's best acting since the Scream trilogy. She should stick with drama and suspense and stay away from comedy."

Sorry, but even in the world of guilty pleasures, there needs to be some standards. And Dirt fails every one of them. It's just plain guilty. Guilty of being too self-righteous about itself, not to mention glum and depressing, so it's never as fun as it ought to be. Guilty of lousy casting (except for Ian Holm as the mad paparazzo and perhaps Cox herself), which is appalling, especially the characters of Holt and Laura, who are supposed to be big-deal Hollywood stars. Holt looks like the cadaverous cousin of Edward Norton, and he's supposed to be some big action hottie? Uh, no. Guilty of plots that are as predictable as they are pandering, aiming for shock but only achieving disgust. And do we really need one more scene of Lucy curled up to her vibrator? The answer, again, is no. While Nip/Tuck has also hit the skids more often than not lately, at least there's a residual glimmer of glamour and anything-goes outrageousness. And the characters, when they're allowed to be, are still often compelling. Given how unappealing the characters of Dirt uniformly are, I like to think of it as the porn version of Studio 60.

Question: If you had to make a prediction right now, what do you think are the five freshman series that have the greatest likelihood of making it to a second season?— Jim

Matt Roush: The one no-brainer is Heroes, which has already been picked up for next season. Five other sure bets: Ugly Betty and Brothers & Sisters on ABC, Shark and Jericho on CBS and probably 30 Rock on NBC (preserving the "comedy night done right" lineup). I'm hopeful for Men in Trees and praying for Friday Night Lights (hands-down this season's "Best Show You're Not Watching"). Anything currently on indefinite hiatus is toast. Which leaves Studio 60, The Class, Knights of Prosperity, The Game, 'Til Death and Standoff (which is expected to return on Fridays in the spring) as the iffiest of the ifs. I would frankly be surprised to see any of those return next fall, although anything's possible.

Question: Just wanted to throw some praise (rather than the usual "sexist pig" name-calling you're used to, apparently) your way for your comments on Brothers & Sisters' refreshing treatment of its gay character. I noticed in your response that you mentioned homosexual characters who are forced to be "laughable sitcom bait." I couldn't help but think of Sean Maguire's character on the otherwise steadily improving The Class. While all of a sudden the show strives to define itself as "Friends 2.0," I see Maguire's character Kyle getting pushed more and more to the periphery. At the start of the series he was in a stable relationship with his boyfriend, but nowadays he seems to be the least gay homosexual since Will Truman. Between the Heroes de-gaying and The Class' Kyle, I have to wonder why networks feel that fully developed homosexual characters have to be sacrificed for increased popularity? Thankfully, ABC seems to be above that.— DJ

Matt Roush: Good point, but knowing the producers behind The Class, I find it hard to believe that the Kyle dilemma is as much a function of purposeful de-gaying as it is a direct result of the show struggling to figure itself out this season. I'm not sure why Kyle's boyfriend has gone absent (he wasn't a regular, so maybe the actor got a better gig for a while?), but Kyle's connection to the ensemble was always tenuous, in that he was mainly seen in relation to the horrible Holly character, who has since been written out. (Strangely, Holly's gay-acting but apparently straight husband Perry will still be seen from time to time.) Recently, Kyle has only been seen as Ethan's platonic buddy, a development that seemed to come out (so to speak) of nowhere. All in all, though there are still some bright spots and I enjoy watching it, The Class is a bit of a mess, and Kyle is just one of the casualties.

Question: I recently read your review of Rules of Engagement, in which you indicate The New Adventures of Old Christine will be missed. I, for one, couldn't be happier, because when Christine returns, it will be on after my favorite non-NBC comedy, How I Met Your Mother. I have only one VCR and am addicted to Heroes, so I've been missing the CBS laffer ever since 24 premiered. As I'm not a fan of The Class, I hope next season that CBS decides to keep HIMYM and Christine paired together for a truly must-see hour of comedy. I also want to sing the praises of King of the Hill and say how glad I am to have it on after The Simpsons. Having grown up in small-town Iowa, I often relate to the humor on this comedy more than the live-action competition. I was a little nervous with the promos for the season premiere — "Who's coming out?" — which, in typical network-promo fashion, were misleading. The actual episode, however, was sheer delight. I don't think the majority of comedies out there today, even the more acclaimed ones, could pull off an episode dealing with drag queens in which everyone comes out with their dignity intact. Bravo to the writers and producers behind this often-neglected series. I know it was almost canceled, but I hope it sticks around. Now, if only ABC had paired Knights of Prosperity with Help Me Help You, or kept Sons & Daughters. I may never have a chance to find out if they rob Mick Jagger.— Kurt

Matt Roush: Mother and Christine will make a solid hour of comedy, no question, and I'm always happy to spread the good word about King of the Hill, which I'm glad to see paired with The Simpsons. As for Knights, I'm with you. It deserves better than being stranded on ABC, where there are currently no comedies deserving of its company (or, for that matter, deserving of the title "comedy").

http://www.tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-Matt/Default.aspx#01twentyfour

But did all the other cities know about the stunt as a result of Boston's reaction? I haven't been following this because it seems like just another stupid stunt coupled with over-reaction. :)

Note: Sunday's fast national ratings (the ones with the actual viewer numbers) continue to be delayed at Nielsen.

You'll see them when I do.

The Business of Television
EchoStar, HBO Strike Carriage Deal
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 2/5/2007

EchoStar and premium service Home Box Office have struck a long-term carriage deal for HBO and Cinemax on the satellite network.

As part of the deal, EchoStar has dropped its program access complaint against HBO and HBO has dropped its suit against EchoStar, filed suit in a New York court earlier this month to recover $90 million over what it said were unpaid license fees.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6413353

Note: Sunday's fast national ratings (the ones with the actual viewer numbers) continue to be delayed at Nielsen.

You'll see them when I do.

I'm sooo excited to find out what the #1 show was last night <tongue in cheek grin>

But did all the other cities know about the stunt as a result of Boston's reaction? I haven't been following this because it seems like just another stupid stunt coupled with over-reaction. :)


Over reaction is a good term for what happened however, better to err on the side of caution. Complacency could have resulted in a far worse situation. Id like to think that Boston, compared to the other involved cities were at the least "on their toes".

TV Notebook
Following the Super Bowl
(wikipedia)

With all the discussion about whether CBS made a blunder in showing "Criminal Minds" after yesterday's Super Bowl, here is a list of shows that have aired after the Super Bowl in the United States for the past 25 years:

Year Program (notes) Net
1983 The A-Team (premiere episode) NBC
1984 Airwolf (premiere episode) CBS
1985 MacGruder and Loud (premiere episode) ABC
1986 The Last Precinct (premiere episode) NBC
1987 Hard Copy (premiere episode) CBS
1988 The Wonder Years (premiere episode) ABC
1989 Brotherhood of the Rose (miniseries) NBC
1990 Grand Slam (premiere episode) CBS
1991 Davis Rules (premiere episode) ABC
1992 60 Minutes (Clintons interview) CBS
1993 Homicide: Life on the Street (premiere episode) NBC
1994 The Good Life NBC
1995 Extreme (premiere episode) ABC
1996 Friends NBC
1997 The X-Files FOX
1998 3rd Rock From the Sun NBC
1999 The Simpsons, Family Guy (premiere episode) FOX
2000 The Practice ABC
2001 Survivor (second series premiere) CBS
2002 Malcolm in the Middle FOX
2003 Alias ABC
2004 Survivor (All-Stars premiere) CBS
2005 The Simpsons, American Dad (premiere episode) FOX
2006 Grey's Anatomy ABC
2007 Criminal Minds CBS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Super_Bowl_Television_Shows

Over reaction is a good term for what happened however, better to err on the side of caution. Complacency could have resulted in a far worse situation. Id like to think that Boston, compared to the other involved cities were at the least "on their toes".

At least 2 of the 9/11 hijacks were out of Boston's Logan...I too am glad they are now being vigilant. Better an over reaction than saying "gee, what are these blinking boxes placed in public places?....ah...sure it's nothing, damn the Pats lost" :-)

TV Notebook
“Oz” Actor faces homicide charge
Man fell down elevator shaft during a fight

(New York – WABC) - An actor is under arrest this morning after a man fell down an elevator shaft and died at a Chelsea nightclub.

Forty three year-old Granville Adams, who used to play Zahir Arif on HBO's show "OZ" is charged with criminally negligent homicide.

Yesterday morning at the night club 'BED' on West 27th Street, police say 35-year-old Orlando Valle somehow started fighting with Adams.

The two men apparently slammed into an elevator door which popped open.

Valle then fell four stories down the shaft.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4986273

(A MultiChannel News EXCLUSIVE)
The Business of TV
After the Sinclair-Mediacom flap
Commisso: ‘Industry Has Major Issues’
By Tom Steinert-Threlkeld MultiChannel News 2/5/2007

The cable-television industry must seek significant changes in laws governing relationships with broadcasters, the chairman of Mediacom Communications said Monday after his company came to terms with Sinclair Broadcast Group late Friday to carry the signals of its 23 TV stations in 16 markets.

The pact put Sinclair stations back on Mediacom systems after two months of darkness just in time for Sunday’s Super Bowl championship game in professional football.

“The industry has some major issues to face,” Rocco Commisso said in an interview with Multichannel News Monday morning.

Commisso and Mediacom officials have not disclosed terms of the agreement reached Friday with Sinclair after a long, contentious dispute.

But the case may wind up buttressing broadcasters’ contentions that they should be paid for the signals of their local TV stations. Mediacom may have agreed to pay as much as 50 cents per subscriber, per month for each of Sinclair’s stations, according to one party close to the company. The Wall Street Journal Monday put the payments in the range of 40-50 cents.

Those payments will likely get passed on to Mediacom’s customers at some point. But Commisso said his company doesn’t have any other major renewals of contracts with broadcasters coming up for another couple of years.

Nonetheless, Mediacom is one of the nation’s 10 largest cable operators, with approximately 1.4 million subscribers. About 700,000 of those subscribers were affected by the blackout of Sinclair stations.

Mediacom handed out over-the-air antennas to customers to help them get the signals while the dispute went on. Sinclair offered rebates to those Mediacom subscribers who agreed to switch over to the DirecTV direct-broadcast satellite service.

And while Sinclair pulled its signals from Mediacom systems Dec. 1, the broadcaster came to terms with a larger operator -- Time Warner Cable, which serves 13.5 million customers -- in mid-January.

Commisso Monday said Congress should look again at the rules governing how cable operators and broadcasters deal with each other over the carriage of local TV station signals on cable systems.

His set of prescriptions:

• 1: Discrimination should not be acceptable. Rates afforded to large operators should also be afforded to small operators. All small operators, for instance, compete with DBS services that have more than 10 million subscribers.

• 2: Local monopolies on broadcast-TV signals should be eliminated. Cable operators should be allowed to import signals when there is an impasse. Competition should be fostered in local markets.

• 3: Anticompetitive marketing campaigns should be outlawed. A broadcaster should not be allowed to subsidize customers to switch to another provider of multichannel-video services, such as occurred in this case.

• 4: Eliminate the requirement that broadcast TV stations be part of the basic tier of cable programming. If broadcasters’ signals can be placed on a separate tier of service, as occurs on satellite services, they should be separable on cable, as well.

• 5: Treat broadcast networks like cable networks. Cable operators shouldn’t be forced to distribute local TV signals to 100% of their subscribers and should be able to make agreements directly with national networks to take their full lineups or individual shows.

• 6: Allow operators to share in the revenue. Cable operators should be entitled to two minutes of advertising per hour. In effect, cable operators, if they’re paying for carriage of a network, should also get to share in the revenue generated by having that network on their systems.

• 7: Stop further relaxation of rules governing consolidation of media operations. Particularly, no broadcaster should be allowed to own or operate more than one TV station in a market.

Imagine what would happen if broadcasters had two or three stations in a market, the right to charge for each of those stations and force carriage of them to 100% of the subscribers in each market, Commisso said, adding, “They’d put you in bankruptcy.”

Broadcasters should be required to establish rates and publish their rate cards so that the same rates are available to all multichannel pay service providers.

And whatever the price may be, the price shouldn’t be based on the leverage a broadcaster holds over a cable operator. The pricing should be based on a rate card, “where no one is discriminated against,” he said.

In any case, “The consumer should not go dark,” Commisso added.

In this case, Commisso placed blame for the outcome squarely on the shoulders of Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin J. Martin.

Commisso had urged Martin to force binding arbitration in the dispute with Sinclair. Mediacom last month, producing a set of comments made by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) indicating that the lawmaker believed the FCC did have the authority to mandate arbitration. Those comments came in 1992, when rules governing getting consent to retransmit broadcast-TV signals were first established.

Martin more than once said he wasn’t sure that the FCC had the power to mandate arbitration.

But, Commisso said Monday, “The FCC could have easily done it. If we had a different chairman, that would have taken place, guaranteed. Just change the chairman, and you’ll see what different results you would have gotten.”

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6413340.html?display=Breaking+News

Some thoughts about Rozzo Commiso’s “prescriptions” for fixing the cable industry:

Let’s just take a quick look at Mr. Commiso’s seven points. It seems clear to me he is still speaking as a man whom just got his corporate a** whipped, and is not at all thinking clearly about what his proposals could do long-range.

Point 1: No problem with this one. But then perhaps large cable companies would have to provide all their channels for all comers?

Point 2: That would work out great. The major networks would simplky undercuit the local guys so Disney, CBS, GE and NewsCorp would get all the money.

Point 3: OK, great. But then a cable company shouldn’t be able to offer bundled rates, either. If DBS/Telco can’t offer inventives, then cable sholuldn’t be allowed to, either..

Point 4: When cable is able to provide truly local news and information on a consistent basis (as is done in a number of markets) and when it can guarantee to run crawls on all channels in case of emergency, I see no problem with this.

Point 5: Seems like point 1 to me. Same reaction.

Point 6: Then the cable nets, I assume will also share in the cable provider’s profits?

Point 7: No problem with me on this one. But while we are at it, let’s strike down the exclusivity cable companies have in almost every market. Open everything up and don’t allow anyone to hog control of a TV market.

Commisso obviously wants the government to shackle his competition and allow cable providers free rein. Good luck, Rocco.

TV Notebook
Lowest-Rated Super Bowl in 15 Years
By James Hibberd Television Week Feb. 5, 2007

Sunday’s Super Bowl was the lowest-rated match in 15 years, yet it still managed to give CBS an enormous ratings boost for the season and was only off 6 percent from 2006.

Preliminary Nielsen ratings show the game between Chicago Bears and Indianapolis Colts earned a 32.4 rating among adults 18 to 49, and was seen by an estimated 90.7 million total viewers. The Bowl was down 6 percent in 18 to 49 and down 5 percent in households, making it the lowest rated in both measures in 15 years. Due to the nature of live sports, the ratings can change in the nationals released later today.

The Super Bowl is usually good for about two-tenths of a ratings point boost for the host network’s season average, and despite being down slightly from last year, CBS should benefit mightily from Sunday’s game.

CBS followed with “Criminal Minds,” which earned a 10.0 rating. That’s easily the best rating in “Minds” history, yet down 39 percent from “Grey’s Anatomy” post-Super Bowl performance last year, and it was the lowest-rated Bowl lead-out since “Alias” on ABC in 2003.

The Bowl made for dramatically anemic ratings for the other networks. ABC was in second place with an average of 1.8, running repeats of “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” (1.3), “America’s Funniest Home Videos” (1.6) and a movie.

Fox was third with a 1.1 average, running a movie. NBC was fourth with a 1.0 average for a marathon of “Grease: You’re the One That I Want.” The CW was last with a 0.5 rating for a “Beauty and the Geek” marathon.

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11504

TV Notebook
The CBS Super Bowl Ratings Spin
CBS SPORTS' COVERAGE OF SUPER BOWL XLI SCORES AN OVERNIGHT RATING/SHARE OF 42.0/63 AS PEYTON AND COLTS REIGN SUPREME

CBS News Release Feb. 5, 2007

CBS Sports' coverage of rain-soaked Super Bowl XLI featuring the INDIANAPOLIS COLTS' 29-17 win over the CHICAGO BEARS on Sunday, Feb. 4 (6:30-10:00 PM, ET), earned an average overnight household rating/share of 42.0/63.

The Super Bowl XLI rating/share peaked at 44.0/63 from 9:00-9:30 PM, ET. Following is a breakdown of the ratings by half-hours.

(All times ET)
6:30-7:00 - 38.2/61
7:00-7:30 - 40.8/64
7:30-8:00 - 41.9/64
8:00-8:30 - 41.8/62
8:30-9:00 - 43.2/63
9:00-9:30 - 44.0/63
9:30-10:00 - 43.9/63

CRIMINAL MINDS averaged a 15.3/26, its highest ever rating in the 55 metered markets.

From 12:00 Midnight-1:00 A.M, THE LATE LATE SHOW with CRAIG FERGUSON averaged a 3.9/11, also the highest metered market rating in the show's history.

NOTE: National ratings/share and viewership numbers will be available later today.

Gee, there are like 3 or 4 different estimates for the Super Bowl. Which is right (though I see the CBS press release is based on the overnights)?

Hollywood Reporter has it at a 42.6/64 with 93.1M viewers

I realize it is possible to parse ratings in many ways.
But did James Hibberd and Paul Gough do their stories from the same Nielsen statistics?
The differences are spectacular.
Was it the “Second Most Watched” or the “Lowest-Rated in 15 years”?

TV Notebook
Super Bowl is 2nd most watched ever
93.1 mil viewers is 3rd highest telecast audience in history
By Paul J. Gough The Hollywood Reporter Feb 5, 2007

NEW YORK -- Sunday's Indianapolis-Chicago Super Bowl drew 93.1 million viewers, making it the second-most watched Super Bowl ever and the third-most-watched telecast in television history.

The 93.1 million viewers put it behind the February 1983 "MASH" finale -- also on CBS -- that averaged 106 million viewers and just behind the January 1996 Dallas-Pittsburgh Super Bowl that averaged 94.1 million viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Sunday's viewership was 3% more than last year's Pittsburgh-Seattle game.

It was also up 2% in household ratings, with a 42.6 rating/64 share compared to last year's 41.6/62. It was the highest-rated Super Bowl since 2000's St. Louis-Tennessee (43.3/63).

The Colts beat the Bears, 29-17.

The game peaked at a 45.0/65 in household ratings between 9 p.m. and 9:30 p.m.

Sunday's game also boosted the crime drama "Criminal Minds," which got the coveted spot following the Super Bowl. "Criminal Minds" averaged 26.2 million viewers and a 9.9 rating in the adults 18-49 demographic, Nielsen Media Research said. That's the highest viewership for a "Criminal Minds" in its two-year history. It was well behind last year's "Grey's Anatomy" -- 38.1 million on ABC -- or even 2001's "Survivor 2" or a 1996 "Friends" following the super Super Bowl ratings powerhouse.

A special "Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson" also scored with viewers, averaging 5.1 million viewers after midnight EST and reaching its highest ratings ever for the late-night show.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ic4c1f5a35f078a967f213ddb47a2fa12

(From Marc Berman’s “Programming Insider” blog at mediaWeek.com)
http://pifeedback.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63310451/m/55310123

Based on the fast nationals, Super Bowl XLI (Indianapolis vs. Chicago) averaged a 42.6 rating/64 share on Sunday, Feb. 4 from 6:27-10:04 p.m. Comparably, that was up by two percent from the year-ago Pittsburgh/Seattle match-up on Feb. 5, 2006 (41.6/62 on ABC, according to the final nationals), making it the highest-rated Super Bowl since St. Louis vs. Tennessee in 2000 (43.3/63). Super Bowl XLI was also the second most-watched Super Bowl of all time, averaging 93.15 million viewers, and the third most-watched program in television history, behind the series-finale of MASH and Super Bowl XXX.

Comparably, Pittsburgh/Seattle in The Super Bowl in 2006 averaged 90.72 million viewers (which, at that time, was the largest audience for a Super Bowl telecast since Jan. 28, 1996, and biggest audience for any TV show since the same date).

Ignited by The Super Bowl, a special Sunday telecast of lead-out Criminal Minds rose to a series-high 15.0/26 in households, with 26.23 million viewers. Comparably, however, a Sunday edition of ABC’s Grey’s Anatomy after The Super Bowl last year was considerably higher at 38.1 million viewers.

Later in the evening, a special Sunday edition of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson also reached an all-time high, with a 3.7/11 in households and 5.15 million viewers. Comparably, that is more than double its season to-date average (1.5/ 5 in households, 1.96 million viewers).

I hope Rex Grossman has Tony Romo's phone number (or Scott Norwood's for yer old-timers) so they can whale on each other's shoulders. :cool:

Maybe they can share a Snicker's bar. :D

At least 2 of the 9/11 hijacks were out of Boston's Logan...I too am glad they are now being vigilant. Better an over reaction than saying "gee, what are these blinking boxes placed in public places?....ah...sure it's nothing, damn the Pats lost" :-)

It's not really vigilance if it's panic inducing though. It's just incompetence.

Besides, the other cities were: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Ore., Austin, Texas, San Francisco and Philadelphia. Most of those cities are prime terror targets, especially New York, and several of them are, it seems to me, bigger targets than Boston.

I have seen ATHF so maybe my perspective is a little biased towards thinking this was an overreaction, but after seeing the device, I don't know how you could think it's a bomb. It's not like it's some casing with a little blinking light. It's a glorified Lite-Brite.

(James Hibberd has just filed a revised Super Bowl ratings stiry. In fairness, his earlier version was based on the early metered market ratings (which did not, among other cities, include Chicago.)
TV Notebook
Super Bowl On Par With Last Year
By James Hibberd Television Week Feb. 5, 2007

Sunday's Super Bowl was up slightly from last year, giving CBS a ratings boost for the season.

Using time-period-adjusted Nielsen Media Research ratings, the game between Chicago Bears and Indianapolis Colts earned a 35.1 rating among adults 18 to 49, and was seen by an estimated 93.1 million total viewers. The Bowl was up 1 percent in 18 to 49 compared to last year.

The Super Bowl is usually good for about two-tenths of a ratings point boost for the host network's season average and CBS should benefit mightily from Sunday's game.

CBS followed with "Criminal Minds," which earned a 10.0 rating. That's easily the best rating in "Minds" history, yet down 39 percent from "Grey's Anatomy" post-Super Bowl performance last year, and it was the lowest-rated Bowl lead-out since "Alias" on ABC in 2003.

The Bowl made for dramatically anemic ratings for the other networks. ABC was in second place with an average of 1.8, running repeats of "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" (1.3), "America's Funniest Home Videos" (1.6) and a movie.

Fox was third with a 1.1 average, running a movie. NBC was fourth with a 1.0 average for a marathon of "Grease: You're the One That I Want." The CW was last with a 0.5 rating for a "Beauty and the Geek" marathon.

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11504

TV Notebook
The “Criminal Minds” Situation

On the surface, CBS says it is pleased with the numbers “Criminal Minds” got last night following the Super Bowl.

But considering that this year’s SB attracted 2.43 million more viewers than last year they certainly hoped for far better.

The numbers are discouraging, to say the least. Despite a massive lead-in of close to two and a half million more viewers, "Criminal Minds" managed to snare 11.9 million FEWER than "Grey's Anatomy" got last February.

Ouch.

Studio 60'...headed for hiatus


I wonder if Sorkin will blame amateur critics for the show's demise? Of course you might also call those amateur critics - "viewers." :cool:

Bring back Sports Night!

Re: Criminal Minds

Yes, because going from the joy of Super Bowl to the highjinks of a twisted serial killer really caps off a night. At my party we immediately switched over to ESPN and NFL Network for more post-game.

Judge blocks D* Simpson and Shatner ads:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2007-02-05-directv-ads_x.htm?csp=34

Judge blocks D* Simpson and Shatner ads:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2007-02-05-directv-ads_x.htm?csp=34
:)

The people at DirecTV must really be living in lala land if they really thought their ad to be true.

:)

The people at DirecTV must really be living in lala land if they really thought their ad to be true.


Ad and true in the same sentence? <pondering>

:D

Judge blocks D* Simpson and Shatner ads:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2007-02-05-directv-ads_x.htm?csp=34The link isn't working for me - just loads a blank page. Can you summarize?

Scott

The link isn't working for me - just loads a blank page. Can you summarize?

Scott

Judge blocks DirecTV ads claiming high-def superiority to Time Warner

Posted 2/5/2007 3:50 PM ET

NEW YORK (AP) — A judge Monday blocked DirecTV Group from airing advertisements in which Jessica Simpson and William Shatner say its high-definition television service provides better pictures than Time Warner Cable's high-definition service.

U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain said Time Warner Cable was entitled to a preliminary ruling blocking the ads from being shown while a lawsuit proceeds through Manhattan federal court.

Swain rejected Time Warner's request that DirecTV be required to show corrective advertising, saying such extraordinary relief was not warranted in this case.

But the judge said Time Warner had shown it was likely to succeed on its claim that the commercials are false when they say DirecTV's high definition programming is superior to that of Time Warner Cable.

Marc Laurence Greenwald, a lawyer for DirecTV, said he had not yet seen the ruling and could not immediately comment.

TV Notebook
“Oz” Actor faces homicide charge
Man fell down elevator shaft during a fight

Forty three year-old Granville Adams, who used to play Zahir Arif on HBO's show "OZ" is charged with criminally negligent homicide. Yesterday morning at the night club 'BED' on West 27th Street, police say 35-year-old Orlando Valle somehow started fighting with Adams. The two men apparently slammed into an elevator door which popped open. Valle then fell four stories down the shaft.

Wow, there was a similar death of one of the immates in an early episode of Oz back in the day. Of course in the show it was cold-blooded murder and not negligent homicide, but still the similarities are eerie. :(

I never really understand detailed ratings numbers. Could somebody please explain whether this years Super Bowl generally did well, or not?

- Tom

I never really understand detailed ratings numbers. Could somebody please explain whether this years Super Bowl generally did well, or not?

- Tom

From what I understand they did very well in total number of viewers. It was the 3rd most watched TV show ever, after MASH's finale and the '96 Superbowl between Dallas and Pittsburgh.

As far as the esoteric ratings numbers go, I'm sure fredfa can shed more light.

The early numbers were taken from metered markets -- which did not include Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Kansas City or Portland OR.. Those (which omitted about 7% of the population of which a total of 6% was in the midwest -- with presumably special interest in the game and frigid weather keeping them inside).

Anyhow, the early numbers seemed grim -- but again they didn't include Chicago!

The later numbers, the "fast nationals" were much better news for CBS. Marc Berman's report, above, probably says it best.

Generally Tom, look at the Metered Market ratings as a good hint of what is to come with the nationals. But even they aren't final -- the final numbers are actually released twice -- once a week later, and then (really finally) two weeks later.

So don't feel bad about not understanding them. I am not sure many people do. I know I don't.

Bottom line: the Super Bowl did great.

Criminal Minds did not, exactly. (Although I posted a little later some thoughts about that, too.). Anything else on TV Sunday night was, basically, not seen.

Super Bowl XLI Notebook
How all the commercials ranked
USA Today February 5, 2007

5 least popular

Garmin GPS navigator vs. paper map monster. 30 2nd 4.34

http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/admeter/2007-02-04-ad-meter-chart_x.htm

Darn! I loved that Garmin GPS commericial! I felt like a kid in the mid 1960's again. but I guess too niche. Ultraman rules!:D I mean Garmin man!

Hey, if you enjoyed it, great!

Who cares what other people thought?

The Business of Television
Judge Bars DirecTV HD Ads
By Todd Spangler MultiChannel News 2/5/2007

A federal judge ruled Monday that DirecTV must stop running ads claiming that its HDTV service is superior to cable’s, pending the outcome of a false-advertising suit Time Warner Cable filed against the direct-broadcast satellite operator.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Time Warner’s request for a preliminary injunction to block DirecTV’s ads, featuring William Shatner and Jessica Simpson, from being shown while the lawsuit proceeds.

In December, Time Warner sued DirecTV for false advertising after the DBS operator ran the HD spots, as well as newspaper ads claiming that cable subscribers wouldn’t be able to watch games carried by NFL Network -- available on DirecTV, but not Time Warner -- that would have been available via local broadcast stations.

DirecTV originally agreed to stop running the HD-oriented comparative ads, which included the tag line: “For picture quality that beats cable, you’ve got to get DirecTV.”

However, DirecTV’s revised ads included a tag line that Time Warner contended was still false: “For an HD picture that can’t be beat, you’ve got to get DirecTV.” With the ruling Monday, the DBS operator is barred from making that claim.

Swain said DirecTV may still run comparative ads stating that its overall picture quality is better than Time Warner’s. In addition, she denied the MSO’s request that the DBS operator be required to run “corrective” ads.

In a prepared statement, DirecTV said, “We will continue to aggressively market our better overall picture quality, which is permitted by the court’s opinion, and soon far more HD capacity than cable. It's obvious [that Time Warner’s] strategy is to fight with us in the courts since they can't compete with our superior product in the marketplace. We are confident that we will prevail on both fronts.”

The judge set a pretrial conference for March 23.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6413602.html?display=Breaking+News

Sorry, but I can't stop laughing. :)

Since there has been so much confusion over the Super Bowl ratings, (and Nielsen's delay in releasing the Fast National numbers surely didn't help a bit) here is one more attempt to make sense of it all:
TV Notebook
Super Sunday for CBS
Audiences rush to Super Bowl XLI
By Rick Kissell Variety Feb. 5, 2007

A great season for the National Football League ended Sunday before one of the largest primetime audiences on record.

The Indianapolis Colts' 29-17 victory over the Chicago Bears averaged a huge 93.15 million viewers on CBS, according to preliminary Nielsen nationals, and logged a 35.1 rating in adults 18-49.

By comparison, the season's highest-rated entertainment telecast, the season preem of Fox's "American Idol," averaged a 15.8 rating in the demo and 37.4 million viewers overall.

Game was up slightly from last year's Pittsburgh-Seattle matchup on ABC (34.6 rating in 18-49, 90.75 million viewers overall) and reps the second largest Super Bowl aud, behind only the 1996 Dallas-Pittsburgh tussle on NBC (94.1 million).

Among all telecasts, only the 1996 Super Bowl and the 1983 series finale of "MASH" on CBS (105.97 million) have drawn a larger aud than Sunday's contest. (Population increases favor more recent telecasts, but there are also significantly more viewing options these days.)

In adults 18-49 rating (unaffected by population increases), this year's 35.1 is the third best in six years.

This was an exceptional season ratings-wise for the NFL, with its average pre-Super Bowl playoff audience for games on CBS, Fox and NBC (31.4 million) the largest in 11 years.

Certainly helping was the fact that both New York teams as well as teams representing other top markets Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston and Dallas made the playoffs.

On Sunday in Chicago (the No. 3 market in the country), game did a 50.2 household rating/77 share. It earned a 55.5/79 in Indianapolis.

The Super Bowl will help CBS pad its first-place season advantages over ABC, NBC and Fox, which are stuck in a tight battle for second place in adults 18-49. Season figures to come down to a race to the finish between the Eye and the "American Idol"-boosted Fox.

One of the shows CBS is hoping can give it a boost down the stretch, sophomore drama "Criminal Minds," received additional sampling by airing after the postgame show Sunday.

The dark drama achieved series highs, drawing roughly a 9.9 rating in adults 18-49 and 26.2 million viewers overall from 10:30 to 11:30 p.m. ET.

This was down from last year's exceptional performance for "Grey's Anatomy" (16.5 in 18-49, 37.88 million), a hot show that only accelerated its ascent with the start of a two-part episode following the big game. Similarly, "Criminal Minds" will cap its two-part seg in its regular Wednesday slot this week.

In recent years, only ABC's late-starting episode of "Alias" (11:01 p.m. ET) delivered a lower 18-49 post-Super Bowl rating than "Criminal Minds" (8.2). In overall total viewers, though, the 26.2 million for "Minds" is the third best in six years for a post-Super Bowl program.

The best post-Super Bowl showing to date was the 1996 episode of "Friends," which averaged 94.1 million viewers for NBC.

Elsewhere Sunday, most of the Super Bowl competish was in repeats, with ABC's broadcast of the theatrical "Old School" faring best (prelim 2.1/4 in 18-49, 4.9 million viewers overall).

Following the late local newscast on Eye affils, "The Late, Late Show With Craig Ferguson" averaged a 2.0 rating in adults 18-49 and 5.15 million viewers -- series highs for the show, including all episodes with Craig Kilborn as host.

Final ratings for all Super Bowl-related programming, including the roughly 25-minute CBS postgame show, will be issued by Nielsen today.

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=print_story&articleid=VR1117958681&categoryid=14

TV Notebook
Another Look At Those “Criminal Mind” Ratings

Perhaps it wasn’t that bad a move after all for CBS to slide “Criminal Minds” in behind Super Bowl XLI.

As frequent contributor RussTC3 points out in his engrossing ratings blog (find it here: http://entertainmentnow.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/broadcast-tv-ratings-for-sunday-february-4-2007/) the ratings paled next to last year’s numbers for “Grey’s Anatomy” which drew 37.9 million viewers to “CM’s” 26.3 and an 18-49 demo rating of 16.5 to just a 9.9 for “CM”.

But CBS was trying to build a strong show into a stronger one, and perhaps it succeeded.

Courtesy of Russ, take a look at these numbers.

Compared with the last new episode of “CM”, last night’s household numbers rose by 81%. Total viewers rose from 12.99 million to 26.23 million, a gigantic increase of 102%. And the adult 18-49 demo rating tripled, a staggering leap from a 3.3 to a 9.9 rating in the demo. (Perhaps the addition of more than a million college kids living away from home helped. It’ll take a while to sort it out.)

Getting viewers to truly sample a show – especially a show which has been on for a while – is one of the hardest things to do in network TV. CBS obviously accomplished that last night.

If it can keep just one in five of the new viewers who watched last night, “Criminal Minds” will climb from being a solid performer to being a solid top-10 show.

It could take a while to find out – “American Idol” has 9 PM ET/PT airing scheduled against it this week.

But maybe CBS, which long has stuck with programs it has believed in, actually made a calculated and extremely shrewd long-term move.

And at the very least all those new viewers who were intoduced to Mandy Patinkin and crew last night might wander back to catch the series this summer. CBS over the past decade has built hit after hit by leaving shows (“CSI”, “Cold Case”, “Without A Trace” to name just a few) in their normal time slots during the summer. That allows viewers who don’t want to watch reruns to wander over the CBS.

The more I think about it the more I think the “Criminal Minds” move may actually have been a master stroke.

We probably won’t know for months, but then Les Moonves and CBS Programming President Nancy Tellem don’t usually seem to be in a hurry.

Critic’s Notebook
'Minds' no match for 'Grey's' docs
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher” Feb. 5, 2007

According to a Monday CBS press release, "Criminal Minds" garnered 26.2 million viewers after the Super Bowl on Sunday. The show aired at 10:25 p.m. Sunday, directly after the CBS postgame coverage, in most of the country (there was an additional WBBM-Ch. 2 postgame show in Chicago).

Last year, "Grey's Anatomy" got 38 million viewers after the Super Bowl. "Minds" garnered only two-thirds of that number, but about there were about 10 million more people watching the post-Super Bowl "Minds" than typically watch the show in its usual Wednesday-night slot. I guess we'll have to see in coming weeks how many continue to watch the sophomore crime drama, which got its highest ratings on Sunday.

Here's how the last dozen post-Super Bowl programs stack up in terms of audiences:

• 1996, “Friends,” 53 million, NBC
• 1997 “The X-Files,” 29 million, Fox
• 1998, “3rd Rock From the Sun,” 33.6 million, NBC
• 1999, “Family Guy,” 22 million, Fox
• 2000, “The Practice,” 24 million, ABC
• 2001, “Survivor: The Australian Outback,” 45.4 million, CBS
• 2002, “Malcolm in the Middle,” 21 million, Fox
• 2003, “Alias,” 17.4 million, ABC
• 2004, “Survivor: All Stars,” 36 million, CBS
• 2005, “The Simpsons,” 23 million/“American Dad,” 15.2 million, Fox
• 2006, “Grey’s Anatomy,” 38 million, ABC
• 2007, "Criminal Minds," 26.2 million, CBS

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2007/02/criminal_minds__1.html#comments

AT&T Signs Retransmission Consent Agreement with Hearst-Argyle Television for AT&T U-verse TV

[AT&T Press Release]
San Antonio, Texas, New York, New York, February 5, 2007

AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) and Hearst-Argyle Television (NYSE:HTV) today announced a long-term agreement providing retransmission consent for Hearst-Argyle television stations in six designated market areas (DMAs) as part of the AT&T U-verse(SM) TV channel lineup.

The agreement covers Hearst-Argyle stations in six DMAs where AT&T plans to offer AT&T U-verse TV. The stations will be made available as AT&T launches U-verse services in additional markets.

AT&T U-verse TV is delivered by Project Lightspeed, the company's initiative to expand the fiber-optics network deeper into neighborhoods to deliver U-verse TV, AT&T Yahoo!® High Speed Internet U-verse Enabled and, in the future, Voice over IP services. Through its subsidiaries, AT&T expects to reach nearly 19 million households by the end of 2008 as part of its initial deployment, using fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) technologies.

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=23351

NOTE: The PR did not identify the six DMAs in the agreement, but there is one possibility I personally know of: WYFF, owned by Hearst-Argyle, is the NBC affiliate in the Greenville/Spartanburg, SC DMA (a former BellSouth area, and one which IMO will be one of the first to get U-verse, based on its population density).

UPDATE: vmanu2 was kind enough to post a list of Hearst-Argyle owned stations in the U-verse thread. These are the stations in AT&T-served regions:
Orlando, FL NBC WESH
Orlando, FL CW WKCF
Greenville-Spartanburg, SC NBC WYFF
W. Palm Beach, FL ABC WPBF
Greensboro/Winston-Salem, NC NBC WXII
Louisville, KY CBS WLKY
Kansas City, MO ABC KMBC
Kansas City, MO CW KCWE
Milwaukee, WI ABC WISN
Cincinnati, OH NBC WLWT
New Orleans, LA NBC WDSU
Oklahoma City, OK ABC KOCO
Jackson, MS ABC WAPT
Fort Smith/Fayettville, AR ABC KHBS/KHOG
Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto, CA NBC KCRA
Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto, CA MNT KQCA
Monterey-Salinas, CA NBC KSBW

[Edited from Hearst-Argyle Television website via vmanu2]

UPDATE 2: I removed the two Orlando stations from the above list. I have learned that Embarq is the main phone service provider in that area.

UPDATE 3: I re-added the Orlando stations, because I just remembered that they are also received by viewers in east central Florida (Daytona Beach, Melbourne, and surrounding areas) where, IIRC, AT&T offers local phone service.
AND: I have now also learned that AT&T is the primary local phone service provider in Orlando itself (and some suburbs); Embarq has service in several outlying suburbs, mostly in Osceola and Seminole counties.

And now Jordan McDeere and Danny Tripp are an item after an evening stuck on a roof. Lesson to middle-aged showbiz heterosexual men obsessed with pregnant career women that run TV networks: stalking (and written recommendations from Matt Alby and Martin Scorsese) works! :rolleyes:

It just occurred to me while watching tonight's episode that Sorkin is writing/pacing Studio 60 intending it to be seen consecutively and not on a week-to-week basis (ala Heroes or the self-contained Boston Legal) for the DVD Box Set and syndication crowd. Remember last year's Nevada Day two-parter, followed by another episode (The Option Period) set in the hours right after the 'Studio 60' fictitious show from the previous two-parter went off the air? Those episodes, like the just-concluded The Harriet Dinner two-parter and the episode before it (and the one previewed for next week featuring flashbacks to when Matt and Harriet met), are paced in such a way to make watching three or four episodes in a row an appealing idea. This is ideal for the DVD-watching crowd or cable network marathons, but its deadly for network TV viewer expectations. Especially since Sorkin's first acts in these mini-series of episodes within the series (Nevada Day and The Harriet Dinner had dull first-parters that build into better second-parts and, in the case of the former, a terrific follow-up episode in 'The Option Period') have been instrumental in poisoning the goodwill toward the show and limited its ratings growth potential.

This was my first exposure to Criminal Minds. I thought it started off kind of slow, probably too slow given the situation it was in (it needed a hook), but by the end of the hour, I found myself enjoying it.

There were a few things I disliked, in terms of dialog and a few characters (it seemed a tad too predictable in a few places as well), but all in all, I thought it was good and I'll catch the second part this Wednesday.

Will I tune in on a regular basis? Probably not, but given the structure of the show, I won't be afraid to turn it on every once in a while and give it a watch.

It's hard to gauge if it was the correct decision on CBS's part, but there was a definite boost for the series. It wasn't nearly as strong as what happened with Grey's, but Criminal Minds is a much easier show to get into so it may have an easier time holding onto some of the extra viewers.

I also question why they didn't have the story conclude Monday, instead of in its normal Wednesday time slot.

The Business of Television
A New Boss at NBC,
and Even Newer Issues
By Bill Carter The New York Times February 6, 2007

When Jeff Zucker is named the new chief executive of NBC Universal today, succeeding Bob Wright, he will be completing one of the most spectacular ascents of any recent media executive: from part-time sports researcher in 1986 to corporate C.E.O two decades later.

And now for the hard part.

According to NBC executives, Hollywood producers and agents, and many of the financial analysts who follow NBC, Mr. Zucker, 41, faces many pressing issues. Foremost among them: how he will deal with the rapid technological and financial changes that are throwing many traditional media businesses into upheaval. He will also have to choose a team of executives to back his efforts as he sets a new direction for the company.

Mr. Zucker will answer questions about his supporting cast today shortly after he is formally named C.E.O., a senior NBC executive said yesterday.

Mr. Zucker is leaving the job he currently holds, president of the NBC Universal Television Group, but no one will be named to fill that job, the NBC executive said.

But Mr. Zucker is expected to elevate three other senior NBC executives, effectively dividing many of his current responsibilities among them.

Marc Graboff, who is now president of NBC Universal Television West Coast, will be given added supervisory duties over NBC’s entertainment division in California. Beth Comstock, who is president of NBC’s digital and marketing division, and Jeff Gaspin, who heads up the company’s cable operations, will also take on new responsibilities.

Another important NBC West Coast executive, Kevin Reilly, is in talks to extend his contract as president of NBC’s entertainment division.

The most urgent questions facing Mr. Zucker relate to the digital revolution now roiling the media marketplace.

Bill Simon, senior client partner for the global entertainment division of Korn/Ferry International, an executive search firm, said the arrival of digital outlets for television programs had made what was formerly a simple equation for NBC much harder.

“It comes down to this,” Mr. Simon said. “He has to figure out how to grab an audience, how to hold an audience and how to monetize an audience.”

All three jobs will be harder with the advent of Internet sites like YouTube that offer television programming, including shows from NBC, with little financial gain for the networks.

Nicholas P. Heymann, an analyst at Prudential Securities who follows General Electric, NBC’s parent company, said that Mr. Zucker’s task is threefold: he has to continue to create successful programming while also cutting costs in the TV business and elsewhere.

At the same time, Mr. Zucker is charged with trying to figure out what the next disruptive digital media outlet like YouTube will be, and how the company can capitalize on it.

Given the complexity of the task, Mr. Heymann said it made sense for Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman of G.E., to select as Mr. Wright’s successor someone who was brought up in the G.E. management ranks. Mr. Zucker has some blemishes on his track record — NBC’s slide in prime time among them — but he has shown recent success.

Compared with hiring an executive from the outside, Mr. Heymann described Mr. Zucker’s hiring as having “the potential to be the lowest-risk alternative with the most potential for upside and success.”

In the near term, Mr. Heymann said, G.E.’s challenge is to return NBC Universal’s earnings to the peak levels they achieved in 2003.

The media company recently reported an increase in earnings for the quarter ended Dec. 31 to $841 million, from $801 million the previous year. It was the first year-over-year profit increase for NBC Universal in five quarters.

The challenges facing Mr. Zucker have little to do with the current state of NBC, which, some detractors notwithstanding, is mainly solid across almost all of its divisions.

Under Mr. Wright, the company has expanded with great success in recent years, adding the Universal movie studio and highly profitable cable channels like USA and Bravo. Until the last couple of years, NBC under Mr. Wright was among the most profitable divisions of G.E.

NBC has been the network leader in news and late-night programs, but trails the other networks in prime time.

One of the downturns for the company occurred on Mr. Zucker’s watch when he ran the network’s entertainment division in California. NBC fell from first place to last in prime time in 2004, just after Mr. Zucker finished his run as president of NBC Entertainment.

Some of collapse of the network’s prime-time fortunes had to do with NBC’s long-term failure to develop new programs. Mr. Zucker was credited with maintaining NBC’s success much longer than might have been expected, given the dearth of hits, because of his ability to manage NBC’s remaining assets, like the comedy “Friends.”

Twice he managed to keep that show on the air (in high-cost negotiations) when it was expected to finish production.

But competitors in Hollywood — and some critics in the press — have pointed to those struggles and asked why Mr. Zucker was not held more responsible for them. Mr. Zucker mainly put his head down, focused on NBC’s more successful cable channels and tried to change the momentum at the network.

Now, thanks to new hits like “The Office” and “Heroes,” NBC’s prime-time lineup has begun to show some improvement.

Longer term, NBC will have to show that it can continue to create hit entertainment content, its chief source of profit. Recent signs have been favorable in that area, according to some of NBC’s most prominent producers, and Mr. Zucker’s relationship with the Hollywood community, once thought to be strained, has been shored up.

Dick Wolf, who has been NBC Universal’s most important producer for a generation because of his “Law & Order” dramas, said in a telephone interview, “I think Jeff will get a very strong endorsement from the community.”

He said misperceptions of NBC had been rife in recent years. “You would think from reading some accounts that this was a company literally going down the tubes,” Mr. Wolf said. “For a company going out of business, it seems to me NBC is generating a lot of cash.”

He said he favored the selection of Mr. Zucker not just because of their friendship but also because “he’s just a really smart guy, and people know I like really smart guys.”

That view was echoed by Ben Silverman, who has become one of NBC’s biggest suppliers of programs, with shows like “The Office” and “The Biggest Loser.” Yesterday NBC announced it had signed a new deal with Mr. Silverman that will give the company first access to all the programs his company develops.

Mr. Silverman noted that Mr. Zucker took pains to make sure the deal was announced as his personal decision, to underscore his Hollywood credentials.

“The guy makes decisions,” Mr. Silverman said. “Sometimes that ruffles feathers in an industry that likes to be coddled, but as a producer I like that kind of transparency.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/business/media/06nbc.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=television&pagewanted=print

Critic’s Notebook
'Minds' no match for 'Grey's' docs
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher” Feb. 5, 2007

According to a Monday CBS press release, "Criminal Minds" garnered 26.2 million viewers after the Super Bowl on Sunday. The show aired at 10:25 p.m. Sunday, directly after the CBS postgame coverage, in most of the country (there was an additional WBBM-Ch. 2 postgame show in Chicago).

Last year, "Grey's Anatomy" got 38 million viewers after the Super Bowl. "Minds" garnered only two-thirds of that number, but about there were about 10 million more people watching the post-Super Bowl "Minds" than typically watch the show in its usual Wednesday-night slot. I guess we'll have to see in coming weeks how many continue to watch the sophomore crime drama, which got its highest ratings on Sunday.

Here's how the last dozen post-Super Bowl programs stack up in terms of audiences:

• 1996, “Friends,” 53 million, NBC
• 1997 “The X-Files,” 29 million, Fox
• 1998, “3rd Rock From the Sun,” 33.6 million, NBC
• 1999, “Family Guy,” 22 million, Fox
• 2000, “The Practice,” 24 million, ABC
• 2001, “Survivor: The Australian Outback,” 45.4 million, CBS
• 2002, “Malcolm in the Middle,” 21 million, Fox
• 2003, “Alias,” 17.4 million, ABC
• 2004, “Survivor: All Stars,” 36 million, CBS
• 2005, “The Simpsons,” 23 million/“American Dad,” 15.2 million, Fox
• 2006, “Grey’s Anatomy,” 38 million, ABC
• 2007, "Criminal Minds," 26.2 million, CBS

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2007/02/criminal_minds__1.html#comments

Wow, CBS is really spinning this horrible decision to air Minds after the Super Bowl. Overall pleased with the numbers.....blah, blah, blah....
I'm sorry, when you have a game that draws millions more viewers (compared to last year) and you only manage 2/3 of Grey's audience from last year, it's a failure. Minds was already a hit for them. With the type of show it is, it is not going to grow much more than it already has.
Why not plug your new comedy in there, Rules of Engagement? See if it can become an instant hit. How about Shark? Critical reviews have been pretty good but it hasn't found the same audience that Without a Trace found in that Thursday timeslot.
They can spin it all they want, but you only host the Superbowl so often and have a chance to convince 90 million viewers to stay on your channel. They failed this time.

The TV Column
In Super Bowl Ratings Bonanza, Ads Are Minuses
By Lisa de Moraes Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, February 6, 2007

If you were among the 93.15 million people CBS says watched Sunday's orgy of soggy football, ads with budgets equal to a Third World country's GNP, and his royal highness Prince, you are part of the second-largest TV audience in Super Bowl history.

You also are part of the third-biggest television audience ever -- behind only the 105 million who tuned in for the very last episode of "M*A*S*H" more than two decades ago, and the 94 million who caught Super Bowl XXX in '96.

Sadly, only about 26 million of you stuck around to watch "Criminal Minds" -- the lucky CBS series to get the plum postgame time slot. CBS points out that that's the biggest audience ever for the drama about a panel of experts who race to profile pervy criminals before they strike again.

But it's well below the nearly 38 million who'd stuck around after last year's game (which clocked about 90.7 million viewers) to watch "Grey's Anatomy." From which we learn that people who like football presented in five-minute chunks between blocks of very expensive commercials designed to appeal to 18-year-old beer-swilling men also like watching a series about a hospital chockablock with hot, horny doctors. But they are not necessarily people who like to watch a show about a serial killer who videotapes the murders he commits and posts them on the Internet where they become a YouTube-ish hit because we live in a dark and miserable world.

That post-Super Bowl broadcast of "Grey's" catapulted it from a successful sophomore series to the ABC mega-hit it is today. CBS hopes to see similar ratings results for "Criminal Minds," which has been the fastest-growing sophomore series so far this season.

Unlike most Super Bowls, this year the game, in which the Colts trampled the Bears, 29-17, in a driving rain in Miami, may have been more fun to watch than the ads.

Because who doesn't like watching beefy men slipping and sliding on a drenched football field while fumbling a slippery pigskin ball. Really, the NFL should start greasing footballs on dry days.

Meanwhile, instead of pushing the envelope, the 20 or so advertisers who ponied up northward of $2.6 million per 30 secs of Super Bowl airtime played it safe.

The only ad that made you sit up and take notice was the gone-in-a-blink spot in which CBS late-night star David Letterman, wearing a Colts jersey, cozies up on the couch with Oprah Winfrey, wearing a Bears jersey, to watch the game. That ad was striking because Letterman is notorious in his unwillingness to work with his network's marketing and promo people.

As for the rest of the Super Bowl spots, many tended toward sophomoric violence or the saccharine. Gone are the good old days of combusting horse farts, guy bikini waxes and old referees suffering shrewish wives. Even the busty GoDaddy.com skank -- you know, the one with the broken cami strap who titillated faux congressmen at a pretend TV decency hearing the year after Janet Jackson's right breast made its Super Bowl halftime debut -- was this year reduced to a tame dancer-in-the-office joke.

This year, Careerbuilders.com dumped its chimpanzees in favor of a "work is a jungle" theme (been there, seen that) in which office employees are in a jungle being tortured by management.

Budweiser went with two guys playing the rock/paper/scissors game to decide who gets the last beer -- a game won by the guy who decks the other with a rock.

In a Doritos ad sprung from an online contest (Dorito's CEO memo to his marketing vice president: Tell me again why we pay our creative team six figures apiece?), a chip-eating guy crashes his car watching a cute chip-eating chick, who then rushes to his rescue, slips and hits her head on his vehicle.

The manager of the moon's first office arranges for FedEx pickups there, which gets him a slap on the back from his boss, which launches him into space, where he is blown to oblivion by a comet.

And some company or other regaled us with an ad in which Old Heart Guy gets the stuffing beat out of him by a gang of thugs named High Blood Pressure, Cholesterol and Diabetes.

Rating high on the cute-o-meter:

• A stray white dog gets to ride with the Budweiser Clydesdales when he's mistaken for a Dalmatian after being splattered by mud.

• Adorable little red crabs worship a red Budweiser ice chest.

• A Spielbergian-sweet General Motors auto-assembly-line robot gets the sack after accidentally dropping a part, can't hold down another job and becomes so depressed he eventually throws himself off a bridge -- by way of illustrating how GM is crazy for quality.

• Emerald Nuts explains that when your blood sugar gets low in the afternoon, Robert Goulet comes to your office and messes things up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020501490_pf.html

TV Notebook
Will 'Gilmore Girls' live?
By Diego Vasquez MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Feb 6, 2007

The word: The CW’s “Gilmore Girls” may soon become “Gilmore Girl,” with just half of the pop culture-spouting mother-daughter duo sticking around for an eighth season. Or that's the latest rumor buzzing about on the web.

Though viewership for “Girls” has fallen since last year, when it aired on the WB, it still holds up decently against Fox’s “American Idol” in its 8 p.m. slot and is one of the network’s highest-rated shows.

Thus the CW is feverishly negotiating to renew the contracts of the show’s stars, momma Lauren Graham and daughter Alexis Bledel, which expire this year. The network wants to avoid losing another key part of the successful show, one year after contentious contract negotiations with creator Amy Sherman-Palladino led to her exit.

Graham, whom TV Guide says last week added an executive producer credit on the show, seems likely to sign for another season with that development. Bledel is more of a question mark, leading to speculation that the show will be completely revamped.

According to rumors on several TV sites, the new “Girls” would focus on Graham’s Lorelai character, who will reunite with diner owner Luke later this season, get married and maybe have a baby. The new show would follow their new family, with daughter Rory, by then graduated from Yale, dropping in for occasional visits.

But whether the CW would actually proceed with such a show is questionable. The chemistry between Graham and Bledel’s characters has always been the foundation for the show, and viewers have complained whenever plotlines kept them apart, including this season.

That won’t be the case tonight, however, as the two of them stand vigil at the hospital over seriously ill family patriarch Richard.

“Girls” has averaged a 2.6 in households this year, down 13 percent from last year, but its 18-49 rating is steady at a 2.0. Last week’s episode, airing against “Idol” for the third time, hit a season high in women 18-34 with a 4.0.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_9983.asp

Critic's Notebook
TV sucks? Don't blame the execs
Writers whine about idiot bosses ruining shows, but their own writing is often the culprit.
By Joel Stein in the [b][Los Angeles Times February 6, 2007

Why does TV suck? I had always read that it was because clueless studio executives take good scripts and screw them up.

They'd hear a pitch for a perfectly good cop show and say, "Hey, wouldn't it be more interesting if he was also blind? That way we can call it 'Blind Justice.' "

And then the poor writers would be stuck sitting quietly in a room all week until one of them said, "Well, I guess it's possible he smells a crime."

But it turns out that's not why television shows are almost always awful. After writing three failed network pilots and working as a writer on a sitcom, I'd say that 80% of the notes I was given from upstairs were really smart — telling me to be less broad, make my characters more complex and to excise unearned emotion.

As for the other notes, I was able to either argue against them, riddle out the problems without adopting their lame suggestions, or trick them into thinking I'd addressed them by marking unchanged dialogue with those "Final Draft" asterisks.

The main reason my pilots were bad was that I wrote them badly.

This is not to say that executives are geniuses and writers are stupid. Although most of the high-level execs I met are sharp and went to great colleges, the writers were always smarter. Much, much smarter. It's important that I'm clear on that because my health coverage comes from the Writers Guild.

It's just that hearing pitches and reading scripts is infinitely easier than coming up with premises and writing dialogue. It just requires saying either "your main character needs to be more proactive," "we need to clarify the character's motivation throughout his journey" or "let's cast Heather Locklear."

When execs get it in their heads to come up with shows on their own, it's almost always painful.

This year, ABC actually told writers it was looking for a soap opera based on "King Lear." This, undoubtedly, made them feel smart. But "King Lear" isn't great because of the plot, it's great because Shakespeare wrote it. No one wants to see a show about two bad sisters, one good sister and a guy who yanks his eyes out.

Unless, of course, that guy happens to be a cop.

Played by Heather Locklear.

It's hard to write anything good. The majority of the tiny percentage of novels that get published are still horrible. You just don't know that because you don't spend every night using your remote to flip through all the latest books.

In fact, to prove that execs are useful, try this experiment: Spend 8 until 11 every night going to see new plays. By Day 6 of hearing overeducated upper-class people argue about precisely why invading Iraq was a bad idea, you'll start begging for a remake of "Hello Larry."

Yes, networks turned down "The Sopranos." But executives don't make art. Their job is to create mass entertainment, and as the ratings for "Sopranos" repeats on A&E prove, it isn't mass entertainment; watching Paula Abdul drool on herself is.

When executives basically tell you that all the time, you tend to think they're ruining television. But they're actually helping to make the best drooling Paula Abdul shows they can.

This isn't to say that networks don't give their overcautious law departments and "standards and practices" offices way too much power to whittle shows down to blandness. Or that execs don't avoid risk out of fear.

But when Steve McPherson, ABC president of prime-time entertainment, told me that an actor I cast in a pilot wouldn't be "an engine of comedy," he proved to be right. Two friends of mine recently fought their studio and network to cast a really funny, weird, unpandering actor as their lead. They won, and every person in the focus groups said the show was ruined by the funny, weird, unlikable lead actor.

And though I still can't admit it after four years of trying, the networks must be right that no one wants to see a sitcom set in a rehab clinic.

Frustrated writers, working in an increasingly skittish, fractured medium that kills their shows without giving them a chance, have invented this myth of the idiot exec. But the truth is, they don't ruin television.

At least not the way newspaper editors ruin columns.

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-oe-stein6feb06,0,4667878,print.story?coll=cl-tvent

Yesterday’s metered market over-night prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted just near the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.

The Business of Television
MYNetworkTVs’ Plan B --
And How To Make It Work
By TVNEWSDAY Feb. 6, 2007

Even as he puts the final touches on a revamped lineup that will debut next month, the new MNT president says he is looking for reality and game shows and other unscripted programming for the fall.

In assembling My Network Television last spring, Fox bet that America was ready for telenovelas, primetime soap operas with a new episode every night, and more sex and action than their daytime counterparts. Heck, Fox reasoned, the rest of world is crazy for them.

Bad bet. America wasn’t ready.

MNT and the telenovelas debuted last September, but never caught on. Ratings quickly fizzled.

So, with the second round of telenovelas set to come to a quiet end on March 7, Fox has put forth over the past three weeks a new man and a new plan.

The new man is Greg Meidel, an experienced syndicated programming executive who knows his way around Hollywood. In other words, he can find watchable programming on a budget.

His new plan is to cut back the telenovelas and supplement them with a new spin on professional wrestling and movies that might appeal to the same wrestling crowd.

The first full week for the new lineup begins March 12.

On Mondays, MNT will air two hours of International Fight League’s Total Impact, in which 12 five-man teams will vie for the league’s martial arts title. The planned 22 programs will cover the action in and out of the ring.

On Tuesdays, MNT will go with two back-to-back, one-hour episodes of American Heiress. On Wednesdays, it’s two installments of Saints & Sinners. Under MNT’s original plan, episodes of the telenovelas would have appeared each night, spanning just 13 weeks.

Thursdays and Fridays are movie nights and Saturdays will repeat the Monday’s Total Impact.

In this edited interview with TVNEWSDAY Editor Harry A. Jessell, Meidel makes clear that MNT is evolving and says the next iteration in the fall may feature reality and games shows and other unscripted programming.

What’s the future of the telenovela on MNT?

We are cutting back on them, but, even next fall, I’m very confident that the novella will still be on the air one night a week,

Trust me, I’ve been watching them more now that I’m here, and they’re getting better. They’re getting better every day, every week. I think our next story arc is very exciting. Just the fact that we’ve cut these down to two nights a week, two hours a night, so they play almost like a made-for-TV movie, is going to enhance their value. Viewers are going to watch them and stay with them.

The challenge that we’ve had is that the novellas have been on five days a week and the competition is good. It’s tough to get someone to commit to watching a particular show five times a week. It’s a real challenge. So, going forward, as our production values improve and the acting and promotion come together, they’ll still make a great one night of programming on the schedule.

So, it will be two nights of telenovelas through the spring and summer and then one starting with the new fall schedule.

I am leaning that direction. If we can demonstrate that we’re creating value by having them in this two-hour form, we want to continue with one novella going forward in the fall.

Is the telenovela for the fall in production yet?

Not yet, but it’s well into development. I mean it’s just a matter of saying go.

But it sounds as if the foundation for the new schedule will be the International Fight League.

The International Fight League is what we feel will become a tremendous franchise for us. We hope that is will get sampled and viewed and watched by a wide audience, but, more important, that it will become a promotional platform for the rest of the week.

I’m thinking the IFL delivers young men, and telenovelas deliver young women. How do they mesh?

The International Fight League should be the same as what you see with the WWF on the USA Network, which has a large fan base of women. The core audience of television is women and the value added here is also attracting men to our network. So, if the size of the audience just grows proportionately, we know we’re going to have a bigger platform to promote and that’s what I’m looking for.

The reason why the USA Network has been successful over the years and the reason why it brought wrestling back was because wrestling was the promotional vehicle for the rest of the week. The made-for-TV movies, in particular, were targeted directly at women and yet the promotional platform for those movies was wrestling on Monday nights.

The league is being structured in the same way that the National Football League is structured, that the NBA is structured and the National Hockey League is structured. We have 12 teams that will compete and, over the course of the 22 weeks, someone will be crowned the grand champion.

Excuse the analogy, but it’s more like the XFL in that all the teams are owned by the league. You don’t have separate owners, do you?

No. It’s all owned by one, but it’s still a team sport, and no one has ever done that in the mixed martial arts and no one has really done that in wrestling.

So, you go from the IFL to telenovelas—two back-to-back episodes of one on Tuesday and two back-to-back episodes of another on Wednesday.

Right. And, again, these are being structured and edited to play like a two-hour movie so we feel that if you’re watching it at eight o’clock there’s no reason not to stay for the nine o’clock. It’s going to be a perfect flow and the story arc will continue, but we think we can get them one night a week.

And then movies or Thursday and Friday.

Our big blockbuster movies. We call them MyMovie nights. We’re buying big, high-end branded theatrical movies that are primarily action and comedy. A lot of these or many of these will be broadcast premiers.

So far, you’ve only announced the movies for the first week of the new schedule, The Rundown and Rocky IV. Of all the movies in all the world, why those?

The Rock [the star of The Rundown] and, obviously, Rocky IV have a loyal fan base that we think would find International Fight League entertaining.

You announced that on Saturday nights that you will air an encore performance of the International Fight League. So, the movies you began showing on Saturdays are just temporary?

Yes. The recap of the novellas was not living up to our expectations so now that we’re repositioning them as two-hour events on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, there was no need for the recap.

So how solid is this? Is this the schedule through the fall at least?

This is the schedule through the fall and, if it requires a little tweaking, I’m sure we’ll do that. I think that we’ll demonstrate that we can get sampled and hopefully grow our audience base.

And what kind of numbers are you going to promise us?

I’m not promising any numbers. I just want to do better than we’ve been doing.

Well, that’s not a high bar.

I just want the arrows to point up.

Are you going to be doing anything special in terms of promoting the new schedule?

You’ll see our local affiliates, which also include 10 stations owned by Fox, have a sizeable promotional campaign that will be done on the local level.

It will be up to the stations to promote these things?

Yes. Our stations have a very favorable arrangement with us. There’s an incentive for them to promote and obviously create value for themselves in primetime.

The affiliates were pleased with the promotion you gave the telenovelas last summer. You’re telling me not to expect a repeat of that?

I don’t think you’re going to see a push. Our strategy is to spend on what’s going on the air and our station affiliates have been very supportive of that. The reason we’re putting the IFL in there is we think that expands our audience base. We will get sampled and we’ll use that as a promotional platform.

We’ve also run out and invested in these theatrical movies to use them as a promotional platform, too. We have gone back and reedited and reformatted the novelas. So, we’ve done a lot in two weeks.

And what kind of feedback are you getting from the affiliates?

The feedback has been great. They’ve been very, very supportive. Because our own company owns stations that air the programming, we feel their pain. Therefore, there’s every reason for us to move quickly and create value not only for our affiliates, but for our own company.

I know that they are encouraged that at least now there is a point man at Fox whose full-time job is making this thing work.

That truly was very important to them, and we’re here to make it happen.

So, what are you cooking up for the fall schedule? Since you’ll only be running one telenovela, you’ll need at least one night of new programming.

We are thinking about that and we have been approached by the major reality producers. Really, the best reality producers in the business have come to us because obviously we have a need and they have a need too. They need beachfront property and because we are a broadcast network we have a wider footprint than the cable networks. We reach about 95% of all U.S. homes.

We have the budget and we are looking primarily at reality and games and other kinds of non-scripted programming going forward. Now, if the right one-hour drama or half-hour comedy came across our desk, we would invest in it, but that’s not our top priority. It’s an expensive business to get in, and we’re not going in that direction as of yet.

http://www.tvnewsday.com/articles/2007/02/06/daily.4/

TV Notebook
Nobody will be watching 'Nobody's Watching'
Finally, It’s Off Again for On Again, Off Again Project
By Rob Owen Pittsburgh Post-Gazette TV Editor in his blog “Tuned In” Feb. 6, 2007

An NBC source confirmed executive producer Bill Lawrence's hunch that the network won't go forward with the live "Nobody's Watching" special he announced at press tour last month.

In a phone interview Monday, Lawrence said the actor's contracts expire at the end of February. He's not making Internet videos for the show's Web site anymore because, "If I kept doing it and nothing happens, I'd have to kill myself."

The last post to the site was made Jan. 12.

Lawrence attended a "Scrubs" press conference last month during NBC's portion of the Television Critics Association winter press tour and announced that the network would make a live "Nobody's Watching" show, something he had expected NBC to already have announced.

"I was told they were announcing a date and when they didn't announce a date" it seemed like it was dead, Lawrence said. "I'm thinking it was an 11th hour decision to pull the plug, but I'm hoping it's not."

A spokesman for NBC later confirmed that "the project is not going forward."

"Nobody's Watching" was a failed pilot made for The WB in 2005. Last summer after the pilot was leaked on YouTube.com, it became something of a media sensation and NBC began looking into resurrecting the series, initially commissioning additional scripts and then opting for the now-scuttled live special.

http://www.post-gazette.com/tv/tunedin/

It's joyful time in Hooterville. This thread survived my repeated attempts to torpedo and disrupt its TV content with... even more TV content... I think! :confused: Regardless, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Fred's Hot Off the Press TV thread officially crossed the...

1,000,000 Views

...mark today around 11:30AM ET, the second thread to reach this landmark measurement in AVS history (right behind the now-dormant Lost thread). Congratulations Fred, may the 2,000,000th mark be reached in less time and under less stressful conditions than the first million were achieved. And round and round and round the TV biz goes!

http://forum.mazda6club.com/style_emoticons/default/ring.gif

Congratulations Fred! That's quite an achievement!

Congratulations Fred!

Great Job Fred !

Oh Yeah.. Congrats Fred

This is an amazing topic. Good job!!!

Yesterday’s fast national over night prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted near the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.

Thanks for all the good wishes.

Keep logging in -- the only reward I get is to see those page views rise.

And if you know anyone who is interested in TV, email them a note and include the url here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=440744

Thanks again -- and keep checking in and commenting.

(And if you have any ideas how to make the thread get wider exposure, drop me a PM and we can chat.)

The Business of TV
It’s Official:
Jeff Zucker now President and CEO of NBC Universal
(NBC Universal News Release) Published: February 6, 2007

FAIRFIELD, Conn. -- February 6, 2007 -- General Electric Company Chairman and CEO Jeffrey R. Immelt today announced the appointment of Jeff Zucker as President and CEO of NBC Universal, succeeding Bob Wright, who has served with distinction in this role for 21 years and will continue to serve as a GE vice chairman. Zucker’s appointment is effective today.

“Jeff will succeed one of the true giants in media -- Bob Wright -- to whom we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude for helping to build this great media company,” Immelt said. “By any measure, Bob is one of the most successful media executives ever. He transformed NBC from a broadcast network into a diversified global media company. He was always able to see what was coming next, whether it was cable, satellite, Hispanic broadcasting or digital media. Bob’s strategic vision and execution kept NBC growing.”

Zucker, 41, is a 21-year veteran of NBC Universal. As president and CEO, he will have responsibility for the strategic direction and operations of all NBC Universal properties. Zucker is one of the industry’s most experienced executives and has spent much of his career working in NBC’s news, sports, and entertainment divisions. As CEO of the NBC Universal Television Group since 2005, Zucker has overseen the company’s television programming and distribution operations, which account for two-thirds of the company’s overall profits.

“Jeff Zucker is a terrific talent and the right person to guide NBC Universal on the next stage of its growth,” Immelt said. “Jeff’s 20-plus years with NBC give him deep knowledge of the company’s strategy, people and culture. In the past few years, Jeff has shown that he is an energetic, focused leader who can rise to a challenge. His creative experience, expertise in news and broadcasting and intense passion for the business were immensely appealing to the Board and to me during this succession process.

“We have real business momentum, and the time is right to make this important transition,” Immelt said. “I like the team we have in place today, and believe that the future for NBCU is bright.”

In addition to serving as a vice chairman of GE, Wright will assist with the leadership transition at NBCU.

Immelt said, “Bob Wright has been a great GE leader. I am pleased that he will continue to serve as a GE vice chairman and that I will continue to have his counsel in our executive office and boardroom on a broad array of issues.”

Zucker said, "Bob has been a terrific mentor to me throughout my career, and I am honored to be his successor and fortunate to assume responsibility of a company that is so well positioned for future growth. I’ve spent my entire career at NBC and had the privilege to work with the best in the business every day. I look forward to continuing to work with this talented management team as we take NBC Universal to the next level.”

As CEO of NBCU’s television group, Zucker has overseen the company’s news, sports, and entertainment divisions; owned-and-operated television stations; cable entertainment properties, including USA, Sci Fi, and Bravo; cable news properties, CNBC and MSNBC; Spanish language network Telemundo; and the company’s television studio, first-run syndication, and global distribution efforts. Previously, Zucker had served as president of the NBC Entertainment, News & Cable Group. Before that, he served as president of NBC Entertainment.

A five-time Emmy winner, Zucker also served as executive producer of the “Today” show, where he turned the morning news program into the single-most profitable program on television. Additionally, Zucker served as executive producer of NBC’s coverage of several major events, including the “Decision 2000” election broadcast, the 1993 and 1997 presidential inaugurations, and the Persian Gulf War. His full biography can be accessed HERE.

Zucker graduated from Harvard College in 1986 with a bachelor’s degree in American History. He served as president of The Harvard Crimson from 1985 to 1986. He and his wife, Caryn, have four children.

Under Wright’s leadership, NBC’s revenues grew from $3 billion in 1986 to more than $16 billion in 2006. During his tenure, the company expanded its ownership of broadcast television stations, launched groundbreaking cable networks such as CNBC and MSNBC, and acquired fast-growing media assets such as Spanish-language broadcaster Telemundo and the arts and entertainment cable network, Bravo. In 2004, Wright led NBC’s acquisition of Vivendi Universal Entertainment, creating NBC Universal. The acquisition added such key assets as the USA Network, SciFi Channel, Universal Studios and Universal Parks in Orlando, FL and Hollywood, CA, expanding the company’s portfolio and establishing NBC Universal as a leader in the development, production, and marketing of entertainment, news, and information to a global audience.

Wright, 63, became chairman and chief executive officer of NBC Universal in May 2004 in conjunction with the combining of NBC and Vivendi Universal Entertainment. He became president and chief executive officer of NBC on Sept. 1, 1986, and became chairman and chief executive officer on June 4, 2001.

“It has been an honor and privilege to lead NBC Universal for the past twenty years,” Wright said. “I hand over the reins now with great pride in what we’ve accomplished and great confidence about what NBC Universal will become. We have momentum, outstanding support from GE and Vivendi, and a terrific executive in Jeff Zucker. I look forward to watching the next chapters of this wonderful company unfold under Jeff’s leadership.”

Before leading NBC, Wright served as president of General Electric Financial Services and, before that, as president of Cox Cable Communications. He has had a diversified career in general management, marketing, and broadcasting. Much of it has been with General Electric. In 2005, Wright and his wife, Suzanne, founded Autism Speaks after their grandson was diagnosed with the disorder. The nonprofit foundation, which is dedicated to raising awareness about autism and funding biomedical research, has already raised more than $50 million. Wright's full bio is available HERE.

NBC Universal is 80% owned by GE and 20% owned by Vivendi. The company’s board of directors comprises senior executives from GE/NBCU and Vivendi.

Thanks for all the god wishes.

Dont let it go to your head Fred. You're a good guy and we all wish good things for you and your thread, but a God??!! Sorry dude, but you're no Aaron Sorkin. :p

As the God of Typing knows all too well. :)

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Hefty debut for 'Rules of engagement'
CBS's new sitcom pulls a 5.2 in adults 18-49
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Feb. 6, 2007

All the promotions for CBS’s new sitcom “Rules of Engagement” during Sunday’s near-record Super Bowl helped the show score a very strong debut last night.

“Engagement” averaged a 5.2 rating in adults 18-49, according to Nielsen overnights, finishing second in its 9:30 p.m. timeslot behind only NBC’s “Heroes.” The David Spade show even bettered Fox’s “24” by 0.2 rating points and 1.3 million total viewers, averaging 14.9 million in the latter category, despite generally poor reviews.

“Engagement” had the best debut for a new sitcom this season, though that’s not saying a whole lot as it’s been a lackluster bunch. And it certainly didn’t hurt to have a big lead-in from “Two and a Half Men” at 9 p.m. The latter averaged a 5.8 rating, and “Engagement” retained an impressive 90 percent of that.

It did better than last year’s premiere for “The New Adventures of Old Christine,” which usually airs in the 9:30 Monday timeslot. That show averaged a 4.8 in its post-“Men” debut last March, and “Engagement” bettered that by 8 percent.

It also improved on “Christine’s” season-to-date average of 3.8 by 37 percent.

The show no doubt got a lift from promotions that aired during Sunday’s Super Bowl, watched by more than 93 million viewers. CBS smartly scheduled the premiere for the very next day, meaning viewers wouldn’t have a week or two to forget about it.

“Engagement” helped lift CBS to first among viewers 18-49 on a very competitive Monday night, with all its sitcoms matching or bettering their previous season highs. The network averaged a 5.0 rating and a 12 share. NBC was second at 4.8/12, Fox third at 4.6/11, ABC fourth at 3.3/8, Univision fifth at 1.8/4 and CW sixth at 1.2/3. The latter did have its best Monday in its target adults 18-34 since late November, averaging a sixth-place 1.4.

NBC started the night in the lead with a 5.0 rating at 8 p.m. for “Deal or No Deal.” Fox was second with a 4.1 for “Prison Break,” CBS third with a 3.8 average for “How I Met Your Mother” (3.9) and “The Class” (3.6) and ABC fourth with a 3.5 for “Wife Swap.” Univision was fifth that hour with a 2.4 for “La Fea Mas Bella” and CW sixth with a 1.1 average for “Everybody Hates Chris” (1.2) and “All of Us” (1.1).

At 9 p.m. NBC led again, this time with a 6.4 for “Heroes,” the night’s top-rated show in the demo. CBS was second with a 5.5 average for “Men” (5.8) and “Engagement” (5.2), Fox third with a 5.0 for “24” and ABC fourth with a 3.8 for “Supernanny.” Univision was fifth with a 1.5 for “Mundo de Fieras” and CW sixth with a 1.2 average for “Girlfriends” (1.2) and “The Game” (1.2).

CBS took the lead at 10 p.m. with a 5.7 rating for “CSI: Miami.” NBC dropped to second with a 3.2 for “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip,” with ABC third with a 2.6 for “In Style Celebrity Weddings” and Univision fourth with a 1.3 for “Cristina.”

CBS also took first for the night among households with a 9.6 average rating and a 15 share. NBC was second at 8.0/12, Fox third at 7.0/10, ABC fourth at 5.4/8, Univision fifth at 2.3/3 and CW sixth at 1.9/3.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_10015.asp

Fred,

You belong in the AVS Hall of Fame great job and congrats.

Thanks, steve.

(And perhaps in the AVS typing hall of shame!)

(And if you have any ideas how to make the thread get wider exposure, drop me a PM and we can chat.)

I vote for door prizes. ;)

Maybe a raffle -- or TV on DVD giveaway? :)

The Business of Television
Competition Fears Led to DirecTV Deal
By Mike Farrell MultiChannel News 2/6/2007

News Corp.’s decision to include its controlling interest in DirecTV in its pending deal with Liberty Media was spurred in part by concerns that the direct-broadcast satellite giant would not be able to compete effectively against satellite and telephone companies, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing Feb. 5.

News Corp. filed a preliminary proxy statement with the SEC Monday, part of a requirement under Australian Stock Exchange rules. The company did not release the date or location of the shareholders’ meeting to vote on the deal. That should come in later filings.

Approval of the deal would require that a majority of the shareholders -- other than the family of chairman and largest individual shareholder Rupert Murdoch and Liberty Media -- vote in favor of the transaction.

In the filing, News Corp. detailed its negotiations with Liberty, stating that it began talks with the Denver-based media giant in the winter of 2004, shortly after Liberty announced that it had acquired the News Corp. voting stake. But those negotiations made little progress in nearly two years until News Corp. decided to put its 38% interest in DirecTV on the table.

What appears to be most striking about that decision is how quickly DirecTV fell out of favor with News Corp.

News Corp. acquired the controlling interest in DirecTV from Hughes Electronics in 2003 for about $6.6 billion -- a deal that struck fear into the hearts of cable operators worrying that News Corp. would use its satellite distribution arm to crush the competition.

But less than three years after making the sale -- and as DirecTV’s subscriber growth started to decline and cable’s triple-play package of voice, video and data began to gain steam -- News Corp. had a change of heart.

According to the proxy filing, News Corp. management began to explore strategic alternatives for the satellite giant in early 2006, “in light of company management’s belief that the DirecTV business faced several strategic, competitive and technological challenges.”

The biggest obstacle appeared to be the satellite giant’s inability to develop a broadband product.

That was evident in News Corp.’s later explanation in the SEC filing as to why the board decided to unload DirecTV; two of five benefits the board saw to a DirecTV deal involved the significant investment required to keep DirecTV competitive and management’s belief that DirecTV and the U.S. satellite industry “are not able to, through their existing infrastructure, provide high-speed broadband-Internet access at a reasonable price.”

Discussions with Liberty concerning the DirecTV stake started in June 2006, according to the filing, and in August, the two companies entered into a confidentiality agreement that would allow Liberty to conduct due diligence on DirecTV.

While the negotiations appeared to move smoothly -- News Corp. presented Liberty with a term sheet in September outlining the assets and cash that could be included in the deal -- they were apparently held up in October when Liberty insisted that it receive a $1 billion breakup fee should the deal not be consummated.

It took nearly two months for that portion of the deal to be worked out, with Liberty agreeing Dec. 20 to lower the termination-fee requirement to $300 million.

On Dec. 22, both News Corp. and Liberty announced the transaction, where Liberty would receive the DirecTV interest, $550 million in cash and three regional sports networks in exchange for its News Corp. voting stock. The deal was valued at $11 billion.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6413900

Critic’s Notebook
'Lost' in Juliet's journey
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher” February 06, 2007

It seems to be the fashion to complain about “Lost,” which returns from its mid-season break Wednesday (at a new time, 9 p.m., following an hour-long “what’s-happened-so-far” special).

Well, count me out of the “Lost”-bashing club. I made my peace with the show long ago. It’s never going to give us a laundry list of answers to all the questions that have been raised on the two lush islands inhabited by the castaways and the mysterious Others.

My biggest pet peeve is that some of the flashbacks are gratingly repetitive (and I could do without the two perky new beach residents who popped up last fall), but the truth is, “Lost” is still an exceptionally well-made drama by any standard. I’m not losing my Wednesday-night appointment with the ABC show anytime soon (apparently I’m not alone - for all the talk of the show’s ratings slippage, last fall it still garnered an impressive 16 million to 18 million viewers every week).

It’s true, the six episodes that aired last fall didn’t advance the island’s many story lines much. But then, the island plots have been advancing slowly for three seasons. If it’s too slow for you, I feel your pain, really. But, looking back at those half-dozen outings, I don’t really dwell on Locke’s koo-koo-ka-choo trippy vision quest or yet another in a seemingly endless series of Sun and Jin flashbacks.

I think about the fact that those six episodes offered us a chance to spend more time with Juliet and Ben, two of the most enigmatically compelling characters on network television.

As Benjamin Linus, who’s apparently the head of whatever wacky experiment is taking place on the “Lost” islands, Michael Emerson has given us a complex and calibrated performance that mixes creepiness, intelligence and a twisted form of charisma into one quietly frightening package.

And as Juliet, Elizabeth Mitchell has been a wonder. In Wednesday’s episode, “Not in Portland,” we see Juliet wield a gun, empathize with a sick sister, get humiliated by her ex-husband, and eventually break down crying. Mitchell makes Juliet’s steely resolve and her carefully hidden vulnerability fascinating, which is some feat. Right now, Juliet’s by far the most interesting woman on the show.

Mitchell said in an interview that she wasn’t surprised to be asked to play such a wide range of emotions in “Not in Portland.”

“I didn’t think it was a shock, because to have someone like Juliet who is so calm in the face of all the things that she has to do - she would have had to go through something extraordinary to get there,” Mitchell says. “I also tend to think your meekest person , your shyest person, your weakest dog - you know, they tend to be the most vicious fighters when they’re backed into a corner. And I think she’s backed into a corner, and has been, as we find out, for a very long time.”

The episode (and if you don’t want to know more about it, stop reading here) answers some intriguing questions about Juliet, but it mainly wraps up the story of Kate, Sawyer and Jack’s adventures as prisoners of the Others.

And it has its share of other, non-flashy rewards - there’s a role for the dependably solid Zeljko Ivanek, who plays Juliet’s ex; a cameo for “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” star Rob McElhenny as a prison guard (his character, Aldo, is pictured reading Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time”); as well as a guest shot for “Deadwood’s” Robin Weigert, who plays Juliet’s sister Rachel in flashback scenes (producers say Weigert will be back later in the season).

Through Rachel, we find out what kind of work Juliet was up to before she arrived on the “Lost” islands. And on the Others’ island, there’s one mythology-intensive “Clockwork Orange”-like scene that will have fans pausing their DVRs for days.

Balancing the relationship drama and the mythology and the action/adventure on this show is a tricky job, and it’s apparent by now that the “Lost” producers will never please all their fans all the time.

Speaking for myself, though, I can’t wait to find out more about Desmond in the Feb. 14 episode (in it, there are reappearances by the mysterious Charles Widmore and Penny Widmore, and speaking of Hawking, there's a Ms. Hawking as well). And no doubt as Season 3 closes, the writers of the show will unleash yet more intriguing revelantions, brutha.

It’s a smart idea for ABC to run the next 16 episodes of the show in a row, and I think the producers are wise to be thinking about the overall ending for the series, which may come as soon as Season 5, based on remarks executive producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse made at the Television Critics Association press tour in January.

“The reality is, they can produce a sixth or seventh or eighth season, but would anyone be watching? Because the show would be so miserable by that time,” Lindelof said.

“What’s really sad to me about a show like `The X-Files’ is how great it was for six years. And we don’t look back on that show and say, `It was great,’ we say, `It was great, but …’ and that `but’ is a very depressing thing.”

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

A question
Can a Satellite-Savvy Reader Answer This Question?

A friend has sent me the following link to al jazeera and asked if anyone can simply watch the feed (using the appropriate satellite locations) or is the signal encrypted. Does anyone here know the answer?

Here is the link:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/91EEF363-FE1D-4EB9-A7D9-EF3701E39A3B.

And,m if it is not encyrpted, what equipment would be needed to actually see AJ?

Thanks for the help.

Critic’s Notebook
“24”
We're holding our mud. Just barely
By Tim Goodman San Francisco Chronicle in his TV blog “The Bastard Machine” Feb. 6, 2007

Why do I feel compelled after every episode to say out loud and in public that watching "24" is more than a guilty pleasure - it's kinda-sorta a crime against criticism? Let's not kid ourselves here. I'm watching the show because it's so outrageously bad and addictively thrilling. Period. We're on the same page here, I hope. It's bad, people. It's really bad. Though it has always been bad, we may have reached a new nadir, a new level of badness. The acting on this last episode was so wooden they might as well have shot the whole thing in stop-motion animation.

Honestly, I thought Kiefer Sutherland - during the interrogation of his brother - was just going to stop and say, "I can't. I can't do it anymore. This is absurd." All the familiar yelling and pleading and yelling and hurting and beating and yelling and torture and yelling? At some point, it's gotta be like the touring company for "Hair" when it pulls into Mobile, Alabama. You just can't get it up anymore.

This makes two episodes in a row where the pacing was way off. Last week - aka The Episode Where Jack Sh*t Happened - was one thing. A fluke, we thought. But this one proved a couple of things conclusively: As much as we'd like to beat the holy snot out of Graem/Graham/Gray/Evil Ron Howard and shout things like, "Die you fat toad!," or "Suck the airbag you squat, balding freak!" - at some point even that becomes tiring. Luckily he left us by saying, "I held my mud" before Babe's Dad killed his own son with these special circumtances: ACTING BADLY IN THE PROCESS. I'm not sure about your house, but "I held my mud" is in full, relentless use. AND it goes into the Hall of Fame of TV Sayings.

But there's more: DB Woodside as the President is just a catastrophe. He's simpering and spineless. Hell, even "Felicity" could make a quicker decision. Everybody at the White House - who cares about them? Chloe is woefully underused. There's WAAAAAAAYYYYYY too much Milo. (Let's hope Jack does something heinous to him as well, deservedly or not.) At least Big Mo left CTU to get hijacked BY THE LEAST THREATENING DUO in the history of television - or at least since Lenny and Squiggy - and will now get more lines, one would assume. Bill and Karen together again? Who cares?

Oh, I'm holding my mud alright. But not without a muzzle and some imodium. Luckily, as the newscaster stated, "I'm just on the edge of the safe zone." Also known as: Upwind of the gigantic nuclear mushroom cloud that is not panicking anyone in Los Angeles. Killing Jack's loser brother wasn't enough. I'm going to need a whole lot more stuff to blow up or a high speed chase or SOMETHING. Simple torture is not enough. And the bad acting - aka "simple torture for critics" - has to improve. I'm barely hanging on, people. But thankfully, I've got a lot of internal fortitude and therefore I'm holding my mud.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn?blogid=24

Thanks, steve.

(And perhaps in the AVS typing hall of shame!)

That is the Hall I belong in

Mucho Kudos, fredfa.

Keep up the good work.

Thanks, puck!

(And you don't have to wait for milestones or polls to post!) :)

A question
Can a Satellite-Savvy Reader Answer This Question?

A friend has sent me the following link to al jazeera and asked if anyone can simply watch the feed (using the appropriate satellite locations) or is the signal encrypted. Does anyone here know the answer?

Here is the link:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/91EEF363-FE1D-4EB9-A7D9-EF3701E39A3B.

And,m if it is not encyrpted, what equipment would be needed to actually see AJ?

Thanks for the help.

Maybe this will help:

VIEWING RESTRICTIONS
Due to copyright and distribution restrictions, not all viewers will be able to access all our video services. If the free player is not available please try our subscription partners. We are constantly working to add new territories and agreements to the service so if the video you want is not available, please visit regularly to check for updates to Al Jazeera's online video services.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1EBB4C7F-7F2E-4257-A04C-56678862E31A.htm


www.vdc.com Channel 205

Critic’s Notebook
“24”
We're holding our mud. Just barely
By Tim Goodman San Francisco Chronicle in his TV blog “The Bastard Machine” Feb. 6, 2007

Why do I feel compelled after every episode to say out loud and in public that watching "24" is more than a guilty pleasure - it's kinda-sorta a crime against criticism? Let's not kid ourselves here. I'm watching the show because it's so outrageously bad and addictively thrilling. Period. We're on the same page here, I hope. It's bad, people. It's really bad. Though it has always been bad, we may have reached a new nadir, a new level of badness. The acting on this last episode was so wooden they might as well have shot the whole thing in stop-motion animation.

Honestly, I thought Kiefer Sutherland - during the interrogation of his brother - was just going to stop and say, "I can't. I can't do it anymore. This is absurd." All the familiar yelling and pleading and yelling and hurting and beating and yelling and torture and yelling? At some point, it's gotta be like the touring company for "Hair" when it pulls into Mobile, Alabama. You just can't get it up anymore.

This makes two episodes in a row where the pacing was way off. Last week - aka The Episode Where Jack Sh*t Happened - was one thing. A fluke, we thought. But this one proved a couple of things conclusively: As much as we'd like to beat the holy snot out of Graem/Graham/Gray/Evil Ron Howard and shout things like, "Die you fat toad!," or "Suck the airbag you squat, balding freak!" - at some point even that becomes tiring. Luckily he left us by saying, "I held my mud" before Babe's Dad killed his own son with these special circumtances: ACTING BADLY IN THE PROCESS. I'm not sure about your house, but "I held my mud" is in full, relentless use. AND it goes into the Hall of Fame of TV Sayings.

But there's more: DB Woodside as the President is just a catastrophe. He's simpering and spineless. Hell, even "Felicity" could make a quicker decision. Everybody at the White House - who cares about them? Chloe is woefully underused. There's WAAAAAAAYYYYYY too much Milo. (Let's hope Jack does something heinous to him as well, deservedly or not.) At least Big Mo left CTU to get hijacked BY THE LEAST THREATENING DUO in the history of television - or at least since Lenny and Squiggy - and will now get more lines, one would assume. Bill and Karen together again? Who cares?

Oh, I'm holding my mud alright. But not without a muzzle and some imodium. Luckily, as the newscaster stated, "I'm just on the edge of the safe zone." Also known as: Upwind of the gigantic nuclear mushroom cloud that is not panicking anyone in Los Angeles. Killing Jack's loser brother wasn't enough. I'm going to need a whole lot more stuff to blow up or a high speed chase or SOMETHING. Simple torture is not enough. And the bad acting - aka "simple torture for critics" - has to improve. I'm barely hanging on, people. But thankfully, I've got a lot of internal fortitude and therefore I'm holding my mud.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/indexn?blogid=24

I disagree with Tim completely. It'd be one thing if he said it was "still bad" or "as bad" as last season (though I'd disagree with that statement, as I do below), but to say that it's worse now than it's ever been is just flat out incomprehensible. Last season was horrible television. The acting was parody, the writing was nonexistent, the plot was completely contradictory, and the characters were all cardboard cutouts.

This season has largely seen a rebound, better than either the fourth or fifth seasons as far as I'm concerned.

I mean, sure it's absurd, but that's what 24's always been about. And, unlike last season, the actors are buying into right now. It's hard to talk about wooden and horrible acting when the show dipped below Soap Opera acting standards about 10 episodes in (if not before) last season. I think DB Woodside is actually believable as Palmer's brother for the first time since he appeared on the show, and all in all the writing hasn't been too bad. At least there haven't been blatant plot contradictions or absolutely unbelievable outcomes (Curtis' fate excepted).

In all, I guess I feel like defending 24 because it seems that, so far, everyone on the show is clearly trying to put something good together rather than phone the show completely in as they have the last two seasons. Hell, I even doubted Kiefer at points last season.

TV Notebook
Nobody will be watching 'Nobody's Watching'
Finally, It’s Off Again for On Again, Off Again Project
By Rob Owen Pittsburgh Post-Gazette TV Editor in his blog “Tuned In” Feb. 6, 2007

An NBC source confirmed executive producer Bill Lawrence's hunch that the network won't go forward with the live "Nobody's Watching" special he announced at press tour last month.

http://www.post-gazette.com/tv/tunedin/

Darn I was jsut about to ask about "Nobody's Watching". I can see where it's too confusing for the general audience. But I guess another behind the scenes of a TV show concept is no longer desired. specially this one, about 2 guys hired to produce a sitcom for network TV, and their attempt of creating a sitcom is being filmed for a reality show.

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

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

Thanks, shuttermaker.

I still don't understand if an average citizen can just pluck the signal out of the air, though.

(I am kind of technologically challenged, as you can tell.)

1,000,000 views! Whew!
fredfa, you're da bomb! :cool:

You guys that keep checking back in on the thread also deserve credit for the 1,000,000 views.

fredfa gets credit for the much more remarkable 14,000+ posts he's made - the overwhelming majority are articles that were located, copied and formatted before posting in this thread - not to mention the daily updates to the first few posts of the thread. The formatting can be a PITA. For illustrative purposes, I removed part of the end of each formatting bracket ( [/B], [/color], etc.)within Post #21788 so you guys see exactly how much is added to an article to make it HOTP-friendly:



Super Bowl XLI Notebook [/B [/COLOR
[B][COLOR=red] USA Today[/B February 5, 2007

Advertisers paid up to $2.6 million for a 30-second ad in the Super Bowl.

[B][COLOR=red] [SIZE=5 10 most popular[/B[/COLOR[/SIZE

[b]Company Description Length (in sec.) Qtr. Score[/b
[B] Budweiser[/B Crabs worship Bud ice chest. 30 4th 8.56
[B] Budweiser[/B Stray dog and the Clydesdales. 60 2nd 8.29
[B] Bud Light[/B Rock, Paper, Scissors game for beer. 30 1st 8.28
[B] Doritos[/B Guy in car, girl show Doritos qualities. 30 1st 7.95
[B] Bud Light[/B Immigrants learn to ask for Bud Light. 30 1st 7.87
[B] Bud Light[/B Wedding shortened by auctioneer. 30 1st 7.83
[B] Bud Light[/B Ape loses out on beer while posing. 30 3rd 7.76
[B] FedEx[/B FedEx truck on the moon. 45 1st 7.74
[B] Snickers[/B Mechanics enjoy candy bar. 30 1st 7.57
[B] Bud Light[/B Scary hitcher gets ride for Bud Light. 30 3rd 7.51

[B][COLOR=deepskyblue][SIZE=5 The rest[/B[/COLOR[/SIZE

[B] Blockbuster[/B Rabbit uses (real) mouse to order. 30 1st 7.44
[B] NFL[/B Fans mourn end of season. 30 4th 7.43
[B] Coca-Cola[/B No more regrets for old man. 30 2nd 7.36
[B] Snapple Green Tea[/B Fan researches mystery ingredient. 30 4th 7.27
[B] Taco Bell[/B Lions chat about new Taquitos. 30 3rd 7.26
[B] CareerBuilder.com[/B Dodging darts in office jungle. 30 2nd 7.10
[B] Emerald Nuts[/B Robert Goulet and low energy danger. 30 3rd 7.07
[B] General Motors[/B Factory robot dreams he's fired. 60 2nd 7.06
[B] E-Trade[/B What one finger can do. 30 4th 7.05
[B] Schick[/B Quattro tested in gym workout. 30 1st 6.99
[B] Coca-Cola[/B Video game guy does good deeds. 60 2nd 6.96
[B] T-Mobile[/B Fan doesn't recognize Charles Barkley. 30 3rd 6.91
[B] Toyota [/B Tundra accelerates, stops at cliff. 30 1st 6.81
[B] Disney[/B Movie trailer for Wild Hogs. 30 2nd 6.74
[B] Bud Light[/B Slapping replaces fist bumping. 30 2nd 6.71
[B] Sierra Mist[/B Beard comb-over doesn't work. 30 1st 6.66
[B] CareerBuilder.com[/B Fight for promotion in office jungle. 30 3rd 6.54
[B] CareerBuilder.com[/B Performance review in office jungle. 30 4th 6.52
[B] Coca-Cola[/B Black History Month tribute. 30 2nd 6.50
[B] Chevrolet[/B Bare-chested guys wash HHR. 30 2nd 6.47
[B] Coca-Cola[/B Inside a Coke vending machine. 60 3rd 6.44
[B] Bud Select[/B Jay-Z, Don Shula play 3-D football. 30 4th 6.30
[B] Frito-Lay[/B Black History Month tribute. 30 2nd 6.30
[B] Doritos[/B Checkout girl gets excited. 30 2nd 6.18
[B] FedEx[/B Can't judge people by their names. 30 3rd 6.16
[B] Sierra Mist[/B Karate students defend soft drink. 30 1st 6.15
[B] Disney[/B Movie trailer for Meet the Robinsons. 30 3rd 6.10
[B] Prudential Financial[/B What rocks can do for you. 30 4th 5.96
[B] Izod[/B PerformX sportswear in the snow. 30 4th 5.89
[B] Sprint[/B Mobile broadband connections. 30 2nd 5.81
[B] Chevrolet[/B Stars sing songs with Chevy in lyrics. 60 1st 5.78
[B] E-Trade[/B Bank robs customers. 30 3rd 5.70
[B] Lionsgate[/B Movie trailer for Pride. 30 1st 5.63
[B] Toyota [/B Tundra tows load on see-saw ramp. 30 3rd 5.63
[B] Hewlett-Packard[/B PC, motorcycles, American Chopper star. 30 4th 5.60
[B] Honda[/B Fuel efficiency of Hondas. 30 4th 5.49
[B] Honda[/B Elvis' Burning Love for new CR-V. 30 4th 5.38
[B] GoDaddy.com[/B GoDaddy marketing department parties. 30 1st 5.28
[B] King Pharma. [/B Guy in heart suit attacked by risks. 60 2nd 5.23
[B] Van Heusen[/B Man dressed for any occasion. 30 3rd 5.04
[B] Nationwide Ins. [/B Kevin Federline dreams of rap career. 30 3rd 4.94
[B] Weinstein Co. [/B Movie trailer for Hannibal Rising. 30 4th 4.77

[B][COLOR=red][SIZE=5 5 least popular[/B[/COLOR[/SIZE

[B] GoDaddy.com[/B 2nd airing of marketing department. 30 4th 4.71
[B] Garmin[/B GPS navigator vs. paper map monster. 30 2nd 4.34
[B] Flomax[/B Prostate drug lets men bike, kayak. 60 4th 4.22
[B] Revlon Colorist[/B Sheryl Crow sings new song. 60 3rd 4.09
[B] Salesgenie.com[/B Salesgenie.com helps sales success. 30 1st 4.05

[url]http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/admeter/2007-02-04-ad-meter-chart_x.htm[/url



in order to get this:

[B] [COLOR=deepskyblue] Super Bowl XLI Notebook
[SIZE=5] How all the commercials ranked
USA Today February 5, 2007

Advertisers paid up to $2.6 million for a 30-second ad in the Super Bowl.

10 most popular

Company Description Length (in sec.) Qtr. Score
Budweiser Crabs worship Bud ice chest. 30 4th 8.56
Budweiser Stray dog and the Clydesdales. 60 2nd 8.29
Bud Light Rock, Paper, Scissors game for beer. 30 1st 8.28
Doritos Guy in car, girl show Doritos qualities. 30 1st 7.95
Bud Light Immigrants learn to ask for Bud Light. 30 1st 7.87
Bud Light Wedding shortened by auctioneer. 30 1st 7.83
Bud Light Ape loses out on beer while posing. 30 3rd 7.76
FedEx FedEx truck on the moon. 45 1st 7.74
Snickers Mechanics enjoy candy bar. 30 1st 7.57
Bud Light Scary hitcher gets ride for Bud Light. 30 3rd 7.51

The rest

Blockbuster Rabbit uses (real) mouse to order. 30 1st 7.44
NFL Fans mourn end of season. 30 4th 7.43
Coca-Cola No more regrets for old man. 30 2nd 7.36
Snapple Green Tea Fan researches mystery ingredient. 30 4th 7.27
Taco Bell Lions chat about new Taquitos. 30 3rd 7.26
CareerBuilder.com Dodging darts in office jungle. 30 2nd 7.10
Emerald Nuts Robert Goulet and low energy danger. 30 3rd 7.07
General Motors Factory robot dreams he's fired. 60 2nd 7.06
E-Trade What one finger can do. 30 4th 7.05
Schick Quattro tested in gym workout. 30 1st 6.99
Coca-Cola Video game guy does good deeds. 60 2nd 6.96
T-Mobile Fan doesn't recognize Charles Barkley. 30 3rd 6.91
Toyota Tundra accelerates, stops at cliff. 30 1st 6.81
Disney Movie trailer for Wild Hogs. 30 2nd 6.74
Bud Light Slapping replaces fist bumping. 30 2nd 6.71
Sierra Mist Beard comb-over doesn't work. 30 1st 6.66
CareerBuilder.com Fight for promotion in office jungle. 30 3rd 6.54
CareerBuilder.com Performance review in office jungle. 30 4th 6.52
Coca-Cola Black History Month tribute. 30 2nd 6.50
Chevrolet Bare-chested guys wash HHR. 30 2nd 6.47
Coca-Cola Inside a Coke vending machine. 60 3rd 6.44
Bud Select Jay-Z, Don Shula play 3-D football. 30 4th 6.30
Frito-Lay Black History Month tribute. 30 2nd 6.30
Doritos Checkout girl gets excited. 30 2nd 6.18
FedEx Can't judge people by their names. 30 3rd 6.16
Sierra Mist Karate students defend soft drink. 30 1st 6.15
Disney Movie trailer for Meet the Robinsons. 30 3rd 6.10
Prudential Financial What rocks can do for you. 30 4th 5.96
Izod PerformX sportswear in the snow. 30 4th 5.89
Sprint Mobile broadband connections. 30 2nd 5.81
Chevrolet Stars sing songs with Chevy in lyrics. 60 1st 5.78
E-Trade Bank robs customers. 30 3rd 5.70
Lionsgate Movie trailer for Pride. 30 1st 5.63
Toyota Tundra tows load on see-saw ramp. 30 3rd 5.63
Hewlett-Packard PC, motorcycles, American Chopper star. 30 4th 5.60
Honda Fuel efficiency of Hondas. 30 4th 5.49
Honda Elvis' Burning Love for new CR-V. 30 4th 5.38
GoDaddy.com GoDaddy marketing department parties. 30 1st 5.28
King Pharma. Guy in heart suit attacked by risks. 60 2nd 5.23
Van Heusen Man dressed for any occasion. 30 3rd 5.04
Nationwide Ins. Kevin Federline dreams of rap career. 30 3rd 4.94
Weinstein Co. Movie trailer for Hannibal Rising. 30 4th 4.77

5 least popular

GoDaddy.com 2nd airing of marketing department. 30 4th 4.71
Garmin GPS navigator vs. paper map monster. 30 2nd 4.34
Flomax Prostate drug lets men bike, kayak. 60 4th 4.22
Revlon Colorist Sheryl Crow sings new song. 60 3rd 4.09
Salesgenie.com Salesgenie.com helps sales success. 30 1st 4.05

http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/admeter/2007-02-04-ad-meter-chart_x.htm

Maybe this will help:

VIEWING RESTRICTIONS
Due to copyright and distribution restrictions, not all viewers will be able to access all our video services. If the free player is not available please try our subscription partners. We are constantly working to add new territories and agreements to the service so if the video you want is not available, please visit regularly to check for updates to Al Jazeera's online video services.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1EBB4C7F-7F2E-4257-A04C-56678862E31A.htm


www.vdc.com Channel 205
I think the above refers to the online content.

Regarding Fred's question, I think the signals are free-to-air and a FTA receiver/STB would be needed to receive the signal. Probably from the 97W and/or 121W sat locations.

Fred, HDTVFanAtic would be someone to ask.

P.S. BTW, congrats on all the great work here!

Congrats Fredfa,

So many eyeballs! Remember to use your powers only for good.

Thanks Jim and AAF!

Thanks, shuttermaker.

I still don't understand if an average citizen can just pluck the signal out of the air, though.

(I am kind of technologically challenged, as you can tell.)

I would say no. It appears you need a satellite provider that can deliver the subscription to you. Or, you could pay for a subscription to that www.vdc.com package.

Congrats Fredfa,

So many eyeballs! Remember to use your powers only for good.

I second that..

Can't say this enough... Fredfa you rock!!

Congrats FREDA!!
Al Jazeera is in fixed key on Galaxy 25 @97 West as Keenan notes, transponder16. Your thread IS on subscription list.

Nielsen Notebook
Program Rankings By Network
Week of January 28 – February 4, 2007

Network TV executives don’t only view the weekly ratings as a win/lose proposition based on a show’s performance in its time slot, Each network also keeps a close eye on how its programs are doing in relation to other shows on the network.

Sometimes, if you see how a show ranks in its own network’s hierarchy, you get a better idea of what its chances are for renewal.
I’ll be posting the ratings for last week by network, and I think you may find some surprises. First, with few surprises, is CBS

Rank CBS Program Viewers
1 Super Bowl XLI 93.18
2 Super Bowl XLI Postgame 1 81.54
3 Super Bowl XLI Postgame 2 57.34
7 Criminal Minds (Sun.) 26.31
9 CSI (9 p.m.) 21.49
11 Shark 14.08
15 CSI: Miami 13.53
16 Two and a Half Men 12.70
18 NCIS 12.25
19 CSI (8 p.m.) 11.92
22 Numb3rs 10.91
24 Ghost Whisperer 10.66
25 CSI: NY (10 p.m.) 10.49
28 "Super Bowl's Greatest Commercials" 10.05
29 Old Christine 10.01
33 Criminal Minds 9.61
37 The Unit 8.96
38 48 Hours Mystery (Tue.) 8.82
41 CSI: NY (8 p.m.) 8.20
42 48 Hours Mystery (Sat.) 8.18
46 How I Met Your Mother 7.53
49 Crimetime Saturday (9 p.m.) 7.21
57 The Class 6.40
62 Crimetime Saturday (8 p.m.) 6.13

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data

Next up is Fox:

Rank Fox Program Viewers
4 American Idol (Tue.) 33.65
5 American Idol (Wed.) 31.85
6 House 27.34
12 24 14.04
17 Bones 12.40
30 Prison Break 9.90
48 Cops (8:30 p.m.) 7.24
50t America's Most Wanted 7.00
59 Cops (8 p.m.) 6.21
74 Trading Spouses 5.49
75 'Til Death 5.47
79 Nanny 911 4.92
84 War at Home 4.47
93 The O.C. 3.82
105 "X-Men: X-Men United" 3.05
110 The Simpsons 2.76

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data

Now for ABC:

Rank ABC Program Viewers
8 Grey's Anatomy (Thu.) 24.18
13 Ugly Betty 14.00
32 Men in Trees 9.74
36 Boston Legal 9.48
39 Supernanny 8.72
43 Wife Swap 7.82
44 20/20 (10 p.m.) 7.79
45 George Lopez 7.71
50t 20/20 Spec (9 p.m.) 7.00
56 "World's Greatest Sports Bloopers" 6.47
60 Grey's Anatomy (Fri.) 6.20
63 Primetime 6.07
68 What About Brian 5.71
69 According to Jim (9 p.m.) 5.71
69t America's Funniest Home Videos (Tue.) 5.71
76 America's Funniest Home Videos (Sun.) 5.42
77 Knights of Prosperity (Wed.) 5.09
81 "Old School" 4.89
82 "Anchorman: Legend of Ron Burgundy" 4.58
85 In Case of Emergency 4.43
86t Big Day 4.27
88 Extreme Makeover 4.22
97 Knights of Prosperity (Tue.) 3.48

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data

Now for NBC:
Rank NBC Program Viewers
10 Deal or No Deal (Mon.) 16.92
14 Heroes 13.63
20 ER 11.79
21 Deal or No Deal (Wed.) 11.37
23 My Name Is Earl 10.68
26 1 vs. 100 10.18
27 The Office 10.11
31 Medium 9.89
34 Law & Order 9.53
35 Las Vegas 9.52
40 Law & Order: SVU (Tue.) 8.29
47 Law & Order: Criminal Intent (Sat.) 7.44
52 Scrubs 6.90
53 Studio 60 6.86
54 Friday Night Lights 6.73
55 Law & Order: Criminal Intent (Tue.) 6.48
66 Dateline: NBC (Sat.) 5.82
69t 30 Rock 5.71
72t Law & Order: SVU (Sat.) 5.58
72t Dateline: NBC (Tue.) 5.58
91 Grease: You're the One That I Want (9 p.m.) 3.96
114t Grease: You're the One That I Want (7 p.m.) 2.45

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data

Finally, here are the numbers for The CW. (Reading these, do you really think The CW won't try its darndest to bring back "Gilmore Girls" and "Supernatural"?)

Rank The CW Program Viewers
78 Friday Night Smackdown 5.06
80 Smallville 4.91
86t Gilmore Girls 4.27
94 Beauty and the Geek (Wed.) 3.78
100 Supernatural 3.37
109 Everybody Hates Chris 2.79
112 Veronica Mars 2.69
116 All of Us 2.38
117 Girlfriends 2.35
118 The Game 2.27
120 Beauty and the Geek (Sun., 9 p.m.) 1.50
121 One Tree Hill 1.48
128 Beauty and the Geek (Sun., 8 p.m.) 1.19
135 Beauty and the Geek (Sun., 7 p.m.) 0.94

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data

TV Notebook
Weekly Cable Ratings
Lifetime Has Luck in the Romance Department
By Anne Becker Broadcasting & Cable 2/6/2007

Lifetime is riding high on romance. The women's network drew a solid performance from the second of four original movie adaptations of Nora Roberts books on Feb. 5.

Montana Sky averaged 4.8 million total viewers and 939,000 women 18-49 between 9 and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen Media Research. The movie, the story of three half sisters who must live together to receive their inheritance, placed second in the demo for its time period, following USA.

Montana, which starred John Corbett, Ashley Williams, Charlotte Ross and Diane Ladd, marked the second week Monday in a row that Lifetime attracted nearly 5 million viewers with a Roberts movie. Last week's Angels Fall averaged 4.9 million total viewers and ranked as the fourth-most-viewed cable program for the week.

Both movies drew audiences significantly larger than Lifetime's average in prime for the month of January - 1.6 million total viewers, itself up 6% from a year ago. Two more Roberts movies are slated - Blue Smoke for Feb. 12 and Carolina Moon for Feb. 19.

Separately, sister channel Lifetime Movie Network saw a hit in the premiere of original flick Seventeen and Missing Feb. 3. With 964,000 total viewers, it more than doubled the network's average in prime - 423,000. It also ranked as the network's most viewed original movie to date with women 18-49.

Elsewhere in cable ratings, Nickelodeon scored with its new comedy The Naked Brothers Band, which premiered with back-to-back episodes Feb. 3 at 8:30 and 9 p.m. The 8:30 p.m. episode averaged 1.9 million kids 6-11 and 3.5 million total viewers. The 9 p.m. episode averaged 2 million kids 6-11 - Nick's highest series premiere in seven years - and 3.8 million total viewers.

For the week ending Feb. 4, USA finished as the most viewed cable network with an average 2.7 million viewers in prime, followed by non-ad-supported Disney with 2.2 million viewers, TNT with 2.1 million and Lifetime with 1.8 million.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6414068

TV Notebook
Weekly Syndication Ratings
Magazines Are Growing
By Jim Benson Broadcasting & Cable 2/6/2007

As some stations question the need for another magazine show like Warner Bros. new TMZ.com-inspired series, national syndication ratings for the week ended Jan. 28 indicate that magazines are the programming category with the most shows posting increases over last year.

During the week ended Jan. 28, the last full week prior to the start of sweeps, three magazines improved versus a year ago. And the two that declined were down far less than other genres, including the widely imitated court field, where nothing gained.

Talk produced only one year-to-year increase (Buena Vista TV’s Live with Regis & Kelly grew 6% from 3.4 to 3.6) and the sole winner versus 2006 levels among games was BVT’s Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (up 9% from 3.3 to 3.6).

In general, magazines have been driven by headline-making celebrity news, which began more than a month ago with the loud Rosie O’Donnell-Donald Trump slugfest.

Gainers included CBS Television Distribution’s Entertainment Tonight (up 6% from 5.3 to 5.6), NBC Universal’s Access Hollywood (increasing 4% from 2.8 to 2.9) and CTD’s The Insider (4% higher from 2.7 to 2.8). CTD’s Inside Edition dropped 5% from 3.8 to 3.6, while Warner Bros. Extra slipped 4% from 2.4 to 2.3.

Even Twentieth TV’s cancelled Geraldo at Large prospered in its final week in syndication, matching a series high reached the previous week of 1.7. Since the staff was notified in early January of the show’s demise, ratings rose 21% from 1.4 to 1.7.

By comparison, NBCU’s Megan Mullally followed the more customary course. In its final week, the departed talker dropped to its lowest ratings ever, with its 0.7 down 22% from the prior week.

Overall, most syndicated shows finished flat to down during the week as Persons Using Television levels dropped 4.3 million from the prior week, which began with the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. State of the Union preemptions also played a role in some markets.

Elsewhere, the second week installment of Twentieth’s slow rollout talker The Morning Show with Mike & Juliet (starting Jan. 29) picked up 8% over its first five-day outing. It went from a 1.3 rating/5 share to a 1.4/5, as its metered market station tally rose from 25 to 27. That was a drop of 46% from its lead-in and 30% from the year-ago time period average.

NBCU’s iVillage Live earned a 0.6/2 in its ninth week, up from 0.5/2 in the previous bracket. It was down 45% versus lead-in and 50% in the time period, but its big market station tally rose from 10 to 12.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6414064

A question
Can a Satellite-Savvy Reader Answer This Question?

A friend has sent me the following link to al jazeera and asked if anyone can simply watch the feed (using the appropriate satellite locations) or is the signal encrypted. Does anyone here know the answer?

Here is the link:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/91EEF363-FE1D-4EB9-A7D9-EF3701E39A3B.

And,m if it is not encyrpted, what equipment would be needed to actually see AJ?

Thanks for the help.
Al Jazeera English is currently FTA (free-to-air), unencrypted. Anyone with a C-Band dish, or a small dbs satellite (which they'll have to manually move) and a FTA MPEG2 Receiver is able to scan for the channel and pick up the signal.

I've watched the network, on occasion. It's interesting, to say the least. :)

TV Notebook
Weekly Cable Ratings
Lifetime Has Luck in the Romance Department
By Anne Becker Broadcasting & Cable 2/6/2007

Lifetime is riding high on romance. The women's network drew a solid performance from the second of four original movie adaptations of Nora Roberts books on Feb. 5.

Montana Sky averaged 4.8 million total viewers and 939,000 women 18-49 between 9 and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen Media Research. The movie, the story of three half sisters who must live together to receive their inheritance, placed second in the demo for its time period, following USA.

Montana, which starred John Corbett, Ashley Williams, Charlotte Ross and Diane Ladd, marked the second week Monday in a row that Lifetime attracted nearly 5 million viewers with a Roberts movie. Last week's Angels Fall averaged 4.9 million total viewers and ranked as the fourth-most-viewed cable program for the week.

Both movies drew audiences significantly larger than Lifetime's average in prime for the month of January - 1.6 million total viewers, itself up 6% from a year ago. Two more Roberts movies are slated - Blue Smoke for Feb. 12 and Carolina Moon for Feb. 19.

Separately, sister channel Lifetime Movie Network saw a hit in the premiere of original flick Seventeen and Missing Feb. 3. With 964,000 total viewers, it more than doubled the network's average in prime - 423,000. It also ranked as the network's most viewed original movie to date with women 18-49.

Elsewhere in cable ratings, Nickelodeon scored with its new comedy The Naked Brothers Band, which premiered with back-to-back episodes Feb. 3 at 8:30 and 9 p.m. The 8:30 p.m. episode averaged 1.9 million kids 6-11 and 3.5 million total viewers. The 9 p.m. episode averaged 2 million kids 6-11 - Nick's highest series premiere in seven years - and 3.8 million total viewers.

For the week ending Feb. 4, USA finished as the most viewed cable network with an average 2.7 million viewers in prime, followed by non-ad-supported Disney with 2.2 million viewers, TNT with 2.1 million and Lifetime with 1.8 million.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6414068


Thanks Fred.

The wife says YAAAAAAY !

supernatural is coming back for season 3..the creator admitted as much. He said they're currently writing the arc for season FOUR.

Link Rakesh?

Between now and the May upfronts, when the final decisinos are made, there will be a lot of interesting news, Rakesh.S.

But I think the totality of the CW numbers indicate there are far bigger problems for the network than "Supernatural".

And despite this season's unhappiness with many fans (and almost all critics) with "Gilmore Girls" I would bet it will be back, too. The CW has just made star Lauren Graham an executive producer (which brings a hefty chunk of change). Now it just has to satisfy the demands of Graham's reportedly reluctant co-star Alexis Bledel -- who seems to have the network over a barrel. (But I like her bargaining position!)

Obviously there are other factors that the ratings I posted for picking up a show: its cost, demographics, ratings trend over a season, relationship between the network and the studio, and lost more, but the numbers I posted give us all another hint.

Which is why I posted them.

Critic’s Notebook
“Lost” and “Heroes”
The Unseen and Unexplained, Inching Closer to the Truth
By Alessandra Stanley The New York Times Februaty 7, 2007

Anyone who thinks it’s a good sign that “Lost” is back has not spent enough time at the Web site of James Randi, a skeptical scholar of the pseudoscientific and the supernatural.

A fan recently posed this question online at randi.org: “Is a fascination and increased belief in the supernatural a sign of social decline?”

The answer came as categorically as the words under the Magic 8-Ball: “Yes. Absolutely.”

By itself, “Lost” may not be a harbinger of the decline of Western civilization. But alongside “Heroes,” as well as “Medium,” “Ghost Whisperer” and “Raines,” a new NBC drama that begins in March and stars Jeff Goldblum as a detective who solves murders by appearing to commune with dead victims, the collapse looks pretty darn nigh.

“Lost,” on ABC tonight, is the most intriguing of all the series that traffic in the supernatural, mostly because it defies its own illogical reasoning. As the third season resumes after a three-month hiatus, nothing about the fate of the plane wreck survivors marooned on a paranormal island (or is it an archipelago?) makes much sense. But the real mystery of “Lost” is not the Dharma Initiative, the Others or why some characters are named after British philosophers (John Locke, Edmund Burke). It’s whether the writers actually have a cohesive story line that ties together all the unexplained subplots.

“Lost” is at heart a science-fiction thriller, while “Heroes” is more of a comic book, but both genres have a similar appeal: they provide an alternative society for those who don’t fit comfortably into their own. (That is to say, smart, socially awkward adults and all 12-year-old boys.)

No matter how far-fetched and complicated that imaginary world may be, it is bound by its own intricate set of rules and customs, be it Quidditch regulations at Hogwarts; etiquette on Superman’s native planet, Krypton; or military rank in “Battlestar Galactica.”

On NBC’s “Heroes” there is still very little information about the unseen force or forces that have left a group of seemingly ordinary people with supernatural powers, yet the show’s own conventions are rigidly upheld. A clef-shaped symbol (a combination of two Japanese characters and/or a reference to the genetic code) appears regularly to mark renewed evidence of unnatural powers.

“Heroes,” which, like “Lost,” has a large cast and plotlines that zigzag and splinter, is intentionally ZOWIE! and KAPOW! Isaac even paints his premonitory visions in the style of graphic novels. But the story unfolds at a more direct, almost methodical pace. On Monday viewers learned the identity of the biological father of Claire, the Texas cheerleader with a bizarre ability to heal instantly from any wound. Every episode appears to inch closer to an overarching explanation; the show’s creator, Tim Kring, has hinted that he has no precise ending in sight.

“Lost” has an even more improvisational feel, fitting for a show that was dreamed up as a fictional version of “Survivor” by Lloyd Braun, a top ABC executive while on vacation in Hawaii. (Disney fired Mr. Braun but kept the script.)

Many of the characters and plot twists are serendipitous add-ons. At the moment, the season is focused on Henry Gale/Benjamin Linus, the sinister and enigmatic leader of the Others, who seems to be conducting strange scientific experiments on a nearby island. The actor who plays Henry/Ben, Michael Emerson, was originally hired for three episodes, but was apparently held over by popular demand. Tonight’s episode begins with Jack poised to remove a tumor from Henry/Ben’s spine — to stave off the execution of Kate and Sawyer.

The fans of these kinds of serialized thrillers are unusually passionate and devoted, carrying a clout not unlike that of anti-abortion activists — their intensity is in some ways more powerful than their numbers. The writers of “Lost” say they pay close attention to Web sites and blogs devoted to the show, and sometimes adapt the script accordingly.

A reference to “Our Mutual Friend” surfaced at the end of the second season, a hint that the show’s executive producers identify with Charles Dickens. Yet “Lost” seems less like a sprawling, serialized 19th-century novel than like “American Idol”: the show’s writers and producers are so responsive to public reaction that viewers may as well be voting characters on and off the island by phone and text message.

(“Heroes,” on the other hand, seems most responsive to the demands of NBC’s promotional department. Every new phase in the story comes with a coy slogan, from “Save the Cheerleader” and “Are You on the List?” to the latest, “Who’s Claire’s Daddy?”)

Both serialized dramas appeal to younger audiences, but “Heroes” is especially popular with school-age children who enjoy the series’s comic-book sensibility. (Unlike “Lost,” in which the only youngster, Walt, was kidnapped and is still missing, “Heroes” has one main character who is still in high school.) But its contemporary settings in New York, Mumbai, Texas and California allow for more real-world references. Nowadays, many dramas obliquely echo the public’s disenchantment with their government after Abu Ghraib and the quagmire in Iraq.

So does “Heroes.” In a recent episode two Los Angeles police officers sought to interview a suspect whose supernatural power consisted of emitting deadly radiation from his pores. “He’s got one hour before Homeland Security sends him down the rabbit hole as a suspected terrorist,” one officer says.

The other tartly replies, “We both know he’s not a terrorist.”

“Lost,” set mostly on a hot, tropical island, has less opportunity to reflect contemporary political issues — unless, of course, the errant polar bear stalking the castaways serves as a symbol of global warming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/arts/television/07watc.html?8dpc=&_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

(My pleasure, shuttermaker -- I thought your wife would enjoy the news.)

Yep Al Jazeera available via the many DVB/FTA solutions. You can get via PCI card, STB(MPEG2) connect with a BIG dish or small dish.

Critic’s Notebook
“Lost'”writers know just where they are
ABC's hit drama returns, with more peeling away of the characters' layers about their past and present.
By Paul Brownfield Los Angeles Times Staff Writer February 7, 2007

It takes a village to make a TV show, and two islands to make "Lost." When last we left them in November, Sawyer and Kate were having prison sex and Jack was in surgery, forced to remove a tumor from the mercurial villain Ben, head of the mysterious island sect called the Others.

It was Jack's bad fortune to catch Sawyer and Kate going at it on the bank of monitors on which the Others otherwise watch for intruders. Given the depressing infrequency with which the castaways engage in coitus, Jack's dumb luck seemed doubly humiliating: Not only did he not get the girl, he had to settle for a hamburger and the news that the Red Sox had won the World Series.

Matthew Fox (Jack), Josh Holloway (Sawyer) and Evangeline Lilly (Kate) continue their pas de trois tonight on "Lost," which returns for 16 straight weeks of new episodes after another confusing hiatus. Sending out an advance screener to television journalists isn't the "Lost" way, and it smacked of an attempt to drum up support. After all, ABC has been justly criticized for playing too many games with the show's scheduling, while network TV's other grizzled serial, "24," seems far more comprehensible in scheduling play dates between terrorists and heroes.

But the comparison is not quite fair, because "Lost," while not as coherently gimmicky as "24," is more ambitious, cinematically and otherwise. Indeed, the show has accrued so many characters and story lines in its third season that the opening credits now run deep into Act 1, and are mostly a salute to actors who have the week off. Naveen Andrews, Jorge Garcia, Daniel Dae Kim, Terry O'Quinn, Dominic Monaghan, Emilie de Ravin — none of them appears in tonight's episode. (Though by the end of the hour, I was hopeful.)

Let's call them the Originals, Sayid and Locke and them, as opposed to the Others. For some time now, "Lost" has been hinting that at the crux of its science-fiction setup is some alterna-societal thought experiment, or perhaps just a faraway place where stem-cell research can be conducted in peace. I frankly don't care, because to me the emptiest criticism about the show is that it doesn't know where it's going or, alternately, is creating too many plots, subplots and such to remain cohesive.

True, the opening credits have become a big lie (Oh, yeah? Naveen Andrews is in this episode? How about Lindsay Lohan?), but the point of "Lost" is its own silly ambition: It began with a spectacular action sequence — a plane crash on a remote island, people falling out of the sky — only to argue, via personalized flashback and some fairly bad acting, that it was actually a show about character, and how one's past must be reckoned with in the present. All of this, combined with the island's otherworldly elements — polar bears, mysterious underground portals, French expats — led you to conclude you were watching psychological sci-fi. Are all these crash survivors actually dead? Is "Lost" "Limbo"?

I simply don't have time in my daily life to pour over all the data; for now, I'm operating on the theory that the producers concluded, over mai tais one night in Hawaii, that absolute certainty, in art as well as life, is overrated.

I quite agree, and I don't even get to enjoy sunsets on the North Shore of Oahu, where the show is filmed. If, for the sake of argument, the makers of "Lost" haven't decided where it's all going, and only invented last season's hatch or this season's bunker of the Others to keep below-the-line overtime down, the ambiguity only makes it a more realistic approach to storytelling.

For story is supposed to involve a process of discovery, a burrowing into the unknown, an ever-deepening examination of character. It's the most charitable metaphor I can come up with for the show's mystery-wrapped-in-an-enigma.

Not that "Lost" is always true to this principle. Tonight's episode, in addition to turning on the usual (extreme close-ups, tidy back story and cello sounds), turns on Jack asking Kate to recall a story he told her in the immediate aftermath of the plane crash.

She's been through some trauma lately, but she finds the anecdote in an instant.

"Lost" is a cartoon, and its psychology is less than rigorous. In this, alas, it's perfectly predictable.

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-et-lost7feb07,0,6809828,print.story?coll=cl-tv-features

Thanks for the info, Russ and Ran.

The Business of Television
Zucker’s Bumpy Ride to the Top
Bill Carter and Jacques Steinberg The New York Times February 7, 2007

In announcing the appointment yesterday of Jeff Zucker as the president and chief executive of NBC Universal, his boss at General Electric said that what could have been Mr. Zucker’s biggest vulnerability — NBC’s plunge in prime-time ratings starting three years ago while he led the company’s television group — had actually worked to his advantage.

“The board and I particularly liked the way that Jeff has handled tough times,” Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman of G.E., told reporters in a conference call. “He never got down. He always drove the company harder, inspired the team to do better.”

Mr. Zucker’s climb to the pinnacle of the media and entertainment industry — which was seemingly preordained when he joined NBC two decades ago — wound up having more twists and turns and stumbles than he and some of his supporters inside NBC probably expected. At another company, a steep falloff at a marquee unit like NBC could have cost an executive in Mr. Zucker’s position not a promotion, but his job.

But Mr. Zucker has proved himself the exception, in part because of a strong performance by NBC’s television group in almost all areas besides prime time, including news, late night and a phalanx of cable networks. Now, at 41, he will head an entertainment company with interests that include a broadcast network, cable, film and television production studios and theme parks.

Mr. Zucker succeeds Bob Wright, the chairman and chief executive of NBC Universal, who has led the network since 1986. (Mr. Immelt said that he would assume the title of chairman himself, but that it was effectively a formality; Mr. Zucker, in assuming Mr. Wright’s duties as chief executive, will have “the day-in, day-out responsibility for NBC Universal.”)

Mr. Wright’s tenure, the longest in television history except for the legendary Frank Stanton’s run as top executive at CBS, has included a long list of successes, including major acquisitions like Universal and the cable channel CNBC, and an impressive streak of dominance in prime-time ratings.

All of that will be difficult for Mr. Zucker — or any executive — to duplicate. Indeed, Mr. Zucker’s chief task, as he acknowledged in an interview this week, will be to navigate NBC Universal through technological changes that are shaking the entire media industry.

While conceding that the economic model for NBC Universal is certain to undergo rapid structural changes as the company seeks to find new ways to gain value financially for its entertainment content, Mr. Zucker sounded an optimistic note, saying in an interview, “I actually think it is an unbelievably exciting time because the opportunities are limitless.”

Among his earliest priorities, he said, was “to figure out a way to work more closely with our advertisers, because that model is going to change.”

The decision to elevate Mr. Zucker had the feel of a foregone conclusion long before yesterday. Indeed, Mr. Immelt made clear that Mr. Zucker had been expressly groomed for this position for some time.

“I have watched Jeff progress and come along, and our conclusion was he was going to be the natural guy to turn to for this,” Mr. Immelt said in a telephone interview from his office in Fairfield, Conn.

Mr. Zucker said, “I do think we’re good at transitions here.” He ticked off a list of handoffs that have included those from Bryant Gumbel to Matt Lauer on “Today” and from Tom Brokaw to Brian Williams on “NBC Nightly News.”

The “tough times” endured by Mr. Zucker, to which Mr. Immelt referred in the conference call, mainly came when Mr. Zucker headed NBC’s entertainment division in California. His years there began with a display of great skill in juggling the few hits remaining at NBC, but ended with the network’s dominance of prime time finally running out as it crashed from first place to last.

Mr. Wright called those years “a really rough ride, no doubt about it.” But both he and Mr. Immelt gave Mr. Zucker much credit for having survived it. (In his personal life, Mr. Zucker has endured worse: two battles with colon cancer, the last in 1999; he and his wife have four children, none older than 8.)

“You can learn a lot from experiencing very tough times,” Mr. Immelt said in the phone interview, referring to NBC’s recent prime-time performance.

Mr. Wright took special pains to support the decision, concerned about the impression in some media accounts that there had been tension behind the scenes.

Mr. Wright said his relationship with Mr. Zucker had “always been excellent” and that two things factored into the timing of his stepping aside. “Jeff Immelt felt that Zucker was ready and I don’t disagree at all,” Mr. Wright said, adding, “We don’t want to look like we’re not sure of him after all these years.”

Still, in response to a question in the conference call, Mr. Immelt said that Mr. Zucker would be expected to aim for certain performance targets — in both profits and ratings — as had Mr. Wright.

While emphasizing that the cable television holdings already in Mr. Zucker’s portfolio in recent years were profitable, and that NBC’s prime-time lineup had lately made gains, Mr. Immelt said: “We want to be No. 1. We expect to be No. 1.”

Very few moments of doubt have ever arisen about Mr. Zucker, from the start of his career at NBC and even long before that. In his senior year at North Miami Senior High School, for example, Mr. Zucker decided to augment a successful run on the varsity tennis team by taking up a sport that he had not played previously: badminton, also a varsity sport.

“He was determined to learn it, and he wouldn’t accept being ‘singles 2,’ or sitting on the bench,” his coach, Robert Baglos, recalled yesterday. “He wanted to be No. 1. In hindsight, it’s exactly what his personality is now.”

At Harvard, Mr. Zucker led the student newspaper, The Crimson, where he said he first learned how to manage a business. He gained an early reputation there for his unrelenting competitiveness.

“He was plagued by no apparent self-doubt,” said Peter Howe, then a Crimson editor and now a business writer for The Boston Globe. “I would definitely say the Jeff Zucker of 1986” — the year he graduated — “had enough self-confidence to predict that the Jeff Zucker of 2007 would be running NBC.”

Mr. Zucker began his career at NBC in 1986 as a researcher for the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, South Korea. During those games he so impressed those for whom he worked and wrote copy, including the sports announcer Bob Costas and the “Today” anchor Jane Pauley, that he was offered a part-time job on “Today.”

Within a couple of years he was the de facto boss behind the scenes, running the control room. By the age of 26 he was the official executive producer.

He was seen very much as the boy wonder of NBC News, for better and worse. In one memorable incident, the actress Jodie Foster ran afoul of NBC News rules by declaring before an interview that she would not answer any questions about John Hinckley, who had shot President Reagan in a twisted effort to get her attention.

Mr. Zucker pulled Ms. Foster aside near the NBC elevators and began sternly lecturing her that interview subjects were not permitted to rule out questions at a news organization as serious as NBC’s. At that moment the elevator doors opened and the NBC anchor Tom Brokaw emerged, spotted Mr. Zucker and said, “Hi, Doogie.”

That was the staff’s nickname for Mr. Zucker at the time, referring to the TV character Doogie Howser, a genius teenage doctor. Mr. Zucker knew he had shrunk in Ms. Foster’s eyes — though he did not relent on the rules for the interview. It did not take place.

As executive producer of “Today,” Mr. Zucker delighted in going head to head with “Good Morning America” on ABC, particularly in the scrum for the most sought-after interviews.

Shelley Ross, the executive producer of “Good Morning America” during part of that period, said her favorite booking war story involved Darva Conger, who had won the Fox reality contest, “Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire.”

After securing an interview with Ms. Conger, Ms. Ross arranged for a private plane to ferry the woman from California to New York, at least partly to keep her from Mr. Zucker’s clutches. No matter.

“I found out later,” she said, “that Jeff was personally calling the pilot of our plane to talk to Darva’s lawyer.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Zucker said he did not dispute Ms. Ross’s recollection. But while ABC managed to go first with that particular interview, Mr. Zucker usually came out on top — setting “Today” on the path to a ratings winning streak of more than 10 years that continues to this day, and had much to do with his elevation to his new job.

In his new position, Mr. Zucker promised to be as competitive as ever, though somewhat less hands-on.

He said he understood the scrutiny he would be under.

“I feel responsibility, not pressure,” he said. “It’s a lot of responsibility. But I am not burdened by it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/business/media/07zucker.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=media&pagewanted=print

The Business of Television
DirecTV’s 4th Q Highlights
(DirecTV News Release) Feb. 7, 2007

• Increased Net Subscriber Additions 38% to 275,000 Driven by the Largest Reduction in Churn in 3 Years to 1.57% and a 6% Increase in Gross Subscriber Additions

• Grew Revenues 12% to Over $3.8 Billion Fueled by a 6.8% Increase in Average Monthly Revenue Per Subscriber (ARPU) to $80.70

• Generated Cash Flow Before Interest and Taxes of $343 Million in the Fourth Quarter Increasing Full Year 2006 Results by 83% to $1.42 Billion

EL SEGUNDO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 7, 2007--The DIRECTV Group, Inc. today reported that fourth quarter revenues increased 16% to $4.18 billion and operating profit before depreciation and amortization(1) more than doubled to $915 million compared to last year's fourth quarter. The DIRECTV Group reported that fourth quarter 2006 operating profit and net income also more than doubled to $595 million and $356 million, respectively, when compared to the same period last year. Earnings per share were $0.29 compared with $0.09 in the same period last year. These financial results include the effect of $408 million of equipment that DIRECTV U.S. capitalized during the fourth quarter under its lease program, which was introduced March 1, 2006.

According to Chase Carey, president and CEO of The DIRECTV Group, Inc., "As we head into 2007, we have many reasons to be excited…perhaps the most important initiative will be the launch of up to 100 national HD channels in the second half of this year following the successful launch of a new satellite. With this added capacity, we expect to offer significantly more HD channels than most of our competitors, providing DIRECTV with a huge advantage in this rapidly growing marketplace..."

The complete release, with full details, is here:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=959804&highlight=

(From Marc Berman’s Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2007, Programming Insider column at Mediaweek.com )
National Ratings in Prime Time:
Week of January 29-February 4, 2007

Led by Super Bowl XLI (Indianapolis vs. Chicago), CBS moved past American Idol-driven Fox for the week of Jan. 29, 2007, with the largest weekly audience by any network in two years and biggest ratings among adults 18-49, adults 25-54 and adults 18-34 by any network since last February. Super Bowl XLI averaged a 42.6 rating/64 share in households on Sunday, Feb. 4 from 6:27-10:04 p.m. Comparably, that was up by two percent from the year-ago Pittsburgh/Seattle Super Bowl match-up on Feb. 5, 2006 (41.6/62 on ABC), making it the highest-rated Super Bowl since St. Louis vs. Tennessee in 2000 (43.3/63). Super Bowl XLI was also the second most-watched Super Bowl of all time, averaging 93.18 million viewers, and the third most-watched program in television history, behind the series-finale of MASH and Super Bowl XXX. Among adults 18-49, the match-up averaged a 35.2/70 -- up one percent year-to-year.

Comparably, Pittsburgh/Seattle in The Super Bowl in 2006 averaged 90.72 million viewers (which, at that time, was the largest audience for a Super Bowl telecast since Jan. 28, 1996, and biggest audience for any TV show since the same date).

Ignited by The Super Bowl, a special Sunday telecast of lead-out Criminal Minds rose to a series-high 15.0/26 in households, with 26.23 million viewers and a 10.0/25 among adults 18-49 from 10:25-11:26 p.m. Comparably, however, ABC’s Grey’s Anatomy in the post-Super Bowl time period last year was considerably higher at 37.88 million viewers and a 16.5/38 among adults 18-49.

Elsewhere, this was still a week worth noting for Fox, which grew year-to-year by margins of 2 to 10 percent primarily as a result of the ongoing strength of American Idol and a series-high performance for House (see rankings below). NBC was also on the plus side by similar percentages, while the CW built over year-ago UPN levels, but dropped from the WB by 450,000 viewers and 20 percent among adults 18-49. In addition to Deal or No Deal and Heroes, worth positively noting on NBC was The Office, which improved over lead-in My Name is Earl by 11 percent among adults 18-49 (4.5/12 to 5.0/13). The weak NBC Thursday link, however, remained 30 Rock, which dipped from lead-in Scrubs by 17 percent in the demo (3.5/ 8 to 2.9/ 7).

Here are the final national ratings for the week of January 29, 2007 (with percent change versus the comparable year-ago period in parentheses for the Big 4 -- the CW is not included), followed by the top 30 ranked programs for the week in total viewers and adults 18-49.

Households:
CBS: 12.6 rating/20 share (+62)
Fox: 6.7/10 (+ 8)
NBC: 5.3/ 8 (+ 4)
ABC: 4.9/ 8 (-59)
CW: 2.0/ 3

Total Viewers:
CBS: 23.65 million (+95)
Fox: 11.41 (+10)
NBC: 8.22 (+ 7)
ABC: 7.43 (-68)
CW: 3.01

Adults 18-49:
CBS: 8.1 rating/20 share (+119)
Fox: 4.6/11 (+ 7)
NBC: 2.8/ 7 (+ 8)
ABC: 2.7/ 7 (-68)
CW: 1.2/ 3

Adults 25-54:
CBS: 9.2/21 (+92)
Fox: 4.9/11 (+ 9)
NBC: 3.2/ 8 (+ 3)
ABC: 3.0/ 7 (-68)
CW: 1.1/ 3

Adults 18-34:
CBS: 6.7/19 (+168)
Fox: 4.2/11 (+ 2)
ABC: 2.4/ 7 (-67)
NBC: 2.3/ 6 (+10)
CW: 1.4/ 4

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/newsletters/proginsider/index.jsp

Link Rakesh?

"QUESTION: Could you talk just a little bit about the
first season versus the second season? Are we where
you anticipated we'd be at this point, and maybe just
how you made some decisions to -- that have brought
you to this point?

ERIC KRIPKE: Yeah, I'll speak to it. Then if Bob
wants to add to that, because we couldn't do it
without the two of us figuring this out.
Mythology-wise, I would say we're pretty much on track
with what we wanted. We started with about a -- I'd
say a two-and-a-half-, three-year plan of what
mythology reveals we want to do. I'd say we're
actually cruising along in that story right where we
thought we would be. And at this point we've kind of
now broken through season 3, and we're talking about
season 4 mythology at this point."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taken from this very thread...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9524423&&#post9524423

TV Notebook
Weekly Ratings Roundup
Super Bowl XLI nearly an upset
By Gary Levin USA Today February 7, 2007

• Super Sunday. CBS' Super Bowl XLI drew 93.2 million fans for the second-most-watched game ever — behind the 94.1 million who tuned in to the 1996 Cowboys-Steelers contest — and the third-most-watched telecast (the 1983 M*A*S*H finale drew 106 million). Last year's game: 90.7 million.

• Criminal measures. A postgame episode of Criminal Minds drew a series-high 26.3 million but fell far short of last year's Grey's Anatomy (37.9 million). Minds held on to 28% of the game's audience, compared with 42% for Grey's.

• ABC Thursday. Speaking of Grey's, the medical drama's 24.2 million viewers marked its best showing since September's season premiere. Earlier that night, Ugly Betty (14 million) claimed the same distinction among young-adult viewers.

• House on fire. Fox's own medical drama, House, got a series-high 27.3 million viewers Tuesday after American Idol, adding nearly 10 million viewers since its last episode on Jan. 9. (Idol's 33.7 million was up 1 million from the previous Tuesday.) Bones, Idol's Wednesday lead-in, claimed 12.4 million, its biggest digits since last February.

• Less heroic. NBC's hit Heroes (13.6 million) had its smallest audience since Oct. 16. It lost to Fox's 24 (14 million) but retained its lead among younger viewers.

• Top numbers. Though not a Runway success, the second-season finale of Bravo's Top Chef averaged 3.9 million viewers Wednesday, up from 1.5 million last season. And the premiere of Top Design, which followed, drew 1.8 million, the channel's best series start.

• Knights bump. The time-slot premiere of ABC's Knights of Prosperity, which was moved away from American Idol, drew 5.1 million viewers Wednesday, up from a series-low 3.6 million last week. But the show still ranked fourth. Tuesday's finale of Big Day drew an anemic 4.3 million.

• Sarah smiles. The premiere of Comedy Central's Sarah Silverman Program averaged 1.8 million viewers Thursday, the network's biggest series opener since 2004. And the series debut of Nickelodeon's Naked Brothers Band on Saturday snared 3.5 million.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-02-06-nielsens-analysis_x.htm

(From Marc Berman’s Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2007, Programming Insider column at Mediaweek.com )
Ratings Box:
What’s Hot/What’s Not

Strong Start for CBS’ The Rules of Engagement:
The premiere of CBS sitcom The Rules of Engagement ranked first Monday at 9:30 p.m. in households (9.7/14) and total viewers (14.84 million), and a solid second among adults 18-49 (5.2/12) and adults 25-54 (6.3/13). Comparably, that was the network’s best performance in the time period this season. Retention out of lead-in Two and a Half Men (HH: 11.2/16, Viewers: 17.68 million, A18-49: 5.8/13, A25-54: 7.1/15) was between 84 and 90 percent.

Respectable Results for Hallmark Channel’s Love is a Four Letter Word:
Original Hallmark Channel made-for, Love is a Four Letter Word, debuted on Saturday, Feb. 3 with a 2.0 household rating, 1.49 million households and 3.0 million viewers from 9-11 p.m. Comparatively, that ranked third among all basic cable competition in the time period, and third overall among all movies that day.

Top 10 Rated Programs in Syndication – Week of Jan. 22:
What follows are the top tier in syndication based on households for the week of Jan. 22 (with highlights of note for all programming immediately following):

Wheel of Fortune (CBS Television Distribution Group): 9.0 rating
Jeopardy (CBS): 7.2
Oprah (CBS): 6.7
Entertainment Tonight (CBS): 5.6
Everybody Loves Raymond (CBS): 5.6
Judge Judy (CBS): 5.1
Dr. Phil (CBS): 5.0
Seinfeld (Sony Pictures Television): 4.8
Wheel of Fortune – Weekend (CBS): 4.6
CSI: Miami (CBS): 4.5

• The CBS Television Distribution Group once again held nine of the top 10 spots in households.
• Judge Judy rose to a season-high 5.1 – its highest household rating in just over one year.
• CBS’ Everybody Loves Raymond (5.6), Judge Joe Brown (3.2) and The Insider (2.8) all matched their season highs.
• People’s Court from Warner Bros. also hit a season-high, with a 3.0.
• In its final week, Twentieth Television’s Geraldo at Large, ironically, matched its season high, with a 1.7.
• NBC Universal’s The Megan Mullally Show exited with a series-low 0.7.

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/newsletters/proginsider/index.jsp

Critic’s Notebook
Long-'Lost' adventure begins tonight
By Robert Bianco USA Today Feb. 7, 2007

Do over.

No show this season is in more need of a chance to start again than Lost, which returns tonight after a three-month absence that did not make hearts grow fonder. What had once seemed like a good idea — a six-week, fall mini-season built around Jack, Sawyer and Kate's incarceration by The Others — turned out to be, if not disastrous, then vastly disappointing. It was like the TV version of the old restaurant joke: The episodes weren't very good, and the portions were too small.

Still, one of the great virtues of series TV is that it is always possible to correct course. And so Lost begins a run of 16 straight episodes with a new, later time slot and a renewed commitment to answer a few more island/myth questions. Best of all, tonight's return is designed to start moving the story off of The Others' island and back to a beached ensemble that has been much missed.

But not yet. First, Lost has to resolve its fall cliffhanger, which it does by returning to its action/adventure roots while exploring the pre-island history of Juliet (Elizabeth Mitchell).

As Lost episodes go, it's a good outing, and had it aired, say, in October, viewers might have been very happy indeed. At this point, though, it probably doesn't move quickly enough to put that island in our rear-view mirrors. Even so, it does offer the promise that we will soon be, if not Other-free, at least Other-lite.

"Promise," of course, has always been the boon and the bane of Lost, with viewers constantly questioning whether the show can live up to the enormous promise of its first season and whether the central mystery promises more than it can deliver. Those questions in turn may explain why the reaction to the fall run seemed at times to be so out of scale.

Yes, the episodes were not Lost at its best — but no TV series is always at its best. We tend to overlook other shows' lapses because we don't view the episodes as a continuum. But all is cumulative on Lost, and every mistake makes fans worry that the show is headed in a direction they won't like — or worse, it's not headed in any direction at all.

Those fears, once they take hold, are hard to quiet, but there's no reason to succumb to them yet. Every slope is not slippery; every off-kilter episode is not a sign of collapse.

Lost is back. If the producers re-do and we relax, we may just get this beach party going again.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/reviews/2007-02-06-lost-return_x.htm

Nielsen Notebook
For CBS, the race is on to hold its 18-49 lead
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Feb. 7, 2007

Following Sunday’s near-record Super Bowl, CBS is now far ahead of the other networks among adults 18-49 in the season-to-date standings. Yet despite the big lead, the network faces quite a challenge holding it.

For one, Fox is closing in fast, powered by "American Idol." But there's also ABC, a dark horse of sorts. No. 1 through the fall, the network fell back at midseason, but it's going to pick up in the coming weeks. It's still very much in the race for a season win.

Sunday’s Super Bowl, which averaged a 35.1 in 18-49s, pushed CBS’s season-to-date average up a full 0.3 to a 4.0 rating and 11 share. That’s a half-point better than ABC, NBC and Fox, which are tied for second at 3.5/9.

Yet that big lead seems far less secure on closer examination.

Consider: CBS sits 0.2 behind where ABC was at this time last year, just after it aired the Super Bowl. At a 4.2/11, it was 0.7 ahead of Fox. ABC held the lead into April, but then Fox pulled even at a 4.0, as "American Idol" ate away at its lead.

This year Fox will likely make up the gap even quicker. “Idol” is pacing ahead of last year, as is “House,” and the network has jumped 0.6 rating points in just the three weeks since “Idol” returned.

Plus, many media people think Fox will win the February sweeps. CBS’s major sweeps bumps will come from the Grammy Awards and the return of “Survivor."

But the awards show dipped to an all-time low last year, and its prized reality show is coming off its lowest-rated season ever.

Meanwhile, CBS still has gaping holes on Tuesday and Wednesday, where shows have been canceled and replaced by reruns.

CBS's best hope may be March Madness, which if it pulls record ratings could keep the network ahead of Fox for a bit longer. But that seems unlikely. Whatever gains CBS sees from basketball will likely be offset by March repeats.

In all likelihood, CBS stands to end the season battling NBC for third place.

That will leave the race between Fox and ABC. Fox is sure to surge on the strength of its original programming the next four months. “24,” “Prison Break” and “Idol” are all on a no-rerun schedule, and even reruns of “House” draw better than some CBS and ABC originals in 18-49s.

By late March, Fox should take over No. 1.

The question mark is ABC. Last fall it built a huge lead but saw its midseason schedule implode. But now “Lost” is returning (see today's review), and “Dancing with the Stars” will also come back in a few months to strong numbers. Plus ABC's powerful Thursday schedule is on the rise.

To compete with Fox, ABC needs better numbers from “Desperate Housewives” and “Lost” than it got last fall, as well as another strong performance from “Stars.”

But ultimately it will come down to just how well Fox's "Idol” does. It's strong now, stronger that last year, but if it should lose steam in the coming weeks ABC would still be in the race. That could happen if the group of finalists is dull or unappealing, leading to a falloff beyond the usual dip after the popular auditions stage.

If "Idol" remains strong, ABC will finish a worthy second.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_10016.asp

Congrats Fred on 1,000,000 +

Thank You for all the information you have passed along in this thread.

Yesterday’s fast national over night prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted near the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
CBS's' 'NCIS' withstands 'Idol' assault
Military drama up 8 percent over season average
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Feb. 7, 2007

Forget the booty-seeking contestants on “American Idol,” all hoping to out-sing each other for a big prize. Among adults ages 50 and older, CBS’s “NCIS” is the program of choice at 8 p.m., and it’s not doing so bad with the younger crowd, either.

Last night “NCIS” averaged an 11.8 rating among 50-plus viewers, according to Nielsen overnights, 1.6 ahead of “Idol.” That’s notable mostly because it’s the only demographic Fox’s ever-growing “Idol” doesn’t dominate.

But “NCIS” is also holding up very well among 18-49s and even showed some growth last night, averaging a 3.9 rating in the demo, up 8 percent from its season-to-date average of 3.6. It was also up 8 percent over the same night last year.

“NCIS” has been one of the few shows that didn’t completely wither opposite “Idol” for the past two years, but actually showing growth against the Fox show is quite rare. The military drama also nearly doubled the 18-49 ratings for the other three English-language broadcast networks at 8 p.m.

Interestingly, that comes as “Idol” continues to grow compared with last year. Last night the reality show averaged a 13.4 rating, up 5 percent over a 12.8 on the same night last year.

Fox’s Tuesday lineup also was up 9 percent over last year’s 10.8 rating, with “House” hitting its second-best rating in series history, a 10.2, which tied last May’s finale.

Fox was first for the night among 18-49s with an 11.8 average rating and a 28 share. CBS was second at 3.6/9, NBC third at 3.2/8, ABC fourth at 2.3/6, Univision fifth at 1.7/4 and CW sixth at 1.6/4.

Fox led rather easily in each of its two hours, starting with a 13.4 rating at 8 p.m. for “American Idol.” CBS was second that hour with a 3.9 for “NCIS,” Univision third with a 2.4 for “La Fea Mas Bella” and NBC fourth with a 2.1 for “Dateline.” CW ended up fifth that hour with a 2.0 for “Gilmore Girls” and ABC sixth with a 1.5 for a repeat of “America’s Funniest Home Videos.”

At 9 p.m. Fox led again, this time with a 10.2 for “House.” CBS remained in second with a 3.6 for “The Unit,” with NBC third with a 2.7 for “Law & Order: Criminal Intent” and ABC fourth with a 2.6 for “Primetime.” Univision dropped to fifth with a 1.7 for “Mundo de Fieras” and CW remained sixth with a 1.1 for “Veronica Mars.”

With Fox out at 10 p.m., NBC led the hour with a 4.8 for “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.” CBS was second that hour with a 3.3 for another hour of “The Unit,” with ABC third with a 2.9 for “Boston Legal” and Univision fourth with a 1.1 for “Ver para Creer.”

Among households, Fox was first for the night with a 16.4 average rating and a 24 share. CBS finished second at 8.3/13, NBC third at 6.3/10, ABC fourth at 5.2/8, CW fifth at 2.3/3 and Univision sixth at 2.2/3.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_10044.asp

Critic’s Notebook
'Lost' horizon
Can the series remain challenging and recapture disappointed fans?
Hal Boedeker Orlando Sentinel Television Critic February 7, 2007

PASADENA, Calif. -- Perhaps you've wandered away from Lost. The ABC drama's makers understand why you might have moved on.

"This show requires sort of vigilant maintenance," executive producer Carlton Cuse says. "There are people who fall away because it does require you to really keep up on the episodes."

The audience fell 19 percent in the fall from the same time in 2005. Series co-creator Damon Lindelof says he wants those viewers to return, and yet . . .

"If we were writing toward getting them back, we might potentially be alienating the people that we have," he adds.

Lost returns tonight to continue its third season. A special at 9 (ET/PT) recaps the story. The series offered six episodes in the fall and left the air Nov. 8.

A fresh installment airs in the series' new time slot, at 10 tonight, away from American Idol. ABC has a new strategy, airing 16 episodes without repeats through May.

Tonight's haunting episode focuses on Juliet (Elizabeth Mitchell) and explains how she came to join the mysterious Others who have terrorized the plane-crash survivors. The episode contains a devastating illustration of the adage "be careful what you ask for." There are striking guest performances by William Mapother as Ethan, Nestor Carbonell as Richard Alpert and Zeljko Ivanek as Edmund.

Jack (Matthew Fox), Kate (Evangeline Lilly) and Sawyer (Josh Holloway) continue to fight their captors. Some viewers have found their imprisonment too punishing. Lindelof offers no apologies.

"The Others are an antagonistic force on the island," he says. "If they had been nice and kind and docile and sweet with Kate and Jack and Sawyer, it would not have told the story we wanted it to. The people who feel it was punishing have a legitimate gripe, but all I can say is the punishment has come to an end in terms of that story."

Lost soon will turn to the other crash survivors in what Lindelof calls a throwback to season one, when the drama was an electrifying addition to the TV landscape.

ABC praises the focus on the larger cast. "I like it when they're all together," says Steve McPherson, president of ABC Entertainment.

Maybe Lost can never be a phenomenon again, but Lindelof stresses the show's continued strength among viewers in the 18-to-49 age group. It ranks No. 5 in that group, and ABC bases its business on those viewers.

Lost has kept fans mystified, but Lindelof explains the strategy behind the storytelling. The first season was an introduction, the second was about the hatch, and season three is about the Others. He doesn't want to talk about season four but says the plan is for season five to wrap up the saga.

"At the end of season four, we will have produced 93 hours," Lindelof says. "I imagine that would be very close to where it would end."

The issue becomes whether Disney-owned ABC will be willing to part with a still-popular show. The Walt Disney Co. could make millions on a series likely to play better on DVD in marathon viewings. The ABC schedule, however, might need a show that remains No. 8 in total viewers this season.

Lindelof speaks forcefully for the five-year plan for the series. He says producers don't want Lost to drag on the way The X-Files did. He talks like a disappointed fan in recalling how The X-Files struggled on even without the foundation of skeptic Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) and believer Fox Mulder (David Duchovny).

Lindelof zeros in so clearly on The X-Files that maybe he can clear up a central mystery: What is Lost about?

"This show is about people who are metaphorically lost in their lives who get on an airplane and crash on an island and become physically lost on the planet Earth," he says. "Once they are able to metaphorically find themselves in their lives again, they will be able to physically find themselves in the world. When you look at the entire show, that's what it will look like, that's what it's been about."

OK, but will that bring back disappointed fans?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/orl-loststory020707,0,5281199,print.story?coll=orl-caltop

Critic’s Notebook
Note to ABC:
Don't expect a big Oscar audience
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher” Wednesday, February 7, 2007

The Academy Awards ceremony is still more than two weeks away, but I’ll make a bold prediction now: The Feb. 25 Oscar telecast will be the lowest-rated in history.

Maybe the prediction’s not that bold: The general ratings trend of the Oscar telecast has been downward for years.

But this year, in particular, Hollywood seems to have gone even more out of its way to make the telecast irrelevant.

Many, if not most, of the movies that scored major Oscar nominations have barely been released in much of the country. So all the pre-Oscar hype, which is starting to reach a fever pitch, is just so much chatter about films most of us in the non-coastal hinterlands haven’t seen yet.

Let’s review, shall we? “Pan’s Labyrinth” came out in Chicago on Dec. 29, “Children of Men” a week earlier; other December releases in the Windy City include “The Pursuit of Happyness,” “Notes on a Scandal,” “Dreamgirls” and “Blood Diamond.” “Letters From Iwo Jima” and “Venus” came out in Chicago in January.

So Hollywood types thought we’d bypass the holiday whirl in favor of seeing this long roster of movies, or that we would traipse out during a very frosty January to see films that arrived at our local multiplexes all of five minutes ago.

As if. What are those people smoking?

Most adults (and thank goodness these films are aimed at adults) make it to the movie theater occasionally, but, speaking for myself, I more often watch films on DVD (as does a big chunk of the Aacademy membership, which sees many of the nominated films via free Oscar DVD screeners). And some of the big Oscar films are coming to DVD -- a week before the Oscars.

The thing is, as far as the Oscar telecast is concerned, the movie industry has it backward.

Winning a few gold statues will be great for the post-Oscar ad campaigns - and that’s the reason awards-bait films aren’t released until the end of the year, and often get wider release after the Academy Awards.

But the end result of this year’s particularly crowded quality-movie glut is a situation in which most of America hasn’t seen the films that we’re being told are so wonderful.

Is it just me, or is that starting to get irritating? And more to the point, who wants to see an awards show celebrating an array movies they mostly haven’t seen yet?

When it comes to the Oscar-nominated pictures, I can’t help but recall that old “Saturday Night Live” Bill Murray sketch, where he would run down a tote board of Oscar-nominated films, dismissing each one with a weary, “Haven’t seen it. Haven’t seen it.”

That phrase, I’m guessing, will also apply to the Oscar telecast this year. This year, it feels as though the disconnect between the people who’ve seen the films and the audience at home is going to be pretty major.

Though it has a genial host in Ellen DeGeneres, ABC should be worried.

Then again, you never know. That “Inconvenient Truth” best-song number might just be incredibly entertaining.

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

The Business of TV
DirecTV Reports Robust 4Q
By Mike Farrell MultiChannel News February 7, 2007

DirecTV Group stock soared Wednesday -- reaching a new 52-week high of $26.09 each (up 9%, or $2.12 per share) in early trading -- after the nation’s largest direct-broadcast satellite service provider reported strong fourth-quarter results.

The stock fell back slightly to $25.56 each (up $1.59 per share) in early afternoon trading Wednesday.

DirecTV beat analysts’ expectations on almost every metric, with revenue up 16% to $4.18 billion and operating income before depreciation and amortization (OIBDA, a measure of cash flow) more than doubling to $915 million.

DirecTV also added 275,000 net new subscribers during the quarter, a 38% increase over the same period in 2005 and 110,000 better than the 165,000 subscribers added during the third quarter. Monthly subscriber churn at 1.57% was below fourth-quarter-2005 churn of 1.7% and the lowest level for the company in three years.

DirecTV attributed the strong performance on continued success in its plan to focus more on high-quality subscribers and advanced services.

On a conference call with analysts, chief financial officer Mike Palkovic said the company upgraded about 200,000 customers to HDTV service in the quarter, a 70% increase over the previous year.

The net new-subscriber additions came as somewhat of a surprise given that some analysts expected that strong basic-subscriber growth from cable operators Comcast and Time Warner Cable was coming at the expense of the DBS companies.

Comcast added 111,000 basic customers during the fourth quarter. Time Warner, although losing 23,000 overall basic subscribers during the period, saw a gain of 29,000 basic customers at its historic systems, with the losses mainly coming from newly acquired Adelphia Communications properties.

On the conference call, DirecTV CEO Chase Carey said the subscriber gains should not be a surprise. He added that cable’s recent basic-subscriber growth comes off a long period of declines.

“People always forget that there is still a little growth in the marketplace,” he added.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6414340

Glad to see I helped to make D*'s numbers look good I think they should kick some back LOL

Good luck with that, Steve! :)

Good luck with that, Steve! :)

No kidding but I am about due for some credits it has been a while since they told me I couldn't get anymore because I had used them all up.

The Business of TV
GE sees Zucker as NBC's quick change artist
By Phil Rosenthal Chicago Tribune Media Columnist February 7, 2007

General Electric has concluded that no one really knows what's coming next in the media world.

So it named Jeff Zucker NBC Universal's new president and CEO Tuesday in large part because it believes the 41-year-old Harvard grad, whose NBC career began 21 years ago as a part-time sports researcher, is a quick study.

"You don't give people jobs like this for what they know today, but for how fast they can learn and how fast they can change," Jeff Immelt, GE's chairman and chief executive, said on a conference call with reporters. "That's the bet the company makes . . . on Jeff."

Zucker has evolved almost as much as the industry in which he's now a captain.

A little more than six years ago he was producing NBC's "Today" show. Then he was responsible for NBC's prime time schedule. He has been in charge of NBC Universal's broadcast and cable TV operations for the last two years, a period of dramatic evolution paced by new Web sites such as YouTube.com and gizmos such as the iPod. Well, they seemed new for a few minutes, anyway.

"There will probably be more changes in this business over the next five years than we've experienced in the last 50 years," said Zucker, who now gets control of the TV properties, movie studio and theme parks.

Even as GE and Vivendi, which owns a 20 percent stake in NBC Universal, were announcing that Zucker would succeed Bob Wright, the landscape was shifting. "The largest single distributor of home video in the world, Wal-Mart, is announcing that it's putting our films online, on their own site," Wright said. "That's a pretty significant change."

Immelt lauded Wright for "being able to see around corners and consistently pick up the trends of what was next." But when it came to Zucker, whose critics point to how his inability to develop new hits under his guidance led NBC's fall from first to fourth place in prime time, Immelt spoke of how his new appointee handled setbacks.

"To be honest with you, I like watching people go through cycles," Immelt said. "The board and I particularly liked the way that Jeff has handled tough times [and] were particularly impressed with the way Jeff went through the process of driving change in the entertainment business, motivating people yet holding them accountable at the same time."

It's funny. When Zucker was plucked from "Today" to run NBC Entertainment in December 2000, replacing the guy who scheduled "The Michael Richards Show," I wrote a column hailing the promotion, calling him "one of the brightest people in television" and saying "he should be a natural."

He then, almost immediately, tried to make a sitcom star out of chef Emeril Lagasse, and we both looked like idiots.

But what that initial assessment pointed to was his talent, honed at "Today," for "hardball negotiations and how to massage wealthy egos." This has served him in his corporate climb.

His skills seem less geared toward the creativity than creative business solutions. Among his greatest accomplishments were squeezing two more seasons out of "Friends" and coming up with the idea of "supersizing" hits on NBC's schedule.

NBC Universal's earnings peaked in 2003. The $40 million year-over-year profit increase it reported for the quarter that just ended Dec. 31 was its first in five quarters.

But Immelt, who previously branded NBC Universal a drag on GE earnings, projects growth of between 5 percent and 10 percent this year and points to the fact that its $3 billion in pretax earnings this year is roughly double what it was in 2000.

"So I like the trajectory," Immelt said.

More important than that going forward is what they don't see, what maybe no one sees. It's the next big thing, maybe on the Internet, maybe at the electronics store, maybe something or somewhere else, that changes the way everyone consumes content.

"That's clearly one of the most important things that not just I but this whole company has to face into in the next few years," Zucker said. "This company is about producing great content in all of our divisions. The issue is how we get that great content in front of new eyeballs on new platforms with new money attached to it."

NOT READY FOR REFORM? Let this be a warning to newspapers. The Chicago Sun-Times, which dumped its costly Sunday TV Prevue supplement at the beginning of the year in favor of daily listings in the paper and an enhanced Web site, is resurrecting the weekly guide on Feb. 25.

Turns out the paper's readers, who complained in droves, weren't in such a rush to get to the future.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/chi-0702070143feb07,0,7382762,print.column

“Lost'”
… and Some Tuesday Viewing
By Rich Heldenfels in his Akron Beacon Journal blog February 7, 2007

“Lost” fatigue, some possible spoilers from last night’s telecasts and proof that I am a sentimental fool…

I watched tonight’s hey-we’re-back episode of “Lost” a week or so ago. It was OK. Some questions are answered, and even intriguingly. The overall story puts at least a comma on the saga of Jack, Sawyer and Kate on the small Island of Dr. Moreau, or whatever it is, so that in a week we can get back to seeing more of the core characters back on the big Pleasure Island, or whatever it is.

But here’s the thing: I don’t want “Lost” to be just OK. I want that feeling where I could talk for an entire week, from the end of one episode to the beginning of the next, about what is going on. I want to feel as if I’m getting closer to something; even when “Lost” gives me info now, I know that it is holding back far more than it is giving. Lately, it’s been more like a very long book that I am determined to finish even if it’s not that much fun to read.

Still, I watched it. It was OK. Just keep your expectations low.

As for the sentimental fool thing, both “Gilmore Girls” and “Veronica Mars” choked me up.

Loved the “Veronica” line about “Footloose” — and overall I liked the way “VM” was absolutely respectful of its TV-evangelist character; in a way, it was a continuation of last week’s don’t-misjudge-the-prostitute story. The ending was very nicely done (although, were I Veronica, I probably still would have cubed Madison’s car), but even better was the scene with Veronica and the preacher in his office. Tissues, please.

Not so thrilled with the deterioration of Logan, even if he carried off the cell-phone monologue. You pretty well knew Veronica wasn’t going to listen past the insults. Interesting, though, that both “VM” and “Gilmore Girls” built key scenes around cell-phone monologues. Anyway, I just wish they would settle this whole Veronica-Logan thing once and for all. It’s just toxic for the storytelling to keep dragging it out. And even as we’re moving closer to resolution of the dean-murder story, I am tending to forget it’s there. Right now the self-contained stories are much stronger.

“Gilmore,” then. Big sweepsy thing with Richard’s heart attack. Hard to believe Christopher would be AWOL so long, except that — as I was saying to someone after last week’s show — leaving is basically something Christopher does, much the way Luke’s thing is showing up. The rhythms of Lorelai’s jokiness felt off in the early going. And still …

Kelly Bishop as Emily Gilmore was a marvel, from her grand entrance through her gift-shop meltdown. She did not hit a wrong note, and in the last hospital scene with her and Richard you saw a couple who really had figured out a loving partnership. And do not for a moment forget that it is loving. Superbly done, at least to this old fool.

“House” was fine enough, and one where the medical case hardly mattered. But here’s one example of why I like the show: When “House” has to negotiate the wheelchair from the observation area down to surgery, I thought sure he would realize that he had to end the bet. After all, being in the wheelchair cost him precious time when someone’s life was at stake. But that sort of caring epiphany would not be “House.” Even when he briefly abandoned the wheelchair, it was not so much about saving the patient as about proving he was right. And after that, he still thought he could win the bet. House is that kind of rat, after all — and a rat worth watching just about every week.

http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/heldenfiles/?p=950#more-950

Critic’s Notebook
'Lost' and found
After 3-month hiatus, will fans follow it to new time slot?
By Ellen Gray Philadelphia Daily News February 7,2007

One of the killers about even the most successful TV serials is the scheduling.

The same obsessive fans whom advertisers happily pay to reach tend to be the very viewers who ask the most of their favorite shows, shunning reruns, hating hiatuses and frequently forgetting to leave their TVs on - and tuned to the same channels - after the credits roll.

So as ABC's "Lost" returns tonight, in a later time slot and after a three-month break, some in the industry won't so much be watching to see if Kate and Sawyer can escape The Others as they will to see if ABC can round up "Lost" fans who've been scattered since the Nov. 15 premiere of ABC's short-lived "Day Break."

It's the math problem most of the networks are confronting this season: If there are only 22 or so episodes of a serialized show and the TV season is 36 weeks long, how do you come up with a schedule that won't drive fans crazy?

One solution, used twice so far by Fox's "Prison Break" and adopted this season by "Lost," NBC's "Heroes" and CBS' "Jericho" (which returns Feb. 21), is the fall/spring split, with a hiatus of anywhere from several weeks to a few months between the "fall finale" and the second half-season premiere. It's the kind of schedule HBO's occasionally used (think "The Sopranos," "Sex and the City"), but it's relatively new for broadcasters, who may be still trying to figure out how breaking up a season affects a show's growth.

So far, the most successful model in terms of ratings seems to be "24," whose annual return in January, along with "American Idol," Fox has managed to make into event programming.

"Ideally, the way you would do 'Lost' would be [to air] all of them straight, 22 straight, 23 straight, as many as we had done," ABC entertainment president Stephen McPherson told reporters last month.

However, "I think for us, given where we were in our kind of development as a network, we really needed to have that installment in the fall," he said, referring to the six "Lost" episodes that aired before the show ceded its 9 p.m. Wednesday time slot to "Day Break."

The plan was to air the serialized Taye Diggs thriller for 13 weeks, a plan that foundered when it attracted an average of only 6.6 million viewers in its first five episodes. ("Lost," by contrast, averaged 17.8 million viewers for its first six this fall.)

Fortunately for McPherson, some other things broke ABC's way - "Grey's Anatomy's" immensely successful move to Thursdays, good starts for "Ugly Betty" and "Brothers & Sisters" - so "coming into next fall there's a good chance we would run it 22 straight [of 'Lost'] either in the fall or in the spring," he said.

Not that waiting for the second half of the season to launch one of the network's highest-rated shows would be easy.

Just ask McPherson's Fox counterpart, Peter Liguori, who tends to refer to the months when neither "Idol" nor "24" is on the schedule as "the fourth quarter," because it's hard to admit that your network barely has a pulse in the fall.

"I just don't accept that that's the way it is, that we're a network that has a ratings surge and comes to life and blossoms in January, and that fourth quarter is just something we have to tough out," Liguori told reporters, without offering much of a prescription for change other than "having better shows" on in the fall.

I've already heard complaints from early-rising viewers about ABC's moving "Lost" to 10 p.m., but the move would seem to have several upsides for the network, including:

• Getting "Lost" out of the way of "American Idol."

• Freeing ABC from the task of finding a show to follow it that viewers won't be too emotionally spent to watch, as they may have been for both "Invasion" and "The Nine."

• Pleasing the affiliates, which like to see a network's highest-rated shows leading directly into their local newscasts at 11 p.m.

Not incidentally, tonight's move also places "Lost" beyond the reach of CBS' "Criminal Minds," which successfully grew its own audience opposite "Lost" this fall, to the point where it was attracting more viewers toward the end of "Lost's" run.

Not that all the defections could be blamed on scheduling.

Many "Lost" fans have been eager to get back to the beach, to people like Hurley (Jorge Garcia) and Locke (Terry O'Quinn) and Sun and Jin (Yunjin Kim and Daniel Dae Kim), and away from The Others, whose stories have dominated the season so far (something that continues, at least, into tonight's episode, which includes a cameo by St. Joe's Prep grad Rob McElhenney of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" fame).

ABC's McPherson, while supporting "Lost" producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse ("they made a clear choice that that first installment would be really about the experience of kind of Jack and Kate and Sawyer and The Others"), clearly favors the original "Lost"-ies.

"I think, for me, the show that I really kind of... invest in" is the one in which "everybody [is] together and really that kind of emotional experience," he said.

"I like it when they're all together, and I think we're headed towards that when you come back."

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/entertainment/television//16640271.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Today I watched all six episodes from Season 3 of Lost via broadband streaming from ABC.com's website (so I could make DVD copies for my sister that works nights and can't program a VCR to save her life). It's the first time I've seen actual 'Lost' episodes after years of just reading episode summaries or seeing clips on other TV shows. Surprisingly the quality of the broadband stream was fantastic; except for an odd skip here and there (which had more to do with the fact I was using a 1999 computer running Windows 2000) the DVD's I got from ABC.com look at least like a digital cable VHS recording. I wouldn't make it a habit to watch on the computer, but if my DVR went on the fritz and I were to miss a show that demands keeping up with the plot (like Heroes or Battlestar Galactica) what I saw today on ABC.com was a worthy alternative.

As for Lost itself its clear this show's meandering-excuses-passing-as-plots are headed toward latter-season Alias and X-Files caliber pandemonim regardless of the producers' attempt to not repeat those shows' mistakes. I'm glad I haven't watched or tuned until now because waiting week-to-week for JJ & Co. to unravel this mess would drive me absolutely bonkers. The look and production values of this show are incredible though (the shot of the airplane breaking apart from the POV of 'The Others' actually gave me goosebumps), Evengeline Lilly cannot be made to look ugly or dishoveled (which works against the believability that she and all these beautiful-looking people are stranded on an island... yes, even Hurly tips on the attractive end for chunky-looking fellas) and Sawyer is the man! :) And no, I'm not going back to Seasons 1 or 2 on DVD to experience the show from the beginning. I'm doing my sister a favor, so 'Lost' will be taped in my home but not watched-and-dumped-to-DVD until I have five or six in a row on the DVR to avoid those dreadfully inane lulls between episodes.

Some good points, dad.

My threshold for such stuff is pretty low, I guess.

"Lost" lost me long ago. But it is fun to see how much enjoyment others get out of it.

Fred, you don't need me to tell you that there's nothing more heartbreaking for a dedicated TV viewer than watching a once-great show go down in flames and outstay its welcome. I went through it with The X-Files and, a lifetime ago, with Kenneth Johnson's adaptation of The Incredible Hulk. Both series were at one point excellent examples of how adult entertainment could be squeezed out of the cheesiest sci-fi concepts, yet both stayed for one or two seasons longer than they should have (and in the 'Hulk's' case it de-evolved into three of the shittiest and most insultingly-bad made-for-TV movies ever conceived). I knew the moment I read the previews for Fall '04 that Lost could only last four seasons if outside-world elements were brought into its plot to justify the lack of a rescue mission ending the castaway's plight by episode 7 from the first season. And, as he did with Alias before it also went off-the-rails nutso, JJ Abrams and his writers could weave a very intriguing tale that mesmerized people long-enough (two seasons' worth) to not question where the hell this whole thing was headed. I look forward to the rest of Season 3 of 'Lost' without the emotional attachment that made my heart ache when 'X-Files' and 'Hulk' (and, to a lesser extent, HBO sitcom Dream On in its last two lackluster seasons after its best writers moved on to work for Friends) tanked. Without that emotional connection to the show watching 'Lost' spin on its wheels (and the media/people's reaction to the spin) out to be a hoot. I wouldn't be saying the same if Battlestar Galactica or Heroes took a nosedive next season. :(

Heh, BSG's nosedive started half way through LAST season! I did enjoy the last couple of episodes though. :)

Really? I think Season 3 is shaping out to be better or just as good as the all-mighty Season 1 benchmark of excellence. Like The Sopranos even a mediocre-to-bad 'BG' episode is better than 90% of most other TV programs, IMHO.

Critic’s Notebook
It's a boyfriend bonanza on 'Ugly Betty'
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher”

If Thursday’s “Ugly Betty” is as good as last week’s Fashion Week episode, we’re in for a treat. Mode is in chaos, now that Alexis (Rebecca Romijn) has made her shocking announcement about who she really is (and was), and as if that weren’t enough, Betty’s got two men in her life. Her work colleague Henry (Christopher Gorham) is still in the picture, even though she’s still dating Walter (Kevin Sussman), her Queens beau.

So, will the two suitors ever fight? “We’re hoping so, that would be kind of fun,” Gorham said with a laugh in a recent interview on the “Ugly Betty” set.

“We have fights in the parking lot all the time, even when we’re not working,” Sussman joked.

“They’re clearly working up to something,” Sussman said of the plot with the two suitors. “They’re so different in every way, except they both fall under the category of nerd — but it’s opposite ends of the nerd spectrum.”

And Sussman knows of the nerd world: He not only appeared in lots of dot-com era commercials, he also worked as a computer consultant before his acting career took off.

“I would leave my dot-com job, and at the time I had this big, curly, crazy hair, and I would go to these dot-com auditions,” Sussman said. “I did mothernature.com, fedex.com, ecampus.com — most of these companies aren’t around anymore.”

How far did his personal geekdom go? He and a friend drilled a hole in the wall of their adjoining apartments so they could share an Internet connection and play online games together.

“I definitely know all about the tech geek [world],” said Sussman, whose character works at an electronics store. “But that being said, I think Walter takes it a step further.”

All Gorham knows is that Walter is a serious rival.

“Walter wields that [store] discount like a broadsword,” Gorham says, laughing.

In any case, “Betty” executive producer Silvio Horta said Betty will make a choice between the two men “fairly” soon.

Next week, Lucy Liu and Jerry O’Connell guest star, in an episode in which the show’s characters all end up stuck in places where they would normally never go. For instance, Alexis ends up hanging out in a sports bar — with Wilhemina. Now that I’ve got to see.

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

Critic’s Notebook
Grissom returns to Vegas
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher”

Grissom’s back.

If you didn’t know Gil Grissom had left, you haven’t been watching “CSI.” For the past few episodes, the crime-scene investigator has been on sabbatical, and a guy named Mike Keppler has been helping out in the lab. In Thursday’s episode of the sturdy procedural, a bearded Grissom returns, and all is not calm when he arrives in Las Vegas.

That’s mostly due to Keppler, a Man Who Has Secrets, which start to unravel in Thursday’s rather melodramatic episode. Keppler is played by the eminently capable Liev Schreiber, and his low-key, sardonic style suits the CBS procedural, which has mixed in ever more personal drama along with the lab work for a few seasons now.

Producers of the show swear that this season’s soapier elements are not a reaction to going up against “Grey’s Anatomy” on Thursdays. Whatever. I don’t mind the hints at the characters’ personal lives, especially if they serve as distractions from the dead prostitutes with severed limbs and so forth.

That’s the thing about “CSI”: It really doesn’t test your ability to handle soapy workplace drama — and nobody does that better than “Grey’s” anyway — it tests your ability to not lose your lunch when you see someone remove an umbrella from a charred corpse. Not to take away from the mostly capable “CSI” cast, but that’s always going to be something of a deal breaker for me.

Still, there are things to enjoy in every episode. For instance, Gil and Sara Sidle’s reunion is less than romantic — they first spot each other at work, so there’s no hugging (not that the shy Grissom is much of a workplace hugger anyway). Still, William Petersen is able to make Grissom’s quiet joy — even excitement — at seeing Sara palpable with very few words.

So is Keppler taking Grissom’s place? Despite the fact that the inscrutable Schreiber was a good choice for the shady Keppler, I wouldn’t bet on it. Then again, it’s Vegas. And the odds are, based on what Petersen told the Tribune in September, Grissom may be taking another trip next season so that Petersen can do a play in Chicago.

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

Heh, BSG's nosedive started half way through LAST season! I did enjoy the last couple of episodes though. :)

What a completely nonsensical statement. :rolleyes: BSG is still the best show on TV and this season, beginning with the occupation storyline, has been the strongest yet.

I agree, BG is in a class by itself but other notables include "Friday Night Lights". I can't believe how that show seems to get better and better each episode. If FNL does not get picked up for a second season I will surely miss it. Outstanding TV with Emmy quality performances.

What a completely nonsensical statement. :rolleyes: BSG is still the best show on TV and this season, beginning with the occupation storyline, has been the strongest yet.

Actually calling someone's opinion nonsensical is nonsensical.

Sorry, but while I do like BSG, I think it is very overrated. Every time I read the critical acclaim for this show people always point out how cleverly BSG differentiates itself from other sci-fi's by having clever allegories about our world's culture, politics, religion, etc. Uhm, have these people ever seen ANY other sci-fi show? THEY ALL DO THAT. In fact, I challenge people to find a sci-fi show that DOESN'T have allegories about our society.

Anyway, my main problem with BSG is that the writers clearly do no long term planning. They keep shifting directions with the show. I really think since they resolved the pegasus arc they have made some bad decisions. They have revelaed that the cylons have as little of a "plan" as the writers do. The whole New Caprica thing was such an ill advised plot development, which apparently the writers thought as well as they wasted no time hitting the reset switch on it. And I still can't get over how 2 of the primary protagonists are written to be so completely unlikeable. If they want us to not like them, that makes no sense, and if they don't want us to not like them then they are simply incompetent at writing for them. Anyway, I'll stop here since I don't want to derail the thread. (which I've already done, sorry fred)

archiguy's smiley made his nonsensical comment acceptable, pwrmetal. But it got close to the line.

Remember -- all opinions are welcomed here. No personal attacks on those are accepted.

For the record, to my mind, "Friday Night Lights" is heads and shoulders the finest hour currently on TV.

Its new story arc -- which began ast night dealing with racial tensions -- was a rarely seen effort by anyone in show biz to deal with the situation in a grown-up, in depth, sensitive and esponsible manner. But that, of course, is just my opinion.

I would like to hope NBC will find a way to keep the show on the air, but I can't see any realistic reason it should. Except FNL is just so incredibly wonderful.

Last night's first numbers will be available in just a few minutes and I keep dreaming they will finally trend upwards. It is a nice dream, but so is the one I have of winning the California Lottery.

Critic’s Notebook
“Idol” Lessons
By Lisa de Moraes Washington Post Staff Writer in her blog “Moraes On TV” February 8, 2007

No one loves "American Idol" lousy auditions episodes more than we do. But we draw the line when the producers decide they're going to teach us stuff while we watch. What's next: University of Phoenix course credit?

The final lousy auditions episode -- The Best of the Rest, Fox calls it -- promises to teach us stuff you can learn from the "Idol" auditions process.

LESSON 1: The Look

Apparently it's not okay to wear leather pants to audition for "Idol." And dressing like a nun and stripping the habit off to reveal something like a little girl's clown costume is also out. Ditto a snappy little ensemble that includes knee-length black-and-white checked pants, black bustier, red high-heeled pumps, one black evening glove, one white evening glove, a strip of red fabric worn over the shoulders as a shawl, a strip of black fabric wound around the neck and my Great Aunt Marjorie's best Sunday-go-to-church hat: black velvet, ring trimmed in netting.

To drive home this point, the producers follow this bit with one Tami Gosnell who is a pedicab driver from Colorado who shows up in jeans and a pierced lower lip and who claims to be able to simultaneously pull up a hill in one of her vehicles all three "Idol" judges -- Simon, Paula and Randy. Simon says he really likes her because she's "someone who would have been a big star in the 60s." Somehow that is better than when he tells auditioners "You're old fashioned." Show host Ryan Seacrest says this proves you don't need a crazy outfit when you have good voice. We say this proves Simon is inconsistent.

LESSON 2: Seek Inspiration.

"Idol" producers believe we need to be taught that all male Asian-American "Idol" auditioners are not as bad as William Hung. Hung is the most famous lousy auditioner ever to come out of "American Idol." So they show us pictures of Hung performing and then they introduce Paul Kim, a pool maintenance technician -- "basically a pool boy" he explains to the judges when asked what he does for a living. Kim has a lovely voice and they send him to Hollywood. While we are still digesting this bit of profiling, the producers show us a white guy whose "Idol" idol is Bo Bice, only when he tries to sing like Bo -- he's really bad!

LESSON 3: Never Give Up.

Here we see auditioners who have tried out two years, three years, some already sent through to Hollywood previously. Do you think any of these repeaters has a chance of winning? Me neither.

LESSON 4: Never Audition as Part of a Group.

Three chicks dressed like roller-skating waitress extras from "American Graffiti" try out together, except they sing one at a time. The first one is not good. The second one is slightly better. The third has a sensational voice. Two of the three get sent to Hollywood. Which part of auditioning as a group is bad? We are so gonna flunk the pop quiz.

LESSON 5: Do You Have to Dance? aka Don't Dance.

Yes, more bad dancing from the seven audition cities, which gives the producers the excuse they needed to show us a clip of Paula dancing with a cartoon character from a couple decades ago when she was a pop star/dancer/choreographer.

LESSON 6: Clarity.

By this the "Idol" producers mean, make sure the judges recognize the song you are singing. So we're asked to play Name that Song and they flash a phone number at the bottom of the screen, only, they explain to viewers it's a joke because otherwise millions of "Idol" fans are going to swamp that 555 phone number when they see the names of the songs three auditioners butchering past recognition: "Let's Stay Together," Annie's "Song," and "Chantilly Lace."

And, because the lousy auditions portion of this year's "American Idol" must end on a high note, so to speak, we are treated to Lakisha Jones and her cute three-year-old daughter. Jones has a big voice and Simon declares her "a good old-fashioned belter." They send her through to Hollywood. Outside the audition room, she and her daughter are overwhelmed and they cry.

"Thank you, 'American Idol' for the opportunity," Jones tells the camera.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/tvblog/

"Lost" returned last night and apparently the Neilsen overnights are a bit disappointing. I'll have more details very shortly.

Yesterday’s metered market over-night prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what the the disappointing "Lost" numbers mean -- have been posted just near the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.

TV Notebook
This sweeps Grammys may well matter
By Diego Vasquez MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Feb 8, 2007

Last year the Grammy Awards hit an all-time low viewership airing against Fox's dominant "American Idol." This year the CBS show has been moved to Sunday night, where it still faces considerable competition but should do better than last year's 7.1 rating in adults 18-49.

Just how much better may help determine the outcome of the February sweeps. Though CBS currently leads with a considerable 9.6 rating, 5.8 ahead of Fox, the latter is expected to make up the difference in the coming weeks with seven more editions of "Idol."

Unless the Grammys and the return of "Survivor" give CBS a big boost, Fox could well take the month. In a Media Life poll two weeks ago, media people predicted by a considerable majority that Fox would finish No. 1 in the sweeps period. Bill Carroll, vice president and director of programming for Katz Television Group, talks to Media Life about the Grammys, the Academy Awards and why sweeps still matters.

Who do you think will finish first in sweeps in 18-49s?

Well, it’s obviously going to come down to the wire, it will have to do with how successful “American Idol” continues to be with Fox. “American Idol” is always the biggest factor in this situation, but obviously the Super Bowl continues to be the dominant event in the sweep.

I think the performance for the Grammys will impact as well. If they’re a success, that extra emphasis could balance out what “American Idol” is doing.

CBS brings back "Survivor" tonight, coming off its lowest-rated season ever. Do you think the network should move it to a new night to give it some added juice? How many more seasons do you think the show has in it? Should the network go to just one cycle per season?

I think you have to keep it on the most competitive night on television. The return will help stabilize CBS’s Thursday night against an emerging ABC lineup. As opposed to various programs at 8 p.m., having “Survivor” for the next weeks will be a plus for CBS.

It still continues to be very successful, especially at reaching the younger demographics, and that’s a balance CBS needs to maintain. By having “Survivor” in multiple cycles, the network can cover the three key ratings periods, which is critical. It makes it almost essential.

Ratings for the Academy Awards have fallen off over recent years. Do you think there's anything presentation-wise that ABC could do to help perk it up? What kind of ratings do you expect for this year (better or worst than last year)?

I would assume it will do reasonably well this year. The one thing that always works against it is when the top movies or top nominees are not from the most widely viewed movies. If you were going to handicap what’s going to happen, there are some clear frontrunners in all of the acting categories, maybe the only question mark will be best picture.

When that happens the interest level is not as great as when, for example, everyone saw “Titanic,” and I believe that was one of the highest-rated Oscar telecasts. With that said, you still have one of the water cooler events of television, even if it’s not reaching the peak levels it has in the past.

"Lost" returned last night after a three-month hiatus. Was ABC wise to split the season like that?

Well, if they were trying to maintain their core viewers, the biggest irritation was repeats. So, I think how good a decision it was will be determined by how successful this second cycle will be. I think they’re going to bring viewers back, and when they can run it in sequence, it works to their advantage. I think we’ve been shown that by “24.”

There's been talk since Nielsen began rolling out the local people meters that sweeps is losing its significance. Is that true? Why? And how long until it becomes completely obsolete?

Well, as more markets become metered and people metered, the impact in the largest markets becomes less. But remember, we’re talking about ratings across 200-plus markets, and the majority of them are only rated during the seeps.

So as long as we continue to be basically diary in most markets, the sweeps will still be impactful, because they’re the currency on which decisions are made in a majority of markets across the country.

How important, only time will tell, but until the whole nation is metered they will be consequential.

Are there any sweeps stunts you expect to do notably well this month?
At this point nothing really jumps out.

It’s a full month and within that span we just had the Super Bowl, and we will have the Grammys and Academy Awards. That’s as many events across the board as you can realistically anticipate. There’s nothing else that I’m aware of that’s so unique.

It’s the unexpected that really changes the dynamic, and I haven’t seen anything like that.

Do any sweeps stunts from Februarys past stand out to you as particularly successful?

We’d have to go back in time to when key miniseries aired or key special events took place. That really hasn’t been the case in the last couple years. How are you going to top the events we just talked about?

The only thing that changes the dynamic now is the years when we have Winter Olympics.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_10047.asp

TV Notebook
Fox Biz Channel buzz is back
By Georg Szalai and Paul J. Gough The Hollywood Reporter Feb 8, 2007

NEW YORK -- Is it or isn't it?

The timing of the launch of the Fox Business Channel has been a favorite parlor game of the media industry for years, ever since News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch told analysts that he wanted to challenge CNBC for the small but lucrative business-news audience.

Just when has been the subject of much debate, with a national newspaper claiming more than a year ago that a launch was imminent (it wasn't), and with Fox News executives not really showing their hand even if Murdoch and News Corp. president and COO Peter Chernin are willing to discuss it on Wall Street.

The latest bout of mixed signals came Wednesday, with Murdoch and Chernin hinting that an announcement was close if not exactly imminent. Murdoch said during News Corp.'s latest quarterly earnings conference call that there will be an announcement "in the next week." But Chernin seemed to back off a bit, saying that the announcement should happen "soon" but declining to be more specific.

Addressing the launch date, Murdoch tied it to the early fall, with Chernin saying only that it will happen "in the latter part of the calendar year."

But there's no question that a Fox Business Channel is coming. Fox News Channel has the top five business shows on TV, with ratings that far outweigh CNBC and an eye toward the big-bucks ad revenue that the NBC Universal-owned channel draws. It has secured enough distribution -- upward of 30 million households -- to make the channel viable. And it has hired executives including former "Today" and CNBC staffer Alexis Glick to help develop the channel.

Murdoch said the channel is working on developing the physical studios, which would be with Fox News in the News Corp. headquarters in Manhattan.

"Plus, we have to recruit some money honeys," chuckled Murdoch, referring to the now-trademarked nickname of CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo.

CNBC even discussed the matter Wednesday on the network's "Squawk on the Street."

"Maybe we're the only people who care about this, but (Murdoch) did answer a question about the coming business network that Fox has been talking about launching for years now," reporter David Faber said on the show. He also repeated Murdoch's "money honeys" line.

"I think that counts us out," joked co-anchor Mark Haines, who noted that it seemed like Murdoch had his foot on the pedal on the business channel but that others at News Corp. had their foot on the brake.

"This is a totally inappropriate conversation," CNBC co-host Erin Burnett said.

"I cleared it with management," Faber responded.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/business/news/e3ib856b859909a998935e647619915f4

The Business of Television
Murdoch: New Net ‘Business-Friendly’
By Tom Steinert-Threlkeld MultiChannel News 2/8/2007

News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch said Thursday morning that the new business-news channel being launched by the company’s Fox brand will not be as antagonistic as CNBC, NBC Universal’s cable news service.

“We want to be more business-friendly,” he said at the Media Summit hosted by BusinessWeek magazine at the McGraw-Hill Building in New York.

He added that the Fox channel’s rival tends to be “negative” toward business and to jump on scandals more than is warranted. But he did not offer any specifics about how the Fox business channel would operate, who its anchors would be, or the like.

“Within the next seven days, there will be more detail,” he told BusinessWeek editor in chief Stephen J. Adler, terming the business-news venture a “real opportunity.”

He also said:

• Digital businesses will account for 10% or more of the company’s overall revenue within five years.

• MySpace.com and current digital businesses will likely contribute $1 billion of revenue next year. MySpace ad revenue right now is about $25 million per month.

• MySpace.com membership has reached 150 million worldwide, up from 20 million when it was acquired two-and-a-half years ago.

• MySpace has been a hit on mobile phones. About 200,000 customers have signed up to pay $3 per month for MySpace on Cingular mobile phones in the six weeks or so that it’s been available.

• “The triple play is going to be very, very hard to compete with” for direct-broadcast satellite services in the United States. News Corp. is selling off its stake in DirecTV, the North American market leader.

• The company will have to “try something else” with MyNetworkTV, its broadcast-TV network, which has suffered low ratings for its telenovela-based programming, launched last year.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6414775

Business friendly? Can you get more business friendly than CNBC? I mean, they did pretty much singlehandledly inflate the tech bubble.

And the burst cost CNBC a lot, too.

I understand your point, though.

Nonetheless, I believe the very presence of calm, curious, knowledgeable unflappable and news-oriented Neil Cavuto will go a long way to establishing an authoritative tone for the Fox Business Channel.

Cavuto's loss a decade ago at CNBC was a major one that, I believe, has been felt by that channel ever since.

Critic’s Notebook
The Return of “Survivor”
Host Probst is ultimate `Survivor' after seven years
By Charlie McCollum San Jose Mercury News TV Critic February 8, 2007

Jeff Probst thinks he knows why, when it returns tonight for a new season, ``Survivor'' will have lasted for seven years and through 14 separate editions.

Of course, Probst has been the host of ``Survivor'' (8 ET/PT tonight, CBS) since it debuted in the summer of 2000, and not long after that he became one of the show's executive producers, so he has a vested interest in this. On the other hand, he is known as one of the smarter, more articulate and more honest guys in TV world, so he's got cred that others in the business don't.

To Probst's mind, the ``Survivor'' secrets of success are the show's execution -- its production values are just as sharp now as they were seven years ago -- and, more important, its sense of how to keep things fresh.

``You see `American Idol' and that show continues to evolve,'' Probst says. ``They tweak in little different ways and keep you interested and give you something different to complain about. I think we've done the same thing.''

Not that the twists always work -- something Probst acknowledges.

``The audience can smell when it doesn't feel right,'' he says. ``I can smell it when we do things that aren't right. It happens sometimes, and you miss. But anybody who's fair that would look at 14 seasons of `Survivor' '' -- there are two competitions each year -- ``would have to say, `That show has held up pretty darn well.' ''

In the fall, the series certainly survived what, in the minds of many, was a very ill-conceived twist: dividing the contestants into tribes by race for ``Survivor: Cook Island.'' It generated a lot of heat (but not much of a boost in the ratings), and the producers went back to the traditional tribal setup rather quickly.

Still, even after the faltering start, ``Survivor: Cook Island'' turned out to be one of the most compelling cycles of the show, with two fascinating finalists -- financial manager Yul Kwon from San Mateo (the winner) and restaurant worker Ozzy Lusth from Venice, Calif. -- battling it out at the end. An average weekly audience of 15.7 million made it one of the top-rated series of the fall.

So, Jeff, what twists do we have this time to keep the audience coming back?

The real big one: When the 19 contestants in ``Survivor: Fiji'' arrive on the island, they will be given the means to build the most elaborate camp in the history of the show. Then they'll find out that they will be split into two tribes, one of which gets to keep that camp and one of which must relocate with only a machete and a pot.

``The idea was to create disparity between the two tribes,'' Probst explains. ``It's huge stakes in the first episode. And the minute there was a winning tribe and a losing tribe, there was a clear underdog, and you can't help but pull for the tribe that has nothing.

``They don't have anything, and they're not seasoned survivalists.''

While it may seem like that twist will make things just too uneven, Probst says, ``You'll hear many times, in the first episodes, comments from survivors along the line of: `Wow, this doesn't feel like ``Survivor.'' It's too easy.'

``But `Survivor' has always been about social interaction, and this fulfills that mantra. We've now got a new dynamic. And it grows because it's very hard to catch up to a tribe that has this big of a lead in terms of its living conditions.''

He also suggests that the tribe that gets the posh digs may not get to keep them: ``You have to see it play out. Just because you won the shelter doesn't mean the other team won't take it.''

There also will be changes with the immunity idol-Exile Island aspect of the game. This time, those sent off to Exile Island will find clues to where the idol is located -- back at their camps. That means there are two idols in play, and those looking for them will have to do so with the other survivors looking over their shoulders.

``It became a really big game of cat and mouse,'' Probst says, adding that ``the idol gets played more than once this season.''

Although he won't say for sure, it looks as if the final episode once again will have three finalists, a twist that began in the ``Cook Island'' installment. (Lawyer Becky Lee from Washington, D.C., made it to the finals with Kwon and Lusth, but it was clear early on that she would be a non-factor in the last tribal council vote.)

``Simply from a structural and dramatic point of view,'' says Probst, ``I don't know why we would ever go back to two.''

While Probst never, ever gives the slightest hint of who makes it to the finals (he knows, because the series already has been filmed), it's clear that he has a personal favorite this season: Yau-Man Chan, a 54-year-old computer engineer from Martinez who is director of information systems for UC-Berkeley's College of Chemistry. Although he's a tech geek, Chan was raised in Borneo near where the first ``Survivor'' was filmed, so he knows his way around a coconut.

``I think people are going to adore Yau-Man,'' Probst says. ``He's one of my all-time favorite survivors.''

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/television/16651205.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Opposite CBS’ CSI: NY and the return of ABC’s Lost at 10 p.m. was NBC’s Medium, at a series-low 5.9/ 9. Call me crazy, but I still think Medium would be better off Monday at 10 p.m. out of Heroes.
No kidding. When "Studio 60" goes off the air soon, they should put Medium after Heroes and put Donnellys in the 10pm Wed slot, if it's any good, it will make it. If it's left the way it is, NBC may lose both shows.

Has Reilly ever given any reason for not doing what seems to most to be the most logical move for "Medium"? Has he been waiting for "Studio 60" to finally bleed out, as IMO, it has.

With a show like "Lost", even with a show explaining what the show is about, I don't think you're going to gain previously lost viewers, the story is just way too convoluted. I also believe, due to it's nature, they're never going to gain any new viewers, at least not in any numbers that will matter.

Yesterday’s fast national over night prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what the viewership numbers for "Lost" mean -- have been posted near the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
ABC's 'Lost' returns with less cha-cha
Hit show averages a 6.5 in 18-49s in new timeslot
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Feb. 8, 2007

Last fall, ABC’s hit show “Lost” had a huge lead-in from “Dancing with the Stars” to give it more traction. This spring, in a new timeslot on a night where ABC has struggled since “Lost” and “Stars” left the air in November, it’s going to face a much tougher challenge.

The midseason return of the hit show, airing its first original episode in nearly three months, averaged a 6.5 adults 18-49 rating last night, according to Nielsen overnights, down 13 percent from the 7.5 its debut averaged last fall.

It was also down 12 percent from its season-to-date average of 7.4. On the other hand, it handily won its new 10 p.m. timeslot, placing 1.6 ahead of CBS’s “CSI: NY,” and built 76 percent on its lead-in, a special season-to-date recap of “Lost.” It was the No. 2 show of the night in 18-49s.

ABC moved the show to 10 p.m. to get out of the way of Fox’s “American Idol,” which has been obliterating the competition at 9 p.m. But that also means some other obstacles: getting the word out about the new timeslot, a later starting time that could turn off some viewers, and no lead-in support to speak of from the network’s anemic 8-10 p.m. sitcoms.

Now that “Lost” is a self-starter, the dip from last fall is notable but not yet cause for huge alarm for the network.

“Lost” still grew in its second half hour among 18-49s and total viewers, though it did finish behind “CSI: NY” by 1.1 million on that measure, averaging 14.7 million.

And a 6.5 average still puts it among the season’s top 10 shows and No. 3 on ABC, behind “Grey’s Anatomy” and “Desperate Housewives.”

Fox was once again first for the night among 18-49s with an 8.1 average rating and a 20 share. CBS came in second at 4.3/10, ABC third at 4.2/10, NBC fourth at 2.6/6, Univision fifth at 2.5/6 and CW sixth at 1.7/4.

Fox started in the lead during a slow 8 p.m. hour with a 4.4 rating for the rising “Bones.” CBS was second with a 2.8 for a repeat of “Criminal Minds,” Univision third with a 2.7 for “La Fea Mas Bella” and NBC fourth with a 2.4 for “Friday Night Lights.” ABC was fifth that hour with a 2.3 average for “George Lopez” (2.6) and “Knights of Prosperity” (2.1) and CW sixth with a 2.1 for “Beauty and the Geek.”

At 9 p.m. Fox boosted its lead with an 11.8 for “American Idol,” followed by CBS with a 5.1 for an original “Minds,” which was up 19 percent over its season average following Sunday’s special post-Super Bowl episode. ABC was third with a 3.7 for “Lost Survivor Guide,” NBC fourth with a 2.6 for “Deal or No Deal,” Univision fifth with a 2.5 for soccer pregame and the first part of a game between the U.S. and Mexico, and CW sixth with a 1.3 for “One Tree Hill.”

ABC took the lead at 10 p.m. with a 6.5 for “Lost,” with CBS second with a 4.9 for “CSI: NY,” NBC third with a 2.9 for “Medium” and Univision fourth with a 2.4 for soccer.

Fox also led the night among households, averaging an 11.9 rating and an 18 share. CBS was second at 9.4/14, ABC third at 6.1/9, NBC fourth at 5.4/8, Univision fifth at 2.7/4 and CW sixth at 2.4/4.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_10074.asp

...With a show like "Lost", even with a show explaining what the show is about, I don't think you're going to gain previously lost viewers, the story is just way too convoluted. I also believe, due to it's nature, they're never going to gain any new viewers, at least not in any numbers that will matter.

Agree completely. Although the demo numbers are far from bad, it seems to me that ABC's task now is simply to find a way to keep the viewers it has managed retain thusfar.

Agree completely. Although the demo numbers are far from bad, it seems to me that ABC's task now is simply to find a way to keep the viewers it has managed retain thusfar.

That is true. I still love Lost, but I can see how some people that may have followed it, decided to bail. Anywho, last night's episode was good. Now I have to watch my recorded version of CSI: NY. Now that's a show that is getting better with age.

Yes, Antonio, "CSI:NY" seems to be improving over the years.

I still miss the lady Mac seemed ready to date at the end of season one, though! That storyline just got lost.

Fredfa: Have you seen any articles about CBS selling off some of their O&O stations, I came across a few local news clippings on google but couldn't find anything from a national outlet. I was wondering if you saw anything else about this.

Yes, I admit I thought the story a bit too OT for this thread when I saw it yesterday, but I'll post a story for you.

The Business of Television
CBS To Sell Four TV Stations
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 2/7/2007

CBS says it will sell four of its TV stations, plus a couple of low-power outlets, for $185 million to investment group Cerberus Capital Management. The deal is subject to FCC approval.

The stations--two CBS affiliates and two My Network TV affiliates--are KEYE-TV Austin, Tex.; KUTV Salt Lake City (plus satellite KUSG(TV) St. George, Utah; WLWC TV Providence, R.I.; and WTVX TV West Palm Beach, Fla., plus low powers WTCN-CA and WWHB-CA.

The sale continues CBS' strategy of selling off some of its smaller market TV and radio stations, including TV stations last year in Oklahoma, New Orleans, Columbus, and Indianapolis.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6414530.html?display=Breaking+News

Yes, I admit I thought the story a bit too OT for this thread when I saw it yesterday, but I'll post a story for you.
Thanks.

The Business of Television
ABC Adds Grey's and Betty to Broadband Roster
By Mike Shields MediaWeek February 8, 2007

ABC announced a handful of new online programming enhancements at The Walt Disney Company’s 2007 Investor Conference, ranging from more channels and larger screens planned for ABC.com to an expanded Web presence for one of its longest-running hits.

First, starting later this year the network plans to add new content to its broadband video library, which already features full-length episodes of prime-time hits such as Ugly Betty and Grey’s Anatomy. The site will soon begin streaming national news as well as more local content from ABC affiliates.

ABC.com is also planning to launch a new channel dedicated to America’ Funniest Home Videos, which made household pratfalls popular nearly two decades before YouTube took off. Users will be able to post their own family-friendly user-generated videos, which the site’s visitors will be able to rate and forward. Some clips from the site may end up airing on TV, said ABC.

The network is also planning enhancements to its broadband technology, given the popularity of video streaming full-length shows on ABC.com (the site has delivered 50 million streams since September). This spring the site will launch two additional viewing screens: one for full-screen viewing that promises higher resolution to users and a mini screen that viewers can place on their desktop wherever they’d like while performing other tasks.

The network is also unrolling a new ad option to its broadband player. The upcoming Pause Ad will consist of a static digital placement that will be displayed on the player’s screen whenever user’s pause a video clip. Going forward, ABC says that advertisers will also be able to geo-target video ads.

Albert Cheng, executive vp, digital media, Disney-ABC Television Group, said that viewer and advertiser response for ABC.com’s broadband efforts has been strong. “We are excited to see that research continues to support two of our original hypotheses,” he said. “First, it again confirms making episodes available online results in additive viewing opportunities for consumers and is not cannibalizing linear network viewership,” said. “Secondly, users have an extremely positive response to the interactive advertising on ABC.com.”

Lastly, on the cable front, ABC Family announced that its Web site will host an “online viewing party” for the season finale of the family drama Wildfire. On Mar. 26, ABCFamily.com will stream a simulcast of the show, during which fans will be able to chat in real time.

Then, following the finale, the site will kick off a series of eight Wildfire webisodes that serve as a prequel to the series.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003543547

The CBS publicity machine wasted little time....
TV Notebook
CBS Touts “CSI:NY” vs “Lost”
"CSI: NY" Wins Time Period in Viewers Topping Highly Promoted Return of "Lost"
(CBS News Release)

CSI: NY topped the highly promoted return of "Lost" in viewers while CRIMINAL MINDS received a big post Super Bowl boost with significant gains versus its last first-run Wednesday broadcast, according to preliminary Nielsen Live Plus same-day ratings for Feb. 7.

CSI: NY was first in households (10.2/16), viewers (15.78m), second behind the time period premiere of "Lost" in adults 25-54 (6.0/14), adults 18-49 (4.9/12) and adults 18-34 (3.7/10). CSI: NY topped "Lost" by over one million viewers (vs. 14.68m).

Compared to CSI: NY's first-run, live plus same day delivery this season, CSI NY was up +3% in adults 18-34 (from 3.6/11) and retained 99% of both its household (from 10.3/17) and viewers (from 15.98m) deliveries, 97% of adults 25-54 (from 6.2/15) and 98% of adults 18-49 (from 5.0/12).

CRIMINAL MINDS was second behind FOX's "American Idol" in households (11.0/16), viewers (17.23m), adults 25-54 (6.6/14) and adults 18-49 (5.1/12). This matches CRIMINAL MINDS best ever Wednesday delivery in adults 25-54 and is the best performance for the program ever against "American Idol" in households, viewers, adults 18-49 and adults 25-54.

In its first regularly scheduled broadcast since its post Super Bowl airing on Sunday, CRIMINAL MINDS posted significant increases over its last first-run episode.

Compared to its last first-run broadcast, also opposite "American Idol," CRIMINAL MINDS was up +32% in viewers (from 13.07m), +55% in adults 18-49 (from 3.3/07) and +40% in adults 25-54 (from 4.7/10).

At 8:00 PM, CRIMINAL MINDS (R) (S) was second in households (7.0/11), viewers (10.27m), adults 25-54 (3.8/09) and adults 18-49 (2.8/08), all behind a first run episode of "Bones" on FOX.

For the night, CBS was second in households (9.4/14), viewers (14.43m), adults 25-54 (5.5/13) and adults 18-49 (4.3/10, +0.1 ahead of ABC). This is CBS's best Wednesday delivery in households, viewers, adults 18-49 and adults 25-54 since Nov. 29, 2006.

Final Wednesday ratings will be available this afternoon.

Having been a Lost fan that got tired of the way it was broadcast, I am glad to see I am not alone in not watching any longer. I think ABC really screwed up this show.

As Marc Berman wrote today (it's in the first post) he agrees with you 100%, steve.

Not that it matters, but so do I, by the way.

Having been a Lost fan that got tired of the way it was broadcast, I am glad to see I am not alone in not watching any longer. I think ABC really screwed up this show.

It's a DVR world now, Steve. If you don't have one, you need to get one. I never watch anything at it's original broadcast time, so I don't particularly care when a show is broadcast and when it repeats. I have the machine set to record any new episodes, then I just wait for them to show up. Plenty of other stuff to watch in the interim. But I'm certainly not going to abandon a program I find enjoyable, like LOST, just because the network moves it around for whatever reason. The DVR allows me to find the very best stuff on TV, schedule it, and forget about it. One of the greatest inventions since the toaster. If everybody had one, all this nonsense about scheduling would evaporate. Programs could then survive, or perish, on merit, and the strength of its lead-in or its competition in a particular time slot wouldn't matter a whit. Wouldn't that be great? :)

All the major news outlets are reporting that Anna Nicole Smith has collapsed and died at a Florida hotel of unknown causes. News from now and 24/7 'till the end of our lifetimes (including the network that bears that name when the made-for-TV movie comes out in time for May sweeps) on Court TV, Headline News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Access Hollywood, Extra, Entertainment Tonight, The Insider, E! (the hardest-hit of all media for this story) and any TV outlet that has access to stock footage of Marilyn Monroe for the inevitable comparisons between two blonde bombshells that defined the decades they were a part of. :rolleyes:

The Business of Television
Fox Business Channel to Launch in Fourth Quarter
By Michele Greppi Television Week February 8, 2007

The long-awaited Fox Business Channel will launch in the fourth quarter of 2007.

The announcement Thursday came from News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch, who has long yearned for such a channel, and Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, who will develop and oversee the new venture. The new network is currently named Fox Business Channel.

The new channel has 30 million subscribers under contract after securing distribution agreements with multiple cable operators, including: Time Warner; Comcast; Charter, and satellite-TV company Direct TV.

The network will be housed at News Corp. headquarters in midtown Manhattan. It is expected to launch in major markets across the country, including the world's financial capital-New York-where it will be seen on expanded basic cable.

"We have long considered the business television market to be underserved," Mr. Murdoch said. "Having built Fox News into a cable news leader and a cultural phenomenon against all expectations, I'm confident that Roger Ailes and his team can do the same in business news. I look forward to introducing new competition and a new voice to the business news arena."

NBCU-owned CNBC dominates the TV business news landscape and has been prepping for competition from Fox for the better part of two years.

For Neil Cavuto, Fox News senior VP and managing editor of business news, this will be a second startup alongside Mr. Ailes. Mr. Cavuto joined Fox News before Fox News Channel launched in 1996. Under his leadership, Fox News' business unit overtook CNN and CNBC to claim the top five shows in cable business news, including the Saturday morning business block. "Your World With Neil Cavuto" has been No. 1 in its weekday time slot for 60 consecutive months.

"The resources from the strongest media company in the world coupled with Neil Cavuto and a superb business team will enable us to create a viable alternative to what currently exists in the marketplace," Mr. Ailes said.

Fox News Executive VP Kevin Magee will be responsible for day-to-day operations of the new channel, while Mr. Cavuto will oversee content and business news coverage. Former CNBC personality Alexis Glick will serve as a director of business news, reporting to Mr. Cavuto, while also serving in an on-air capacity.

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11530

Thanks for the tip dad.

The AP confirms she collapsed and died in Florida.

I think I'll let other sites keep us updated on details.

Didn't Lost originally start out in the 8PM time slot? Why not put it back there again, instead of 10PM, which is tough for a lot of viewers.

It's a DVR world now, Steve. If you don't have one, you need to get one. I never watch anything at it's original broadcast time, so I don't particularly care when a show is broadcast and when it repeats. I have the machine set to record any new episodes, then I just wait for them to show up. Plenty of other stuff to watch in the interim. But I'm certainly not going to abandon a program I find enjoyable, like LOST, just because the network moves it around for whatever reason. The DVR allows me to find the very best stuff on TV, schedule it, and forget about it. One of the greatest inventions since the toaster. If everybody had one, all this nonsense about scheduling would evaporate. Programs could then survive, or perish, on merit, and the strength of its lead-in or its competition in a particular time slot wouldn't matter a whit. Wouldn't that be great? :)

Amen....I thoroughly enjoy it. No matter where and when it might show up.

The Business of Television
CBS To Sell Four TV Stations
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 2/7/2007

CBS says it will sell four of its TV stations, plus a couple of low-power outlets, for $185 million to investment group Cerberus Capital Management. The deal is subject to FCC approval.

The stations--two CBS affiliates and two My Network TV affiliates--are KEYE-TV Austin, Tex.; KUTV Salt Lake City (plus satellite KUSG(TV) St. George, Utah; WLWC TV Providence, R.I.; and WTVX TV West Palm Beach, Fla., plus low powers WTCN-CA and WWHB-CA.

The sale continues CBS' strategy of selling off some of its smaller market TV and radio stations, including TV stations last year in Oklahoma, New Orleans, Columbus, and Indianapolis.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6414530.html?display=Breaking+News

WLWC is a CW affiliate not a MyNetwork TV affiliate.

It's a DVR world now, Steve. If you don't have one, you need to get one. I never watch anything at it's original broadcast time, so I don't particularly care when a show is broadcast and when it repeats. I have the machine set to record any new episodes, then I just wait for them to show up. Plenty of other stuff to watch in the interim. But I'm certainly not going to abandon a program I find enjoyable, like LOST, just because the network moves it around for whatever reason. The DVR allows me to find the very best stuff on TV, schedule it, and forget about it. One of the greatest inventions since the toaster. If everybody had one, all this nonsense about scheduling would evaporate. Programs could then survive, or perish, on merit, and the strength of its lead-in or its competition in a particular time slot wouldn't matter a whit. Wouldn't that be great? :)

I have had the HD TIVO since it came out and agree best invention of all time. I guess what I mean is out of sight out of mind type thing. Lost lost me.

What a completely nonsensical statement. BSG is still the best show on TV and this season, beginning with the occupation storyline, has been the strongest yet.
Actually calling someone's opinion nonsensical is nonsensical.

Sorry, but while I do like BSG, I think it is very overrated. Every time I read the critical acclaim for this show people always point out how cleverly BSG differentiates itself from other sci-fi's by having clever allegories about our world's culture, politics, religion, etc. Uhm, have these people ever seen ANY other sci-fi show? THEY ALL DO THAT. In fact, I challenge people to find a sci-fi show that DOESN'T have allegories about our society.
I'm with pwrmetal on this one. Battlestar Galactica became a joke of a show to me during its second season. I found little to no enjoyment out of that season (in contrast to the mini and first seasons, which I thought were excellent and great, respectively).

The second season just stunk it up, IMO. I bailed after the finale and watched the first act of the season 3 opener, after hearing good things about it.

Just as bad as the previous season. So I'm done with it. Tis a shame that something can go from being so good, to so becoming so bad in such a short amount of time. There is a reason there was a shedding of the audience during its second season (at least I'd like to think so).

The Business of Television
Time Warner: DirecTV’s ‘More HD’ Ads False
By Todd Spangler MultiChannel News 2/8/2007

Time Warner Cable filed a request in a Manhattan federal court Wednesday for a preliminary injunction to block DirecTV’s ads claiming that the direct-broadcast satellite operator can offer “more HD capacity than cable.”

The TV spots, which feature Back to the Future actor Christopher Lloyd, tout DirecTV’s plans to roll out 100 new HD channels “soon” and include the tag line, “For a future of 150 HD channels, get DirecTV.”

Time Warner, in filings with U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenged DirecTV’s claim that it will have three times more HD capacity than cable and the cable operator said it could increase its bandwidth capacity “in the near future” to provide more than 200 HD channels.

In an affidavit, Time Warner senior network engineer Ronald E. Boyer said the operator could offer more than 200 HD networks using a combination of technologies, including reclaiming analog bandwidth, improving signal compression, broadcasting MPEG-4 video streams and implementing node-splitting and switched digital video.

“Accordingly, DirecTV’s claims that it will have ‘three times more HD capacity than cable’ by carrying ‘150 HD channels’ in the future is false and misleading,” Boyer’s statement said.

The cabler also cast doubt on DirecTV’s own ability to carry 150 HD channels. Boyer pointed to last month’s explosion of a rocket carrying a Dutch satellite on Boeing’s Sea Launch floating platform in the Pacific Ocean. DirecTV had planned to use the same platform to launch the second of two satellites this year to provide additional HD carrying capacity.

Finally, Time Warner pointed out that there are currently “far fewer than 150 networks with HD programming available.”

In a statement, DirecTV senior vice president of advertising and public relations Jon Gieselman said: "We believe this is just another example of Time Warner's frustration that they cannot compete in the marketplace with DirecTV so they have resorted to the courts.”

He added that the DBS operator is “moving full-steam ahead” with the launch of its additional satellites to increase its HD capacity, as the Lloyd commercial “accurately represents.”

The Time Warner action is the latest development in its false-advertising suit against DirecTV. In December, the MSO sued DirecTV after the DBS operator ran the HD spots, as well as newspaper ads, claiming that cable subscribers wouldn’t be able to watch games carried by NFL Network -- available on DirecTV, but not Time Warner Cable -- that would have been available via local broadcast stations.

On Feb. 5, Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Time Warner Cable’s request for a preliminary injunction preventing DirecTV from running ads in Time Warner markets claiming to provide superior HD quality. DirecTV said it plans to appeal the decision.

Those two TV spots -- one featuring actress/singer/reality TV star Jessica Simpson and another with ex-Star Trek front man William Shatner -- carried the tag line: “For an HD picture that can’t be beat, get DirecTV.”

In her ruling, Swain said both DirecTV and Time Warner Cable broadcast HD channels at 1080i, a specification defined by the Advanced Television Systems Committee.

“Providers such as TWC and DirecTV do not set the screen resolution for HDTV programming, but instead make available sufficient bandwidth to permit the relevant level of resolution to pass to customers,” she wrote. The DirecTV commercials’ assertion that “a viewer cannot ‘get the best picture’ without DirecTV is therefore likely to be proven literally false in that the undisputed factual record here establishes that DirecTV and TWC provide HD pictures of equal quality.”

Swain also ordered DirecTV to pull from its Web site a purported side-by-side comparison of its HD picture quality versus “basic cable,” in which the cable picture is depicted as highly pixelated, along with Web banner ads with the same claims.

However, the judge said DirecTV may still run comparative ads stating that its overall picture quality is better than Time Warner Cable’s because there wasn’t enough evidence to establish the falsity of DirecTV’s claim that its all-digital lineup is superior to “cable’s mix of digital and analog.”

In addition, she denied the cabler’s request that the DBS operator be required to run corrective ads. “The court does not believe that the extraordinary relief of corrective advertising is warranted in this case,” she wrote.

Gieselman said the Simpson and Shatner ads cycled out of rotation almost two months ago, anyway. “We will continue to aggressively market our better overall picture quality, which is permitted by the court’s opinion,” he said in a statement.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6414919.html?display=Breaking+News

The Business of Television
Time Warner: DirecTV’s ‘More HD’ Ads False
By Todd Spangler MultiChannel News 2/8/2007

In her ruling, Swain said both DirecTV and Time Warner Cable broadcast HD channels at 1080i, a specification defined by the Advanced Television Systems Committee.

“Providers such as TWC and DirecTV do not set the screen resolution for HDTV programming, but instead make available sufficient bandwidth to permit the relevant level of resolution to pass to customers,” she wrote. The DirecTV commercials’ assertion that “a viewer cannot ‘get the best picture’ without DirecTV is therefore likely to be proven literally false in that the undisputed factual record here establishes that DirecTV and TWC provide HD pictures of equal quality.”

A correct ruling, but for the wrong reason. That explanation is a PR win for D*.

Yup, so close, yet so far from the real truth.

Yes, Antonio, "CSI:NY" seems to be improving over the years.

I still miss the lady Mac seemed ready to date at the end of season one, though! That storyline just got lost.

Well, having Claire Forlani as his new love interest does hurt the eyes either. Plus it's interesting seeing Mac involved with something other than his work.

The Business of TV
Cavuto, Fox Business Target CNBC
By Mike Reynolds & Mike Farrell MultiChannel News 2/8/2007

While he didn’t share any of the specifics as to how, Neil Cavuto is confident that Fox Business Channel will expand the sector’s audience beyond that of his former employer, CNBC.

“We’re going to be entertaining, informative, youthful. We’re going to appeal to groups beyond old white guys with money,” the Fox News senior vice president and managing editor of business news said in an interview late Thursday afternoon, following the official announcement earlier that News Corp. would finally launch its much-discussed cable business channel in the fourth quarter.

Cavuto, noting, “If I say anything, my competitors are going to get a jump,” declined to discuss program specifics or daypart strategies.

He did say that nothing is expected to change relative to his five Fox News Channel business shows -- Bulls & Bears, Forbes on Fox, Cavuto on Business, Cashin In and Your World with Neil Cavuto -- which, he noted, rank at the top of the ratings for cable business news.

“The plan is for me to stay on [Fox News],” added Cavuto, who will be in charge of content and business news at the fledgling service. “We’re just beginning this and will take it day-by-day.”

Asked about talent and staffing, he said there are “a lot of great engaging personalities here and elsewhere. Things will evolve over time as they did with the five business shows.”

He added that there would be announcements about personnel and talent over the next few weeks and months.

For now, he is being joined at Fox Business Channel by Fox News executive VP Kevin Magee, who will have daily oversight of the service, and Alexis Glick, who will serve as director of business news and also have an on-air presence.

Cavuto looked to downplay expectations. “We realize that [CNBC] has a 20-year head start,” he said. “We didn’t become rock stars at Fox News overnight, and we won’t become rock stars overnight here, either.”

For its part, CNBC welcomed the challenge.

“Bring it on,” CNBC VP of media relations Kevin Goldman said. “We certainly welcome the competition if it ever shows up. We’re in the best position we’ve ever been in and we’re only getting stronger. We just wrapped up our best financial year ever, and our measured audience is surging. So that’s why I say: Bring it on.”

Fox Business Channel, headed by Roger Ailes, chairman and CEO of Fox News and chairman of Fox Television Studios, currently counts 30 million subscribers through carriage deals with such distributors as Comcast, Time Warner Cable, DirecTV and Charter Communications.

The network, which will be based out of News Corp.’s headquarters in Manhattan, is expected to launch in major markets around the country, including the nation’s financial capital, New York, where officials said it will be available on expanded-basic cable.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6415110.html?display=Breaking+News

Critic’s Notebook
Snakes, idols and a comfy couch: Welcome to 'Survivor: Fiji'
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher”

Welcome to Fantasy Island!

Given the luxury tropical-island accommodations that some tribe members will be enjoying this season on “Survivor: Fiji,” which debuts 7 p.m. Thursday on WBBM-Ch. 2, you’d be forgiven for looking for Ricardo Montalban and Herve Villechaize on the latest edition of the show.

Every season, “Survivor” tweaks its formula a bit, and this time around, a new luxury-for-winners twist seem to be cribbed from the revamped “Apprentice” franchise (both “Survivor” and the Donald Trump reality show are Mark Burnett creations).

Will the latest tweaks make the show must-see once again? Who knows. I stopped watching the last edition of “Survivor” once it was clear that Mark Burnett and crew wanted to get a lot of buzz for ethnically divided the original teams – and that they were only after buzz, because the ethnic divisions lasted all of two episodes.

At that point, I put “Survivor” in a time out and ignored it for the rest of the season. Fool me once and all that.

Anyhow, this time around, the cast is once again ethnically diverse (though according to Jeff Probst (via RealityBlurred), most of the 19 candidates were recruited by Burnett’s company rather than found through online applications to be on the show). However that diversity has its limits; as was the case last season, a large number of candidates are from California (though the show’s PR materials are at pains to point out that many of the Cali residents are originally from somewhere else).

In any case, here are the Shocking “Survivor: Fiji” Twists:

Twist No. 1: The tribes get vastly different digs, based on who wins the reward challenge. In the first episode, the 19 contestants (there were originally 20, but one dropped out due to a panic attack) get supplies and plans that enable them to build a pretty fancy shelter, which comes complete with a toilet and kitchen area.

After the contestants are divided into teams and compete in a challenge, the winning team gets to stay in the relatively swanky digs (which are augmented by a couch, cutlery, nice plates and even dainty tea cups after the reward challenge in the first episode), while the losing team gets a pot and little else on another beach.

Twist No. 2: There are two immunity idols this time around. Whoever gets put on Exile Island gets a clue as to the whereabouts of the idols, but neither idol is on Exile Island itself. In past seasons, there’s been only one immunity idol, which can be used to stay in the game if a player is voted off.

Exile Island is, by the way, full of sea snakes. Host Jeff Probst makes them sound ultra-dangerous – and indeed, it’s not a good idea to tangle with them – but once again, “Survivor” is indulging some hype. The snakes don’t want anything to do with humans, and they’re passive and shy unless they are approached aggressively.

How do I know this? I spent two weeks backpacking around Fiji around 15 years ago. There are indeed many sea snakes in the Fijian islands (I saw more of them on the smaller islands, and they seemed to be more inclined to come out at night). But as many guide books and locals tell visitors, the snakes, which indeed have dangerous venom, are not aggressive and are apt to slither away if you go anywhere near them.

Still, you obviously don’t want to bother the snakes. As the 2003 Lonely Planet guide to Fiji states:

“You are likely to see Fiji’s most common snake, the dadakulaci or banded sea krait, while snorkeling or diving. Occasionally they enter freshwater inlets to mate and lay eggs on land. They are placid and locals may tell you that they cannot open their jaws wide enough to bite humans, but don’t risk it: the sea krait’s venom is three times more potent than the venom of the Indian cobra.”

And as one scuba diving blogger put it, “They pose no threat unless agitated or provoked and even then would find it hard to deliver their venom as their jaws are very small and their fangs extremely delicate.”

UPDATE: According to George Parsons, director of fishes at Chicago’s Shedd Museum, “it’s very unlikely that [a sea snake] would have the capability to bite a human and it’s very unlikely that they’d want to. They are extremely docile and small-fanged” and their mouths really aren’t built for biting humans, Parsons said. “They’d have a really hard time biting anything bigger than a pinkie finger,” Parsons noted, though he does add that their venom is “extremely toxic.”

So, the snakes are to be avoided, but they’re not that much more dangerous than the one of the foremost dangers on any tropical island – which is, believe it or not, falling coconuts, according to an interview that "Survivor's" staff doctor did with the Tribune in 2004.

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

TV Notebook
The Boss Is Back
William Petersen on his CSI sabbatical and what lies ahead
by Craig Tomashoff TV Guide

Just when he thought he was out, they pull him back in! Gil Grissom (William Petersen) went all the way to a Massachusetts college to take a break from the grind of life in the CSI lab. Now that he's returned from his hiatus, however, it seems his job is about to get even tougher. Not only did his replacement, Mike Keppler (Liev Schreiber), create some chaos in Grissom's lab, the serial killer who has been taunting him by delivering miniature replicas of crime scenes has another surprise in store. And, perhaps most important for CSI fans, Grissom's office romance has hit a make-or-break point.

"Grisson has a greater understanding of his feelings for Sara [Jorja Fox] when he returns. He's so excited to see her but she's less excited to see him," explains executive producer Carol Mendelsohn. "[In part because] she spent the day in a landfill. But later we're going to see the two of them in Grissom's apartment."

Viewers have already seen Grissom write a letter to Sara, apparently expressing his feelings for her, but he never mailed it. Eventually, he'll give it to her and also come clean about the cocoon he sent her while he was away. Mendelsohn hints that it is "symbolic of their relationship," adding that there will be a payoff for fans when Grissom tells Sara, "When it hatches, you'll be pleasantly surprised."

Another surprise will be less pleasant when he goes through the stack of mail on his desk and discovers another miniature crime scene from the mystery killer. This time, though, he won't know whether the miniature is a replica of a crime already committed — or about to be committed.

"If it's the latter," Mendelsohn says, "will the CSIs be able to stop it in time?" CSI diehards take note: "There's already been a hint about the identity of the killer, a small clue with others to follow," she promises. "You just have to look closely as the hunt continues throughout this season." Here, Petersen weighs in about what's coming up — and where he's been.

Why did you decide to take this sabbatical from CSI?

A friend of mine for many years, Curt Columbus, who is artistic director of Trinity Rep Company in Providence, Rhode Island, sent me a script last year. I hadn't been taking submissions for anything while doing CSI. I might not have looked at it if it hadn't come from him, but I was sick laying in bed one day and I read it. I told my wife after I read it, "I have to do this play. It really moved me."

What was the play?

It's called Dublin Carol and it's about an Irish alcoholic, John Plunkett, working in a funeral home in Dublin on Christmas Eve. It's a very dark Christmas play but full of humor and redemption in that Irish way. I became completely enamored of this character. I knew it would be a huge challenge but I thought to myself, "This is why I'm an actor, for these kind of pieces."

How did it challenge you?

Plunkett is such a completely different character from Grissom. The great thing about this was I was playing an Irishman with a big brogue, very specific in Dublin. Plus he has to get drunk throughout the course of the show. Just in the technique of creating this character, traces of Grissom disappeared quickly.

It's tough to imagine Grissom with an Irish accent. Did it take long to get Plunkett's down?

On stage, I could do it well enough to think we were somewhere in Dublin. During previews, I met a guy in a store who was from Dublin, a salesman selling Irish jewelry. He came to the play and we went out afterward. He loved it. Except that I was mispronouncing one town's name. I thought that was funny. I guess everything else was OK.

What prompted you to want to go back to the stage?

I had the feeling that if I didn't get back on stage, I wouldn't want to go back. It's happened to a lot of actors where the further away from the theater you get, the more terrified of it you become.

Did you have any stage fright?

I had panic attacks during rehearsal. There were times when I really thought I wasn't going to be able to do it. But I talked to Amy Morton, our director, who I've worked with on and off for 15 years. She was able to allay all that, so we got through it with no problem.

Grissom's farewell was pretty unsentimental. Was it tough for you to leave CSI for a while?

Change is hard for anybody at any time. As hard as it was for the characters, it was also hard for the actors. You don't know what will happen when you leave or if it's going to be a good or bad thing or how the other people will handle it. But we shaped Grissom a little differently to show the impact on him from all of these cases. So it was an opportunity to deepen my character.

http://tvguide.com/Magazine/Cover-Story/

Critic’s Notebook
Snakes, idols and a comfy couch: Welcome to 'Survivor: Fiji'
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher”

Will the latest tweaks make the show must-see once again? Who knows. I stopped watching the last edition of “Survivor” once it was clear that Mark Burnett and crew wanted to get a lot of buzz for ethnically divided the original teams – and that they were only after buzz, because the ethnic divisions lasted all of two episodes.

Is it me or is this Winter/Spring season of 'Survivor' generating absolutely no buzz of excitement whatsoever? Maybe its the sharp contrast with last Fall's hype over the racial divide of the tribes, but even the folks I encounter in my daily routine that are 'Survivor' fans (I don't watch it myself) seem to be underwhelmed by the new season. 'Lost,' on the other hand, had everybody at the office (even those of us that didn't see it) talking about it. If 'Survivor' gets lower ratings than last year's already low-rated season (by the show's previous viewership levels) CBS' 18-49 demo lead will be wiped out by Fox's 'American Idol' juggernaut. Because even as viewer complaints of too many bad singers mount the ratings continue to show no decline from last year (unlike 'Survivor's' constantly-dropping viewership versus a year ago).

Reminder
Television Week’s HD Newsletter

It is Thursday, so that means it is time for the latest edition of TV Week HD Newsletter put together by James Hibberd.

You access it here:

http://www.tvweek.com/page.cms?pageId=183

Is it me or is this season of 'Survivor' generating absolutely no buzz of excitement whatsoever? Maybe its the sharp contrast with last Fall's hype over the racial divide of the tribes, but even the folks I encounter in my daily routine that are 'Survivor' fans (I don't watch it myself) seem to be underwhelmed by the new season. If 'Survivor' gets lower ratings than last year's already low-rated season (by the show's previous viewership levels) CBS' 18-49 demo lead will be wiped out by Fox's 'American Idol' juggernaut.

Even if "Survivor" were to gain considerably from last year's numbers it seems inconceivable that CBS can stay ahead of Fox. I'd doubt CBS will be able to hold onto its demo lead much past March -- if that long.

But I agree the buzz seems to be almost nonexistent for this "Survivor" series.

Critic’s Notebook
On 'Brothers & Sisters,' engaging drama is all in the family
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher”

When it premiered last fall, “Brothers & Sisters” (10 ET/PT, Sunday, ABC) was a valiant, if sometimes strained, attempt at a worthy family drama.

It’s matured into one of television’s unsung gems. And it’s far more fun than you might think, based on its rather serious start.

From the beginning, Sally Field has delivered a performance of exceptional range as the matriarch of the sprawling Walker clan. In the wake of her husband’s death, which was followed by revelations about his longtime mistress and the family firm’s dire finances, she was alternately angry and afraid, but she never lost her capacity to laugh at her own foibles.

Field has made Nora into one of the few believable mothers on TV — the woman’s nosy, constantly in her children’s business and nobody’s fool. And you know by just looking at her that she’d do anything for her kids — but that she doesn’t quite know what to do with herself without the anchor her spouse provided.

In Sunday’s episode, Nora ends up spending a night in the slammer, though to give away how that happens would take away from the enjoyment of a playful subplot involving a Valentine’s Day dinner out between Nora and a friend played by Margot Kidder.

There is stiff competition for the most interesting character on “Brothers & Sisters” (most of whom have Valentine’s Day complications of their own in Sunday’s episode): Patricia Wettig has given steely, charismatic depth to the role of the former mistress, Holly; Rachel Griffiths is nuanced and believable as Sarah, a woman trying to balance her job as the head of the family firm with her own brood’s demands; and Dave Annable’s been surprisingly great as the wayward ex-soldier son.

I say “surprising” because Fox’s short-lived “Reunion” hardly gave Annable the chance to show the sort of heart-wringing vulnerability he’s demonstrated as the drug-addicted Justin on “Brothers.”

Even Calista Flockhart’s character, the initially rather shrill conservative pundit Kitty Walker, has become more interesting now that she’s been given a love interest played by the deft Rob Lowe (his character is a Republican senator with presidential ambitions). Their romance has brought new lightness and verve to the entire show.

Still, my favorite character at the moment is the self-deprecating, sweet Kevin Walker. Matthew Rhys has two of the most expressive eyes in prime time; they’re hangdog when he’s contemplating his confusing romance with a closeted soap actor, lively when trading gossip with his siblings, and capable of conveying vulnerability and remorse when reeling from a confrontation with his less uptight ex, Scotty (whom we see in Sunday’s episode).

Kevin is gay, but that is -- as it should be -- treated as no big deal on the show. He’s no more or less lucky in love or in life than any of his siblings, though he does tend to get the best lines.

“This whole affair is giving my ulcer an anxiety attack,” he says to his actor boyfriend Chad (who’s played by “Sex and the City’s” hunky Jason Lewis).

The show’s excellent cast (and I haven’t even mentioned the able Ron Rifkin yet) is going to get even better soon; “Everwood’s” Emily VanCamp is joining the show as Holly’s daughter Rebecca Feb 18 (more on that here.)

The Walker family just keeps expanding, but that’s fine (though I’ll need more convincing before I believe that the spouses of Walker siblings Thomas and Sarah really bring much to the show). In the last few episodes, the writers have done an excellent job of balancing the many story lines of the extended clan and have mixed in a welcome dose of lightness.

Still, though the show’s move toward a more comedic or lighthearted tone has been a success, I hope there’s still room for serious drama on “Brothers.” If nothing else, those scenes give Field, Wettig, Rhys and their castmates an arena for showing off their ample talents.

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

TV Notebook
'Idol' all-star show may happen
By Verne Gay Newsday Staff Writer February 8, 2007

An "All-Star American Idol?" It's been one of those intriguing ideas that has echoed around the "Idol" universe the past couple of seasons, but so far it has remained just that -- an idea.

But it could be a real possibility. Nigel Lythgoe, the show's executive producer, Thursday confirmed he has approached Fox about a plan that would combine an all-star edition with a songwriting competition.

In a conference call with reporters Thursday, Lythgoe said, "Yes, it's something I'm trying to make work this season," while adding that "my idea is [for viewers] to give me 10 songs and then I'll bring back 10 'Idol' finalists to sing them on a special." Lythgoe, however, also said, "I've pitched to Fox and they have yet to come back to me to say yes or no."

Possible reasons for Fox's delay? Lythgoe didn't elaborate, but a possible reason may simply be timing: "Idol" has still not formally announced the songwriting competition (the winning song would air in the finale) so how could Fox greenlight an "all-star" edition until those details are completed?

Meanwhile, Lythgoe again debunked rumors that he'd approached Courtney Love to be a judge. And what of Akron Watson, the Dallas contestant who got a ticket to Hollywood only to be told he was not going after all? Press reports cited a prior conviction for marijuana possession, but Watson said he had revealed this on his application.

Said Lythgoe: "We are informed at the end of the day [by Fox] that you can't invite this person or persons, and we don't ask why. To be frank, we're not interested. If Fox believes it will damage the show... then it's best they just don't come along."

Oh yes, a predictable question about "cruelty," as in -- hasn't "Idol" (read Simon) been meaner this season? "We're no crueler this year than any other year."

And Cowell's infamous "bush baby" remark to one contestant? "A bush baby isn't even a monkey... .A bush baby has beautiful, big eyes... .I don't find it derogatory."

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/am-idol0209,0,3778272,print.story?coll=ny-television-headlines

Critic’s Notebook
On 'Brothers & Sisters,' engaging drama is all in the family
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher”


Good read, and I agree, most of the characters on this show are more believable than on most TV shows.

Me too. I was originally put off by all the confusion over the pilot and the cast change.

So I TiVoed B&S but I never watched an episode until after the November sweep, then I sat down expecting to be very unimpressed. Quite the contrray: I went through all eight or nine episodes in two nights. I find it marvelous TV and now can't wait for Sundays at 10.

Critic’s Notebook
ABC's 'Brothers' shows signs of maturing
By Robert Bianco USA TODAY

Few things in life can make you happier, or drive you crazier, than family.

So it's probably only fitting that the same can be said about TV's best family drama, ABC's Brothers & Sisters. Overstuffed and a bit of a mad jumble it may be, but after a stumbling start, this talent-rich hour has coalesced into one of the season's most joyfully endearing and entertaining series.

As often happens with new shows, particularly those from TV newbies, it took a while for Brothers to find its way. Created by playwright Jon Robin Baitz, Brothers had a notoriously rough gestation process, with producers, actors and plotlines coming and going with abandon.

Yet as notable as it may have been for its problems, Brothers was always even more notable for its promise — built upon Baitz's generous, all-inclusive approach to the strengths and weakness of modern family as interpreted by a cast and crew any show would envy.

On screen you had Calista Flockhart, Rachel Griffiths, Ron Rifkin, Patricia Wettig, Balthazar Getty, Matthew Rhys and, as the family matriarch, Sally Field. Behind the scenes you had Ken Olin, thirtysomething star turned producer/director. And to both complete and improve the picture, you have two very smart post-premiere additions: Rob Lowe as a love interest/star, and Everwood's Greg Berlanti as a producer.

You can see the improved results of their combined efforts Sunday in a witty Valentine's Day episode dedicated to the vagaries of love, sex, and '60s nostalgia. As an added treat, it boasts an amusing guest shot by Margot Kidder as a friend who leads Field's Nora Walker down a garden path she quickly comes to regret.

Anyone who hasn't watched Brothers since its earlier outings may be surprised by how well the family gets along these days. The original mystery/tragedy (the death of the Walker patriarch and his pilfering of the family business's pension account) has been dumped, along with much of the angst it provoked.

There are still business troubles galore, many driven by dad's mistress (Wettig). But freed from family secrets, the battles now feel more organic and real.

Equally wise has been the rehabilitative work done on Flockhart's Kitty, who has left her job as a conservative talk-show star to work for a Republican senator (Lowe). It's a much better fit for Flockhart, who never seemed either flamboyant or aggressive enough for talk-show fame, and it has allowed the show to jettison most of its political diatribes. Brothers still explores the family's political divides, but it does so in a way that is far less argumentative and preachy.

Actually, Kitty herself kicks off Sunday's parade of Valentine's Day massacres, waking up in bed with her boss and immediately calling her sister, Sarah (Griffiths, whose radiant warmth will shock those who only know her from Six Feet Under).

As the family phone tree spreads, we find out that Kevin (Rhys), the gay brother, and Justin (Dave Annable), the troubled brother, have both made iffy choices. Best of all, Mom has made a choice that landed her in jail. ("This family should have a bat signal for things that good.")

The comedy and crisis are, as usual, exaggerated for effect. But they're built upon a foundation of universally recognizable family truths, from the siblings' skill at mixing support and criticism in the same sentence, to the mother's struggle to adapt to age and change and grief. The skill and strength Field brings to that struggle is not to be missed.

And while you're watching, note the matter-of-fact equivalency granted to Kevin's relationships. Neither neglected nor highlighted, they're treated with as much seriousness, or lack thereof, as any other.

Brothers still has a fondness for chaos, veering from the silly in one scene to the melodramatic in the next. But as other problems resolve, those tonal shifts may lessen as well. Or they'll just become one of those quirks you learn to accept, and maybe even to like.

Which is how family works sometimes.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/reviews/2007-02-08-brothers-sisters-preview_x.htm

Good read, and I agree, most of the characters on this show are more believable than on most TV shows.

I agree completely. It one of my top five shows to watch on my listed of recorded shows. The whole family seems believable. Calista Flockhart has really surpassed by expectations. I knew that she would be good b/c as a actress she probably has matured, but man is she blowing me away.

Gotta love those liberals acting like conservatives. :) :D :)

That's why they call it acting, Dave! :)

Obituary
Anna Nicole Smith, 39
Thoughts

I haven’t put anything about the death of Anna Nicole Smith here today because, frankly, the story was very well covered all over the web and TV.

But some of the people I post often have written some of their feelings about her death.

So here are a few of the ones I think are most worth your time.

From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher”
http://tempo.typepad.com/entertainment_tv/

By Roger Catlin Hartford Courant TV Critic in his “TV Eye” blog
http://blogs.courant.com/roger_catlin_tv_eye/

By Ray Richmond The Hollywood Reporter in his blog “Past Deadline”
http://www.pastdeadline.com/

By Michael Malone in the Broadcasting and Cable “BC Beat” blog:
http://broadcastingcable.com/blog/1380000138.html

By Melanie McFarland Seattle Post-Intelligencer TV Critic in her TV blog:
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/

And if somehow you are in the mood for a sarcastic, snarky and arrogant take you could hardly do better than Abby Goodnough and Margalit Fox in The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/us/09smith.html?hp&ex=1170997200&en=bc4eb532cc7753e1&ei=5094&partner=homepage

TV Notebook
Average Super Bowl Commercial Nabbed 93 Million Viewers
By Steve McClellan Adweek February 8, 2007

Hewlett-Packard topped the ratings during CBS' Sunday telecast of the Super Bowl, according to Nielsen Media Research. Nielsen said that HP's spot was the highest rated commercial minute in the game, drawing 99.5 million viewers at 9:25 p.m. A Toyota Tundra spot was No. 2 with 99.1 million viewers at 8:55 p.m., and a Federal Express spot was third with 98.2 million at 8:58 p.m.

Rounding out the top five were a CBS promotion for CSI at 9 p.m., seen by 97.9 million viewers, and the Nationwide ad with Kevin Federline, which drew 97.7 million at 8:59 p.m.

The average commercial in the game was viewed by almost 93 million people, Nielsen said. The average drop in viewing between the game and the commercials was less than 1 percent, Nielsen said. By comparison, CBS has said that the typical falloff during normal programming is approximately 5 percent.

Like Mediaweek and Adweek, Nielsen Media Research is a unit of the Nielsen Co.

A total of 101 separate commercials aired in the game, including about 60 paid ads from consumer marketers. Most of the rest were promotions for CBS shows, along with a few spots from the National Football League.

Commercials from CareerBuilder.com and Doritos had the highest same-day DVR playback, scoring an additional 2.5 million viewers. CareerBuilder also saw the biggest traffic boost to its Web site from game day through Monday, with an increase of 148 percent, Nielsen said. HP's Web site traffic boost was second with a 74 percent gain.

Bud and Bud Light commercials had the biggest online "buzz," combining for 20 percent of all post-game online discussion, the ratings company said. Nationwide and Snickers ads tied for second in the buzz category, each generating about 10 percent of post-game chatter online. Doritos' ads generated a combined 8 percent of online buzz, Bud Light's "Rock, Paper, Scissors" ad attracted a bit more than 7 percent and the GM robot ad had 6 percent.

People viewing the game via HDTV sets had a 15 percent higher recall of commercials, Nielsen said.

Anheuser-Busch was the largest advertiser in the game with five minutes of airtime. Coca-Cola was No. 2 with three minutes. General Motors and Pepsi-Cola each sponsored 2.5 minutes in the game.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003543551

That's why they call it acting, Dave! :)Yeah, she's really surprising me though. She's playing the part well, much better than I expected after Ally McBeal. She and Rob Lowe actually go well together too and that's another surprise. Good show, glad I didn't write it off as another sappy night-time soap.

I think Rob Lowe has added a wonderful dimension to what was already a very good show.

And I agree about Calista. By the end of "Ally" I thought she was almost unwatchable.

But she is just great in "B&S".

I'm with pwrmetal on this one. Battlestar Galactica became a joke of a show to me during its second season. I found little to no enjoyment out of that season (in contrast to the mini and first seasons, which I thought were excellent and great, respectively).

The second season just stunk it up, IMO. I bailed after the finale and watched the first act of the season 3 opener, after hearing good things about it.

Just as bad as the previous season. So I'm done with it. Tis a shame that something can go from being so good, to so becoming so bad in such a short amount of time. There is a reason there was a shedding of the audience during its second season (at least I'd like to think so).

Sorry you feel that way. Me, I see it entirely differently, and so do the other fans that appreciate the subtilty and allegory of this show, and understand what it's trying to do over a multiple season arc. But for those who are fans of cardboard cut-out characters and one-note plotlines devoid of any nuance, don't fret: 'Star Trek' will be back on the airwaves someday. The rest of us who do appreciate the extraordinary will enjoy this spectacular piece of television while we have the opportunity.

Well said archiguy!

And if somehow you are in the mood for a sarcastic, snarky and arrogant take you could hardly do better than Abby Goodnough and Margalit Fox in The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/us/09smith.html?hp&ex=1170997200&en=bc4eb532cc7753e1&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Thanks, my daily dose of NY Times liberal sarcasm perks me up like no cup of coffee ever could! :)

I wouldn't call it liberal sarcasm.

Just very, very, elitist.

TV Sports
Kerry Joins Fans Upset by the Plan for Extra Innings
By Richard Sandomir The New York Times February 9, 2007

The pending deal to shift Major League Baseball’s Extra Innings package exclusively to DirecTV starting in April is still not ready to be announced, but Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, would like to undo it.

In that desire, he is no different from the many fans enraged that Extra Innings — a 10-channel service that transmits out-of-market games for $179 a year — will disappear from cable TV homes altogether, and will be available only to DirecTV subscribers or, under baseball’s banner, on mlb.com.

“Here’s what bothers me,” Kerry said yesterday in a telephone interview. “You get M.L.B. and DirecTV marshaling their forces to go out and make money while cutting out fans. In my judgment, more fans watching games strengthens baseball.”

He added, “There’s a whole movement toward fans being screwed by consolidation which raises prices and reduces options.”

DirecTV has agreed to pay $700 million over seven years to carry Extra Innings and a new baseball channel (which will begin in 2009).

Kerry isn’t sure the deal can be scotched, but last week he wrote to Kevin Martin, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, asking him to investigate it.

“The F.C.C. doesn’t have the right to say, ‘You can’t do this,’ but they have levers that affect this business,” said Kerry, who sits on the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees communications.

Kerry’s demand to alter the deal aligns with the desire of Dan Asnis, a Mets fan from South Brunswick, N.J., who started an online petition to keep Extra Innings on cable.

“I felt frustrated that this was happening, and that fans like me had no say in it,” he said in a telephone interview. Asnis bought Extra Innings last season to watch teams whose games affected the Mets. He said he would not switch to DirecTV, but would buy mlb.tv, which streams games on mlb.com.

Asnis’s plea on the Internet — **************.com/MLBCABLE/petition.html — had gathered 848 signatures by late yesterday afternoon.

“We just feel helpless,” he said.

If Asnis feels helpless, Senator Arlen Specter does not. Last year, when he was still the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, fulminated about the antitrust implications of some of the National Football League’s TV practices, such as its exclusive deals since 1994 to sell its Sunday Ticket package of out-of-market games to DirecTV.

Now, Specter said by telephone: “Since I found out about the baseball deal, I’ve asked my antitrust people to do research to confirm my preliminary judgment that it’s an antitrust violation. But I don’t think I’ll be able to stop it.”

Baseball has a longstanding, Supreme Court-blessed exemption from antitrust laws, except for its labor dealings, which were removed in 1998.

“You can’t charge baseball with an antitrust violation,” Specter said, but Congress could continue the exemption on the condition that baseball avoids exclusive deals like the one it will soon announce with DirecTV.

Still, even that exemption, which some say is not fully defined in its scope, may not protect baseball from a serious antitrust challenge to the DirecTV deal. Gabe Feldman, an associate professor at Tulane Law School, said, “A few courts have said the exemption does not apply when baseball makes agreements with third parties.”

Unlike baseball, the N.F.L. lacks a broad, if ambiguous, exemption. But it has had a narrow one (as other leagues do) to collectively sell its teams’ broadcast rights as permitted by the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, an exemption that Specter would like to get rid of. He joked that he was selling rights to his regular squash games to DirecTV.

In 1997, a group of DirecTV subscribers filed a class-action suit against the N.F.L. in Federal District Court in Philadelphia saying that the Sunday Ticket package violated antitrust laws partly because it was sold exclusively. The plaintiffs settled for an undisclosed sum before a definitive judgment. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling that the 1961 law applied to broadcast deals, not those made with a satellite service.

Disgruntled former cable (or Dish Network) subscribers of Extra Innings may take a similar route to court. But their success is far from guaranteed.

In its defense, baseball may argue that it has not restricted the output of games by selling Extra Innings to DirecTV because the games will also be on mlb.tv (and, besides, there is so much local and national baseball on TV).

“Baseball might say there is a process under way that is merging Internet streaming with TV, and anyone who wants the package can go to mlb.com,” said Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith College.

But baseball may open itself to a counterargument that because it controls mlb.com, it is offering an option to its DirecTV deal — a type of eyebrow-arching vertical integration — that is not purely competitive, with a price that it sets on its own.

Meanwhile, we wait for baseball to speak.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/sports/baseball/09sandomir.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

TV Sports
DirecTV hit is out of some parks
By Susan Bickelhaupt Boston Globe February 9, 2007

Blogs are popping up all over, and e-mails are being written fast, furiously, and passionately.

"I love Major League Baseball's 'Extra Innings' but I hate greed" is the underlying theme of virtually every correspondence.

The subject is not exorbitant ticket prices or players' salaries, but the likelihood Major League Baseball will move its "Extra Innings" pay-per-view package exclusively to DirecTV.

DirecTV has proposed a $700 million deal for seven years to MLB, which will be available to 15 million subscribers. The "Extra Innings" package has been available for five years on cable, DirecTV, or the Dish Network to about 75 million viewers.

The package costs $179 a season, but InDemand sources said that price is not the bottom line; MLB wants to launch a baseball channel, similar to the NFL Network.

Major League Baseball and DirecTV would not comment on the matter, but with the season weeks away, fans might be tuned out unless they switch to DirecTV.

Senator John Kerry is calling for an investigation and wrote a letter to Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin. "I am opposed to anything that deprives people of reasonable choices," Kerry wrote. "In this day and age, consumers should have more choices -- not fewer. A Red Sox fan ought to be able to watch their team without having to switch to DirecTV."

That's exactly how John Tierney feels. He is a Red Sox fan living in Syracuse, N.Y., and he expressed dismay. "Ever since the package was available to my cable company [Time Warner], I bought it and I love it," said Tierney. "My wife and I center our lives around it in the summer. Football was always on DirecTV, but that's just once a week. Baseball was on cable, and now they're taking it away. Then they tell me I can watch it on the computer; well, that's no good, I sit in front of a computer enough all day.

"This is heartbreaking, really."

"Since I live in an apartment complex and am unable to have a dish, I will be terribly disappointed if this happens," wrote Mary Dana of Medway. Ditto for Susan Scanlon, a Yankees fan living in a townhouse in Boston who "doesn't have access to a dish/satellite service, but I watch 90 percent of the games."

Bob Levine of Marlborough was one of the hundreds who e-mailed InDemand with his displeasure.

He said his house doesn't have the needed exposure for a dish, and getting the game on streaming video is inadequate.

"This whole thing stinks," he said. "MLB has revenues in the billions; why alienate so many people?"

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2007/02/09/directv_hit_is_out_of_some_parks?mode=PF

Fred,

Do you ever sleep???

TV Sports
ESPN can always count on 'SportsCenter'
By Larry Stewart Los Angeles Times Staff Writer February 9, 2007
(All times are Pacific)

The first ESPN press release arrived Jan. 25. Others followed and there was a conference call with reporters Thursday to generate more interest.

The big event, according to ESPN, was the 30,000th edition of "SportsCenter." A special 90-minute edition, featuring highlights from past "SportsCenter" shows, will be televised Sunday at 8 p.m.

One of the first questions on the conference call was: Whose job is it to count how many "SportsCenters" have there been since ESPN launched on Sept. 7, 1979?

Actually, it's not that tough of a job, because ESPN, which rarely misses an opportunity at self-promotion, previously celebrated the 10,000th, the 20,000th and 25,000th editions of "SportsCenter." So, as publicist Josh Krulewitz pointed out on the call, only the last 5,000 had to be counted.

That's a relief.

The hosts of the 30,000th "SportsCenter" will be Stuart Scott and Steve Levy. Coincidentally, a man named Stuart Evey, an executive for Getty Oil, was a key figure in getting ESPN launched. He convinced his company to put up the money.

Not all went well with the first "SportsCenter." The first live remote featured Colorado coach Chuck Fairbanks from Boulder. It had video but no audio.

ESPN also announced on Thursday's conference call the creation of the "SportsCenter Minute" that will run each morning on ESPN.com. It will provide a quick glimpse of the previous night's "SportsCenter."

• • • • • • • • • • •

• The next edition of HBO's "Real Sports With Bryant Gumbel" on Monday at 10 p.m. profiles Mark Cuban and also has a segment on brothers Joe and Jerry Crawford, the sons of baseball umpire Shag Crawford. Jerry followed his father's path and is a baseball umpire; Joe is an NBA referee.

• HBO will have live coverage Saturday night at 6:45 of the boxing card featuring Shane Mosley against Luis Collazo at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas.

• Versus and the Tennis Channel, continuing a partnership that began last year, will share coverage of this weekend's Davis Cup matches between the U.S. and the Czech Republic.

• TNT has hired NASCAR Nextel Cup driver Kyle Petty as an analyst. He won’t drive in five of the six races the network will televise from June 10 to July 15. In the other one — June 24 at Sonoma, Calif. — and offer commentary from his race car.

Asked if he might turn off his microphone if somehow he ends up in contention late in the race, Petty said, "If I don't, I'll be so excited they'll need a 15-second delay."

• In Sunday night's edition of "The Apprentice: Los Angeles" airing on NBC at 9, candidates vie to shoot hoops with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy and Phil Jackson.

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-spw-tvcol9feb09,0,2947927,print.story?coll=cl-tvent

Critic’s Notebook
Concerning Sting, a lute and the Grammys Police reunion
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher” February 09, 2007

Sunday’s Grammy Awards, barring any legal injunctions, should give YouTubers a field day this year.

I know I’ll tune in to see the Police reunion on the broadcast, but as for the rest of the endless Grammy slog, no thanks. I’ll read about the good performances the next day, then look for video of those songs online (I hope CBS saves me the trouble and posts the best stuff online a.s.a.p.). How about you?

It’s good to know, by the way, that Sting hasn’t given up the rock altogether. Last month at the Television Critics Association press tour, Sting gave a performance for critics in one of the Pasadena Ritz’s swankiest ballrooms (to promote a Feb. 20 PBS "Great Performances" program on PBS). The stage was lit by candles, and der Stinger wore a Renaissance-y frock coat as he and a gifted accompanist played centuries-old songs on lutes.

Yes, lutes.

It was all so tasteful. So historically accurate. And even quite melodic, at times.

But I couldn’t help feeling like an extra in an outtake from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” (I kept humming, “Brave Sir Robin,” the minstrel’s tune from that film).

After half an hour, I fled, thinking, “This is the music they play in the spa in hell.”

Most everyone else at the performance thought it was lovely (and, as you probably do, they thought I was a cretin for leaving).

But did they obsessively listen to “Zenyatta Mondatta” and “Regatta de Blanc” for years?

Did they overanalyze every lyric from “Ghost in the Machine” and “Synchronicity”? I’m sorry, I just know which Sting I like, and though I do appreciate his great solo singles, I’m a Police fan from way back. Ye Olde Lute Tunes just didn’t do it for me. Sorry.

I was sad, though, that I missed the handful of Police tunes Sting played at the end of his set that night. On the lute.

Nothing against lutes. In fact, how cool would it be to hear "Walking on the Moon," lute-style?

Anyway, after the performance, Sting talked about the possibility of rejoining with his Police bandmates to mark the 30th anniversary of the group’s formation. Though I get as tired as anyone else of the endless parade of nostalgia that passes for the summer concert season, I’m glad that possibility is in the air.

If they do tour, all I ask is, Please, Sting, don’t make Andy Summers play a lute. Much.

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

Yesterday’s metered market over-night prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted just near the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.

TV Q&A
Ask Matt
(from the Ask Matt column at TVGuide.com
By Matt Roush: TVGuide.com TV Critic February 9, 2007

Question: I understand that 30 Rock is going on a break for several weeks. Should I be worried? I love the show and thought it was doing at least decently, if not fantastically.— John K.

Matt Roush: Don't sweat this one needlessly. It's standard operating procedure in the spring, when a number of shows temporarily take a rest to give mid-season shows a tryout — in this case, Andy Richter's Andy Barker, P.I., which takes over 30 Rock's time period starting March 15. At least 30 Rock's return date has already been set: April 19, just in time for May sweeps. (Not so lucky: Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, which is taking an early hiatus starting March 5 to make room for The Black Donnellys. NBC says the rest of Studio 60's season will air, but has not disclosed when or where.) Of all of NBC's Thursday comedies, 30 Rock is probably the most vulnerable, and it was the expected choice to make way for a mid-season hopeful. So while you shouldn't be worried, you also shouldn't be 100 percent confident that it's a shoo-in for renewal. While I still believe NBC will stick with it, it's not a done deal. But that has little to do with the mid-season shuffle — unless, of course, Andy Barker becomes an unlikely hit, at which point all bets are off.

Question: I read your comments on the Super Bowl and Criminal Minds, and as I expected, you didn't like the episode. Why is it such a big deal to you that Criminal Minds is a hit? I have read your reviews through the years, and honestly, I don't get Lost or Buffy or a variety of things that you seem to love. I am a huge fan of The X-Files, so I do agree with you at times. But why do so many critics seem to be upset about the success of Criminal Minds? How about this: Some people like it, and each Wednesday they decide to sit down and watch it and not watch the other shows.— Jen

Matt Roush: It doesn't surprise me that I got a number of "lay off Criminal Minds" letters in the wake of my post-Super Bowl rant. Believe me, I'm perfectly happy to ignore the show and let those who enjoy it do so, but when the network rubs the nation's collective nose in this squalid trash by putting it on after the Super Bowl, I figure I'm just doing my job. I'd rather write passionately about what I love rather than what I hate, and for the most part I feel that's what I do. But if I can't write with equal passion about a show that I detest, whose success troubles me and whose quality absolutely escapes me, then I'm not fully expressing myself. And what good is that? I appreciate passion from any corner, even when I disagree, which is why I welcomed the following e-mail (at least up to a point).

Question: I don't think you have ever said anything good about Criminal Minds, and your negative comments have sure become old. Well, guess what? Many senior citizens like myself (and we are old, too) love the program! Best show on the air. It is different from standard reality shows and CSI's cut-up bodies, and it focuses on the minds of all — young, old, weak, strong. If it were not that I enjoy so many other good sections of TV Guide, I would not buy it, mainly because of comments and criticisms like yours. I know you are a critic, and your job is to be negative about pretty much everything you see. However, do you ever see any good in anything you review? You have an absolutely wonderful smile in your photos, but is it real? Yes, Criminal Minds is a dark-truth drama and scary in many ways. Criminal Minds makes us think and see what the world is up against. Does it make us "criminal minds" ourselves? I doubt it! Quite the opposite. Some of us try to become better people and counteract the bad elements we have become aware of in the big, wide world. If a show can bring that out in someone, then it must have some good to it! I am 66, and I feel that Criminal Minds has broadened my knowledge of "what makes people tick" more than any other show I have seen. This will benefit me in understanding and working with the public in my future projects. At these later years of my life, I gain more from drama, good characters and colorful locations than I ever do from boring, negative newscasts. I just wanted to share my thoughts about a program you have a "mind" against. Thanks for reading this!— Joyce F.

Matt Roush: And thanks for writing so passionately. I do, however, wonder if you only focus on the negative things I write, because I've often been told that I like (or even love) an unusual amount of TV. If I didn't love TV, I'd be useless. But I can't love all TV. That would make me ridiculous. I am often disappointed in TV (this season, Studio 60 is probably my candidate for most disappointing show, tied with Gilmore Girls), and at times, I'm even appalled, as with Criminal Minds, VH1 reality shows and FX's Dirt, to name a few. Still, it's frankly insulting to be accused of not seeing anything "good" on TV, just because I find this dour show to be a waste of time. And while I appreciate Joyce's arguments, how in the world are "CSI's cut-up bodies" more objectionable than a sick scene like in Sunday's Criminal Minds, when a half-clad woman is trussed up in a barn waiting for mad dogs to be unleashed to devour her? We didn't know anything about this woman except that she was an adulteress. She was completely objectified for gruesome exploitation. And no matter how much one tries to justify this show as a psychological thriller, the woodenness of the cast, the pretentiousness of the writing and the ugliness of the plotting is, for me, a total turn-off.

Question: As much as I dislike Criminal Minds, I'm still not convinced that How I Met Your Mother would've been the best choice for the post-Super Bowl slot. While there's no doubt that Minds was only chosen with the hope of it mirroring last year's Grey's Anatomy uptick, I believe that CBS should have chosen to air a completely new series in that coveted slot. After all, they consistently advertise themselves as "America's Most Watched Network," so why should they feel the need to waste the slot on a show that's already a hit? ABC did the right thing last year, since it was in the process of refueling its prime-time lineup over that previous year, but CBS should have gone original. Maybe How I Met Your Mother's Super Bowl-themed episode (which was fantastic) would have been more appropriate, but I don't think the show itself merited that slot. It's becoming increasingly difficult to launch a successful new series now, and CBS could have used this opportunity to launch the next great comedy or drama. I'm not saying the slot would guarantee success, but what could it hurt?— Anthony

Matt Roush: The rub here being: Did CBS have a brand-new show worthy of promotion in this time slot? From what I can tell, the answer is no. Certainly it would have been wasted on a mediocrity like the new Rules of Engagement. It has been a while since the Super Bowl lead-in was used to launch a new series. The recent strategy, and I agree with it, is that the best way to capitalize on the strength of this unique night is to put an established franchise there in hopes of either strengthening that show or at least giving the audience something to enjoy. Mother might not have been the best choice, but at least it would have been appropriate. What I objected to the most about the Criminal Minds scheduling is how it violated the tone of what had been up to that point an upbeat night (except, I suppose, for Bears fans). Looking back, I now wish they'd used the slot to launch the new all-star season of The Amazing Race. The only downside there would have been that the second episode wouldn't air for two weeks because the Grammys are filling CBS' schedule this weekend. Still, I'd much rather have seen that than what CBS subjected us to this year.

Question: Why is everyone so hard on Studio 60? After seeing a few episodes, I went and watched the entire series of The West Wing. A lot of the jokes and even some of the lines and conversations are the same. So why was one worshiped and the other so disrespected? Why do people expect one to be the same as the other? Why does everyone keep saying the characters are poorly developed, blah, blah, blah? It's television! It's not supposed to be real. It's supposed to be funny, dramatic and entertaining. You want "real," then watch the news!— Jessica S.

Matt Roush: The problem isn't that West Wing fans wanted Studio 60 to be the same — I think we were all hoping for something new and fresh. The problem is that too few people seem to find the show to be "funny, dramatic and entertaining," although clearly there are a number of loyalists who are still charmed by what they see. I seem to hear from them every week. (Jessica's certainly wasn't the only e-mail I got in the wake of Monday's attacks.) I'm sorry to say I've given up on Studio 60's prospects for self-improvement, but I keep watching in the way you do a train wreck. The West Wing managed the rare trick of being about something, in this case a romantic vision of public service, while also bringing a cast of impossibly glib and verbally adept characters to life with warmth, wit and class. After a promising start, Studio 60 soon lapsed into preachiness and preciousness, and despite an accomplished cast, the characters have steadfastly refused to come to life. Maybe that will improve with the upcoming episode that flashes back to the start of Harriet and Matt's relationship. It certainly couldn't get worse. As for the charge that "it's television" and thus "not supposed to be real," that again misses the point. When it comes to a show with this kind of pedigree, high expectations come with the territory. Studio 60 simply has failed to deliver.

Question: I share some of the discomfort about Danny's recent stalking on Studio 60. It was particularly creepy when Jordan asked him to back off and he said "no." What I'm surprised by is that people are acting like this is something strange for Aaron Sorkin. It may be written a bit less artfully, but this story line is vintage Sorkin. We've got the one romantic subplot of the "will they or won't they" tension between Matt and Harriet, and then we've got the "If she doesn't give in at first, stalk her till she admits her love" story line of Danny and Jordan. These same themes were present in Sorkin's previous shows. We had Josh and Donna on The West Wing and Casey and Dana on Sports Night doing the "will they or won't they" dance. With the "stalking" subplot, we've had Charlie and Zoey on West Wing and Dan and Rebecca on Sports Night. Sorkin's shows have contained other expressions of stalkerish love, such as when Natalie on Sports Night refused to acknowledge that Jeremy had broken up with her. I'm sure Sorkin thinks it's an expression of romantic love, but it just comes off kind of creepy. What's amazing, though, isn't that Sorkin put this stalking story line in Studio 60, but that no one seemed to notice it on his previous shows.— Jeff

Matt Roush: Perhaps it didn't create such a stir then because, on his earlier shows, the characters were more likable and the context surrounding the romantic subplots more credible. Those shows worked. This one doesn't.

Question: I have been a faithful fan of 24 ever since I caught it mid-season of Day 4. I even went back and watched all previous seasons on DVD. However, it seems to me this season has become all too predictable. With the exception of the nuclear bomb actually going off, there have not been too many "on the edge of your seat" moments. Even Jack killing Curtis was not a real shock. Do you think we have become desensitized after previous seasons and now simply expect the unexpected? Don't get me wrong, I still believe it is one of the best shows on television. However, I am finding (gasp!) my interest in the show starting to waver a bit.— D.J.B.

Matt Roush: Given your history with 24 (catching on late in Year 4, and then being treated to Season 5, easily one of the best seasons ever), you're now experiencing that can-you-top-this-and-if-not-how-dare-you sense of déjà vu that nearly every longtime 24 fan has learned how to deal with. At least there hasn't been a mole yet this season. Doesn't that count for something? I think viewers do become desensitized to just about anything after a while. There are only so many reversals, deaths, explosions, betrayals and cliff-hangers that a single show can deliver without being accused of repeating themselves or reaching for effect. I admit I was guilty of that sort of knee-jerk reaction this week when the illogic of the previous episode's let's-kidnap-dad-and-Jack cliff-hanger was spelled out for me. Still, I would argue that the fact that Jack actually pulled the trigger on Curtis was pretty shocking, and furthermore, it might help to keep reminding ourselves that a nuclear bomb just went off, effectively wiping out Valencia, plus we just learned that both Jack's brother and father are evil (or in the case of Graem, were). You have to be pretty numb, or cynical, not to give the show props for taking these sorts of bold, dark moves.

Question: I believe I read (last year) that Kate Walsh was originally supposed to be on Grey's Anatomy for a limited time. When did this change, and why? I think her character adds an important element to the show, and it is hard to think of how they would have done the last season without her.— Mike

Matt Roush: Call it a happy accident. When Addison was introduced as a season-ending shocker, it was as a spoiler to the McDreamy-Meredith relationship. At the time, no one was sure how the character would be received, and in lesser hands and with a lesser actor, Addison might have been just another soap-opera bitch who could easily have been written out of the show once her usefulness was exhausted. But thankfully, Kate Walsh brought so much to the role, turning Addison into one of the more nuanced characters in this ensemble, that keeping her around for the long term was a no-brainer.

Question: I am new to your columns, so I'm not sure if you even follow Beauty and the Geek on the CW, but I want to ask your opinion just in case. I used to adore this show. I loved that they chose (for the most part) thoughtful, interesting, cute, sensitive people who were truly interested in growth. I remember being pleasantly surprised that the beauties, in particular, didn't seem like your normal reality show "hot chicks" who were just in it to be catty and to be on TV. But this season has been an overwhelming disappointment in that regard, and seems to be just like any other cheap reality show, focusing more on catfights and secret romances than on the point of the show. Ceci has got to be one of the most repugnant reality-show characters I've ever seen. I would expect someone like her on Flavor of Love, not on my former favorite reality show! Now that Mario and Nadia are gone, I don't think I can watch anymore. Do you think this change is because of the new network?— Sarah

Matt Roush: Don't hate the show just because you hate one contestant. Beauty and the Geek still strikes me as one of TV's more agreeable reality shows. And as obnoxious as Ceci is (though she has turned out to be a strong player), her partner Nate is so lovable and his transformation so impressive that you still want to root for them (or at least him). The way the blondes ganged up on the other beauties this season was unfortunate, but what would any self-respecting reality show be without a villain? Ceci more than fits that bill.

Question: As usual, I am hooked on several shows that are on life support. Your support and love for Friday Night Lights and Veronica Mars are well known, but you haven't had much to say on The Knights of Prosperity. What are its chances for survival? Why does it have to air opposite Friday Night Lights? Are these two shows, both in need of a hand, going to bleed off each other's already limited support? And why does this sound like a cliff-hanger? I'll just end with "Tune in next week..."— Rick C.

Matt Roush: Or: "Tune in as long as ABC lets you." There's no question Knights is on a perilous bubble, but what ABC comedy worth its salt isn't? Actually, this season, there's only one ABC sitcom that even qualifies, and that's Knights. If only this truly offbeat show had landed at NBC, or on cable (FX would have been perfect, or maybe TBS), it would at least be nurtured, though the likelihood of it actually being a hit anywhere is a long shot. On ABC, it's stranded on a desolate island that makes Lost look like a metropolis. Knights' best chance is if it continues to grow a bit in its new time period, moved away from the Idol juggernaut. ABC might respond to the modest media buzz around it (I like it, but admit I've fallen a bit behind because of the congestion on Wednesdays), and if ABC's comedy development is as pitiful next season as it has been the last few years, maybe they'll give these underdogs a second chance. Too early to tell just yet.

http://www.tvguide.com/News-Views/Columnists/Ask-Matt/Default.aspx#0130rock

(From Marc Berman’s Friday, Feb. 9, 2007, Programming Insider column and blog at Mediaweek.com )
http://pifeedback.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63310451/m/55210923
Overnight Ratings for Thursday, February 8th
Metered Market Ratings

Household Rating/Share
CBS: 11.3/17
ABC: 11.1/17
NBC: 6.2/ 9
CW: 3.1/ 5
Fox: 2.7/ 4

Percent Change From the Comparable Year-Ago Evening (Thursday 2/09/06)
(The CW is compared to Smallville and Beauty and the Geek on the WB)
ABC: + 6
CW: - 9
NBC: -15
CBS: -20
Fox: -25

fast national ratings (Live Plus Same Day data)

Total Viewers:
CBS: 17.84 million
ABC: 16.72
NBC: 8.78
Fox: 4.14
CW: 3.75

Adults 18-49:
ABC: 6.5 rating/16 share
CBS: 5.6/14
NBC: 4.0/10
Fox: 1.8/ 4
CW: 1.5/ 4

Yesterday’s Winners:
Survivor: Fiji (CBS)
Ugly Betty (ABC)
Grey’s Anatomy (ABC)
CSI (CBS)

Honorable Mention:
My Name is Earl (NBC),
he Office (NBC)
Shark (CBS)
ER (NBC)

Yesterday’s Losers (excluding repeats):
The War at Home (Fox)
30 Rock (NBC)
The O.C. (Fox)
Supernatural (CW)
Men in Trees (ABC)

Ratings Breakdown:

ABC and CBS shared leadership on this second Thursday of the Feb. 2007 sweeps, with CBS the most-watched network (1.12 million more viewers, on average, than ABC), and the alphabet net No. 1 among adults 18-49. NBC finished a typical third, followed by Fox and the CW’s combination of Smallville and Supernatural.

In season-premiere news, CBS’ Survivor: Fiji finished first in both total viewers (16.68 million) and adults 18-49, with a 5.8 rating/15 share in the demo. That beat ABC’s second-place Ugly Betty (Viewers: 14.30 million; A18-49: 4.7/12) by a healthy 2.38 million viewers and 23 percent among adults 18-49. Comparatively, the year-ago edition of Survivor: Panama opened with 19.19 million viewers and a 7.0/18 among adults 18-49 on Feb. 2, 2006, and the more recent Survivor: Cook Islands kicked-off with 17.43 million viewers and a 6.5/18 in the demo on Sept. 21, 2006. While each edition of Survivor tends to lose some steam, it remains a viable top 10-rated entity for CBS. And last night’s launch was considerably more satisfying creatively than recent editions. One look at the Sylvester Stallone clone and I knew his name had to be Rocky!

Also in the 8 p.m. hour were NBC comedies My Name is Earl (Viewers: #3, 9.56 million; A18-49: #2t, 4.2/11) and The Office (Viewers: #3, 8.85 million; A18-49: #3, 4.4/11), which are worthy of honorable mention due to the strength of the demos, the CW’s Smallville (Viewers: #5, 4.67 million; A18-49: #5, 1.8/ 5), and Fox sitcoms ‘Til Death (Viewers: #4, 5.02 million; A18-49: #4, 2.0/ 5) and The War at Home (Viewers: #5, 4.41 million; A18-49: #5, 1.9/ 5). There was nothing unusual to report from 8-9 p.m. last night.

ABC maintained dominance at 9 p.m. care of Grey’s Anatomy, which launched its three-part episode with a hefty 24.95 million viewers and a 10.7/25 among adults 18-49. Comparably, that built from already potent lead-in Ugly Betty by 10.65 million viewers and 128 percent among adults 18-49. A solid second in the hour was CBS’ CSI (Viewers: 22.28 million; A18-49: 6.8/16), followed by NBC’s Scrubs (Viewers: 6.22 million; A18-49: 3.1/ 7) and 30 Rock (Viewers: 5.09 million; A18-49: 2.5/ 6) in the distant No. 3 spot. Given the ongoing erosion, is anyone really convinced that 30 Rock will really catch on?

Rounding off the 9 p.m. hour were Fox’s soon-to-conclude The O.C. (Viewers: 3.57 million; A18-49: 1.6/ 4) and the CW's Supernatural (Viewers: 2.83 million; A18-49: 1.2/ 3), which disappointed with retention out of Smallville of 61 percent in total viewers and 67 percent among adults 18-49. Sorry, Supernatural, but competing The O.C.’s advantage of 740,000 viewers and 33 percent among adults 18-49 makes you a loser this week.

CBS and NBC shared bragging rights at 10 p.m., with ABC’s recently relocated Men in Trees tied with the Eye net’s Shark for No. 2 among adults 18-49. Take a look:

10-11 p.m.
Shark (CBS)
Viewers: 14.56 million (#1), A18-49: 4.1/11 (#2t)

ER (NBC)
Viewers: 11.50 million (#2), A18-49: 4.8/13 (#1)

Men in Trees (ABC)
Viewers: 10.90 million (#3), A18-49: 4.1/11 (#2t)

As a basis of analysis, here is the percent change from the lead-in for all three series:

Shark out of CSI
Viewers: -35, A18-49: -40

ER out of 30 Rock
Viewers: +126, A18-49: +92

Men in Trees out of Grey’s Anatomy
Viewers: -56, A18-49: -62

In a nutshell:
1. Shark is strong enough for a second season, but the fall-off from CSI this week demotes it to honorable mention.
2. Growth for ER out of 30 Rock is admirable, but the continued audience erosion from recent season makes it also worthy of only honorable mention.
3. Too much fall-off for Men in Tees out of Grey’s Anatomy means the network is sharpening the axe.

• Source: Nielsen Media Research data

Note: Previous overnight ratings are available at Marc Berman’s blog:
http://pifeedback.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/63310451

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Slide in ratings for returning 'Survivor'
CBS reality show pulls a 5.8 in adults 18-49
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Feb. 9, 2007

CBS’s “Survivor” continued its slow fade last night, posting its lowest-ever rating for a season premiere.

The show averaged a 5.8 among adults 18-49, according to Nielsen overnights, down 8 percent from last fall’s 6.3 average for its premiere.

Still, the long-running reality show maintained first place in what’s become a very competitive timeslot. During “Survivor’s” two-month hiatus, competing shows “Ugly Betty” on ABC and “My Name is Earl” and “The Office” on NBC hit season or near-season highs.

And last night all four programs averaged a 4.2 rating or above, which is quite rare these days on broadcast.

“Survivor” is coming off of its lowest-rated season and is now in its 14th incarnation. While it’s not the powerhouse it once was, it remains a top show for CBS in the demo, and no other reality show has demonstrated such impressive staying power for so long.

Meanwhile last night, ABC’s Thursday lineup continued its impressive ratings surge. At 8 p.m., “Ugly Betty” matched last week’s 4.7 rating, its second-best of the season.

“Grey’s Anatomy” posted its second-best rating of the season, a 10.7, for the first of a three-parter, just 0.3 behind its season debut in September. And “Men in Trees” hit a series high for the third straight week with a 4.1, though that is expected to adjust downward when final ratings are released as “Grey’s” ran slightly longer than its 10 p.m. end-time.

ABC finished first for the night among viewers 18-49 with a 6.5 average rating and a 16 share. CBS was second at 5.6/14, NBC third at 4.0/10, Univision fourth at 1.8/5, Fox fifth at 1.8/4 and CW sixth at 1.5/4.

A different network led each hour over the course of the night, and CBS started on top with a 5.8 rating at 8 p.m. for “Survivor.” ABC was second with a 4.7 for “Betty,” NBC third with a 4.3 average for “Earl” (4.2) and “Office” (4.4), and Univision fourth with a 2.3 for “La Fea Mas Bella.” Fox was fifth with a 1.9 average for “’Til Death” (2.0) and “The War at Home” (1.9) and CW sixth with a 1.8 for “Smallville.”

It was ABC’s turn on top at 9 p.m., as “Grey’s” posted 10.7 rating, the night’s top show among 18-49s. CBS fell to second with a 6.8 for “CSI,” with NBC third with a 2.8 average for “Scrubs” (3.1) and “30 Rock” (2.5) and Univision fourth with a 1.7 for “Mundo de Fieras.” Fox finished fifth that hour with a 1.6 for “The O.C.” and CW sixth with a 1.2 for “Supernatural.”

At 10 p.m. NBC jumped into the lead with a 4.8 rating for “ER.” ABC and CBS tied for second at 4.1, ABC for “Men in Trees” and CBS for “Shark,” with Univision fourth with a 1.4 for “Aqui y Ahora.”

CBS grabbed a first-place finish for the night among households, averaging an 11.0 rating and a 17 share. ABC was second at 10.5/16, NBC third at 5.8/9, Fox fourth at 2.8/4, Univision fifth at 2.3/4 and CW sixth at 2.3/3.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_10106.asp

Critic’s Notebook
Keeping the (Friday Night) Lights On
By Matt Roush: TVGuide.com TV Critic February 9, 2007

I usually save these things for the Ask Matt Q&A, but I opened the following e-mail from Bill C shortly before watching this week’s episode of Friday Night Lights, and it haunted me (and, frankly, annoyed me) throughout the episode, which I found to be one of the most accessibly and endearingly entertaining of the entire season.

Here’s what Bill wrote: “Would it be a real tragedy if Friday Night Lights got canceled? It’s not like we’re talking about a show that, however good it is, does not [sic] match the consistency and creative heights of superior shows like 24, House and Grey’s Anatomy.”

Way to use the double negative there, a bit of a metaphor considering the disdain shown for one of the finest dramas network TV has produced in years.

In my world of TV appreciation, which has to be flexible enough to include everything from guilty pleasures to reality shows, there are two types of top-tier TV. First and foremost, there are the great entertainments, hours of sheer pleasure and excitement, a category to which 24 and Grey’s Anatomy surely belong. (House, on the other hand, I find to be a merely good show built around a great character.)

Then there’s the sort of TV that transcends TV, the occasional series that jolts us into a higher state of awe as we are introduced to characters and settings that seem so real, living lives that are so openly and honestly portrayed, that you can’t shake them from week to week. And regardless how long the show is allowed to survive, you know it’s something you’ll never forget.

Friday Night Lights is that sort of show. Right up there with the best of HBO (The Sopranos in its glory years, The Wire any given season) and the best of the Herskovitz-Zwick dramas (thirtysomething, Once and Again).

Would it be a tragedy if Friday Night Lights got canceled? Tragedy’s an awfully loaded word. A tragedy is what happened to the people in Florida recently. Tragedy is what happened (and is still happening) to Katrina’s victims. Tragedy is what’s happening in Iraq.

If Friday Night Lights got canceled, it would be a shame. It would have been a crying shame if it had been canceled before completing its first season. Thankfully, it looks as if NBC is giving the show a full run to play this gem of a season out. If that’s all we get, I can live with that. Because what we’re getting is exceptional TV.

This week’s episode alone dealt with issues of race, gender, family and personal relationships with an absorbing intimacy, honesty and range of emotions that I defy anyone to find anywhere else in prime time right now.

The tragedy, such as it is, is that more of America hasn’t discovered this wonderful show. In years to come, when people discover this show on DVD, they’ll wonder what they were thinking and where they were looking when Friday Night Lights was on its game. Which it is each and every week, at least for now.

http://community.tvguide.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800008112

The Business of TV
Court TV Back on Dish Network
By Anne Becker Broadcasting & Cable2/9/2007

After nearly a month and a half of stalled negotiations, Court TV is back on EchoStar's Dish satellite network.

The channel has been dark on Dish since 12:01 a.m. Jan. 1, when it was yanked from EchoStar’s system amid failed contract talks.

Turner-owned Court TV will now resume its former channel position 204 - part of Dish Network's AT200 package. Specific terms of the deal were not disclosed, although a statement from Turner said both sides were “pleased” with the arrangement.

Turner had said EchoStar was unwilling to pay a fair rate for its network and suggested Court TV viewers switch to Dish competitor DirecTV or cable to continue receiving the channel. EchoStar at the time said that it was looking out for the best interests of its customers and that Turner was seeking too much for CourtTV.

Court TV is owned by Time Warner, whose cable offering competes with Dish.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6415368

TV News Notebook
Gibson thinks old-style news more vital now
Phil Rosenthal Chicago Tribune Media Columnist February 9, 2007

On a day when his "World News" would open with new findings on the prevalence of autism in this country rather than the death of model/litigant Anna Nicole Smith, ABC anchor Charles Gibson was thinking aloud.

Now that people get what they want the way they want on the Internet, where does that leave those mainstream media outlets that, in traditional fashion, pair the news people want with the news it is thought they need?

"I'm getting on a high horse here, and I haven't really worked this through, but in many respects the oft-now-derided MSM become more important rather than less important in the Web age," said Gibson, who will anchor "World News" from Chicago on Monday and Tuesday.

"You are choosing the particular kind of news that's interesting to you. We become more important because our mission is to expose you to things you wouldn't have clicked on."

But businesses that don't give people what they want are at a distinct disadvantage to those that do. A newspaper or newscast that abdicates editorial judgment is not doing what it is supposed to do. But it's a tougher sell.

Gibson's Chicago visit will have a piece on behind the scenes at O'Hare, and a feature based on a Chicago Tribune story about a Marine who donated a kidney to his father and had to drop out of the service.

A story on the struggles of this paper's parent, Tribune Co., and other media companies was discussed but will not air. But that doesn't mean it is far from Gibson's mind.

"The fact that people are going to the Web and gravitating toward news that they want makes it more important for somebody putting together the front page of the Tribune to say, `Well, it's still important for you,'" he said.

That might sound like a defense of elitism to some.

"It's a defense of journalism," Gibson said. "It's not that we know better. ... It's not an elitist function. It's an editorial function. It is a function of taking a look at what's important in diet of daily news and saying, `Here's what I feel is important.'"

MURDOCH IS ANTI-SCANDAL: Fox Business Channel, News Corp.'s long-anticipated competition to General Electric's CNBC, will launch in the fourth quarter. "We want to be more business-friendly," News Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch said Thursday, casting CNBC as too negative.

"They leap on every scandal," Murdoch said, according to The Associated Press.

Not every scandal.

Ask Maria Bartiromo.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/chi-0702090051feb09,0,627955,print.column

Fred,

Nice FNL article I hope someone from NBC reads it

It is hard to criticize NBC on this one -- it sems to be doing everything it possibly can to get people to watch. I guess it just isn't the kind of show many want to invest the time and effort to see. That is sad.

I think this week's was an exceptional episode, even by FNL standards.

It is hard to criticize NBC on this one -- it sems to be doing everything it possibly can to get people to watch. I guess it just isn't the kind of show many want to invest the time and effort to see. That is sad.

I think this week's was an exceptional episode, even by FNL standards.

You are right about NBC and this week's episode was 1 of the best.

Critic’s Notebook
Keeping the (Friday Night) Lights On
By Matt Roush: TVGuide.com TV Critic February 9, 2007

In my world of TV appreciation, which has to be flexible enough to include everything from guilty pleasures to reality shows, there are two types of top-tier TV. First and foremost, there are the great entertainments, hours of sheer pleasure and excitement, a category to which 24 and Grey’s Anatomy surely belong. (House, on the other hand, I find to be a merely good show built around a great character.)

Then there’s the sort of TV that transcends TV, the occasional series that jolts us into a higher state of awe as we are introduced to characters and settings that seem so real, living lives that are so openly and honestly portrayed, that you can’t shake them from week to week. And regardless how long the show is allowed to survive, you know it’s something you’ll never forget.

But what about TV shows that are both jolt us (individually, not as a collective group of viewers) into a higher state of awe but are also quirky or unique-enough to fall under the 'guilty pleasure' banner? I'm a fan of short-lived and long-running shows that have disappeared leaving an insignificant bip of hardcore fandom in the TV universe (compared with fandom heavyweights like Lost or the Star Trek shows). To me some of these shows represent the TV medium at both its best and worst because many of the shows I like started awful/weak and then build/evolved into something truly special that trascended its own genre. But do I expect most people to relate and like the shows I do based on their own prejudices and biases? No, because they'd cease to be guilty pleasures but that doesn't stop them from being (IMHO) excellent TV shows even if few people watch them. Two words for your consideration: Veronica Mars (which I don't even watch but is brought often as an example of quality TV going mostly unwatched).

I've seen Friday Night Lights and I simply can't share the excitement and fandom it has endeared into most TV critics and discerning TV viewers in this forum. To me it's just a boring and meaningless show about the daily lives of characters doing things I don't care much for in a time and place I couldn't care less about. At least I, unlike most TV viewing folks, gave it a shot. My own personal biases, upbringing and likes/dislikes enter into my own reasoning for not liking 'FNL,' and it seems most of the country agrees with me on this particular show (which frightens me to no end). As a hardcore Studio 60 fan though, the same lack of kindness and understanding I'm showing 'FNL' is also being shown by other folks toward Aaron Sorkin's latest. In the end all you can do is make sure you videotape (on VHS or DVD) the shows that never make it enough into mainstream TV acceptance so you can relive the magic of what entertains and touches you more about the particular TV universes you endear yourself to. I know I'm glad I have shows like Mystery Science Theater 3000, She-Wolf of London, Sports Night, The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson (bootlegs of Johnny's shows from the 1970's are all over eBay), Dream On, The Secret World of Alex Mack, What's My Line? (1950-67), Larry Sanders, Late Night with David Letterman and Sailor Moon handy whenever the urge to watch something special to me isn't fulfilled by the 1,000+ cable universe at my disposal.

As you may have noticed by my diminished postings in the past day+ I am having serious computer problems. Hopefully they will be fixed by later in the afternoon.

(At the moment, I am unable to edit any previous post -- thus the Berman posting above instead of in his usual spot in the first post. And thus an inability to fix the normal typos and other errors I usually --finally!-- notice and go back to correct.)

But I will do my best to keep posting as often as pssoible until the problems get cleared up.

The Business of Television
Cartoon Net Exec Resigns Over Marketing Blunder in Boston
By Anne Becker Broadcasting & Cable 2/9/2007

On the heels of a major marketing blunder at his network, Cartoon Network chief Jim Samples has resigned.

Samples, Cartoon's Executive VP/GM has been at Cartoon parent company Turner for 13 years. He said due last week's failed Adult Swim marketing campaign, which caused much of the city of Boston to shut down, he felt "compelled" to step down, effective immediately.

"I deeply regret the negative publicity and expense caused to our company as a result of this campaign," Samples wrote in an internal memo to colleagues.

The campaign, featuring light boards with Cartoon Net characters on them, resulted in having to issue several apologies and being ordered to pay a $2 million fine by the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office. The City of Chicago also plans to bill Turner for the cost of taking down the electronic signs, according to newspaper reports.

The campaign caused the City of Boston to shut down roads and sent police and Homeland Security scrambling to deal with Turner signs, placed under bridges and other public places.

"It's my hope that my decision allows us to put this chapter behind us and get back to our mission of delivering unrivaled original animated entertainment for consumers of all ages," he said.

The network has not yet named Samples' replacement. Until they do, the network's senior team will report to Mark Lazarus, President of Cartoon's parent Turner Entertainment Group.

"Jim's decision to leave his post is a reflection of his regard for the business he helped build and the people he trusts to move it forward," said Turner Entertainment Group President Mark Lazarus in an internal memo to colleagues. "He has our respect, appreciation and sincere best wishes."

Samples' resignation comes at an unfortunate time for Cartoon; on Wednesday, senior executives from the Atlanta-based network plan to come to New York to make their annual "upfront" presentation of new programming and advertising opportunities to media buyers and the press.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6415441

The Business of Television
DirecTV May Delay Satellite Launch
By Linda Moss MultiChannel News 2/9/2007

DirecTV may delay the launch of one of its two new planned satellites this year, according to the company.

Earlier this week, during a fourth-quarter conference call, DirecTV president Chase Carey confirmed that the launch of the company’s first new satellite was still on target, set for this summer. But he suggested that the second planned satellite debut may be pushed back.

The company DirecTV plans to use for that launch, Sea Launch, suffered a setback late last month when a $300 million Dutch satellite it was launching exploded at liftoff at sea.

DirecTV’s plans to offer more than 100 HDTV services, announced at January’s Consumer Electronics Show, hinge on the deployment of new birds. At the CES, the company said it would launch two satellites this year.

“We are looking into options for launching the second satellite, and it could be delayed,” DirecTV spokesman Darris Gringeri said Friday. “We just don’t know yet if it will be delayed into 2008. Regardless, it will not change our plans for getting 100 channels of HD up by the end of the year because that that will be accomplished by the launch of the first satellite in Q3.”

But Jimmy Schaeffler, chairman of the Carmel Group, believes DirecTV is underplaying the importance of the second satellite launch and its possible delay.

“It’s ironic: The CES 2007 DirecTV announcements focus on the 2007 rollout of their HDTV plans without any real mention of the delicacy, iffyness and importance of a core component -- the actual launch of the satellites -- and then when one of those launch cycles looks to be delayed, they downplay its importance,” Schaeffler said. “Launching the birds is still everything.”

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6415378.html?display=Breaking+News

Washington Notebook
BET's Debra Lee: A La Carte Would 'Destroy' Cable Diversity
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 2/9/2007

Black Entertainment Television Chairman Debra Lee says that her cable network has provided a diversity of views that are otherwise lacking on broadcasting, and voiced her opposition to a la carte by saying it would "destroy the diversity of cable."
She continued to say that a la carte " really flies in the face of the [cable] business model."

Lee made those assertions in an interview for C-SPAN's Communicators series scheduled for airing over the weekend.

Asked about her relationship with FCC Kevin Martin, who has pushed the a la carte model from both a content-control and a business standpoint, she said she had met him "a couple of times," and that it was a good relationship. " I just don't agree with him on a la carte."

Lee also talked about the move of programming to new platforms.

"Last year was the first year you really saw a shift away from TV, and the story is that it's going to digital and we're beginning to see more of that," she said.

Advertisers are "struggling" to figure out how to adapt to that shift, she said, whether its product placement, virtual ads or Internet ads.

Lee said BET.com is "close to profitable." Parent Viacom recently bought out the interest of partners Microsoft and Liberty and now owns the site outright.

Lee said that the cable net's basic cable penetration is "fairly well saturated" in the U.S. except for a few small pockets, "maybe in Idaho, but we are working on those."

Lee conceded that most of its programming comes out of New York--and increasingly out of L.A.-- but said she expected BET's corporate headquarters to remain in D.C., where the network was founded by Bob Johnson 26 years ago.

On the issue of indecency, she pointed out that cable was under no such regulations, but said the channel takes its cue from broadcasting. "We keep close tabs on what broadcasters are doing and we try to abide by that." She also conceded the network had been criticized for content issues related to its music videos. Primarily under fire, as the C-SPAN interviewer put it, were videos with "sexual themes or celebrating a "thug" lifestyle."

She said that a lot of it is the expression of the hip-hop lifestyle and she likens it to when " Elvis or James Brown or Little Richard came out and critics said 'this is going to destroy our young people' and, of course, it didn't."

But she also said there were teams of executives who reviewed programming and when they have a problem, will send a video back to the record label. ""We're going to have some edgy programming," she said. "But we also think about what we put on the air."

Lee said the news division is alive and well. BET canceled its 11 p.m. news about a year ago, but continues to offer cut-ins throughout the day. They also provide specials and online news.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6415531.html?display=Breaking+News

Maybe we should bundle some R. Kelly CDs in with all those Big Band CDs so we can promote diversity. :rolleyes:

TV Notebook
Friday night lite at ABC
First-run shows take break during primetime bloc
By Jon Weisman Variety February9 , 2007

The network that once publicly thanked a higher power for Fridays almost seems to be dreading the end of the work week now.

Having joined other nets in retreating from firstrun scripted programming on Saturday nights like the Chicago Bears from a first down, ABC has gone a step further by abandoning first-run fiction during the bloc formerly known as TGIF.

In this sweeps month of February, the Alphabet web has filled its Friday schedule with a combination of "Grey's Anatomy" and "Brothers and Sisters" encores, newsmag "20/20" and never-say-die "America's Funniest Home Videos." ABC hasn't aired an original scripted program in Friday prime time since Nov. 10, when "Men in Trees" made its final foray before planting itself on Thursdays.

ABC now goes 70 hours without first-run scripted fare, from the end of "Trees" Thursday to the 9 p.m. start of "Desperate Housewives" on Sunday.

The latter, of course, serves as a reminder that scripted programming is nominally a strength for ABC. With "Desperate," "Grey's," "Brothers" and "Ugly Betty," ABC has four hour-long shows in the weekly top-20.

ABC isn't lacking for options, either. The network has such shows in reserve as yet-to-debut "October Road" and "Traveler" and benched-but-not-buried series "Six Degrees" and "The Nine." And then there are "The Knights of Prosperity" and "In Case of Emergency," either of whom might benefit from a change of timeslot scenery.

In contrast, CBS and NBC have hung on to first-run scripted shows on Fridays (the exception being NBC's "1 vs. 100" at 8 p.m.) Fox challenges with "Nanny 911" and "Trading Spouses," while the CW offers "WWE Friday Night Smackdown."

So it's not as if ABC's strategy lacks logic. In offering the evening's only news program, preceded by second-chance viewings of its most popular shows, the network wraps up the week with middling ratings but at a bargain cost.

With the economics of television continuing to grind against big investments in scripted fare, one can't help wondering if ABC's fanfare-free Friday signals that a wider broadcast network retreat could come. Neither NBC nor CBS is exactly dominating Fridays with first-run shows, and the Eye and Peacock webs do have other spots on their schedule to shore up. In the slow-moving game of follow-the-leader that networks often play, execs figure to pay attention to ABC's strategy.

Of course, with the networks presenting an overload of big-draw scripted shows on Thursdays, many viewers are still saying TGIF - as in, thank God it's Friday so we can catch up on what we recorded the night before.

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=print_story&articleid=VR1117959106&categoryid=14

TV Notebook
Friday night lite at ABC
First-run shows take break during primetime bloc
By Jon Weisman Variety February9 , 2007

ABC hasn't aired an original scripted program in Friday prime time since Nov. 10, when "Men in Trees" made its final foray before planting itself on Thursdays.

ABC now goes 70 hours without first-run scripted fare, from the end of "Trees" Thursday to the 9 p.m. start of "Desperate Housewives" on Sunday.

Of course, with the networks presenting an overload of big-draw scripted shows on Thursdays, many viewers are still saying TGIF - as in, thank God it's Friday so we can catch up on what we recorded the night before.

Other than 1 Vs. 100 and Law & Order Friday night is when I catch on a bunch of shows I've taped that I haven't had time to watch during the week. I have five daytime Price Is Right shows from this week that I haven't gotten around checking, and tonight seems like the right time to catch up with good ol' Barker's shenanigans. Heck, I watch Tuesday's new L&O: Criminal Intent and L&O: Special Victims Unit on Friday nights along with the new mothership show so I can have a mini-marathon of Dick Wolf goodness. And what are we missing by not having ABC's TGIF sitcoms of old? Other than little children I can't think of anyone missing the dreck that used to be Full House, Perfect Strangers, Step by Step (with the unholy union of Patrick Duffy and Suzanne Sommers), Just the Ten of Us and that sitcom where Urkel was a guest character than wound up taking over the show, Fonzie-style. :cool:

Sorry you feel that way. Me, I see it entirely differently, and so do the other fans that appreciate the subtilty and allegory of this show, and understand what it's trying to do over a multiple season arc. But for those who are fans of cardboard cut-out characters and one-note plotlines devoid of any nuance, don't fret: 'Star Trek' will be back on the airwaves someday. The rest of us who do appreciate the extraordinary will enjoy this spectacular piece of television while we have the opportunity.
I always enjoy those types of arguments.

"Battlestar Galactica isn't for you." "You just don't get it. "These characters are too real for you. It's too depressing, too dark, too realistic, blah, blah, blah.

I was this shows biggest fans during its mini and first season. I thought those seasons were amazing television. Gritty, dark, excellent writing, effective fleshed out characters who were flawed. Good, bad. You hated and loved them.

I lost interest during the second season. I'm not an idiot, I understand the show and I appreciated it when I enjoyed it. I no longer do, it's no longer for me. I lost interest and judging by the ratings, so did many others.

That's all I'm saying. You don't need to make an argument for the show by criticizing those who dislike it. That's not very effective, and really quite pointless.

Critic’s Notebook
The “American Idol” Losers
Other networks scramble to hold their own against 'American Idol' as Fox's 'Death Star' vaporizes the competition
By Scott D. Pierce Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News

PASADENA, Calif. — There's a seemingly unstoppable weapon in prime-time television. It scares the heck out of TV executives and seemingly has the power to blow away entire networks.

It's what NBC Entertainment president Kevin Reilly, using a "Star Wars" reference, calls the "Death Star" — "American Idol," a ratings juggernaut that crushes the opposition.

Hmmmm ... it's not much of a stretch to imagine Simon Cowell as Gov. Tarkin. They both have British accents and they're both ... well ... evil.

"Idol" may be more a Black Hole than a Death Star — it sucks up so many of the viewers that there aren't many left for the other networks to fight over.

At this point, it seems like it was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away that anything could beat "Idol" in the ratings. The singing competition has yet to destroy an entire planet, but it has pretty much destroyed its competition.

For the season-to-date, "American Idol" is averaging about 35.6 million viewers per episode on both Tuesdays and Wednesdays; the No. 3 show on the list ("Dancing with the Stars") averaged about 20.7 — 42 percent fewer than "Idol."

To put that in a bit more perspective, look at some of TV's other big hits — "CSI" (20.3 million), "Desperate Housewives" (19.8 million), "Grey's Anatomy" (19 million) and "Sunday Night Football" (17 million).

All of which leaves the opposition grasping at straws — looking for any smidgen of good news in the ratings.

"'Beauty and the Geek' held up well — or at least as well as can be expected — against 'American Idol,' finishing second in our demos," said CW Entertainment president Dawn Ostroff.

In other words, "B&G" got stomped, but it had the second-highest number of 18- to 34-year-olds on that particular Wednesday at 8 p.m.

Hey, it was just a year ago that "Idol" beat up on NBC's coverage of the Olympics.

"The last couple of years, we were just completely back on our heels," NBC's Reilly said. "We didn't have the firepower to even ponder being offensive. We didn't even have, in many instances, the right counter-programming to be defensive."

This year, NBC has gone into defensive mode, putting relatively cheap-to-produce episodes of "Dateline" up against "Idol" on Tuesdays, and "Deal or No Deal" up against it on Wednesdays.

"You gotta rope-a-dope a little bit," Reilly said. "We have gotten practical about it. ... We're not even kidding ourselves about that anymore. We've just left too many shows in its wake."

Over at ABC, they moved "Lost" back to 9 p.m. on Wednesdays to avoid "Idol." And it retreated in the face of "Idol" on Tuesdays, announcing that when "Dancing With the Stars" returns in March, it will be on Mondays at 8 ET/PT and Tuesdays at 9 ET/PT.

"We wanted people to not have to choose between 'Idol' and 'Dancing,"' ABC Entertainment president Steve McPherson said unconvincingly. (He would have asked them to make that choice in a second if he thought they were going to choose "Dancing.")

At this point, Fox's foes start planning in May how they're going to deal with "Idol" the following January. About all that they are hoping for is that they can avoid getting completely killed.

"I think we all expect, as we're looking over the year, that there are going to be (schedule) adjustments, and there might be a fall-off with the existence of an 'American Idol,"' said Nancy Tellem, president of CBS Paramount Network Television Entertainment.

CBS is the network that suffers the least at the hands of "American Idol." It has a secret weapon — "NCIS," which seems immune to the Death Star's rays.

"Even though the lights were off everywhere else, (CBS executive vice president of programming and planning) Kelly (Kahl) likes to say we have our deflector shields up," said CBS Entertainment president Nina Tassler.

Sure, the success of "NCIS" is due in large part to the fact that its audience skews older and isn't the audience that tends to watch "Idol" — but it's no small accomplishment.

"I think we're kind of lucky in a way that our shows, they're not 'Idol'-proof, but maybe kind of 'Idol'-resistant," Kahl said. This week, "NCIS" retained 100 percent of its pre-"Idol" audience; "Criminal Minds" is a strong (if distant) second to "Idol" on Wednesdays.

"So our shows hang in there OK," Kahl said. "The other guys kind of get ..."

"Vaporized," Tassler interjected.

"We're sticking with the shield and the Death Star," Tellem added.

At Fox, they're not only thrilled with "Idol's" continuing success, but they're amused at the consternation it causes the competition.

"It's hilarious that the other nets call 'Idol' a 'Death Star,"' said Joe Earley, Fox executive vice president of publicity. "We would never think of ourselves as anything other than the Rebel Alliance, defending the people of Alderaan, Tatooine and the other nation planets surrounding the moon of Endor, while flying an X-wing attack starfighter."

Well ... it's easier to imagine Fox chieftain Rupert Murdoch as Emperor Palpatine than as a plucky rebel. But we get the point.

Everybody who doesn't work at Fox hopes every year that "Idol" will begin to show chinks in its armor, and that, like pretty much every other show in the history of television, the ratings will begin to fade at least a bit.
Hasn't happened so far.
"Every year we say we don't think 'American Idol' can surpass last season's premiere," said Fox Entertainment president Peter Ligouri. "But once again, the biggest show on television exceeded all of our expectations." (It was probably just a typo when the transcript of Ligouri's comments indicated that "57 billion" viewers watched the first two nights this season. The actual number was 57 million — it just felt like 57 billion to Fox's competitors.)

Still, ABC, CBS, NBC and The CW hope that The Force will eventually be with them.

"There's always that hope that the next iteration of 'American Idol' will show some weakness," Tellem said. And all it took was one little fighter piloted by a teenager to take out the original Death Star.

Of course, he had the all-powerful Force with him.

http://www.desnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660193842,00.html

Pardon my ignorance but I am really curious about the impact, if any of the DVR on TV ratings. While they are becoming more widespread and mainstream, I know they are not prevalent so how does the fact that many of us can watch our faves at will affect the outcome of the ratings?
Mod I apologize if this is in an inappropriate thread, please delete if so.

There is still a major debate about that ion-man.

The basic overnight ratings count any viewing of shows up until three AM of the morning after a show's original airing.

However, the final ratings count all viewings of a show as long as two weeks after its first network airing.

DVRs are definitely becoming more mainstream, something like 15% of thew nation now uses them, and it is anticipated that number will double or triple in the next few years.

I am not sure if this answered your question -- if not, let me know.

And welcome to the thread. :)

(From Marc Berman’s Programming Insider blog at Mediaweek.com )
http://pifeedback.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/98010991/m/35210023
The Mr. Television Column: Lost Opportunities

Recently, a cousin who I have not seen for a few years came up to me at a family gathering, very angry. I couldn't imagine what I had done to upset her. Then she laid into me. "Marc," she griped, "What happened to my favorite show, Commander in Chief? Why did ABC kill it? Couldn't you do something about it?"

What people (relatives included) don't seem to realize is that the title of Mr. TV comes with no superpowers. I can't control what the networks do. I can't stop foolish executives from prematurely killing shows that could thrive for years. But what I can and often do is stick my little pen in their business.

First, to answer my cousin's question, the reason Commander in Chief faltered was because ABC replaced showrunner Rod Lurie (an inexperienced newbie who could not handle the job) with the more-seasoned Stephen Bochco. Bochco had a different vision for the show. He tried to pattern it after The West Wing, and ABC was afraid to tell the creator of two of the most critically acclaimed hits in the history of television—L.A. Law and N.Y.P.D. Blue—that he was going in the wrong direction. And that was the end of Commander in Chief.

There have been many TV shows that started out strong, only to have their potential squandered because of bad decisions. Sometimes it's a misguided creative decision, sometimes it's a bad programming decision, but whenever it happens, it's sad. A good TV show is a terrible thing to waste.

The most recent example of how a network mishandled a good show is ABC's Lost. Last year I would have been suicidal at the thought of my favorite show being taken off the air for three months. But now that the once-gripping show is finally returning this week (at a new time, Wednesday at 10 p.m., so it won't have to face Fox's American Idol steamroller), I have to admit I am not very enthusiastic.

And that's because there have been too many mysteries with too few resolutions, a poorly planned hiatus, and now, a new and later time period. With lower HUT levels at 10 p.m. (and opposite CBS' potent CSI:NY), I'm guessing that the already fading Lost will lose another 20 percent of its audience. Instead of airing seven episodes this past fall before going on hiatus, I think ABC would have served Lost's audience better if it had waited until now—à la Fox's 24—to bring it back so the momentum would not be cut short.

There have been many other instances where bad decisions have ruined a show's chances for success. Take, for instance, Fox's Greed. Back in 1999, when Who Wants to Be a Millionaire fever was exploding on ABC, every other network was looking for their version of a big-hit game show. And the one show that had potential, Greed, was axed after less than one year because it skewed older than the network's typical demographic. No show Fox scheduled in place of Greed has ever performed as well.

Sometimes quality alone should be enough to keep a show on the air. If you like good family dramas, you might remember NBC's 1987-88 series A Year in the Life. Because it faced CBS' then-popular Magnum, P.I., ratings did not warrant a renewal. But, the show's revenge came posthumously, when Richard Kiley snagged the Emmy for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series.

Perhaps the best example of a missed opportunity came courtesy of classic ABC sitcom Mork & Mindy, with young comedian Robin Williams as an alien from the planet Ork. The show was an immediate hit, and an open forum for William's improvisational skills. But when ABC decided to move Mork & Mindy in season two from the Thursday anchor spot to the tougher waters of Sunday at 8 p.m. (opposite CBS' more established Archie Bunker's Place), it also felt the need to change the tone of the series, replacing the popular slapstick with more meaningful storylines. The result: ratings plummeted and a suddenly lighter-toned Mork & Mindy was quickly shipped back to Thursday. Sadly, it was never the same again. The show ended up running a total of four seasons, but think of the Seinfeldian possibilities, if only ABC had allowed Williams to continue his shtick.

While I would like to think that Lost will beat the odds and rise above the unnecessary stumbling blocks, I predict that by spring 2008 the show will be over. Let's only hope that we get some answers by then.

http://pifeedback.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/98010991/m/35210023

I always enjoy those types of arguments.

"Battlestar Galactica isn't for you." "You just don't get it. "These characters are too real for you. It's too depressing, too dark, too realistic, blah, blah, blah.

I was this shows biggest fans during its mini and first season. I thought those seasons were amazing television. Gritty, dark, excellent writing, effective fleshed out characters who were flawed. Good, bad. You hated and loved them.

I lost interest during the second season. I'm not an idiot, I understand the show and I appreciated it when I enjoyed it. I no longer do, it's no longer for me. I lost interest and judging by the ratings, so did many others.

That's all I'm saying. You don't need to make an argument for the show by criticizing those who dislike it. That's not very effective, and really quite pointless.

Russ, I agree with you. I liked BSG a lot once I found it and still do, though a bit less so lately. So, despite my slightly diminished attraction, I remain on the side of those who like it. But, it is unfortunate that those still crazy about it (or any other show they feel strongly about) need to denigrate the opinions of those less enamored. Suggesting that someone who doesn't like <insert show here> simply doesn't understand subtlety, nuance, allegory and the rest is off base. Difference of opinion on matters like taste/preference in TV shows shouldn't lead anyone to doubt the ability to comprehend why the show is supposedly "extraordinary".

There are many shows I love, but the general public disagrees. I may argue that the show is worthwhile, but were I to suggest not liking them must mean poor taste or not understanding them is silly and insulting. I am sure this a familiar feeling for the advocates of Friday Night Lights, for example.

Friday’s fast national over night prime-time ratings – and Media Week Analyst Marc Berman’s view of what they mean -- have been posted near the top of Ratings News the first post in this thread.

Critic’s Notebook
Pro Bowl telecast usually drops the ball in ratings game
By Tom Dorsey Louisville Courier-Journal Saturday, February 10, 2007

Attention all football addicts:

Report to rehab after tonight's Pro Bowl at 6 (ET) on CBS for end-of-season counseling and condolences.

Is that all there is?

Yep -- although the Pro Bowl isn't very hot stuff where viewers are concerned. Fewer than 6 million watched the game last year.

Compare that with the 28 million who saw the Colts win the NFC championship or even the 16 million people who watched any one of the regular season games.

The Pro Bowl plunge is not surprising even though sports announcers yak about who is going to the Pro Bowl all season long as if it were the next best thing to the Super Bowl. It isn't.

Who do you root for in the Pro Bowl anyway? Does anybody really care who wins? It's a big nothing on the heels of the Super Bowl. But it draws a few of the faithful because it's the last hurrah of the season.

The next pro football will be late next summer unless you count arena football. It kicks off on ABC/ESPN next month. College games won't show up until just before Labor Day, which sounds like forever to fans.

Of course, there's basketball, NASCAR and, in a few months, baseball, but nothing gives tens of millions of fans the kind of high they get from football.

Indianapolis Colts, University of Louisville and University of Kentucky followers can bask in the warm memories of a season past, but they need another fix. Watching old reruns on the NFL channel just doesn't get it.

Oh sure, if you crave some he-man action you could tune in Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Terminator" movies or Sylvester Stallone's "Rambo" flicks, but the head butting just isn't the same.

Fans hooked on pro and college games will just have to white knuckle it through withdrawal symptoms for almost six months. What's a fella to do?

Some people cheer the end of the season because it frees up airtime for other programming. NBC has to go back to entertainment programs on Sunday nights, for example.

Then there's that little old lady in Phoenix who could not give a hoot less about football, according to Sen. John McCain, but who has to pay for it in her cable package.

McCain is the patron saint of a la carte TV, which would allow viewers to buy only the channels they watch from their cable or satellite company. It may not be a major plank in his presidential bid, but it could be one that touches a sensitive nerve with voters everywhere. After all, if 16 million people watch NFL games, there may be many times that number who don't.

But sports networks, including the NFL channel, are the big elephants in the room whenever cable rates are discussed, because they are the most expensive channels a system carries.

Cable operators pay about $12 per subscriber a month to carry these networks, according to Broadcasting & Cable magazine. In other words, close to one-third of what the average cable customer pays monthly on some systems goes toward paying for sports programming.

Other channels charge pennies by comparison. MTV and TBS get 25 cents for each household, says Broadcasting & Cable. The Disney Channel, which has no commercials, charges $1.

Sports networks are also the cause of a lot of the rising cable rates. One government study said the fees they charge for their programming go up about 20 percent a year, or three times what non-sports channels ask for.

The biggest chunk of that money goes to the NFL, which will rake in more than $3 billion a year from broadcast, cable and satellite networks.

If the NFL was traded on the stock market, investors would be lined up around the block to buy shares, one analyst told The New York Times' Play sports magazine.

We're worth it, argue the sports networks, which claim they provide some of the most-watched telecasts of the year and are one of the two major reasons people subscribe to cable or satellite. (Movies are the other major reason.)

Most networks don't even make money airing the NFL, but it's must-have programming. "It's the most important entertainment property today by a huge margin," a former CBS sports president told Play magazine.

Now the NFL has its own channel and is putting some of its games there. It's pressuring cable systems to carry it. More of this is coming. College sports conferences are doing the same thing.

Why not just bundle all the sports channels in a package and let the fans who want to see those channels pay the freight? The NFL and sports channels such as ESPN are against it. Fewer people would see games if packages like that were sold, and advertising rates are based on how many people tune in. The bottom line is: Don't mess with the NFL's bottom line.

None of this is going to change unless Congress gets involved, and that hasn't happened so far.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20070210&Category=COLUMNISTS15&ArtNo=702100329&SectionCat=FEATURES07&Template=printart