Hot Off The Press! The Latest Television News and Info

[fredfa]

Washington Notebook
NAACP Opposes A La Carte
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 3/15/2007

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has written FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and the other commissioners registering their opposition to a la carte cable pricing.

It was responding to reports that a violence report the commission is preparing to give to Congress suggests TV violence justifies imposing per-channel pricing as a way to give viewers more control over the programming in their homes.

Saying many of its constituents live in communities affected by violence, NAACP Director Hilary Shelton said the FCC needed to review the "negative impact of dramatically reducing the diversity of cable and satellite programs targeting racial and ethnic minorities."

Kevin Martin has been pushing hard for a la carte in Washington and was even making the case to advertisers in a January speech in New York.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6425022

[fredfa]

TV Notebook
“Jericho” to Reveal Whodunit
By Lisa D. Horowitz Television Week March 15, 2007

Hang on, “Jericho” fans: Executive producer Carol Barbee promises we’ll know “a large part” of who’s responsible for bombing the U.S. by the end of this season.

At the Museum of TV & Radio’s William S. Paley Festival tribute to the CBS drama, Ms. Barbee also said the second season will offer “a lot about the American government coming back together,” – assuming there is a second season, she admitted. The suggestion drew wild applause from a small but enthusiastic audience Tuesday at the Directors Guild Theater in Hollywood.

Ms. Barbee said she was on a plane with star Skeet Ulrich last week when there were “a few bumpy moments,” and she realized she would be fine, “because Jake Green is here, he’ll help me!” Mr. Ulrich quipped, “You’d have to write it really fast!”

Co-creators and writers Josh Schaer and Jonathan E. Steinberg said they did plenty of research for the show, which is informed by the 9/11 attacks as well as Hurricane Katrina. They talked to Homeland Security officials, the Centers for Disease Control and others. “But as soon as the bombs go off, this is a universe that doesn’t exist,” Mr. Schaer said.

Also, they discovered, “We just keep asking questions [of the experts], and when they don’t have answers, that’s where our story is,” he added.

http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11723

[URFloorMatt]

Washington Notebook
NAACP Opposes A La Carte
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 3/15/2007

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has written FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and the other commissioners registering their opposition to a la carte cable pricing.

It was responding to reports that a violence report the commission is preparing to give to Congress suggests TV violence justifies imposing per-channel pricing as a way to give viewers more control over the programming in their homes.

Saying many of its constituents live in communities affected by violence, NAACP Director Hilary Shelton said the FCC needed to review the "negative impact of dramatically reducing the diversity of cable and satellite programs targeting racial and ethnic minorities."

Kevin Martin has been pushing hard for a la carte in Washington and was even making the case to advertisers in a January speech in New York.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6425022

A fair concern. A la carte would have to be devastating for a network like BET.

[kizzo]

A fair concern. A la carte would have to be devastating for a network like BET.

I totally agree. This will be an interesting debate....

[fredfa]

It would also be devastating for some of the big boys -- I would bet even giants like ESPN would really feel the pinch.

[CPanther95]

A fair concern if you are more interested in the profits of the owner of BET or your member's access to The Parkers or The Wire reruns than you are in the financial welfare of your members. :rolleyes:

[hearth]

With the market being LCD or plasma, is DLP even a viable option anymore? Don't look at me, dad1153 started it!!

For screen sizes over 55 inches, it is the only sane option, in my opinion. I just got a 72 inch Samsung DLP for Christmas for ~ $3500. It would have cost twice that for LCD or Plasma. And the best part, the picture is unbelievable!!

Don

[kizzo]

A fair concern if you are more interested in the profits of the owner of BET or your member's access to The Parkers or The Wire reruns than you are in the financial welfare of your members. :rolleyes:

A good point. There are good points on both sides. That's why this will be an interesting debate.

As fredfa pointed out this will also be devastating for big giants like ESPN. So this will be an interesting process..

[fredfa]

As far as a la carte, if you look at a list of the basic cable networks owned by Disney, NewsCorp, Time Warner, Comcast, Viacom and GE you will see that much of the opposition (and a major part of the lobbying) will be done by the big boys to keep the status quo.

There are very few crumbs left for the niche players as it is.

[humdinger70]

For screen sizes over 55 inches, it is the only sane option, in my opinion. I just got a 72 inch Samsung DLP for Christmas for ~ $3500. It would have cost twice that for LCD or Plasma. And the best part, the picture is unbelievable!!

Don

Interesting. You paid just a bit more than I did for my CRT based 55-inch Mistubishi, back in February 2001. (I was an early adopter, but I actually didn't go HD until a little over 2 years later!) Mine is getting a bit cranky, with a blue glow around the left and right sides of the screen, and a yellowish tinge in the middle. I wonder: should I get it repaired, or should I just live with it for awhile as is until I can gather enough funds together to get a new one?

[rebkell]

I'm the consumer, what is the downside of a la carte? I probably watch 2 dozen channels out of the hundreds I have available and I suspect the vast majority of people probably don't even watch that many channels. Would a la carte cause a lot of stations to go belly up? Would I have to pay as much for those 2 dozen channels as I do for the hundreds I have now, if so, why?

[fredfa]

Washington Notebook
NCTA to Lobby on Retransmission Consent
By Ted Hearn MultiChannel News 3/15/2007

The cable industry’s principal trade association, in a policy shift, is going to lobby Congress about problems with laws governing cable carriage of local TV stations, National Cable & Telecommunications Association president Kyle McSlarrow told reporters Thursday.

But McSlarrow said the NCTA hasn’t decided on legislative goals that enjoy broad member support.

“Unlike several months ago, we plan to be engaged in this debate,” he said. “I’m not racing to the Hill asking for legislation. We want to be part of that conversation. We’re thinking through what kind of ideas might be good solutions for that.”

The NCTA’s effort will likely meet stiff resistance from broadcasters, which have many key lawmakers in their corner, including House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), who helped to pass the 1992 law that gave TV stations the right to demand compensation from pay TV distributors, also called retransmission consent.

The NCTA has been sidelined on the issue because important cable-programming members, including Disney and General Electric, own TV stations that rely on retransmission consent.

Although the NCTA remains divided on a “solution,” McSlarrow said his board “would prefer to have NCTA engage in this debate.”

One objective, he added, was to debunk the notion that retransmission consent is “purely and simply a free-market negotiation” between a TV station and a cable company. “That,” McSlarrow said, “is complete nonsense.”

The NCTA intends to point out several regulatory advantages of TV stations, including access to free spectrum; exclusive local distribution of network programming; free cable carriage if the station lacks the clout to demand cash; and the requirement that cable subscribers purchase the broadcast-basic programming tier before any other programming service.

“Every consumer who buys the cable package has to, by law, buy the broadcast tier before they buy anything else,” McSlarrow said. “There should be a legitimate focus on what’s happening to the customer. They’re going pay higher rates or they are going to lose the signal for some period of time.”

McSlarrow said it was probable that NCTA would support a bill that gave cable customers the option to bypass the purchase of local TV signals.

“While we haven’t made a final, final decision on the must-buy tier, I think, yes, that would be one idea that we could endorse,” he added.

http://www.multichannel.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleid=CA6425083

[dad1153]

Interesting. You paid just a bit more than I did for my CRT based 55-inch Mistubishi, back in February 2001. (I was an early adopter, but I actually didn't go HD until a little over 2 years later!) Mine is getting a bit cranky, with a blue glow around the left and right sides of the screen, and a yellowish tinge in the middle. I wonder: should I get it repaired, or should I just live with it for awhile as is until I can gather enough funds together to get a new one?

Hang on to your CRT for as long as it can still deliver a decent-enough picture to not make you want to shut it off. CRT's still have the best blacks/contrast ratio than any HDTV technology on the market. By the time your 55" Mitsu croaks in a few weeks/months the HDTV you would buy right now will be a few hundred/thousand dollars cheaper, or a newer model with even better features than the one's out there (HDMI 1.3, deep colot support, LED-based displays, etc.) will be available. It really is a great time for people with older TV's for the latter to die and need replacing, but why push the ol' workhorse to an early grave? Ride your Mitsu into the sunset of SD as far as it can take it humdinger70, and jump into HD (preferable 1080p and either LCD or plasma... I'm not a fan of DLP or rear-projection even at big sizes) when the time, price and model are right. :)

[riker]

For screen sizes over 55 inches, it is the only sane option, in my opinion. I just got a 72 inch Samsung DLP for Christmas for ~ $3500. It would have cost twice that for LCD or Plasma. And the best part, the picture is unbelievable!!
Don

For an even better picture go with LCoS (or what Sony calls SXRD) which does away with the DLP rainbows and has the best picture available, no burn in, lower power, etc. The Sony ones are especially good, 10000:1 contrast, cable card, 1080p inputs, etc on the XBR models. Definitely one to consider. Try KDS-R70XBR2 or even an XBR3 model if available.

[keenan]

Hang on to your CRT for as long as it can still deliver a decent-enough picture to not make you want to shut it off. CRT's still have the best blacks/contrast ratio than any HDTV technology on the market.
Amen, I'm keeping my 73"/9" gunned 3-eyed monster for as long as it lasts, about the only thing I've seen that comes close to it is the 3-chip DLPs projectors, and they cost as much as a car...

[bgooch]

"A la carte would have to be devastating for a network like BET"

BET is owned by Viacom. About BET Networks (http://www.viacom.com/view_release.jhtml?inID=7&inReleaseID=227541)

[turansformer]

It's amazing to see how many of the big media companies have swallowed up the smaller niche channels. Sometimes, I'm so confused as to who owns what that I have to refer to the following link to remember:

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/

[fredfa]

Critic’s Notebook
“Friday Night Lights”
Check out every episode and see what the fuss is all about
From Maureen Ryan’s Chicago Tribune blog “The Watcher”

If you want to get caught up on NBC's “Friday Night Lights” from the acclaimed show’s very first episode, you can start doing so on Friday.

Bravo is going to re-air the entire series through March and April on Fridays and Saturdays. I think “Friday Night Lights” is the best thing to hit network television in years. Don’t miss this chance to check out one of the most compelling, heartfelt, amazingly acted dramas out there.

Here’s the complete schedule breakdown from Bravo’s Thursday press:

“See [‘FNL’] for the first time or all over again, beginning with a single episode on Friday, March 16 at 7 PM ET followed by a triple serving beginning Saturday, March 17 at 12 noon ET.

“[‘FNL’] on Bravo continues every Friday (one episode at 7 p.m.) and Saturday (three back-to-back episodes beginning at 12 noon culminating on Friday, April 13 at 6 p.m.”

Also, every episode of “Friday Night Lights” is available at NBC.com.

The show, which has been on a break for a couple of weeks, returns to NBC on March 21. Four new episodes will air until the show’s season finale on April 11.

By the way, on March 21, I’ll post an in-depth article on the show, plus almost a dozen interviews with “FNL’s” actors and creative team, all done on the show’s Austin, Texas, set.

One final thing: Check out fightforlights.com, an excellent new “save this show” site from James, creator of the great “Office” fan site NorthernAttack.com. And for creative ideas on how to lobby NBC to save the show, check out FNL-online.com.

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

[Maestro J]

Too bad these FNL "catch up" airings aren't on UHD. I may catch it on Bravo but I may just end up waiting for DVD since I can't really stand SD TV.

[fredfa]

I agree, it would have been nice to see them on UHD.

But I have to say that of all the HD shows, I think FNL -- with its strange documentary-style camera work -- gets about the least bang for its HD buck.

[GeorgeLV]

I'm the consumer, what is the downside of a la carte? I probably watch 2 dozen channels out of the hundreds I have available and I suspect the vast majority of people probably don't even watch that many channels. Would a la carte cause a lot of stations to go belly up? Would I have to pay as much for those 2 dozen channels as I do for the hundreds I have now, if so, why?

Well, if you're a sports fan, ESPN would no longer be subsidized by 90 million cable households paying $3/month. The fair a-la-carte price would likely end up more like $30/month.

Otherwise, a-la-carte is probably a better deal for you.

[jpco]

Well, if you're a sports fan, ESPN would no longer be subsidized by 90 million cable households paying $3/month. The fair a-la-carte price would likely end up more like $30/month.

Otherwise, a-la-carte is probably a better deal for you.

Correct, but that is exactly what is wrong with the current system. Why should ESPN be $3 for everyone in order to make it available to those who would really pay for it? If it's not worth $30 per month to a sub, then the sub can live without it. If they can't stay in business with their current business model, then so be it. It's not exactly a vital public service to our nation.

[rebkell]

Correct, but that is exactly what is wrong with the current system. Why should ESPN be $3 for everyone in order to make it available to those who would really pay for it? If it's not worth $30 per month to a sub, then the sub can live without it. If they can't stay in business with their current business model, then so be it. It's not exactly a vital public service to our nation.

Using those numbers, I'm assuming you would expect ESPN to lose 90% of their current subscribers and also about the above price, would that be just ESPN or would that include all the ESPN programming, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN News?

I realize the numbers are theoretical, but what is the basis for the figures you are coming up with? Any other guesstimates on pricing on other programming?

[bgooch]

Time Warner dials new L.A. chief
Change due to consumer complaints
By TED JOHNSON
Facing hundreds of consumer complaints and confusion over its service, Time Warner Cable on Thursday ousted Roger Keating, its key executive in the Los Angeles area, and replaced him with Barry Rosenblum, a veteran of its New York operations.

The cable operator has been swamped with problems in Southern California as it has converted cable systems it acquired from Comcast and the bankrupt Adelphia into its own base of some 1.9 million customers. The complaints have ranged from interrupted Internet service to long waits on customer service lines to confusion over a new channel lineup.

The city of Los Angeles has threatened to find the operator in breach of its franchise agreement, and the city of West Hollywood may impose fines.

Keating oversaw the transition as the cable operator's top exec in Southern California. Rosenblum, a 27-year veteran of the company who runs its New York ops, will now oversee both regions.

In a statement, the company said that the management changes are "designed to streamline the process and move it forward as expeditiously as possible." Time Warner Cable reps have said that it has faced a hugely complicated task in piecing together what had been a patchwork of cable systems in the region, integrating everything from billing systems to Internet modems to emails.

In a conference call last month after releasing its quarterly results, Time Warner chief operating officer Jeff Bewkes acknowledged the rocky integration.

"We have had issues. One is related to channel lineup. Every time you change the lineup, you have to expect customers' calls, and we got them. Second is the migration of high-speed data customers," he said. "We are in the middle of resolving it. We will figure it out this year."

Joining Rosenblum will be several members of his management team, including Stephen Pagano, president of the Albany, N.Y. division; Nina Facini, Rosenblum's chief financial officer; and John Keib, Rosenblum's chief marketing officer.

Time Warner Cable began trading as a separate company March 1 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Read the full article at:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117961269.html

[jpco]

Using those numbers, I'm assuming you would expect ESPN to lose 90% of their current subscribers and also about the above price, would that be just ESPN or would that include all the ESPN programming, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN News?

I realize the numbers are theoretical, but what is the basis for the figures you are coming up with? Any other guesstimates on pricing on other programming?

I was just using what I think are theoretical numbers from the post I quoted. They are not mine. The main purpose of my reply was to state that I believe it would be best for all if programming stood on its own merit and value. If the costs go up beyond what subs are willing to pay, then the programming is overvalued IMO.

I know we're OT here, and I apologize. There are other threads dealing with a la carte.

[Marcus Carr]

Internet sites spread false rumor of Sinbad's death

By KELLI KENNEDY, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, March 15, 2007


(03-15) 20:21 PDT MIAMI, (AP) --


Actor-comedian Sinbad had the last laugh after his Wikipedia entry announced he was dead, the performer said Thursday.


Rumors began circulating Saturday regarding the posting, said Sinbad, who first got a telephone call from his daughter. The gossip quieted, but a few days later the 50-year-old entertainer said the phone calls, text messages and e-mails started pouring in by the hundreds.


"Saturday I rose from the dead and then died again," the Los Angeles-based entertainer told The Associated Press in a phone interview.


The St. Petersburg-based company, which describes itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," leaves it to a vast user community to catch factual errors and other problems. Apparently, someone edited it to say Sinbad died of a heart attack. By the time the error was caught, e-mail links of the erroneous page had been forwarded to hundreds of people.


A note on Sinbad's Wikipedia page Thursday night said the site has been temporarily protected from editing to deal with vandalism.


Wikipedia was created in 2001 as a Web research tool. It has more than 1.6 million articles, contributed by members of the public.


A telephone call and an e-mail left for Wikipedia were not immediately returned Thursday night.


When asked if he was upset about the mix-up, Sinbad, whose real name is David Adkins, just laughed.


"It's gonna be more commonplace as the Internet opens up more and more. It's not that strange," he said.


Sinbad, who is currently on the road doing stand up, said he hasn't received an apology from the Internet site. He has appeared in the films, "Houseguest," and "Jingle All the Way."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/15/entertainment/e202153D98.DTL

[fredfa]

The average family watches somewhere between 15 and 20 channels, according to a number of studies.

And we all are subsidizing other people's favorites -- but as GeorgeLV points out, it is the sports fan who get the most subsidies -- not just ESPN, but the whole ESPN family, plus local RSN(s).

I am not sure ESPN would end up costing$30 a month, but I would guess a suite of sports channels, including the ESPNs and your local RSN would be about $20. IMO, and I certanly could be wrong, ESPN by itself would simply price itself out of the market at $30 a month.

[kb7oeb]

Sinbad, who is currently on the road doing stand up, said he hasn't received an apology from the Internet site.



Why should they for something a random person posted?

[fredfa]

Sadly, just another reason to be at the very least a little skeptical when using Wiki as a source.

[fredfa]

TV Sports
Tournament tangles with Web ness
By Larry Stewart Times Staff Writer March 16, 2007

If watching sporting events on a computer is the wave of the future, then the future hasn't been perfected.

On the first day of the NCAA men's tournament, there were some good things about NCAAsports.com's March Madness on Demand, which offers video-streamed games from the first three rounds not available on CBS. But there were also glitches.

Getting on just before the first tipoff proved difficult, particularly for those who didn't pre-register for VIP access. There were 189,000 people waiting in line, according to CBS SportsLine, which operates the site.

By 1 p.m., 800,000 people had registered and made 1.5 million visits. Last year, through the first three rounds, a total of 1.3 million people made 5 million visits.

This year, with the bandwidth doubled, getting on became easier as the day progressed. It was considerably easier than last year, when the site was free for the first time — and was overwhelmed by the response.

On Thursday around halftime of the earliest games, one Times colleague who had pre-registered had no trouble getting on and one who hadn't got on quickly as well. However, the colleague who didn't pre-register said he couldn't get the Maryland-Davidson game to come up on his screen.

A big plus this year is that the picture is sharper and the opening screen is bigger — 5 1/2 inches wide by 4 1/4 compared with last year, when it was about half that.

Users can also switch to full screen, where the picture isn't as clear but is watchable.

As for glitches, an early one was that the "watch now" button was not on the screen. And some people may not have realized that games being televised by CBS in their market were not available online.

The biggest problem, however, seemed to be getting bumped off the site. The colleague who had pre-registered said that she got bumped off because of no activity.

A CBS SportsLine spokesman says if there is no activity for 30 minutes, the visitor gets bumped. But it seemed that it was more like 10 minutes of inactivity that got you bumped.

It happened to me too, and for this technologically challenged individual, getting back on wasn't easy. It took two calls to CBS SportsLine in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and the help of two patient, computer savvy young men to get me back on.

Another thing was the broadband feed was out of sync with the TV feed. The CBS announcers were apparently not aware of this and broadband viewers could hear their off-camera conversations for a few seconds.

All things considered, paying $69 for the DirecTV out-of-market Mega March Madness package might be the way to go. Generally, a television remote is easier to navigate than a computer — at least for me.

One fun thing about the broadband site, however, is the "boss button."

The operators of the site, showing a sense of humor, created this feature last year for those watching at work. One click of the icon instantly brings up a ready-made spread sheet, just in case the boss is nearby.

The fake spread sheet last year offered this advice: "Cheering in the office gives you away." Even more creativity went into this year's elaborate fake spread sheet, which provided a breakdown of products consumed while watching sports events.

Beer was listed No. 2. No. 1, by a slim margin, was Pepto — apparently just to make sure that no one thought this was a legitimate spread sheet.

However, Pepto — still known as Pepto-Bismol to old-timers — could have come in handy at times Thursday when getting bumped had the stomach churning.

Court-side seat invitation

Basketball would seem to be an easy sport to televise, since it is played in a relatively confined area. A midcourt camera situated in the stands provides viewers with all they need to see.

Although CBS directors seemed to show restraint during the NCAA tournament on Thursday, others seem obsessed with sky cams or cable cams or whatever those cameras are called that can make a real game look more like a video game.

This trend was particularly noticeable on a Lakers-Cleveland Cavaliers game televised by ABC in February.

A week later, when NBA Commissioner David Stern was in Las Vegas for the All-Star game, the subject of camera angles was brought up.

"The one I really like is the one that puts the viewer in a courtside seat," he said.

Then Stern would like what Tom Feuer, executive producer of FSN West and FSN Prime Ticket, has planned for tonight's Lakers-Portland Trail Blazers game at Staples Center.

FSN West will have a traditional telecast. At the same time on Prime Ticket, there will be a special telecast that provides what Feuer calls a "courtside view." The idea is to put the viewer in a courtside seat.

Feuer, who also did this last season on a Lakers-Clippers game, said, "We took what we learned with the first 'courtside view' and made it better."

For one thing, there will be five cameras dedicated to the Prime Ticket telecast instead of three. And Patrick O'Neal will interview the actual courtside seat patrons at the game. And he will have time for this because there will be only one commercial break each half-hour.

Nine cameras are used on regular FSN West telecasts, and Feuer said, "We can use those cameras as well on our Prime Ticket telecast to help tell the story of the game.

"But our main objective is to let our viewers experience what it is like to sit courtside."

http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-sp-tvcol16mar16,0,3963118,print.story?coll=cl-tv-features

[foxeng]

Washington Notebook
NCTA to Lobby on Retransmission Consent
By Ted Hearn MultiChannel News 3/15/2007

The cable industry’s principal trade association, in a policy shift, is going to lobby Congress about problems with laws governing cable carriage of local TV stations, National Cable & Telecommunications Association president Kyle McSlarrow told reporters Thursday.

How phoney can you get? As long as stations were not asking and getting retrans money, life was great for the last 15 years. Now stations are getting what is legally and rightfully theirs, we now have to change the rules because cable might loose money.

And cable wonders why people distrust them? "Fell sorry me, I am cable. I have too much competition. I can't make double and triple digit profits anymore. Poor pitiful cable." Phooey! Cable better strap in. It is going to get worse before it gets better for them, and they know it. All of those years of that bad karma they spread around is coming home to roost.

[DoubleDAZ]

How phoney can you get? As long as stations were not asking and getting retrans money, life was great for the last 15 years. Now stations are getting what is legally and rightfully theirs, we now have to change the rules because cable might loose money.

And cable wonders why people distrust them? "Fell sorry me, I am cable. I have too much competition. I can't make double and triple digit profits anymore. Poor pitiful cable." Phooey! Cable better strap in. It is going to get worse before it gets better for them, and they know it. All of those years of that bad karma they spread around is coming home to roost.Give me a break! How is that phoney? If you really want to do things right, get rid of ALL the rules and let the marketplace/subscribers determine what is fair. Let cable and sat make whatever deals they can and provide whatever content they deem marketable in whatever way, shape or form they deem profitable.

[fredfa]

TV Notebook
'08 syndie scramble is on
More games, talkers, court shows bandied about
By Kimberly Nordyke The Hollywood Reporter March 16, 2007

Syndication development is gearing up for fall 2008 as the major distributors look to find their next first-run hit.

Buena Vista Prods. is in the early stages of development on a bowling-centric game show and a psychic-driven talk show, sources said. The tentatively titled "Up Your Alley" is said to be a game show from Picture This TV that revolves around bowling and celebrities. The talker, being called "Past, Present and Future," is a project from Flame TV that features multiple psychics.

Sources said Warners Bros.-based Telepictures Prods. is discussing a possible project that would feature Jeanine Pirro, former district attorney for New York's Westchester County. Earlier this year, Pirro was tapped to preside over Telepictures' celebrity-jury show that didn't go forward.

Indeed, there still seems to be interest in court shows, with Sony Pictures Television launching "Judge David Young" in the fall and nine others on the air. Sources said another judge, Mary Beth Bonaventura from the MTV series "Juvies," is meeting with distributors for a potential court show.

Sources said a dating show project called "Brutally Honest Personals," long in the works, may still have life at CBS Television Distribution. The project is believed to originate from the Esquire magazine feature in which single people looking for love give candid descriptions of themselves.

Rachael Ray, who is said to be a fan of the magazine's feature, has included a segment dubbed "Brutally Honest Dating" in her talk show, which also is from CBS TV Distribution.

Talk is still circulating that "The View" co-host Rosie O'Donnell might be looking to return to a solo gig hosting her own talk show, possibly at Telepictures -- where her previous talker was produced -- though her contract with ABC reportedly mandates that she must negotiate with the Walt Disney Co. before doing so. Actress-comedian-author Jackie Guerra also has thrown her hat in the ring as a possible host of her own daytime talker, holding meetings around town (HR 2/8).

Meanwhile, a syndicated version of NBC's game show "Deal or No Deal" is alive at NBC Universal Domestic Television Distribution, according to sources.

Industry insiders said that Twentieth Television is working on a development slate than spans multiple genres, including game, talk and court. That seems to be the consensus with the major syndicators, including others like SPT, but all of the companies declined comment Thursday on their development slates.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ic85c5d7c8fb9be46926c0ba220d6bb00

[fredfa]

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 second post in this thread.

[fredfa]

The Business of Television
Behind the name change for Court TV
By Kevin Downey MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer Mar 16, 2007

In television, there's nothing quite as risky as changing your name, and it would seem to make even less sense if your ratings are strong.

So it came as shock earlier this week when Court TV announced it was ditching its name of 16 years for a new name to be announced this summer. This comes just two months before the upfront and when the network's ratings are surging.

But for the Time Warner cable network, the risk is worth taking, says Marc Juris, general manager at Court TV. Juris argues that it's a case of the brand outgrowing its name and actually being held back by it.

Juris says there are two problems with the Court TV name, and one is advertiser resistance. While the network's ratings are up, ad revenues are not. Ad sales in 2006 were flat to 2005 at $223 million, according to TNS Media Intelligence.

Juris says that among advertisers the Court TV name conjures up images of live trials with foul language and grisly testimony, which can sully a brand's image.

“We feel that certainly there are advertisers who are sensitive to live courtroom coverage,” he says. “It’s hard to say, ‘Yes, but that isn’t what you’re buying in primetime.’ We have to explain a lot.”

But there's also a problem of audience disconnect. Juris says viewers don’t always identify the program they're watching, such as “Forensic Files” and “Beach Patrol,” as Court TV shows. Says Juris: “I can’t tell you how many times, anecdotally or in focus groups, that people know the show they’re watching but don’t realize it’s on Court TV.”

The reality is that Court TV long ago began its move away from being a network of live court coverage, and that's especially the case in primetime, with more and more original programming. More than a year ago, the network rebranded itself into two distinct parts, trial news during the day and entertainment-based programs at night, rolling out the tagline "Seriously Entertaining."

Ratings are way up. Its daytime audience in February was up 57 percent over the same month last year, and in primetime, its audience was up 33 percent, to an average 1.2 million viewers, ranking No. 11 among all networks.

Juris says the network will reveal its new name over the summer and will officially change it come Jan. 1. He won't reveal the new name, or whether one has been chosen, but he does say it will be a generic one that doesn't attempt to identity with programming in the way Court TV has.

Court TV isn’t dramatically overhauling its programs, says Juris.

It is tweaking its daytime lineup by further downplaying trials and emphasizing talk shows, including one with Star Jones Reynolds, formerly of “The View,” and a continuing show with firecracker Nancy Grace.

In primetime, it will continue with trial- and crime-related shows, including new programs such as “Bounty Girls,” about female bounty hunters, and “The Room,” where real cops interrogate criminals.

Juris says part of the aim of the new programming is to reach more men, a demographic sought after by advertisers.

“It’s like a new package for a product people love,” he says, referring to the re-branding. “The ingredients pretty much stay the same, except we’re broadening the type of programming we are doing, but still very much in the real-life, first person that we’re doing now.”

The risk with the name change is that it won't catch, even after a hugely costly rebranding effort with viewers and advertisers. It means giving up the known for the unknown. Court TV now has 96 percent name recognition among cable subscribers, according to Beta Research. The new name will have zero.

And while some name changes have stuck, others have not. MTV and A&E abbreviated their names as they moved beyond their original mandates, and it worked for both. But that's not been the case as yet for the former Outdoor Life Network, which first became OLN then changed its name to Versus. Ratings are down.

In the end, Court TV will have to overcome the doubters, and there will be more than a few.

“Changing the name Court TV, unless they are going to really radically change, sounds a little bit like changing the recipe of Coca-Cola,” says Robert Thompson, director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University. “That may be over-complimenting Court TV. But, at the same time, why are they doing this?”

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/printer_10819.asp

[CPanther95]

I am not sure ESPN would end up costing$30 a month.......................... IMO, and I certanly could be wrong, ESPN by itself would simply price itself out of the market at $30 a month.

That's the problem with these price estimates. The cablenets simply divide current revenue by the number of regular viewers and the price soars. 1 in 6 regularly watch ESPN (perceived as "free"), so under a la carte, the price would go from $3 to $18. They don't want the analysis to go any further because that "scary" number looks a lot less scary when you look at the obvious result of that pricing.

1 in 6 when free - how many at $18? Half that many (1 in 12)? Now the price would need to jump to $36. How many would now sub at $36? a third of those remaining?........$108 :eek:

The price speculation, based on maintaining their current revenue is meaningless without factoring in demand for the channel. When demand is entered into the equation, the price will end up being at the level that when combined with demand yields the maximum amount of revenue. That could just as easily be $4.00 x 15 million subs if the alternative is only 4 million subs at $15 - especially when they factor in the impact on advertising revenue.

Bottom line, with a la carte, the price will be exactly what the marketplace (as a whole) decides is fair. There are no revenue guarantees. That will affect ESPN, USA - just as much as the minority interest channels. Because while minority oriented programming may be consided more "worthy" of subsidation - the fact is that all non-broadcast networks are, from the perspective of "numbers of viewers", minority-interest channels.

Sorry to side track the thead fredfa - I'll bump up one of the many a la carte threads if people want to discuss this further.

[fredfa]

TV Sports
NCAA Day One:
CBS flexes muscle
By Neil Best Newsday March 16, 2007

It's a big, complicated hoops nation, from the mountains to the prairies to rabid Kentucky fans' mouths white with foam.

In a small room on West 57th Street yesterday, though, the entire multi-mascot, multi-time zone, multi-bracket festival somehow had to be distilled, shrink-wrapped and presented to an anxious continent.

It ain't easy, in spite of the (mostly) calm demeanor of CBS Sports executives - notably president Sean McManus and executive producer Tony Petitti - who had a front-row seat in the "multi-purpose room'' of the CBS Broadcast Center.

At times four games must be juggled for about 200 affiliates, with potentially millions of viewers ready to second-guess CBS' decisions on when to leave one game for another - or not.

"You do get feedback from people as you listen to talk radio driving in the next day,'' Petitti said after the relatively calm afternoon session.

To minimize the discontent, Petitti, McManus and the other dozen people in the room (plus others in the adjacent control room) monitor a wall of 40 screens, including separate ones for each site that are marked "constant'' or "flex.''

"Flex'' indicates the market was assigned a particular game but can leave it for a better one. "Constant'' means a market with a local team involved, and fans who presumably want to watch every minute.

Net effect: When four games are in progress, there are eight blocks of markets about which CBS must make decisions: four flex areas and four constants.

The early slot on the first day illustrated the inevitable complications.

Boston College-Texas Tech and Maryland-Davidson both were close. Louisville-Stanford was not, but 5 percent of the nation was stuck watching nearly every minute.

That probably was fine with the hoops-heads in Kentucky. It surely was not fine with many in the San Francisco area, where the lackluster interest in Stanford faded fast as Louisville pulled away.

A CBS public relations official soon got a call from a northern California reporter asking what could be done. Short answer: Not much. History has proven more people get mad when you bail on a local team in a boring game than when you don't.

(Thus, there is at least one bonus in having the metropolitan area shut out of this year's field of 65: We can be flexed out of any stinker.)

Petitti said most people come to the event wanting a sample of the action, "so we tend to be aggressive whenever we can.''

The color-coded maps CBS uses to keep track of all of this illustrate a diverse nation.

The most broadly assigned game of Day One was last night's Gonzaga-Indiana contest, with 56 percent assigned to it on a flex basis, 5 percent as a constant.

A total of 68 percent will get Georgia Tech-UNLV early today, but New York is part of the 15 percent of the nation that will get Virginia-Albany.

Petitti did most of the talking in the "MP'' room, instructing the far-flung staff in matters as trivial as the volume level in Winston-Salem and as important as when to rescue the 26 percent of America eligible to flex away from Louisville-Stanford. (Very early, as it turned out.)

McManus, also president of CBS News, sits by Petitti's side, even as he juggles his two disparate jobs. Last year, he spoke to a reporter in Baghdad even as he monitored the hoops action.

By the end of the early games, Petitti, McManus and Michael Aresco, senior VP of programming, each was standing as they monitored the final minutes of the two close games.

New York mostly stuck with the BC-Texas Tech game, but by the time it ended and CBS got around to switching to the Maryland-Davidson near-upset, the Terrapins finally had taken control. It happens.

Was it too soon? Too early? Petitti will hear about it on the radio this morning. In the meantime, there still were 13 more games on the schedule, then 16 more today.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-spbest5132234mar16,0,960310,print.column?coll=ny-sports-columnists

[fredfa]

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 second post in this thread.

[fredfa]

TV Sports
Commentary: MLB battles to attract average fan
George M. Thomas Akron Beacon Journal March 16, 2007

Choose your sports metaphor or cliche regarding the current dilemma between Major League Baseball and cable operators:

We gotta win one for the Gipper. Fourth-and-goal. Bottom of the ninth with a runner in scoring position ...

You get the idea.

In case you hadn't heard, MLB signed what amounts to a de facto exclusive deal with satellite TV provider DirecTV giving that company the rights to air baseball's Extra Innings package. With the service, fans can view up to 60 out-of-market baseball games per week for $179 for the season. That has cable operators screaming foul at the prospect of losing the product.

Should they be? It depends on your point of view. If you're a current Extra Innings customer in the area via cable and you have no plans to switch or even to add satellite service -- or you're one of many sportswriters knocking the deal -- then sure.

I don't see it that way.

After being outflanked by the National Football League when it comes to savvy business decisions for years, baseball blitzed the NFL for once.

Don't for a minute believe this is about hardcore fans. The seven-year $700 million deal between MLB and DirecTV has everything to do with a 24-hour channel MLB wants to start by 2009. This is where the guys who run baseball have proven shrewd.

While the NFL continues to battle the likes of Time Warner for placement in the basic tier of cable channels, as opposed to the sports ghetto of premium tier, baseball says, ``Wait just a minute. You want our premium programming? Then you gotta put our channel on where it has the best chance for baseball fans to see it -- in the basic package.''

Some have written and said that once again, baseball is snubbing its fans. I don't see it that way. Not even close.

If anything, baseball, with the addition of a 24-hour baseball channel, is trying to appeal to more fans.

Consider this: The Extra Innings package had only 500,000 subscribers for the 2006 season, according to a spokeswoman for MLB. More than half of those viewers came courtesy of DirecTV's 15.5 million subscribers. That leaves, at most, a paltry 250,000 fans divided among the 65 million or so cable subscribers out there.

MLB knows it has the hardcore fan, but as a league or a sport, if baseball is to continue to grow, it must look beyond that base. That means capturing Joe or Jane Average surfing TV channels on slow nights when nothing else is on. The deal possesses the potential to draw the casual fan and, yes, it will provide MLB with another source of income.

If cable subscribers to the package are that rabid, they -- as many who purchase the NFL Sunday Ticket already do (including yours truly) -- will subscribe, then turn off the dish the rest of the year.

There is hope still, however. Fans who received Extra Innings through InDemand, the pay-per-view service owned by a consortium of cable companies (including Time Warner), can rest uneasily knowing that negotiations are ongoing, an InDemand spokeswoman said.

Why do I get the impression cable companies are about to strike out the same way some of them have mishandled the situation with NFL Network?

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/sports/16915758.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

[fredfa]

Overnights in the 18-49 Demo
Fox's '5th Grader' holds its own alone
Rating tumbles from last week without 'Idol'
By Toni Fitzgerald MediaLifeMagazine.com staff writer March 16, 2007

As expected, Fox’s “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?” saw its ratings tumble without the benefit of the “American Idol” lead-in it enjoyed during its first four outings. But even without “Idol,” “Smarter” won its 8 p.m. timeslot easily last night and suddenly gave Fox a presence on Thursday night, where it has long struggled.

“Smarter” averaged a 4.5 adults 18-49 rating last night, according to Nielsen overnights, down 44 percent from last Thursday’s 8.0, when “Idol” was its lead-in.

But even with the big rating drop, “Smarter” still finished well ahead of the competition at 8 p.m., a full 1.1 ahead of “Ugly Betty” and 1.2 ahead of CBS’s NCAA men’s basketball coverage.

“Betty” had its lowest rating for an original episode in weeks, likely hurt by both “Smarter” and basketball, but it did finish 0.1 ahead of "Smarter" in households with a 7.4.

Fox had been airing low-rated sitcoms “’Til Death” and “The War at Home” in the timeslot, and “Smarter” roughly doubled their average in their most recent outing last month (“Idol” aired three special Thursday episodes the past three weeks).

This gives Fox something to build on Thursday and a chance to be competitive on a night where NBC, ABC and CBS all have footholds.

But it won’t be easy to carry that success into the 9 p.m. period. As ABC showed last night, its “Grey’s Anatomy” continues to be the night’s dominant show, and “Grey’s” lifted the debut of the new drama “October Road” to strong numbers at 10 p.m., too.

“Road” averaged a 5.8 rating, doubling NBC’s “Raines,” a new drama that also debuted in the same timeslot, and performing much better than usual timeslot occupant “Men in Trees.”

“Road” declined 14 percent from its first to its second half hour, not a bad number. And it was by far the highest-rated of the night’s three premieres, which also included NBC’s critically lauded but low-rated “Andy Barker, P.I.” That show averaged just a 2.4.

ABC finished first for the night among viewers 18-49 with a 6.0 average rating and a 16 share. Fox and CBS tied for second at 3.5/9, with NBC fourth at 2.7/7 and Univision and CW tied for fifth at 1.7/5.

Fox started the night in first place, posting a 4.5 rating at 8 p.m. for “Smarter.” ABC was second that hour with a 3.4 for “Betty,” CBS third with a 3.3 for NCAA basketball tournament coverage and NBC fourth with a 2.8 for a repeat of “The Office.” Univision and CW tied for fifth at 2.0, Univision for “La Fea Mas Bella” and CW for “Smallville.”

At 9 p.m. ABC took the lead with an 8.8 rating for “Grey’s Anatomy,” the night’s top-rated show among 18-49s. CBS was second with a 3.8 for basketball and NBC and Fox tied for third at 2.6, NBC for “Scrubs” (2.8) and the premiere of “Barker” (2.4) and Fox for an hour of “Family Guy” repeats. Univision was fifth with a 1.7 for “Mundo de Fieras” and CW sixth with a 1.4 for “Supernatural,” a bubble show for next season that did draw its biggest total viewers audience (3.5 million) since October.

ABC led again at 10 p.m., this time with a 5.8 rating for the premiere of “Road.” CBS was second with a 3.3 for basketball, NBC third with a 2.9 for the premiere of “Raines” and Univision fourth with a 1.4 for “Aqui y Ahora.”

Among households, ABC finished first for the night with a 10.6 average rating and a 17 share. CBS was second at 6.2/10, Fox third at 5.4/9, NBC fourth at 5.0/8, CW fifth at 2.5/4 and Univision sixth at 2.1/3.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_10846.asp

[fredfa]

There have been some changes made in the CBS NCAA Basketball Tournament starting times. Those changes are reflected at the top of the sceond post in this thread.

[fredfa]

The TV Column
'5th Grader': The Class of '07?
By Lisa de Moraes Washington Post Columnist Friday, March16, 2007

Before Fox execs had even seen the numbers on last night's first "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" broadcast without an "American Idol" lead-in, the network ordered 13 more episodes of the show critics say panders to the country's intellectual torpidity.

Or, if you're a glass half-full kind of gal, you call it another show that is bringing young kids and adults to the same TV set and turning, ironically, the Fox network into a bastion of Family Friendly programming.

Of course, "5th Grader" isn't just a quiz show. "It's also a comedy," Fox Executive Vice President Preston Beckman told The TV Column.

Starring down-home stand-up comic Jeff Foxworthy and a bunch of precocious camera-savvy kids who have been given workbooks with which to cram for the broadcasts, the slow-moving quiz show features adults struggling to answer questions taught to children in grades 1 through 5.

The adults aren't competing against the kids. In fact, they are allowed to use the kids to cheat.

In much the same way "Jeopardy!" seeks contestants who won't freeze up on camera, the "5th Grader" adults seem to be picked for their deer-in-the-headlights reaction to the fact they're trying to answer grade-school questions on camera, in front of a crowd, for a lot of money.

We've all seen the promo clip of the guy who has trouble multiplying 2 times 5, or the guy who tries to figure in his head how many E's there are in "Pledge of Allegiance" by counting the number in "pledge" and in "the."

Actually, I think it's the same guy.

Few of the questions on "5th Grader" are as simple as the multiple-choice question asked of a contestant back in the early days of ABC's monster hit "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" -- the correct answer to which was the kids' game "Duck Duck Goose."

Four-year-old Walker McKinney of Tulsa was thrilled when he knew the answer while watching with his family, according to an Associated Press story written seven years ago about critics who lambasted that show's stupidly simple questions as contributing to "the dumbing down of America," as the AP wrote at that time.

But, as with "5th Grader," the simple questions were one of the secrets of "Millionaire's" success.

"The questions are deliberately easy in the beginning, because you want to get everybody into the show," executive producer Michael Davies explained at the time. Little kids become invested if they can answer a couple of the early questions, he explained -- adults enjoy answering the later questions.

Like "Millionaire" (before ABC killed it by running it to death across its prime-time landscape), "5th Grader" is a very broad hit. Its debut, following an episode of "American Idol," attracted an average of nearly 27 million viewers -- the best launch in Fox's history and the best launch on any network in five years.

"5th Grader" is the No. 1 new program of this TV season in all demographic groups, from kids to grandparents. It's averaging a 24 share among teens -- which means that a quarter of the teens watching TV when the show is on are glued to it -- nothing short of miraculous, given the fragmentation of that age group across media platforms.

That it attracts kids to the show makes it much more desirable for prime time, when advertisers pay a premium to reach younger eyeballs. Kids and teens bring down the median age of the game show. It's no coincidence the median age of "5th Grader" viewers is 39 years old, while the median age of the audience for "Jeopardy!" is 62.

Similarly, when "Millionaire" debuted, its median age was around 42. During its initial season, "Millionaire" was a top 10 show across virtually all demographic categories, including kids 2-11, teens 12-17, adults 18-34, 18-49, 25-54 and 55-plus.

Next time you feel like calling "5th Grader" a stupid show that's dumbing down the country, sit down and watch it with a small child.

You'll enjoy yourself. Now, NBC's screaming-at-briefcases series -- that's another story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031502283_pf.html

[jandron]

I predicted that Raines would open bigger than Donnellys, and it did, in total viewers.

It also held on to a much bigger portion on it's audience in the second half hour. :)

[fredfa]

You were right, Jandron.

There was a downside, though: Raines got trashed by October Road in the 18-49s.

As for The Black Donnellys, I think we can expect the cancellation word to come at any time.

And the relative success of October Road could prove troubling for the renewal of Men In Trees, too.

[foxeng]

Give me a break! How is that phoney? If you really want to do things right, get rid of ALL the rules and let the marketplace/subscribers determine what is fair. Let cable and sat make whatever deals they can and provide whatever content they deem marketable in whatever way, shape or form they deem profitable.

You need to wake up and realize that if you can't ala carte past, what you suggest isn't going to happen either. It is all for cable and nothing for anyone else. Cable's "oh poor pittiful me" act is getting pretty damn old in light of what they actual get. That IS phooney.

[fredfa]

Local HDTV Notebook
Tucson to get first HD Local News
From TVNEWSDAY Mar. 16, 2007

KVOA Tucson, Ariz., (DMA #70) will join the growing ranks of TV stations broadcasting news in HDTV, General Manager Gary Nielsen announced today.

If all goes well, he said, the service will be up and running in time for the May sweeps.

“We feel HD is the killer app for digital broadcasting,” Nielsen said. “I just bought a HD set six months ago. I’ll watch an ant on Discovery if it’s in HD.”

The conversion will include upgrading the NBC affiliate’s weathercasts to True View HD by WSI.

Unless a rival stations jumps in ahead of it, KVOA will be the first station in Tucson to offer HD news and Tucson will the second smallest market (DMA 70) with HD news. Reno, Nev., is the smallest (DMA 110).

“We are dedicated to giving our TV stations the tools they need to provide their viewers the highest quality local newscasts in their respective markets,” said Terrace Hurley, president of Cordillera Communications, owner of KVOA and 10 other TV stations.

“By supporting KVOA in its goal of becoming the first local news organization in Tucson to present all of its newscasts in high def, we believe News 4 will continue to lead the market and set the standard in Southern Arizona.”

About 30 others station have made the switch to HD. Like most, KVOA will shoot widescreen (16x9) SD video in the field and upconvert it for broadcast. “We want to wait for the next generation of HD field cameras before we go there.”

Nielsen said that he has seen upconverted video in news at other stations. “It looks pretty good.”

http://www.tvnewsday.com/articles/2007/03/16/daily.4/

[fredfa]

Local HDTV Notebook
Lexington Kentucky’s WKYT to air HD News by June
No upconverted SD from the field. It's the "biggest thing" since color, GM says
By Harry A. Jessell TVNEWSDAY

Gray Television’s WKYT Lexington, Ky., (DMA #63) plans to offer “true and full” local HD news by June 1, according to Wayne Martin, general manager of the CBS affiliate.

Unlike other local HD news pioneers, WKYT will shoot HD in the field, according to Martin.

“We will be true and full HD,” Martin says. “We have already acquired and are using [Sony] HD cameras in the field. We will have HD cameras in creative services. We will have HD cameras in the studio.”

About 30 other stations are now offering HD news. But most are shooting news in the field in widescreen SD, upconverting it and then integrating it with real studio HD for broadcast.

At WKYT, Martin said, the only programming that will be upconverted after June 1 is “legacy footage” and non-HD syndicated programming.

WKYT will be the first Gray station to go with HD news, and likely the first in Lexington, the 63rd-largest TV market.

“It’s going to be the biggest thing for our viewers since the conversion from black and white to color,” Martin says. “I think it is that significant. The investment that we are making will not have an immediate return, but long range people are going to recognize the quality of what we are providing.

“Our market penetration with HD sets is in the mid teens right now,” he adds. “That will increase exponentially over the next two years.”

Martin says that WKYT has been gradually equipping itself to be fully HD for the past four and a half years. “We didn’t just decide to do this six months ago.”

Martin credits station engineer Chas Callaway with the HD upgrade. “The vision has come from [Gray COO] Bob Prather and the execution is with Chas.”

“It’s going to be a distinct competitive advantage when 2009 rolls around,” Prather told TVNEWSDAY.

“It’s like going back to 1969,” Prather says. “If you watch color TV all day, you don’t want to see the local news in black and white. Once people get use to seeing HD programming, they are going to expect the news to be in HD and they are going to expect us to be the leader.”

Prather said five or six additional Gray stations will make the move to HD news over the next two or three years, but he declined to identify them. “I don’t want to give a competitor a chance to jump in there too.”

In connection with the news upgrade, WKYT will also upgrade its digital CW affiliate to HD by June 1, Martin said.

http://www.tvnewsday.com/articles/2007/03/15/daily.11/

[fredfa]

Hey foxeng, with all the announcements about local news going HD, any hint about when your station will join the parade?

[HDTVChallenged]

You need to wake up and realize that if you can't ala carte past, what you suggest isn't going to happen either. It is all for cable and nothing for anyone else. Cable's "oh poor pittiful me" act is getting pretty damn old in light of what they actual get. That IS phooney.

You know .... What I find "interesting" (not to mention quite amusing) about this it that apparently the proposed solution to lack of ala-carte options is to force even more "bundling" via some form of multicast must carry. The "partisan" spins are just breathtaking. :D

[fredfa]

By the way, the increasing announcements of stations in relatively small markets going to HD news probably adds pressure to DirecTV and Dish to add those markets to their HD offerings sooner rather than later.

[shuttermaker]

You were right, Jandron.

There was a downside, though: Raines got trashed by October Road in the 18-49s.

As for The Black Donnellys, I think we can expect the cancellation word to come at any time.

And the relative success of October Road could prove troubling for the renewal of Men In Trees, too.


I think October Road did as well as it did due to the "men folk" watching the NCAAs which left the female viewers to watch October Road. Not to mention it followed Grey's.

When the NCAAs are done more of that audience may be inclined to check out Raines.

[HDTVChallenged]

Local HDTV Notebook
Lexington Kentucky’s WKYT to air HD News by June
No upconverted SD from the field. It's the "biggest thing" since color, GM says
By Harry A. Jessell TVNEWSDAY

Gray Television’s WKYT Lexington, Ky., (DMA #63) plans to offer “true and full” local HD news by June 1, according to Wayne Martin, general manager of the CBS affiliate.

Unlike other local HD news pioneers, WKYT will shoot HD in the field, according to Martin.

“We will be true and full HD,” Martin says. “We have already acquired and are using [Sony] HD cameras in the field. We will have HD cameras in creative services. We will have HD cameras in the studio.”

About 30 other stations are now offering HD news. But most are shooting news in the field in widescreen SD, upconverting it and then integrating it with real studio HD for broadcast.

At WKYT, Martin said, the only programming that will be upconverted after June 1 is “legacy footage” and non-HD syndicated programming.

WKYT will be the first Gray station to go with HD news, and likely the first in Lexington, the 63rd-largest TV market.

“It’s going to be the biggest thing for our viewers since the conversion from black and white to color,” Martin says. “I think it is that significant. The investment that we are making will not have an immediate return, but long range people are going to recognize the quality of what we are providing.

“Our market penetration with HD sets is in the mid teens right now,” he adds. “That will increase exponentially over the next two years.”

Martin says that WKYT has been gradually equipping itself to be fully HD for the past four and a half years. “We didn’t just decide to do this six months ago.”

Martin credits station engineer Chas Callaway with the HD upgrade. “The vision has come from [Gray COO] Bob Prather and the execution is with Chas.”

“It’s going to be a distinct competitive advantage when 2009 rolls around,” Prather told TVNEWSDAY.

“It’s like going back to 1969,” Prather says. “If you watch color TV all day, you don’t want to see the local news in black and white. Once people get use to seeing HD programming, they are going to expect the news to be in HD and they are going to expect us to be the leader.”

Prather said five or six additional Gray stations will make the move to HD news over the next two or three years, but he declined to identify them. “I don’t want to give a competitor a chance to jump in there too.”

In connection with the news upgrade, WKYT will also upgrade its digital CW affiliate to HD by June 1, Martin said.

http://www.tvnewsday.com/articles/2007/03/15/daily.11/

Interesting about the CW HD news ... I'd bet this will only be available on cable, or HD via WKYT is going to start looking awful ...

For the record, WKYT is currently crossconverting CBS-HD to 720p and CW is on the .2 as 480i (along with a low-bandwidth radar sweep on the .3 )

BTW, their crosstown rivals at WLEX have also announced plans to start broadcasting news in HD. And they've been "working on it" with plant upgrades for the past decade. ;)

On the plus side, WKYT was the first station to "offer" their HD signal to local cable companies ... and is still the only commercial station with a HD presence on on the cable system in my community. Interesting tid-bit, no? I respect the fact that while so many stations have complained, delayed, and generally have been the "knights who say nyet" about all things related to the digital transition, WKYT has forged ahead with not a peep of dissent.

[dad1153]

Raines got trashed by October Road in the 18-49s.

As for The Black Donnellys, I think we can expect the cancellation word to come at any time.

And the relative success of October Road could prove troubling for the renewal of Men In Trees, too.

Screw all these shows, when is Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip coming back? That's the one show whose uncertain future (and potential return on the air) I want to know about ASAP. Maybe there's a switch to HBO in the works (it's a Warner show after all)! :rolleyes:

[fredfa]

You know .... What I find "interesting" (not to mention quite amusing) about this it that apparently the proposed solution to lack of ala-carte options is to force even more "bundling" via some form of multicast must carry. The "partisan" spins are just breathtaking. :D

I agree, HDTVC, and I sure can't sort them out. I suspect many of these proposals are being made just to confuse the situation...because the movers and shakers can't figure out what is going to happen, either.

[archiguy]

Screw all these shows, when is Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip coming back? That's the one show whose uncertain future (and potential return on the air) I want to know about ASAP. Maybe there's a switch to HBO in the works (it's a Warner show after all)! :rolleyes:

Dad, dad, dad - it ain't coming back, or if so, it will just be to burn off any remaining episodes already in the can and/or because TBD has tanked even worse. You need to let it go, man. It's a bummer for sure, but S-60 is toast. :(

[SirJW]

Does anyone know when KCBS/KCAL News is moving to Studio Center and going HD?

[kjpjr]

One issue I see missed in all this is that TWC or any other cable co plays Mom and Dad with us. They act like they know what is best for all of us and we have no choice. If the ESPN family -- all of it -- was available to me for $30 a month I would buy it. I realize many of you would not but that is Mom and Dad kicking in. Let me make the choice. I pay $7 a month now to get ESPN HD and a few other channels I never watch. On the other end I have Fox News blocked on my boxes so why should I pay whatever it is a month. MBL -EI is another example, although a bit different. I was told by a TW rep that they are trying to protect me by holding down costs and the pack would get too expensive. Let me make that decision -- not them.

I realize this might cause a problem for some of the small networks but that becomes a filter process. How many reruns of MASH can one watch anyway!

[fredfa]

Does anyone know when KCBS/KCAL News is moving to Studio Center and going HD?

I think the only official word is "later this year".

[fredfa]

Critic’s Notebook
No “Bones” About It:
My Favorite Procedural
By Matt Roush TV Guide critic

In this week's episode of Bones, we learn there's a community of "Brennanites," avid followers of Temperance "Bones" Brennan, that fictional triple-threat forensic anthropologist, crime-solver and best-selling mystery novelist. Add me to the fan base.

As this second season has progressed, I've found myself getting more and more attached to this prickly "squint," her engagingly quirky lab mates and her FBI partner Seeley Booth. With clever writing, appealing casting and just enough of the "ick" factor — decomposed victims are the norm that helped put CSI on the map — Bones has slowly but surely become the most purely entertaining procedural crime drama on TV. (My top five, after Bones: TNT's The Closer, when it's on; the original and still champion of Thursdays CSI; and the twofer of Cold Case and Without a Trace, in part because the formula of these Sunday dramas invites a more emotional connection to the victims.)

Having just watched this week and next week's Bones episodes, more than ever I'm enjoying the chemistry between Emily Deschanel and David Boreanaz as Bones and Booth. Their relationship has been strained a bit lately because of her passionate fling with the more laid-back FBI guy Sully (an unusually agreeable Eddie McClintock). In classic crime-team tradition, Bones and Booth needle and complement each other with banter that only barely masks a mutual (but usually unspoken) attraction. Both are damaged goods. Her family past is a nightmare; his sniper past haunts him and led him to therapy (with the droll Stephen Fry) this season.

Those factors alone would almost be enough to recommend this series, but there's more. The interplay in the Jeffersonian lab is priceless among the lab "squints," and this season, throwing together good-time girl Angela (the terrifically funny Michaela Conlin) and buggy bug expert Hodgins (T.J. Thyne) in a relationship has added some nice emotional resonance to the workplace camaraderie, fleshing out many a scene played out over a bunch of bones. Even at its grisliest, there are light touches, like Angela confronting her coworkers next week to declare, "You know what you people lack? Whimsy. It's a genuine deficiency." Thankfully, Angela more than makes up for it. She's good enough to deserve her own show. But I hope and imagine she'll stay put.

The mysteries are usually pretty good as well, especially this week's, in which Bones' latest best-selling thriller appears to have inspired a serial killer who's copycatting her gross-out plot. (Which involves victims being chewed up by animals, and it isn't pretty. The squeamish get plenty of warning so they can hide their eyes.) Speaking of her books, there's a neat in-joke tonight. Listen for a throwaway line in which Brennan refers to her books' fictional heroine. Still, her career does bring up one thing that strikes me as false about Bones, and Bones. If Brennan is such a successful pop-culture writer, you'd think she'd know more about the culture at large. (She often says, "I don't know what that means" when someone brings up a popular movie or TV show.) Next week, she continually turns colloquialisms into malapropisms, at one point referring to a "switcha-macallit." It's funny, but she really should be smarter than that.

But that's a small detail. Next week's episode, which forces Bones to confront her happy fling with Sully — "There's more to life than corpses and murderers," she's told (oh really?) — offers up another Bones specialty, one shared by the best procedurals: using forensics to introduce us to unknown, exotic customs. Here, that's an ancient Asian ritual involving the burial of a man's and woman's bones together for symbolic afterlife purposes. We enter the case with the discovery of a young mail-order bride's body, which has been boiled so the skeleton could be complete removed (and the skin is sewn back together).

Ewww? You bet. Wouldn't have it any other way.

http://community.tvguide.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800010787

[foxeng]

Hey foxeng, with all the announcements about local news going HD, any hint about when your station will join the parade?

I could tell you but then I would have to kill you! (Seriously!!) If I could talk about it I would, but I can't. I can't even say if we are even thinking or not thinking about it. I just can't say, period. Competition, and all that, you know.

[foxeng]

You know .... What I find "interesting" (not to mention quite amusing) about this it that apparently the proposed solution to lack of ala-carte options is to force even more "bundling" via some form of multicast must carry. The "partisan" spins are just breathtaking. :D

That came out of the FCC, not the broadcasters. IMO, I don't think many broadcasters want to do that kind of multicasting away, hence the luke warm to no comment reception from broadcasters.

[foxeng]

TV Technology Email Newsletters :: Doug Lung's RF Report
MSTV Preps Broadcasters for 2009 Transition
March 16, 2007

MSTV invited broadcasters to a Web cast this week to focus on the steps broadcasters need to take to prepare for the shutdown of analog TV broadcasting less than two years from now.

The key message was that broadcasters have to begin preparation now if they are changing channels on Feb. 17, 2009. David Donovan, president of the Association for Maximum Service Television showed the results of a survey conducted by MSTV listing the number of tower companies qualified to work on tall broadcast towers and the number of major manufacturers of critical components such as transmitters and antennas that indicate it will be difficult for manufacturers to meet demand. In the northeast U.S., only two summers remain to complete tower and antenna work.

While Andrew Long, associate chief of the FCC's Media Bureau said the commission was moving as quickly as possible to process applications and develop post-transition rules, he didn't appear optimistic that all the international coordination issues would be resolved before the transition. This may result in some stations being forced to operate with less coverage than they expected. Many stations are waiting on adoption of the final DTV table of allotments or removal of the freeze on modification applications extending coverage area before ordering equipment.

When questioned about when broadcasters might see the final DTV table, Long said that the FCC was moving "as fast as it could," but that he said he couldn't provide a time line. FCC rulemaking procedures require time for filing comments and replies to comments. The FCC then has to consider these comments in creating the final report and order.

John Lawson, president and CEO of the Association of Public Television Stations described the problems public TV stations face obtaining funding for transmission system changes in the limited time before the transition. He recommended public TV stations not wait for the final DTV table or for applications to be granted before filing requests for the funds needed to complete the DTV transition. At a minimum, they need to work with equipment manufacturers to make sure the equipment will be available when the funding comes.

Marcellus Alexander, executive vice president of television with NAB described the efforts the association was making to educate consumers about the DTV transition. Recent studies have shown many Americans do not understand the transition.

All of the panelists agreed a successful transition depended on cooperation between broadcasters, manufacturers, consumer electronics manufacturers and the FCC. In some markets, stations will be exchanging channels with other stations. In many cases, a station may have to move to its allotted DTV channel before another station in the same or adjacent market can move to its final channel. This will require coordination on the local level.

MSTV will soon begin conducting meetings across the country to help broadcasters coordinate local transition efforts. Stations hoping for a delay in the transition may be disappointed. All the participants on the panel saw little chance the Feb. 17, 2009 date would be changed. There is simply too much political pressure to recover the spectrum and broadcasters, some of which have been keeping analog transmitters running well past their useful lifetime, want to eliminate the high cost of operating two transmitters simultaneously.

MSTV has made a recording of the Web cast available online, either in Real or Windows Media formats. A PDF of the slides is also online. Look for them at www.MSTV.org.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0115/t.3200.html

[fredfa]

TV Q&A
Ask Matt (from the Ask Matt column at TVGuide.com)
Matt answers your questions about “American Idol”, “House”, “BSG”, and “Buffy”
By Matt Roush: TVGuide.com TV Critic Friday, March 16, 2007

Question: Before everyone starts to beat the drum about the folly of the American Idol eliminations, I wanted to write and say that I think that, rather than this season being an aberration, these past few weeks leading up to the formation of the top 12 represent the American Idol that everyone — its makers and fans — truly deserves. I don't think a show that begins by presenting the greatly untalented as entertainment, and allows its judges to laugh and poke fun at them, can turn around during its "serious" portion and stomp its feet and whine that the viewers aren't choosing the best singers. If you make humiliation part of the equation at the outset, then people will vote accordingly. The lesson here: You shouldn't make a double-edged sword and then be surprised when it cuts both ways. What do you think?— Nicolaus A.

Matt Roush: Agree totally. I know the audition episodes are too popular for Fox ever to drop, but I deplore them. And it does create an environment in which some of the more marginal talents, once they're exposed on the big stage in the semifinals, are given way too long a leash, either at the urging of perverse websites that think it’s funny when people vote for the earsores (it's not) or by misguided altruists who may think they're being kind by voting for those they think the judges are treating too harshly. (Trust me: They're not.) There's no way that, given the performances in the past few weeks, Sanjaya and Haley should have made it this far in this competition — and that's just to single out the most notably notorious. But that's nothing new for this show, and as Nicolaus says, Idol reaps what it sows for its cynical cruelty at the start of each season.

Question: I wanted to vent about the show House. I absolutely love the show, the drama, the cast, the "miracles," etc, but I am really growing tired of the House "issues" (his addiction, his inability to be real, his sexual innuendos, his using his friends for his benefit, etc) getting attention in every single episode lately. Is there an end to this? Can't they just let House be a miracle worker again? Are the ratings suffering at all? Am I the only one who feels this way?— Mary M.

Matt Roush: I'm sure you're not alone. (Example: in next week's issue of TV Guide, we're publishing a letter in the "Jump the Shark" space from someone who thinks House went too far in faking brain cancer recently, which really was over-the-top, you have to admit.) It doesn't appear to be hurting the show's ratings, though. They're through the roof, and are strong even when there's no Idol around. I more or less agree that since the disappointing resolution of the Tritter prosecution, when House appeared to have learned nothing from that mess, that his boorishness sometimes verges on caricature. But it comes with the show's territory. House works (or doesn't work, depending on whether you choose to embrace the show) on two levels: as an extreme medical-mystery procedural and as a character study of one of TV's most fascinating yet exasperating antiheroes. If you liked him all the time, House wouldn't be doing its job. Even so, they do sometimes seem to be pushing it. For now, though, they're getting away with it.

Question: Last Sunday's Amazing Race was the biggest farce I have ever seen! I will never believe that Rob and Amber would come in last for any reason other than something beyond their control. It was amazingly clear to me when they spelled Philippines incorrectly (as I might have) that they were just making obviously ridiculous mistakes. The whole thing was ridiculous! My intelligence was insulted. Do you think that they bring certain people back for ratings, knowing that they will not let them win?— Diane G

Matt Roush: Let them win? What show are you watching? There's no question Rob and Amber were brought back for ratings (not that this all-star edition is going exactly gangbusters), which is why I was actually more amazed that when Rob and Amber stepped last on the mat, we didn't magically learn that this was somehow an earlier-than-usual nonelimination round. I'd bet the show's producers regret losing this team so early, though as I noted in my Dispatch earlier this week, and I'm sure to few readers' surprise, I don't agree and I'm happy to see the last of them. For now. From where I sat, Rob and Amber simply had a very bad spell of continued bad luck on this leg. It happens in this game. Until they hit the team challenge, they were doing just fine. And while it may have been "amazingly clear" to you that the misspelling was the problem, Rob and Amber didn't see it. Again, it happens. Why feel more insulted by this than when other teams screw up? But after allowing a number of teams to pull ahead during that botched challenge, they made several more mistakes (including missing a clue box) that they weren't alone in making, all of which put Rob off his game during the mail-sorting challenge (a task the more focused Amber should have done) and allowed the ultra-annoying Charla and Mirna to miraculously pull ahead. Do I sense a conspiracy here? No. And neither, from what we saw on the show, did Rob and Amber. They accepted their defeat gracefully. Why can't you?

Question: Was the supposed death of Kara "Starbuck" Thrace on the March 4 episode of Battlestar Galactica legitimate, or will Katee Sackhoff be returning to the series? I noticed on the next episode that her name was not shown in its usual place during the opening montage that begins each show. I've been checking TV Guide to see if there was any mention that Sackhoff was leaving for good, but I found nothing, though I did read on the BG website on Sci Fi that a pilot episode for some new series is being developed for her. Do you have any information as to whether we have seen the last of Sackhoff/Starbuck, and what reasons she might have had to leave the show?— David R.

Matt Roush: There is no way I would answer this question even if I could. My advice, as it always is when it comes to shows like this, is to just sit back and watch and let things unfold in their own time. In this Internet age, I am dismayed at how much people need to know about every twist on shows that rely on surprise, reversals and even tragedies for their ultimate impact. I don't want to know in advance when someone meets their maker on 24. I certainly didn't want to know that Starbuck was going to meet her "destiny" (whatever that may signify) in the March 4 episode, although I'd unfortunately swallowed enough hype before screening a preview copy that I expected that something like that might happen. At this moment in BSG time, we're meant to see the situation the same way everyone in the fleet does: that Kara is dead. I understand the curiosity and concern, and it's fun to play the game up to a point, but I also think there's something ultimately damaging about the need to troll websites, official or otherwise, to snoop out clues and spoilers about every single thing that's going to happen on a favorite show. I've seen these next few episodes, and except for urging everyone to see them to experience the surprises as they roll out, I will only comment on them after they've aired. It's the only professional way to approach shows like this, and I can't believe fans actually want it all ruined for them in advance.

Question: As much as I have always enjoyed Battlestar Galactica (so much so that I've talked others into trying it out), I am starting to feel disappointed with it. It's not the quality that's gone down, it's that it has become nothing but tragic. Don't get me wrong, the thing I always liked about Galactica was its gritty feel, but now it's come to the point of being humorless and morose. I saw this first with the death-of-Kat episode, and later with the death of Starbuck, both episodes being so painful to watch that I was almost unable to get through them. I miss the dark humor that Baltar always brought to the show, and I truly wonder if the writers have forgotten that they are here to entertain us.— Lyle

Matt Roush: Maybe the dramatic events during Baltar's trial will lift your spirits, although once again, moments of comic relief on this show these days are pretty rare. Personally, I don't see a disconnect between a show being this intense and still having entertainment value. It's like President Roslyn said during the labor-strike episode (my favorite of the recent stand-alones): "Nobody's having a good time…. There is nothing ideal about this fleet." This has unquestionably been a tough, grueling season, from the occupation of New Caprica onwards. And as I've noted several times since the show's return on Sunday, I'm not crazy about the new scheduling, because this is one heavy show to watch on a busy night right before the work week begins. Still, for me, it's worth the effort.

Question: I have to say, Matt, in the past, you've never led me astray. But your review of The Winner is a real puzzler to me. In this day and age of excellent comedies like Scrubs, The Office and the late, great Arrested Development, how could you possibly enjoy one of the lamest half hours on television? The laugh track is right out of the '50s: loud, intrusive and completely off base. (For instance, in the pilot, why would anyone laugh at his unfunny parents during the scene at the breakfast table? And there were not only laughs but actual guffaws!) I'm a huge fan of The Daily Show, and I love Rob Corddry. But his personality goes too far and needs to be toned down. The obnoxious laugh track does not make this show funny, only silly and stupid.— Jan A.

Matt Roush: I've never led you astray before? Nice to know, but hard to believe. I've been doing this a while. You won't find me defending the laugh track here, although I'll admit I'm mostly immune to it, and wonder about those who rail against it like it's something new to TV. Any show filmed in front of an audience tweaks its laugh track, although not to the degree of The Winner, for sure. I was also put off by the opening scene with the parents in the pilot. In fact, I was sure I was going to hate the show based on how overplayed that scene was, matched by the laugh track. But then, the show and its main character unexpectedly charmed me, despite the inherent creepiness of it all. Look, The Winner isn't going on my top-10 list, or even my top 40. But given what Fox has shown us lately in live-action comedy (The War at Home, 'Til Death), this one disarmed me, and I treated it generously. Maybe more than it deserved, but ultimately in my view, a laugh track does not a show make, or unmake. Look at how successful CBS is with its traditionally produced Monday sitcoms, which all clearly make use of sweetened laugh tracks. It's not necessarily a deal breaker.

A similar gripe, about shaky camerawork, is voiced by Kathy L.: "What is it with the camerawork on Boston Legal? While it's not a must-see for me, I enjoy it occasionally as the "New Ally McBeal with Boys" that it is (mostly just to see Julie Bowen and Mark Valley) — but unless I just listen and occasionally glance at it, it's almost impossible to watch without a full load of Dramamine. The camera whips and swoops and spins around to the point of nausea! I know I miss a lot by not watching the characters and just listening, but it's the only way I can stand it for an hour. I see it a lot on shows that try to be 'edgy,' whereas I only find it distracting. Will this trend ever end, or do I just give up on BL and other shows that make me seasick?"

This complaint dogged Friday Night Lights for much of this season as well, and I'm happy to note that the UnSteadyCam has been toned down a bit (though not entirely abandoned), or maybe I just don't notice it anymore. As with laugh tracks, this camera movement is something that rarely bothers me, going back all the way to NYPD Blue and Homicide: Life on the Street, both of which employed whipsawing handheld cameras, sometimes to their disadvantage. It has become a signature of shows that want to evoke a quasidocumentary realism, and sometimes it does come off like a gimmick, especially when David E. Kelley uses zooms to hammer home every innuendo and joke. My problem with Boston Legal, and it extends to the acting and writing as well as the camerawork and cutesy editing, is that it's all so heavy-handed.

Question: The March 12 Ask Matt featured a letter where the writer asked how many of America's 60 million Pentecostals are represented on TV, or how many of the eight million Mormons. The real answer should have been, "Who knows?" How do you tell a character's religion when the dialogue or setting provides no clue? There are hundreds of TV characters who could easily be either Mormon or Pentecostal, but the show has simply never done anything to indicate their religion. The assumption here seems to be that if a character isn't shown going to church or at least talking about their religion, then they must not have one. That just doesn't make sense. Most TV shows focus on very specific aspects of the characters' lives and only show a fraction of what's really going on. A program like ER is 41 minutes long and covers a time period of anywhere from a few hours to a few days per episode, while switching between six or eight major characters. Most characters probably have less than 10 minutes of screen time per episode. Ultimately, 99 percent of a character's life is spent off screen, so if a show hasn't explicitly specified a detail like their religion, the only thing we can really say for sure is that we don't know.— Mike F.

Matt Roush: Good point. Although this season on ER, we've been introduced to a character (played by Busy Philipps) who declared her faith up front, so it's possible for it to become an issue even on shows like that. The argument here isn't that we can imagine unspoken religious backgrounds for any number of TV characters, but that when religion is presented on TV, it's often to cast people of faith in a negative or extreme light — or, on the other hand, to make them look like simple, pious ninnies, none of which reflects the reality of most people of faith anywhere. You can believe in something (or not) and not be entirely defined by that belief (or lack of). Which leads me to the next few questions about a different sort of TV diversity.

Question: I read with interest your comment that you long for the day when gay characters on TV are treated as completely unremarkable. It occurred to me that such an event has already occurred, earlier this year, on a little reality show called Survivor. In last fall's Cook Islands edition, the same edition that initially divided the tribes by ethnicity, two male contestants later revealed off camera that they were gay, but that topic did not even surface on air. It is hard to believe that the subject never came up on the island among the contestants, and that cameras did not capture it. So I found it refreshing that producer Mark Burnett did not deem the sexuality of either contestant to be remarkable enough to fashion (through editing) a little story point about it. Certainly the homosexuality of previous Survivor contestants (Richard Hatch and many others) had been story points in previous editions. So in a way, I found that the granddaddy of TV's current reality craze broke ground once again: first when an openly gay man won the original Survivor, and then, six years later, by choosing through the editing process to not make a story point of the sexuality of a couple of its gay contestants.— Robert

Matt Roush: Don't ask, don't tell? In this case, I like it. I bet if these contestants' sexual orientation had had an effect on how they related to other tribe members (the way, say, Rudy reacted to Richard Hatch's being gay), it would have been shown. The fact that it apparently didn't make waves is worth noting. Reminds us all that being gay isn't of itself inherently dramatic, just a fact of life. Thanks for pointing that out.

Question: I'm writing in response to Nikki's letter on the sexual orientation of Justin on Ugly Betty. If Justin is indeed meant to be gay, I think he is still probably still too young to fully address the issue of his sexuality. However, I think his character and the writers at Ugly Betty have a unique opportunity. As far as I can recall, there has never been a main character who is a young gay teen that the audience gets to see evolve, realize his orientation and deal with people's attitudes about it (for better or worse). Sure, many shows have had the "coming out" moment, but we never get to see their evolution and growing pains as we do other main characters. The writers on Ugly Betty have already leaned towards this. There was a very touching and funny scene between Marc and Justin where Justin tells him that no one at school understands him. It's also quite touching to watch the support he receives from his family, regardless of his "quirks." His father, who thinks Justin should engage in more "manly" activities, comes to his defense at the end of the episode where he performs songs from Hairspray on the train. I honestly don't care if Justin is straight or gay, and I think to concentrate on that would overlook the whole point of the show: That despite our eccentricities and quirks, we can be accepted and loved for who we are.— Hannah

Matt Roush: That was the point I was trying to make in my answer to Nikki. You said it better. Thanks.

Question: This week marks Buffy the Vampire Slayer's 10-year anniversary. (The show debuted on the WB on March 10, 1997). Looking back at those 10 years, it's difficult to ignore the show's remarkable influence on other shows, on all genres and on the industry itself. Just to name a few: Alias, Smallville, Lost, Heroes, Veronica Mars, Battlestar Galactica, and even shows like Gilmore Girls, Scrubs and Grey's Anatomy. (The creators of those three shows have declared in recent interviews their undeniable love for Buffy.) Moreover, Buffy created a genre of its own: "the multigenre," a mix of a few genres in one show — fantasy, horror, comedy and drama, for instance. Looking at some of the shows on TV right now, it's easy to see shows that embraced Buffy's special multigenre: The O.C., Lost, Grey's Anatomy and Veronica Mars. Another interesting aspect of this influence is the writer. Joss Whedon surrounded himself with a fabulous group of talented writers who were almost kidnapped to other productions as soon as Buffy said her goodbye. They can be found all over the industry, from Battlestar Galactica, Smallville, Alias and Lost to 24, Gilmore Girls and even on Dexter. My question is: Can you think of any other show (scripted show, that is) that has had as much influence as Buffy had during the course of these 10 years? Because I certainly can't. Sure, Lost had its influence for a short period. The O.C. was thought to be innovative (but just to a certain extent). 24 pretty much created the "serialized" genre, but this genre took a huge hit recently. But none of them, to me, had the effect that Buffy had. So, can you think of any other show, Matt?— Nadav

Matt Roush: Wow. Thanks for making me feel old. Buffy is 10 years old? How time flies. (This question came in on the same day I got in the mail the second season DVD of Twin Peaks, which also took me back. Way back.) Anyway, without taking on your specific genre generalizations (or we'd be here forever), I agree that Buffy the Vampire Slayer had an impact on the culture that far outweighed its meager ratings. My love for Buffy is pretty well known and hasn't faded in the years since it went into repeat/syndication/DVD heaven. The way it fused genres was both remarkable and a clear influence on many shows that followed. And whether you liked it or not, Meredith's sweeps-month journey into limbo on Grey's Anatomy showed the touch of Marti Noxon, who has been upped to executive producer of that megahit. Buffy spawned good writers, who've migrated onto other good shows. That's a plus for the industry, but hardly unprecedented. To address your basic question, I can think of one show that has had at least as profound an impact on the industry and culture at large: The Sopranos. Without it, you don't get the risk-taking of FX, you probably don't get the renaissance of Showtime, and you probably wouldn't have seen the networks get as adventurous with the drama format as they have been in recent years. But I see no reason to make absolute statements about the legacy of one groundbreaking TV show over another. Let's just all do a Scooby Gang group hug and declare, "Happy birthday, Buffy!"

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

[shuttermaker]

That's the problem with these price estimates. The cablenets simply divide current revenue by the number of regular viewers and the price soars. 1 in 6 regularly watch ESPN (perceived as "free"), so under a la carte, the price would go from $3 to $18. They don't want the analysis to go any further because that "scary" number looks a lot less scary when you look at the obvious result of that pricing.

1 in 6 when free - how many at $18? Half that many (1 in 12)? Now the price would need to jump to $36. How many would now sub at $36? a third of those remaining?........$108 :eek:

The price speculation, based on maintaining their current revenue is meaningless without factoring in demand for the channel. When demand is entered into the equation, the price will end up being at the level that when combined with demand yields the maximum amount of revenue. That could just as easily be $4.00 x 15 million subs if the alternative is only 4 million subs at $15 - especially when they factor in the impact on advertising revenue.

Bottom line, with a la carte, the price will be exactly what the marketplace (as a whole) decides is fair. There are no revenue guarantees. That will affect ESPN, USA - just as much as the minority interest channels. Because while minority oriented programming may be consided more "worthy" of subsidation - the fact is that all non-broadcast networks are, from the perspective of "numbers of viewers", minority-interest channels.

Sorry to side track the thead fredfa - I'll bump up one of the many a la carte threads if people want to discuss this further.

OT : How bout them Eagles !

[biggiE48]

A fair concern if you are more interested in the profits of the owner of BET or your member's access to The Parkers or The Wire reruns than you are in the financial welfare of your members. :rolleyes:

Since BET is part of Viacom who own MTV,Nick at Night among others.
Want the large players simple force carriages for all of there brands in Al Crate world.

[URFloorMatt]

"A la carte would have to be devastating for a network like BET"

BET is owned by Viacom. About BET Networks (http://www.viacom.com/view_release.jhtml?inID=7&inReleaseID=227541)

But what does that matter? BET currently exists on basic cable platforms. It's widely distributed and probably available to 90-some percent of cable subscribers. (Is this not true in the "flyover states"/overwhelmingly white communities? I don't know.)

Establish a la carte and BET's carriage is going to drop to niche status pretty quickly. I certainly wouldn't keep it, and given it's target demographic, which only makes up 12% of the U.S. population and which is, on the whole, probably disadvantaged from subscribing to a cable or satellite service to get BET in the first place (especially the digital cable offerings that they have now) and the BET empire would crumble in a flash.

To some degree, this is true for a lot of stations that target niche audiences, but I just singled out BET because of the clear demographic downside to a network that targets such a comparatively small subset of the American audience yet which has managed to acquire a slot in the basic tier of most cable systems.

Unless your point was that since Viacom acquired BET that it's become a soulless and indistinguishable subset of the MTV empire, which is probably true.

[rebkell]

You were right, Jandron.

There was a downside, though: Raines got trashed by October Road in the 18-49s.

As for The Black Donnellys, I think we can expect the cancellation word to come at any time.

And the relative success of October Road could prove troubling for the renewal of Men In Trees, too.

Men In Trees has not been the same show since the writers broke up Marin and Jack, the Lynn(Justine Bateman) character has ruined the show and chemistry that the show was generating. Of course I guess that's what I should have expected from the writers of Sex and the City.

[keenan]

Men In Trees has not been the same show since the writers broke up Marin and Jack, the Lynn(Justine Bateman) character has ruined the show and chemistry that the show was generating. Of course I guess that's what I should have expected from the writers of Sex and the City.
I agree, and I've never liked Bateman, and like her even less now.

[fredfa]

I agree with both of you.

And the silly subplot of Marin's agent and the hunk made no sense at all -- especially since we never had even met the hunk before hand. And it just ain't that easy to get from NY to Elmo as quickly and easily as the characters seem to routinely accomplish the feat.

The writers better get back to the Jack - Marin story line or they might not get a second sdeason.

[DoubleDAZ]

One issue I see missed in all this is that TWC or any other cable co plays Mom and Dad with us. They act like they know what is best for all of us and we have no choice. If the ESPN family -- all of it -- was available to me for $30 a month I would buy it. I realize many of you would not but that is Mom and Dad kicking in. Let me make the choice. I pay $7 a month now to get ESPN HD and a few other channels I never watch. On the other end I have Fox News blocked on my boxes so why should I pay whatever it is a month. MBL -EI is another example, although a bit different. I was told by a TW rep that they are trying to protect me by holding down costs and the pack would get too expensive. Let me make that decision -- not them.You, like so many others, blame cable when it is ESPN's demand that they be carried on the basic tier so they get paid per ALL subscribers, not cable's desire to carry them that way. That is true of almost all channels that are part of a bigger bundle, they demand carriage in a particular tier. NFL Networks is a perfect example. In the world of "negotiation" it's carry me the way I want, give me the cash I demand, or hit the road and take us off your system. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just blame the right entity for your lack of options. :)

[SJKurtzke]

Local HD