ESPN Rex: The Worldwide Leader in Eye-Gouging Viewers

While trying to watch ESPN's coverage of Barry Bond's triumph over AT&T Park's shallow right-field wall, I couldn't help but think back to an article I meant to comment on a couple weeks ago. Newsweek ran a piece questioning ESPN's journalistic integrity in light of its increasing coziness with the professional sports leagues and their various members. I thought the article was pretty fair and, for me at least, it really touched on a number of things that have led me to all but banish the worldwide sports leader from my favorite channel roster. I'll still tune in for the occasional baseball game or special event, but most of what the boys (and girls) of Bristol U are selling, I'm not buying. (The obvious exception of course being Mike in Mike in the Morning, but that's really a radio show with a video feed.)

I've totally given up on SportsCenter, especially after this morning's tired exercise. What used to be an entertaining box-score rundown has, over the past six or seven years, turned into an athletics-based Access Hollywood, focusing less on the games and more on the athletes, providing viewers with rumor, innuendo, way too many "anonymous sources" and details I don't care about. Not only that, but it's obvious the producers are pushing it towards the MTV demographic. I personally can wait to see what story is coming up next, I don't need the "helpful" rundown on the side distracting me further from the program's main content along with the scrolling banner and unnecessarily loud (perhaps just plain unnecessary?) background music. I'm obviously no longer the type of viewer SportsCenter is courting, so I will bid them adieu and get my scores from the web.

The same goes for other past favorites like Baseball Tonight. I think Devin Gordon (author of the Newsweek piece) is spot-on when he maintains that the network relies far too heavily on "underqualified ex-jocks to fill its analyst ranks". We're not talking about public policy or anything else that really requires open debate, so why do I need to listen to not just one, but several second-string athletes "break things down" and argue their points with excruciating redundancy and little added insight?

I like to mark the network's downfall from the moment they did that live behind-the-scenes SportsCenter broadcast a few years back. While it was an interesting and enlightening event, it really did, on a certain level, display the hubris of the network as well as the the runners of it's flagship show. This was an organization at the top of its game, one that had recently become a pop-culture icon. These guys were cool and they knew it. That always spells trouble. Since that broadcast it feels like everything at ESPN has been done for the sake of cool, thus substance has suffered and in my opinion at least, things have been trending downward, like they do for the star of any Greek tragedy when his waistline begins to exceed the dimensions of his britches. If that is in fact what they wear under those togas.

"I Get Good Advice From The Advertising World"

A while back I commented on what I thought - or rather, think - is the somewhat misguided fear on the part of advertisers toward DVRs. I mentioned that I am more apt to watch commercials while watching a recorded program than I am while watching live TV. While fast-forwarding through ads I often stop and go back to watch those that are able to catch my eye. When an ad break comes on during live programming however, I simply change the channel until my well- honed commercialometer tells me my original show is back.

Those times when I do pull a u-turn, it is often to catch a trailer for a film I'm interested in or starring an actor I like. Turns out I'm not alone. There is now data that suggests that quite a few viewers do the same thing.

The data comes from TiVo, who is now measuring what commercials are viewed - both in live and time-shifted contexts - and how often. Since it only measures it's own users, not the rest of us DVR lovers who get our equipment from the local cable company, it's safe to assume the actual numbers are even greater.

While some might grimace at the prospect of commercial ratings, TV the way we know and love it cannot exist without subsidies from advertisers. Some people may consider it a necessary evil, I consider it just plain necessary. Thus, I think anything that will keep advertisers calm and pumping money into my primary vice is OK. Besides, as the article tagged above states: "In some cases, according to the data, commercials score higher ratings than do the shows they are on."


P.S. Guess the song from which the title of this post comes and you will win....well, nothing actually, I'll just be impressed.

Emmy Reading This Correctly?

I'm not sure anything I've watched during the past season toyed with my emotions the way reading this year's list of Emmy nominees did earlier today. It was like my brain was playing Twister with me, calling out one new color after another before I could possibly get my left hand on green.

First there was anticipation: would Lost - after last year's snub - get its due this year with a nomination for Outstanding Drama? Then there was curiosity: there's an Outstanding Choreography category? That was followed by a sense of 'who knew?': there's an Outstanding Commercial category. Next there was self-doubt: "Am I reading this correctly? I must have missed the mentions of Planet Earth." (I did, it picked up 7 nominations). Then the fireworks began, starting with a feeling of satisfaction: 10 nominations for 30 Rock, 9 for The Office; which quickly turned into tempered indignation: Lost getting only 4 nods, but in the right categories and for the right reasons; and finally downright contempt when, after I finished the list, I realized Elizabeth Mitchell's name was nowhere to be found.

Now, I'm grounded enough to know that none of this is really that important. After all, more often than not its nothing more than self-congratulatory Hollywood nonsense. But the same could be said of any industry's awards. Does anyone outside the field really care who the best plumbing supplier in greater Montpelier is in any given year? No, but the pipe pushers in Vermont do, and while I don't get to see how good those guys are at hawking hose I do spend an inordinate amount of time watching television. I have some favorite shows - and guilty pleasures - as well as some absolute must-not-watchers (Grey's Anatomy) and I am able to recognize quality work when it is put in front of me. In that context, I don't feel so ridiculous in my reactions to this morning's announcement.

A second look at the nominees reveals some well deserved recognition as well as some head-scratchers. Among the highlights and lowlights:

It was great to see both Michael Emerson and Terry O'Quinn (Ben and Locke respectively) of Lost get nods for Outstanding Actor, albeit in the supporting category. I think a case could be made for either or both of them to have landed a lead spot, perhaps taking Keifer Sutherland's place in that category. While Sutherland's work is usually pretty compelling, this iteration of 24 left him very little to work with and he felt like more of a supporting character in the last two-thirds of the season.

It was good to see Heroes get some respect - 8 nominations including Outstanding Drama - though it may be a little undeserved. A good show, but very uneven in it's first season, it started to coalesce into something greater than its parts just before it completely imploded with a disastrously disappointing finale. I agree with the suggestions that this nomination may be lip service to those of us who like serialized dramas. Mark Harris has a great article about this and other aspects of the nominating process at EW.com.

Top Chef is in the running for Outstanding Reality Competition, though it will have trouble against perennial favorite The Amazing Race and another Bravo standout, Project Runway.

Alec Baldwin is up against Steve Carell in the Lead Actor - Comedy category. Though I love Carell's continually oblivious performance, Baldwin was a major reason the audience kept watching 30 Rock until the show eventually found its footing and established itself as the best new comedy of the season.

Not to drift too close to fanboydom, but most of my discontent stems from how Lost was treated by those who do the nominating. It was a stellar season (yes, from start to finish) and the second best ep of the season, "Through the Looking Glass", rightly received nominations for writing and directing. How the series didn't make the cut for Outstanding Drama however boggles one's mind, especially in light of the fact that the season finale was quite possibly two of the best hours of primetime television I have ever seen. I like Heroes, but Lost is a far better enterprise. Though maybe both should be in the final list, at the expense of the glorified soap opera that is Grey's Anatomy.

Additionally, I am gobsmacked that Elizabeth Mitchell's portrayal of Juliet on the series was completely overlooked. She should have at least gotten a nod for Supporting Actress if not Lead. Her work was simply fantastic. In each episode she appeared she was asked to play a range of emotions in order to conceal the fact that she is at least a triple agent whose sole allegiance in the end is probably only to herself. I can't imagine anyone who voted for this category seeing any of her performances and not putting her at the top of the list. It's criminal to say the least.

At least, as viewers, we have the next two months to regain our composure. At which time the polka dotted plastic rug will reappear to remind us that the voting process makes no sense, and more often than not seems to be based more on soundbites and hype (read Harris's article) rather than merit. Well, merit wins the technical categories, but we don't get to see those. They apparently don't make good television. Oh the irony!

Law & Re-Ordered

Some shakeups are coming to the Law & Order set this fall, and while the net effect is yet another Y chromosome on the cast, the changes being made might help restore at least some of this old warhorse's former glory.

For starters, Jack McCoy (Sam Waterson) will be stepping up to the big chair, as Fred Thompson's presidential ambitions mean the end for his character, District Attorney Arthur Branch. It will be interesting to see McCoy move into the role of sage after 13 seasons as the driven, no-holes-barred, right-hand man; though I do slightly wonder how this promotion will be explained. Through the years, McCoy has made a lot of political enemies; of judges, defense attorney's, etc. for some of his "unorthodox" methods. I would think he would have at least some trouble getting elected DA.

To fill the ADA vacancy, Dick Wolf & co. have chosen British actor Linus Roache, most well known (at least for me) for his role as Thomas Wayne in Batman Begins. His scenes in that film - slight though they were - make me feel good about the producers' choice.

So does the addition of Jeremy Sisto, who has been tapped to replace the underwhelming Milena Govich as Detective Green's partner. Sisto was most recently seen in NBCs short-lived Kidnapped but is probably best known by some for his role on Six Feet Under.

L&O's future was up in the air as recently as a couple months ago, due to sagging ratings. Frankly the show has seemed uneven since Jerry Orbach's departure three seasons ago. While I love much of Dennis Farina's work, he didn't seem to quite fit the style and mood of this particular series, and this was probably part of what led to his early exit after two seasons . Last year's addition of Govich as Det. Nina Cassady was mishandled as well. Her character was written somewhat poorly and her performance was equally uncompelling.

If these new characters are fleshed out a little better than the additions of recent-past, the show might be able to win its appeal and get off death row.

Sein On For '30 Rock'

Zap2it.com is reporting that Jerry Seinfeld will be guest starring in the season premiere of 30 Rock. He'll be playing himself. No word as to whether George will be in tow asking to get paid what Ted Danson makes, but I think this is good news for the show, which is entering it's sophomore season this fall. Hopefully, Seinfeld's appearance will drum up some viewers that can then be hooked by the show's subtly hilarious writing and spot-on performances. This is a great series which needs to see a ratings boost this coming year if it wants to stay alive.

The full story can be found on zap2it's website.

"The Bronx is Burning" and So Are Somone's Ears

ESPN's miniseries documenting the Yankees' 1977 season, particularly the feud between manager Billy Martin and superstar outfielder Reggie Jackson, got underway this week. In the season opener we see that Martin (John Turturro) has more than his share of flaws, which Big Stein (caricatured here by Oliver Platt) is willing to overlook because Martin is a winner and that's what the Yanks need after not having won a pennant for more than a decade. Well, reconsiders Steinbrenner, they also need someone whose popularity can put the "meat in the seats". Enter Reggie Jackson, played with pitch-perfect charisma by Daniel Sunjata of FX's Rescue Me.

As you can expect, tension builds quickly among this triumvirate from the outset. Martin challenges Steinbrenner's decision-making on several occasions, The Boss reasserts his control in humiliating ways, and Jackson lets his stardom go to his head. With each man believing he is the savior of this once storied franchise the table is set for the historic, nationally televised dugout fight between Martin and Jackson in June of the '77 season.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot - as I think the writers may have. There are some scenes where we witness the beginnings of David Berkowitz's killing spree which kept New York paralyzed in a state of anxiety that same summer. There are also passing references to the rough social and economic situation in the city in at the time. Since the series is based on a book detailing all these aspects of that drama-filled summer, it may be safe to assume such scenes will have more purpose over the remaining seven episodes (this was alluded to in the previews as well), but in the premiere these scenes are awkwardly placed and distracting.

Though not nearly as distracting as the prosthetic ears Turturro wears.

In the beginning I wondered if I wasn't watching a story about batboy. No, not the young kid that gets to pick up after the sloppy ball players, this batboy. After a while, I kept feeling as though Martin's nose was to going to be slightly longer each time he reappeared. The fact that I watched for an entire hour and couldn't get over how ridiculous he looked might say something about how engaging the series is otherwise, but wow, what were they thinking? I looked up some pics of the real Martin online, and while his ears may have been a little bigger than your average set, they were in no way as conspicuous as the mini-satellite dishes Turturro is sporting.

Distractions aside, the series has some worthy aspects. The lead performances are all relatively solid, and the casting of the supporting players is spot-on. Especially in regards to the actors playing Thurmon Monson and Lou Pinella, though we don't see too much of them in the premiere.

I'll stick around for at least another episode to see if this thing finds its groove. But if Turturro sprouts a tale and begins braying, I'm outta here.

The Bronx is Burning runs on ESPN Tuesday nights at 10pm, with several re-airings on ESPN and ESPN2.

What Planet Was I On?

I admit, I'm a few months late with this question, but WOW!!! - have you seen the Discovery Channel's Planet Earth series yet?

If you haven't don't feel too bad, I still really haven't seen it yet either, though I did have a delicious tease of it the other night. I caught the last half of the "Shallow Seas" episode. Those twenty-five or so minutes were enough however to make me understand why this documentary series has received all the hoopla it has.

Narrated by Sigourney Weaver, the episode was extraordinarily engaging, with an overabundance of gorgeous images (I was lucky enough to catch an HD broadcast). I was especially taken with the shots from what appear to be low-orbit satellites. Those images showing Earth from a distance were breathtaking - I just hope they were real. Equally breathtaking were the shots of the nooks and crannies of the planet with which most of us are unfamiliar.

When this episode ended I immediately hit the on-screen TV Guide to find out when I could watch the next one. Alas, that is the only episode on the horizon for the next couple of weeks, but if what I saw was any indication this is a series worth waiting for.

The Network Evening Sewing Circle

Finally, someone stood up for at least a modicum of integrity in television journalism.



If you haven't seen it yet, check out the above video from earlier this week. MSNBC reporter Mika Brzezinski has a mini-breakdown of sorts when producers keep trying to make Paris Hilton's release the lead story on the Morning Joe program. Good for her. It's insane that network and cable news have been hijacked by an item that should have never left the general vicinity of Page-Six.

A similar situation was alluded to recently in a Washington Post story about Dan Rather and his remarks regarding the Katie Couric era of The CBS Evening News.

Not that I really care that much though. I can't tell you the last time I watched a network news broadcast; maybe Couric's first day. Not only is it ludicrous to think that thirty minutes is enough to discuss a given day's happenings, but to waste that condensed interval with stories that have zero to little effect on any one's daily lives is borderline criminal. Men and women are dying in a desert half-way around the world, all three branches of the government have simultaneously decided that now is a great time to be incompetent, and China is apparently going out of its way to try and poison us and our pets. I can't think of a better time for in-depth reporting on a scatter-brained socialite's "bad luck".

Perhaps it's a conspiracy. Every minute that these sewing circle talking heads spend gabbing about Paris Hilton is one less minute we get to see how inept our elected representatives are at actually representing us. Who knows, maybe the real reason VP Cheney is keeping a lid on his documents is because he doesn't want it known that he ordered Hilton's arrest in an attempt to change the topic.

Of course, we the viewers are probably as much to blame as the producers, or at least says another Post columnist, Lisa de Moraes. But regardless of whose fault is is, is it really that hard to figure out why network news ratings are tanking?

"The Closer" Re-Opens

The third season of the The Closer started this week. Though it can sometimes feel a little too formulaic, this has always been a strong show, primarily due to the cast and their portrayal of characters that the writing team has developed quite fully within the limited boundaries of the show's format. My main complaint has been the tendency of the show to be a little gory with it's murder victims, and the new season premiere was no different. I didn't really think it was necessary to focus twice on the corpse of a twelve year old girl who had been stabbed multiple times. In fact, I think it probably could have been a more powerful scene had we not seen her at all, but instead focused more on the reactions of the detectives. We could have gotten as clear a feel for of the situation without having to see the details.

For an example of what I mean check out the final scene of Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven. When Eastwood's character kills Gene Hackman's at point blank range, the camera is from Hackman's point of view looking up the barrel of the gun at Eastwood. Before, during, and after the fatal shot we see nothing but Eastwood's face and it is a much more intense scene than it would have been if we had been forced to witness Hackman take the bullet.

In a different manner, Seinfeld did a similar thing by going out of their way to talk about TV-taboo topics in ways that would pass the censors and not lower themselves to the style of humor that makes Two and a Half Men unwatchable. They did such a good job with those situations that the scenes involved were actually funnier than they would have been it they had gone with the shock-approach.

I'll keep watching The Closer because it's a good show overall, I'll just have to close my eyes for the first few minutes of each episode. I guess there are some advantages to sticking to formula.

Playing Plinko WIth My Heart Strings

And thus endeth an era. I just finished watching Bob Barker's final episode as host of The Price is Right. When I was a kid - and by kid I mean all the way through when I was in high school - I remember watching this show every weekday I happened to be home at 11am.

There's something kinda cool about how quick you unwittingly get sucked into sharing the contestants' excitement. Every ounce of my cynicism was temporarily drained away as I found myself involuntarily smiling and actually enjoying someone elses's good fortune; something you don't get to do with a lot of television these days. It's a feeling I had almost forgotten until I tuned in today; the first time I've watched the show in probably fifteen years.

There's another reason I was glad I tuned in today. It brought back one of my fondest memories of being young - watching The Price is Right over lunch with my grandfather whenever I happened to be visiting. We'd set up in the living room with our TV trays, my grandmother would bring us lunch, and we would spend the next hour guessing prices, discussing prizes and generally just having a good time.

Farewell Bob, and thanks for a least a few minutes of feeling like a kid again. The show won't be quite the same without you.

Putting the "F" in FCC

Who do you root for in a case where everyone's motives are misguided at best and disingenuous at worst?

A federal appeals court in New York has ruled that the FCC overstepped it's authority when it fined the FOX network for airing "fleeting expletives" during separate broadcasts of the Billboard Music Awards. The specifics of the case can be found at all the major news sites. What it boils down to is that the FCC got reprimanded for changing it's policy regarding flying-f*&^s without providing adequate justification for doing so.

Let's just assume for a second that any of the seven people who actually watch the Billboard Music Awards on FOX was actually offended. The odds that the thin-skinned viewer actually wrote the FCC? ZERO. Our friendly special interest groups, who believe their taste and judgement trumps everyone else's, employ individuals whose sole job it is to sit and watch TV all day looking for something they can label "offensive". They then jump on these instances and, through the virtue of their mailing list, convince a lot of people who never actually saw the "offensive" moment to complain to the FCC, thus creating a media firestorm which helps them with their primary goal, which is getting their names in the paper. Oh yeah, and there's also that meaningless fine that doesn't really change anything, but that's just icing. The Simpsons did a great parody of this situation in it's recently broadcast 400th episode, using Ned Flanders, of course, as the watchdog viewer.

Based on that premise the court's decision should be considered good news right? Well, not really, and that's because the issue isn't as much about free speech as the networks and studios would like us to think. It's about them being able to use shock-value to generate publicity and viewers when they need to. If you're gonna fine CBS for letting Janet Jackson's breast slip, then you also have to fine CBS News and all the other outlets who aired it ad-nauseum for the following three weeks.

So, when most of the players involved are little more than publicity craving [deleted fleeting expletive]s, the court's ruling feels less like a win for those of us in favor of personal responsibility and more like yet another opportunity for the media whores to turn some tricks.

Unfortunately, in this decorum-less age where we're blistered with f-bombs while simply walking through the mall, live television will always run the risk of a fleeting-expletive here or there. If they really wanted to change the landscape, the networks would pass the cost of their fines along to the actual offenders. If the Bonos, Janet Jacksons, and Nicole Ritchies of the world were stuck with a bill for displaying their lack of tact, then maybe others might pick up a copy of Emily Post now and then.

Post-script: The New York Times take on this was interesting. Apparently, the court based some of their decision on the fact that President Bush and VP Cheney aren't afraid to let the expletives fly in public:

If President Bush and Vice President Cheney can blurt out vulgar language, then the government cannot punish broadcast television stations for broadcasting the same words in similarly fleeting contexts.

But the judges said vulgar words are just as often used out of frustration or excitement, and not to convey any broader obscene meaning. “In recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced sexual or excretory organs or activities.”

Adopting an argument made by lawyers for NBC, the judges then cited examples in which Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had used the same language that would be penalized under the policy. Mr. Bush was caught on videotape last July using a common vulgarity that the commission finds objectionable in a conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Three years ago, Mr. Cheney was widely reported to have muttered an angry obscene version of “get lost” to Senator Patrick Leahy on the floor of the United States Senate.

Thwngk!!!!

Okay, so the title of this post probably makes no sense unless you try to pronounce it phonetically. Go ahead, give it a try. Still have no clue what I'm talking about? Why it's the sound signalling the return of Top Chef of course; or at least my underwhelming attempt to somehow articulate the show's signature sound of a knife being unsheathed.

Get ready to hear more of that sound, because season three is coming our way on June 13th. In this week's issue of EW, Producer/Head Judge Tom Colicchio promises a more mature group than the socially retarded troupe we had in season two. Thank goodness for that. This show has always been better when it's been more focused on the food and the competition rather than the contestants. Kudos to the producers for recognizing that as a big part of the show's charm and getting the enterprise back on the right track. In fact, according to the same article, most of this season's crop of contestants are relatively well-established in their own right, which leads me to think of how cool a Top Chef: Celebrity Chef Edition might be. How awesome would it be to see the likes of Emeril, Wolfgang Puck, and Cat Cora on the business end of the judges' table? Not much different from Iron Chef: America you say? Guess again my friend. For all it's strengths, Iron Chef has never asked it's contestants to come up with something brilliant given only 30 minutes and $2 for the vending machine.

Also added to the recipe for season three are a new judge and a new locale. A frequent guest judge in seasons past, Ted Allen has signed on to a full-time judging role. His style and humor will be a welcome addition to what is already a respectable judges' table. A table that this season will be located in Miami. It will be interesting to see if the change in coasts has any effect on the sorts of dishes the contestants create.

As a sort of amuse-bouche prior to the start of the new season, Bravo is bringing us a one-night (June 6th) sudden death round of Top Chef featuring a face-off of the top-shelf contestants from seasons one and two. My money is on any team which includes season one winner Harold Dieterle. Ilan and his sidekick Winged Hairdo Boy I'm sure will each prove too much of a distraction to the other for their season two teammates to overcome.

"Lost" - Tantalizing Rumor Alert

BuddyTV and Kristin at E!Online are reporting that Micheal and Walt might be back full time on the island - or in the future - come season four. Rumor has it both Harold Perrineau (Michael) and Malcom David Kelley (Walt) have been approached to return to Lost as series regulars.

The full story is at BuddyTV.com. I'm intrigued by the possibility the article suggests that Walt's aging will be handled in the show. Could this mean we see him in flash-forwards? Could this mean when he raised Locke from the dead he was coming back from the future? Did he and Michael never really get off the island and his growth is the effect of Others experiments or the weird electromagnetism of the island?

Man-oh-man is it going to be a long nine months!!!!!

Skip Through The Ads My Darlin'

No wonder the majority of new shows each season tank - it turns out, in this era of DVRs and OnDemand programming, TV execs are spending more time finding ways to develop ad revenue than they are developing new series.

From a certain standpoint, I can appreciate this. Ultimately, if they can't sell ads, we won't get television for nearly as inexpensively as we do now. Unless we want a glut of a quasi-reality, American Idol type shows; cheap to produce and hand-over fist money makers.

The problem is they're focusing on the wrong problem. DVRs provide essentially the same function as VCRs, which have been around for close to 30 years. Why the sudden scare that commercial viewership is decreasing? Granted a DVR will allow you to only slightly time shift a program (say start watching it 10 minutes in), where with a VCR you have to wait until the show is done recording. However, with the limited numbers of DVRs in use I have to ask again, what is the sudden scare? It can't be any sort of pre-emptive strike, American businesses having proven time and again that they are too shortsighted to be proactive. So what is it that they are actually reacting to?

Got me. Even though I skip through the ads most times when watching recorded programs, I sometimes will stop and go back if something catches my eye. For instance I'm a big fan of the Mac ads, so if I catch a glimpse while one is going by at the speed of a freight train, I back up the program to check it out. Same goes for something that looks quirky or funny in high-speed; I'll go back to play it in real time to see if it was. When watching a show "live" however, I usually just change the channel to something else and wait out the commercial break - thank goodness for dual-tuner DVRs. In this scenario the advertisers actually fair better when I'm watching something I've recorded or time-shifted on the DVR.

Contrary to what they teach in business school, advertising can be successful without being in your face. A poorly designed ad will fail no matter how high it's volume or obnoxious it's presence. A well designed ad however, even one playing on a TV used primarily as background noise, can still catch the interest of the essentially uninterested viewer. So can a well-thought-out product placement.

You know what I remember more than the commercials that aired during an episode or season of The Office weeks or even months after it has ended? The fact that they have Staples products strewn throughout the Dunder-Mifflin complex. The irony of this juxtaposition makes this memorable enough, but the fact that I notice, and chuckle at it every week makes it even more so. Staples is getting every bit of their money's worth out of that deal.

Product placements can work, and don't necessarily have to lessen the integrity of the show. Of course, if they are done poorly and out of context - see the J&J Acuvue placement in a Smallville episode from a couple seasons ago - the results can be horrific. I'm willing to risk it however, if for no other reason than the hope that it might free up some time for the suits to work on giving us some innovative programming.

Season Finale Highlights and Lowlights

Lots of big doin's in the past week. Here are some of the highlights (and lowlights):

The Simpsons - The finale actually consisted of two unrelated episodes, the second being the series' 400th. The first episode however was my favorite of the two. I love The Simpsons, but I rarely watch the episodes in their first run anymore; I either wait for syndication or the DVDs. However, when I saw they were doing a 24 parody I couldn't pass. This ep was spot on (did I see Jack with his man bag?) and so good in fact that I want more Simpson's episodes in this style. The second episode was good too, if for no other reason than Homer's letting us know that he learned from Fox news that "Mexican gays are sneaking across the border and unplugging our brain-dead ladies". Looking forward to the movie this summer.

The Office - A classic episode, and a great way to end a great season. Michael's going nowhere, Jim's got a date with Pam, and Ryan will now be Michael's boss. His exchange with Kelly after his phone call from corporate was fantastic. As was the barely noticeable comment from CFO David Wallace that the corporate HR guy is kind of a jerk. The table has been set for what should be a hilarious fourth season. My only concern is that NBC has apparently ordered thirty episodes for next season. That's 1/3 more the funny; it may be hard to pull off.

24 - This episode was better than most of it's predecessors this season, but still indicative of the unevenness of this sixth season. It was good to see the return of Jack's man bag, but his final confrontation with his father was a bit of a let down. Plus wasn't it just super-convenient that Audrey's house was only a four minute walk from the spot where Jack jumped off the helo? Lots of stories about the producers hearing our frustration and making some significant changes for Jack's next long day. Let's hope they're true.

Lost - Thank goodness for DVRs. I don't think I would have remained mentally stable (relatively, of course) if I had to wait through each commercial break of what was an especially intense and simultaneously uplifting and browbeating two hours of television. The game has definitely changed, and I didn't really see it coming until Jack was alone in his pad with countless maps of the South Pacific. The only other clue I picked up in my initial watching was how new his cell phone looked, but I thought maybe that was just a prop dept. mistake. What a great episode: action, emotional engagement, a good number of loose ends tied up, and several more laid out. I can't wait to see how the show will reconcile its "new" format with the need to tie up all the other loose ends that still exist. Who's funeral do you think it was nobody showed up for?

Smallville - A little uneven, like the rest of the season. Lana's death was a (self-planned) setup telegraphed by the unnecessary delivery van that passed in front of her right before the explosion. I was really hoping Lois was actually dead and Chloe was going to take over her identity for some reason. I'll be sad if Chloe is really dead, cause the actress is much more likable than the chick who plays Lois. The appearance of the Martian Manhunter and Bizarro was cool, but could have been much better executed. This show never allows for more than five minutes an episode for its climactic scenes, and it usually results in a bit of a letdown, just like...

Heroes - I loved the final episode, right up until the last scene with Nathan jetting Peter off to safely explode in the atmosphere. I don't really care if Nathan's dead, but if they really killed off Peter I may stop watching; it's like killing off Superman in a Justice League scenario. The two episodes leading up to the final had a lot of build up to what was billed as a spectacular confrontation. Well, there was a confrontation, but it wasn't very spectacular, and it lasted less than three minutes. Peter used none of his powers to stop Sylar, instead absorbing Nikki's strength to knock him around until Hiro showed up to deliver the fatal blow. This begs another question. Why couldn't Peter just fly himself away? Why did he need Nathan? Hiro's eventual landing in Ancient Japan is interesting, but like a lot of other viewers I felt a little insulted by how weak a job was done of wrapping things up. This show had a good first season, but I think a lot of that was based on faith. I kept watching, even though I wasn't totally connected with any of the characters, for the promise of what the show could be. It seemed like in the last few episodes it might live up to that potential, but then at the last minute it tripped. I just hope in can pick itself up for season two.

"24" aka "As The Clock Ticks"

While watching 24 last night I couldn't help but wonder if the writing staff had walked out and been replaced by soap opera writers. Are you kidding me with that heart-to-heart between the Veep and Karen? The only thing missing was some weepy violin music playing softly in the background. But that wasn't the only homage to daytime serials in this episode. Marilyn's question to Jack - "Did he say anything else?" - regarding Papa Bauer's abduction demand for Josh confirmed in my mind that the boy is actually Jack 2.0; a fact I'm sure Jack will find out only once his spawn has died at the hands of his dear old, China-loving, seriously-in-need-of-a-trim Grandad.

It's a shame really, because last night's episode started off pretty good; even in spite of the fact that the writers actually want us faithful viewers to believe that a building as secure as CTU could be breached through a sewer grate in what appears to be the building's utility closet. It was good to see Jack and The Ricker force a showdown with Cheng, and even better to see Morris gain some redemption through his helping Jack and Nadia take out their captors. Those instances were fleeting however, and not enough to make up for the ridiculousness of the aforementioned scenes or that of the White House Chief of Staff running a covert field-op.

When will this day ever end? Oh yeah, that's right, next week.

"Lost" Housekeeping

The end-date of Lost has been confirmed and Jeff Jensen at EW.com has an interesting interview with the producers about the show's future prospects now that they can officially say they know where the show is going. Note the Star Wars reference buried in the middle of the article.

Jensen's preview of tonight's episode, "The Man Behind the Curtain", is also available at EW.com. Especially intriquing is the producers' tease that "two words will change Locke's life". Also note a second Star Wars reference from an unrelated source. Despite Lost's numerous father-son dynamics, I don't actually buy into the show being based in any way on the Skywalker family tree. Still, the references and related theories are kinda fun.

I'm getting extremely psyched for the finale. I'm trying my hardest to stay away from the spoiler sites, but sometimes can't help myself. By all accounts we are building to what sounds like a great two-hour season ender.

"Law & Order": Moving Violation

Speculation has been rampant in recent weeks that Law & Order (the original) might not get renewed by NBC this fall in light of declining ratings. As an aside: the network moved the show to Fridays at 10pm, not necessarily the hottest TV watching time. That may not matter however, because there are reports out today that TNT may pick up the show if NBC declines to. This makes sense since TNT is already basically branded with the show, airing somewhere around a score of eps a week (not counting the occasional holiday marathon).

Also, I think the cable outlet would be more willing to air new episodes in a more prestigious time slot then that to which NBC has relegated it as of late. In fact, imagine what a 1-2 punch an evening of The Closer followed by a new Law & Order (or vice versa) would pack. My only fear is that TNT might not have the budget to pay for the current cost of episodes (reportedly $4M per), thus the move from network to cable might mean a major cast shakeup; a proposition which may not be all that bad to some fans of the show.

I rely almost exclusively on TNT to watch L&O, so the change suggested suits me just fine. In fact, I would probably be more apt to watch first run episodes if they aired at a better time - maybe Tuesday nights - on TNT. My only request is that the network start incorporating earlier episodes of the series into their rotation of reruns. I've seen the pack of early '00s episodes so many times I'm beginning to speak in an Elisabeth Rohm inspired monotone.

An Amazing Race With A Disappointing Finish

I was a little disappointed with the outcome of last night's Amazing Race finale. The show itself was great, and the challenges exceedingly challenging. I especially loved the final Newlywed Game-type challenge where one team member needed to complete questions using a numbered list of possible answers. The answers formed a four-digit code that was used to lock an electronic safe holding the final clue. Then teammates switched and if the second team member came up with the same answers they could open the safe; if not they had ten excruciating minutes to keep trying, after which they were given the code and the clue. Only one team got out before the ten minute limit, and they went on to win the race.

That couple, and the root of my aforementioned disappointment: Danielle and Eric (aka Big Boobs and Sir Whines-A-Lot). To be fair, they were pretty decent competitors, overcoming several setbacks throughout the season. However, I just can't get past how much of a whiner Eric was whenever things didn't go his way, especially his ridiculously misguided feelings of betrayal after the yield episode a couple weeks back.

The other two teams in the top three were just as annoying in their own ways, so it was hard to really root for anyone. With the beauty queens being somewhat ethically challenged, I was kind of pulling for Charla and Mirna, despite their complete condescension to every foreigner they met.

I've written earlier that this was my first season watching this show. I'll be back when it returns. Not only for the show itself, but also for Josh Wolk's consistently hilarious recaps at EW.com. If you take the time to check them out, start with these two:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20037230,00.html
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20036297,00.html

Losties Closer to Being Found? *UPDATE*

May 7th - It was made official today, Lost will finish up after another 48 episodes spread over 3 seasons, with an expected end-date of 2010. Do the math and you'll see that each season will be roughly 2/3 of a normal season order. My guess is this is due to some sort of compromise between the producers and the network that will allow the producers to get out around 120 eps and the network to milk the Lost cash-cow for as long as possible. More detail can be found here.

May 4th - Big news today from sources at E!Online. Looks like the suits at ABC might be set to announce a series end for Lost. Notice I said "end" rather than "end-date". Apparently there is no word as to how much longer the castaways will be stranded. Conventional wisdom seems to say two more seasons, however the producers have been quoted as saying they always saw it as a about a 100 episode show. If that's the case, then after this season there might only be around 35 new episodes before we find out what Smokey the Monster is all about (in a recent podcast the producers stated that that is one mystery that won't be solved 'til series end).

Even though Lost is my favorite show right now, I think this is great news, and as I've written before, this could possibly lead to a sea-change in how networks develop shows. Just think of all those great series whose excellence was diminished by having stayed on the air just a little too long. I truly believe that after a bumpy transition, green-lighting certain shows with defined ends in sight could really be a money maker for the networks. Read my earlier post for reasons why.

The announcement is expected sometime in the next week. In the meantime we can all relish in what a great episode "The Brig" was this week and look forward to what by all accounts sounds like an awesome season finale.

Not Exactly My "Brando" Documentary, But Good

Turner Classic Movies' profile of Marlon Brando is entertaining if not enlightening. To be sure, you get a sense of what helped shape this intriguing, iconic, and unique (to say the least) personality, but the film at times seems afraid to dig too deep and often changes direction. It sets out with an apparent intention to be a character study, but quickly turns into a somewhat superficial career retrospective.

Not that such a project shouldn't be a celebration. We're talking about someone who is arguably one of the greatest actors ever. The anecdotes shared by his friends and colleagues are great; touching, funny, and in some cases brutally honest. But too often the conversation drifts back to something close to sycophancy - one of the drawbacks of relying solely on interviews to provide the narration - which grows a little tired after two-and-a-half plus hours.

Despite all of this the film is filled with engaging moments throughout. Brando's rather extensive knowledge about the craft of film making (not just acting) is touched upon, as is his well-known reputation for being less than cooperative on-set. In addition to the public persona the film also explores the political side of Brando's fame. Learning about the breadth of Brando's activism, especially regarding civil rights, is eye opening. His support of American Indians is well known (and famously recorded in the 1973 Academy Awards ceremony), but it is interesting to learn he came "this close" to joining the Black Panthers in the late 60s. The insight gained regarding his relationship with his parents is equally fascinating, but again, every time the film gains steam with such topics it quickly changes gears.

For anyone interested in acting or film or even just pop-culture, this biography is required viewing, just make sure to watch it in parts. TCM is rebroadcasting the film in its entirety at 5:15pm on 5/12 and 3:15am on 5/29. The official website can be found here.

Some Sad News, Some Possibly Bad News, and Some Really Good News

First for the sad news. Tom Poston passed away Monday at the age of 85. Probably, best known for his role as George Utley on Newhart, Poston starred in countless television roles. Some may remember him as the cranky upstairs neighbor Mr. Bickley from Mork and Mindy. I remember seeing him most recently as a patient on ER. Take a look at his IMDB profile to get an idea of just how much stuff he was in.

And now the possibly bad news. Alec Baldwin, in a misguided attempt to make up for his indefensible tirade against his daughter, has decided he wants to leave 30 Rock to focus on divorced dad and "parental alienation" issues. (Note to Alec: It's probably a better idea to stick with what you are good at than to try and be the next Dr. Phil; forgiveness is for closers) Luckily the network doesn't appear to agree with his strategy and probably won't let him go just yet. Alessandra Stanley writes an impassioned plea for Baldwin to remain on 30 Rock, both for our sake and his.

Finally, some good news. As most everyone knows, Rosie is going bye-bye, at least for a time anyway. It will be so great to wake up everyone morning without having to hear about some stupid rant she went on during the previous day's broadcast of that stupid rant fest known as The View. Here's hoping her next TV project is a behind-the-scenes role so we don't have to see that creepy non-smile smile or hear that cheese-grater-on-a-chalkboard voice of hers anymore.

FCC to Curb TV Violence? Good Luck!

So it looks like the FCC wants to step in and regulate the amount of violence on television. Particularly between the hours of 6am and 10pm, when "children are likely to be viewers". Good luck fellas. And so long Looney Tunes, Tom & Jerry, The Three Stooges, etc.

What I'm getting at is that this is a futile and misguided crusade. What's considered violent? Obviously, there is a distressingly large amount of murder and assault to be found in prime time and increasingly during the day time. But what about a show like CSI where you don't necessarily see the crime but get to witness first-hand the extremely graphic autopsy/forensic investigation? And what about those programs I mentioned above? Those shows are specifically aimed at children and they contain an overabundance of violent images.

So does the nightly news come to think of it. Will the FCC keep the networks and cable news outlets from showing us scenes from the war in Iraq, or from countless other conflicts across the globe?

Armed with good sense, a remote, and a DVR I can do a pretty good job on my own of controlling what my daughter sees on TV. Where I need help is in getting rid of all the talk about intercourse and erectile dysfunction we have to listen to while watching a baseball game together on a Saturday afternoon.

Of Amazing Races, Bogus Award Shows, and Other Random Viewing Experiences

YIELD TO THE POWER OF THE AMAZING RACE
I'm a newcomer to The Amazing Race, but I'm hooked. I like this show because it doesn't get caught up in all the usual reality show melodrama; well, at least it doesn't most of the time. Eric and Danielle got yielded again this week, a perfectly legal tactic used by one team to slow another team down. As the two stood stewing and spewing, I sat scratching my head as to why they, and Eric in particular, took it so personally. It's almost as if he thinks all the teams are in this together. Dude, it's a competition, of course people are going to do what they can to win. It's like considering someone a traitor because they skipped you in "Uno". Does this guy sit at a poker table and cry foul when the other players don't show him their cards?


ONLY IN TV-LAND
In the past I've mocked the whole idea of the TV-Land awards as just another ridiculous self-congratulatory way to drum up viewers. However, this year I figured I should at least try to watch since I started blogging about television and all. Wow! I didn't even make it past Kelly Ripa's monologue.


STUPID AGENT MAN
Again last night 24 went the Alias route of making the hero(es) do stupid things in order to fill a plot hole or try to cover bad writing. Luckily, though the whole night wasn't a loss, and in a way it would have been interesting if the whole season focused on the "fallout" of the day's events. Have the nuke go off during the premier, catch the guy by hour five and spend the rest of the day cleaning up the mess.


HEROIC RESTRAINT
Last night I chose to watch 24 instead of Heroes. I did record it though so I hope to watch tonight. The couple seconds I did see however looked pretty fantastic.

"30 Rock" Gets 'That Sweet Cuyahoga Glow'

Last night's episode of 30 Rock was fantastic! So why aren't more people watching it? In the overnight Nielsen ratings for Thursday it pulled a 3.3/5. I know it's on against Grey's Anatomy and all, but I can't imagine that those two shows are competing for the same demographic. (I would never even consider watching Grey's, and I haven't since being turned off during the first ten minutes of the pilot.) When you factor in that The Office (30 Rock's lead-in last night) pulled a 4.0/7 for a re-run it gets even harder to understand. Both shows share a similar understated sense of humor, terrific writing, and great acting.

30 Rock is consistently funny week after week. The writing is stellar, just witness last night's ode to Cleveland for example. Or the recent multi-episode arc involving Tracey Morgan's character trying to find backers for his Thomas Jefferson biopic while on the run from "The Black Crusaders"; a secret group of celebrities fighting black exploitation and stereotyping that includes, among others, Bill Cosby and Gordon from Sesame Street, and who apparently meet quarterly in the skull of the Statue of Liberty. (If you missed last night's episode you can check out it at http://www.nbc.com/Video/rewind/full_episodes/30rock.shtml)

Thankfully, the show's already been renewed for next season. I just hope it can drum up a little more business so they don't pull the plug. It really is probably the second funniest show on television right now; behind The Office of course.

When Good Shows Go Bad and Others Just Get Better

I feel like I've been writing a lot about 24 and Lost recently. Well, the trend continues. This week's ep of 24, while different, was not necessarily better than what we've been given since Jack took out Curtis early in the day (this season's high water mark in my opinion). This season's failures were made even clearer to me this morning when I happened to catch the tail-end of a season five episode in syndication. The five minutes I saw of that ep were better than anything that has happened in the last five weeks of season six. My main gripe is in the thin writing, especially as it regards character motivation. I'm just not buying Jack's commitment to Audrey, especially in light of the fact that in the past he has been willing to sacrifice literally anyone in order to protect his country. A point he made crystal clear to The Ricker in this week's waning seconds. I know JB thinks he loves Audrey and all, but where is the Jack that would have told Cheng to go scratch and then went off to find his recently widowed sister in-law?

In my last post I was also complaining about the lack of resolution with somewhat significant characters and story lines. My brother in-law forwarded me the following post from the Ask Ausiello column of TVGuide.com:

Question: Is President Logan dead on 24? The last time we saw him was in the ambulance after Martha stabbed him, and now no one mentions him at all! — Shannon Blake

Ausiello: It appears Logan is going the way of those Russian mobsters on The Sopranos. A 24 source says the ex-prez will not be seen or heard from again this season.

Are you kidding me? Talk about thin writing. What then was the point of even bringing him back in this season? His role in the crisis eventually meant nothing and now we're left to wonder about the former Mrs. Logan too. I suppose then that it's safe to assume will never see Jack's pappy again either which is just utterly ridiculous. I think I might just go to sleep and forget this day ever happened.

Lost, on the other hand, continues to be in peak form. Last night's ep "Catch-22" was solid and while not necessarily mythologically revealing, I think it was a neat way to address that final scene from the season two finale. Remember? Penelope got that phone call in the middle of the night from two researchers, at what we can only assume was the North Pole, who told her they found something. Well, according to the producers the island was visible for an instant when Desmond turned the fail safe key and the sky went purple. So obviously, in the couple weeks since that happened Penelope has sent someone to search for her beloved Des. It's a really cool way to tie things together in my opinion. If you want a great recap of last night's ep check out Jeff Jensen's at ew.com

My favorite moment last night (besides the picture of the old lady on the priest's desk) was Desmond's reaction after Hurley mentioned the parachutist was still breathing, it was really touching when you consider that Des still thought Penny would be under the helmet. The only thing I can't figure out is what he thought she was coming for. Did he expect her to get everyone home, or was he just happy to have her there and they could finally be together outside the reach of her father?

In stark contrast to 24, Lost is a show is defined by it's characters. Fortunately, for its first few seasons 24 had strong enough stories to make up for the fact that every character is very one-dimensional and basically expendable. Now that they are having trouble with plots this becomes even more apparent.

While some might argue that Lost's mystery is it's heart, I would respectfully disagree. The mystery is merely the conduit for understanding the personalities of the castaways, and to those who are tired of flashbacks: THEY ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE SHOW'S SUCCESS. They are a really cool way to show us the characters' motivations for their actions on the island as well as being a supremely economical and fascinating form of character development.

Daylight Savings Time, CTU Style

Some interesting developments in this week's episode of 24. (If you haven't seen it yet, come back later.) This episode was your basic run-of-the-mill season finale. The tone, the action, the happy ending twists, and even the dramatic music as Jack once again saved the day. The only problem? By my calculations there are still six hours left.

It's actually a rather smart, non-plot twist by the show's producers. Wrapping up a going-nowhere-anyway story in order to move on to bigger and badder things may help stem the tide of negative criticism and go a ways towards restoring the show's reputation. Though that doesn't seem promising when you consider the set-up for the remaining hours. In the series' most ridiculous coincidence to date, Scary-Chinese-Diplomat-Man calls just at the moment The Ricker is gazing in wonderment at Jack's one man handy work. (BTW: is it just me or was Fayed's death a little bit of a rip-off of both the first Die Hard and Lethal Weapon 2?)

Anyway, the rest of the season will obviously deal with Jack's going rogue to get Audrey out of the hands of SCDM as well as the repercussions of the attempted presidential assassination. My only gripe, Jack's dad is still gone and now has seemingly nothing to do with the events to come. Plus, last we saw Logan he was flatlining in the back of the ambulance. Will the day end with Jack spitting on his grave, or will we be left to assume Logan's fate for ourselves?

One can only hope the producers have a better vision for the early morning hours than they did for the rest of day. I still can't make sense of Gradenko chopping his own hand off, betraying the only person who can provide him some sort of medical attention, only to die from blood loss stumbling under the boardwalk, where the moonlit surf literally adds salt to his wounds. At least next week's preview looks good. I love Jack telling Pres. Whispers-a-lot that he owes him. Gee, you think?

The Finest Circumstantial Humor

Yesterday's Mike and Mike in the Morning on ESPN2 featured a fun discussion between Mike Greenberg and guest host Tim Kurkjian about their favorite sitcoms of all time. Audio for the segment is available here. For the record, Greenberg's number one was Seinfeld while Kurkjian's choice was Get Smart.

This got me thinking about what my list of top sitcoms (or at least favorites) would look like. Without question the two best sitcoms of all time are Seinfeld and Cheers. Seinfeld is quite possibly the best written comedy to ever grace the airwaves (especially those seasons with Larry David at the helm). Cheers had solid writing for all its 11 seasons, but what I think really made it work was the chemistry among all the actors and most of all their comedic timing. Even when a joke was less than stellar (which wasn't very often), the delivery more than made up for it.

After those two, I have trouble with the rest of my top five. I'm tempted to immediately throw Arrested Development, The Office, The Simpsons, and Curb Your Enthusiasm into the mix. But does that have more to do with how fresh they are in my head? What about all those shows from decades past that I know and at least remember loving at the time? That brings up another dilemma. Are those oldies as good as I remember, or is nostalgia clouding my rearview?

Fortunately, we have a number of outlets like Nick-at-Nite, TV Land, YouTube, and sydnication to judge how well many of these shows have held up. Some shows I remember watching religiously when they originally aired, I find almost unwatchable now: MurphyBrown, Frasier, Mad About You, The Brady Bunch, Three's Company. Perhaps these shows were great in comparison to their contemporaries, but for whatever reason these guys just don't stand the test of time. (An aside here- John Ritter was fantastic on Three's Company, but the writing was just too simple and redundant to make the show a classic).

Other shows have aged better, but still don't quite reach the level of classic: Family Ties, The Cosby Show, NewsRadio, Wings, Newhart (the 80's version), Happy Days. Actually, most of these are still really funny, but there's just something there that doesn't quite elevate them to that next level.

Then you have the classics: Dick Van Dyke, Mary Tyler Moore, Bob Newhart (the original from the 70's), The Odd Couple, All in the Family, I Love Lucy, and The Honeymooners. These are all great shows which continue to be funny 30, 40, and 50 years later. They have truly stood the test of time, but only one will make my top five. (A lot of people would add M*A*S*H* to this list, but I have never once actually laughed during an episode of that show.)

For some reason I felt compelled to add The Mary Tyler Moore show to my list. Though I hadn't seen it in a while, I remember it being very well written and acted, and most importantly, hilarious. I thought I would refresh my memory at YouTube, and after watching the two clips below I put it at number three without hesitation.

So my final top five looks like this:

1. Seinfeld
2. Cheers
3. Mary Tyler Moore
4. Arrested Development
5. The Office

Time may change my mind on 4 and 5, but it'll be tough. Think about what these five shows all have in common and you can see why each is a classic in its own right.

Have your own top-five or want debate my list? Leave a comment below or send an email to cathoderadiation@gmail.com.

For more fun, check out the Mike and Mike segment where they play name that tune with TV sitcom theme songs, it's pretty good. Also take a peek at this list of sitcoms from Wikipedia. There were more than a few in there I had completely erased from my memory banks.

News and Notes

Some interesting tidbits from around the web:

--3o Rock was picked up for a second season this week. That's good news. I hope they do the same with Andy Barker, P. I.

--KITT from Knight Rider is for sale. Well one of them anyway; turns out there were at least four. Unfortunately, the model for sale doesn't come with turbo boost or an OnStar connection to William Daniels.

--Comedy Central is offering online stand-up classes. I wish I could think of something funny to say.

--This year's Peabody awards for excellence in broadcasting were announced. I was excited to see the best...cooking...show...ever, Good Eats, get an award. To quote the Peabody judges: "rarely has science been taught on TV in such an entertaining – and appetizing – manner as it is in Alton Brown's goofy, tirelessly inventive series."

--After yet another thoroughly stupid episode of 24, I find myself wondering why I'm still so excited for Monday nights. Dalton Ross from EW has a theory here. USA Today's Robert Bianco just wishes this day would end already.

--Some interesting people are in the running for Bob Barker's microphone. I'm not sure it matters who gets it, I don't think the show will last long without him.

--Finally, news that Comcast is adding the YES Network to it's offerings in Connecticut. Meanwhile, six miles away, I'm stuck with NESN and the #$%^&*@ Red Sox.

Ripped From the Airwaves

In an interesting development, it turns out that if Law & Order star and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson does in fact run for president, NBC will have to pull any episodes of the popular procedural in which he appears. Unless they want to provide equal time to his opponents. A prospect, according to "The Washington Post", they are not about to consider.

For a looong time, the FCC has enforced the so-called equal time doctrine to ensure that for any free air time given to a candidate by a broadcaster, an equal amount be given to his or her opponent(s).

Most of the time I believe this usually involves debates, interviews, etc. (I don't think paid political ads count), but there is precedent involving a candidate whose airtime comes in the form of acting (professional as opposed to political):

During the 2003 gubernatorial race in California, television stations dropped all Arnold Schwarzenegger movies out of fear that showing them would require them to give countless hours of free airtime to all 134 other candidates for governor.

Stations also dropped "Bedtime for Bonzo" and other Ronald Reagan movies during his campaigns for governor of California and president.

NBC won't be hurting too much if they have to drop some reruns of L&O, they can always put a Fear Factor reunion in it's place. The article goes on to speculate however, on something far more intriguing:

The FCC rules have never been applied to cable channels, though several legal experts said cable often abides by an equal-time guideline in the hopes of avoiding a legal case that would set a precedent.

Thompson's situation could spark such a case...The TNT cable network shows several hours of "Law & Order" reruns every day and often holds all-day marathons. If that continues while Thompson is running for office, one of his rivals could seek to apply the equal-time rule to cable TV.

The part about setting a precedent is important. If such a situation did arise and the FCC were to step in to resolve the matter, it might give them a legal foothold to start holding cable networks to the same standards as over-the-air broadcasters on a much broader scale. That's slightly scary for a number of reasons I won't get into right now. Let's hope Mr. Thompson reconsiders his decision after he realizes it's easier to fight fictional crime than a real war.

Stewart/Colbert '08

Much has been said about the impact The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have on political discourse and engagement in this country, especially among younger viewers. What I find fascinating however, is how willing these shows are to interview people that most network talk shows or even cable news programs wouldn't go near: authors of interesting (read: not self-help) books. I would venture to say that these two shows are responsible for exposing a decent segment of the public to ideas and works we might not necessarily be exposed to otherwise. Not only that, but they do it in an exceedingly engaging fashion.

What got me thinking about this was Jon Stewart's recent interview of Stanford Professor Phil Zimbardo regarding his new book. The interview was captivating because both Stewart and Prof Zimbardo were thoroughly engaged in their discussion; both brought something to the table. As I began to think more about it, it turns out that this is often the case on this show, and on The Colbert Report, though in that instance it is for a slightly different reason. By pretending to be the Alpha-O'Reilly, Colbert gets to ask questions no one else would dare, and often he gets pretty honest answers.

I had a similar viewing experience with Conan one recent evening. When he was talking to a couple celebrities, I was bored, and it looked like he was too. But then Neal Degrasse Tyson came on plugging his book "Death By Blackhole" and it seemed to light a spark in Conan. Since both men are generally very dynamic it turned into a really interesting interview. As a result, I'm a heck of a lot more likely to go buy his book than I am to go see the movie/tv show/whatever the other guy was plugging.

Contrast such situations with the by-the-numbers interviews you see on the morning talk shows or the cable news channels. When they aren't wasting time interviewing celebrities, the hosts are generally asking questions not meant to elicit meaningful dialogue, but rather to allow the interviewee to just say what they came to say. In the case of Katie Couric, it's even worse because all her questions are usually some form of "and isn't true that" or "don't you think that", followed by what the other person actually thinks. She is in essence answering the question as she asks it. But I digress.

Some people (mostly those who take themselves too seriously - yeah I'm looking at you O'Reilly and Geraldo) see no value in what Stewart and Colbert bring to the table every night. Well, hundreds of thousands would beg to argue, including me. Granted I wouldn't want someone's sole source of news to be either of those shows, but at least they are dealing with issues the mainstream media doesn't think we would be interested in. You could watch a month of the Today Show and not get one interview as interesting as when Stewart interviewed former UN Ambassador John Bolton a couple weeks back.

Stewart and Colbert "bring it" every night, in every meaningful way. If "real news" interviewers even appeared to be half as interested in their guests as these guys, it might make for much more compelling television. Of course, it would also help if they found interesting people to interview.

TV (Producers) on the Radio

Lost producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse were on WBUR's OnPoint program yesterday with some interesting insight into the past and future of the show. You can listen to the entire interview here.

What I found most interesting in the conversation was the discussion of the producers' negotiations with ABC to define an end date for the series and the viability of Lost-type shows (i.e. serialized dramas based on a story with a defined end) in the future. Cuse and Lindelof seem to think the networks might be willing to move in that direction (however slowly) as they become more comfortable with alternate forms of viewing (iPods, Internet, DVR, etc.). This would be a huge shift in the television business model, which basically develops shows to go on indefinitely so the networks can squeeze out as much revenue as possible. After decades of operating in such a manner, I'm sure it seems scary to turn around and start saying a series is only going to last so many episodes or seasons. And while the network suits are always loathe to slaughter a cash cow, what's better: huge ratings for a few years, or slowly eroding ratings coupled with an exodus of viewers to other networks?

Adding a few series with specific ends to their stories, and thus limited runs, would go along way to keeping what's on a given network fresh, building some credibility with viewers, and ensuring that they keep watching what that network puts in front of them. It's a gutsy move, but the payoff in the long term seems worth it, almost like creating a brand loyalty for a network.

I've written about this before in these posts, but imagine how awesome Smallville could have been if the creators and network agreed it would only be a four year run culminating with Clark's graduation. It would have meant less filler, less unresolved story threads, less instances of the characters turning into caricatures, and probably higher ratings since it would have been a less frustrating show.

Lost is my favorite show right now, and frankly I can't wait to hear when it will end.

Gossip at 11

After watching yet another lackluster episode of 24 last night, we caught the beginning of the local Fox affiliate's (WTIC - Hartford) 10 pm newscast, and it finally hit me why I can't stand to watch local TV news. I believe it was maybe the the 5th story or so last night and it was about one dog attacking another in a Hartford suburb. This makes the first segment before commercial? Seriously, do you think the "Courant" would print a story like that except maybe in one of those neighborhood sidebars? How can these people consider themselves journalists when they have the audacity to tell me a dog fight is news. I bet if I had kept watching I might have seen them cover a cock fight during the sportscast.

The scary thing is there is a market for this crap, otherwise the locals wouldn't be competing so hard with one another for our viewership. Apparently, this is the only place these stations make any money, because it is all they are focused on. Notice how many affiliates have the word news in their name nowadays. It's not channel 22 or channel 40 anymore, it's 22 News, or ABC News40. What's even more sad is that these newscasts rarely actually impart any news of note. It is usually a run down of the local police blotter, with the addition of at least one crime that happened in another state, but gets included because they have security camera video or something like that which makes it good TV.

None of what is broadcast is news, it's gossip; and worse it's all headline driven. That's why they have all those stupid teasers during prime time. "What local community voted against something important? Find out at 11." I used to think it was just a really lame way to entice viewers, but when you actually tune in, there's no story, just an answer to the headline, and maybe some quote from a local dolt who's got nothing better to do than talk to an idiot with a microphone. Then it's on to the story about the Australian Siamese twins joined at the left nostril. That's really some late-breaking news that effects me.

The only thing local TV news is good for is providing the weather. Other than that they could have a mute orangutan reading the news and it would provide me without about the same level of knowledge I can get from these correspondence course dropouts who call themselves reporters.

Suckers!!

That's what I have to say to all those people who gave up on Lost. Last night's episode, "The Man From Tallahassee", was the best this season and ranks up there with the last third of season two's run, which in my opinion was just brilliant television. If you haven't seen it yet, stop reading and go to abc.com to watch it.

We finally found out how Locke got into the wheelchair, and though the manner in which it occurred was shocking, we hardly even cared by the time they got to it because so much other stuff happened. Jack and Juliet were set to leave the island pronto, Sayid and Kate get captured, and Locke squares off against Ben/Henry Gale in some of the best back and forth I've seen on any show (obvious exception being The Office) in a long time. By the way, I was dead-on with my destroying the sub theory, though I'll admit I was a little off with my views on Jack - seeing how he was scheduled to leave at dawn - but I'm not convinced I'm entirely off-base, especially since he isn't going home anymore. It was pretty significant that Tom let him in to see Kate and that he warned him about the bugs in the room. (If you have no idea what I'm talking about read my recent post "Theories, Theories".)

Not only that but how awesome was Sayid's exchange with Alex? "How do you know my name?" "Because you look like your mother." That's ranks up there with last year's "..but I still did not believe you, so I dug up that grave". And then Jack's stare at Locke after he blew up the sub, priceless.

I have to admit I wasn't quite surprised Locke's dad was there on the island at the end though. Right near the end when Ben looked in on Locke I thought to myself "where is this man from talla...oh, I bet it's gonna be his father". Other bloggers picked up on it quicker than that, but like I said there was so much going it was easy to miss the telegraphing. Anyway it should be interesting to see how he got there. My guess is there is more to it than just the Locke connection, because I'm pretty sure he is the "real" Sawyer. According to some other blogs, I'm not the only one. Some people complained about the possibility of him being pulled out of Ben's "magical box", but I think that is more a metaphor for something else going on. If it was supposed to be literal, then Locke's joke about conjuring a new sub would have been a realistic possibility in Ben's mind.

Though I had no problems with the eps that aired in November, I do believe ABC erred in airing this season broken up the way they did. Unfortunately, those not patient enough to stick around are missing out on a show that is still thoroughly in its prime.

For some other reaction to last night's ep check out:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20015692,00.html

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2007/03/lost_its_my_loc.html

http://www.eonline.com/gossip/kristin/blog/index.jsp?uuid=fe204412-831d-486a-969d-a109b222758a

Andy Barker, P.I.

If you missed the pilot this past Thursday, check out Andy Barker, P.I. for free at nbc.com. This show has some promise and a laundry list of reasons to give it a chance. Not the least of which is that is stars Andy Richter and Tony Hale (Buster from Arrested Development). Add to that the fact that Conan O'Brien is a co-creator and executive producer and the show is worth watching for the pedigree alone. The series also has an interesting premise: an accountant moves into a new office and is mistaken for the old tenant, a private investigator. Without too many clients, Andy is tempted to take on the case and thus embarks on a crossover career of catching crooks and deductible expenses.

I found the pilot pretty entertaining, chock full of jokes you might miss if you aren't paying close attention. I also thought it was a nice touch how the pilot had no credits and the title wasn't even shown until the end at the geekily-coolest possible moment. Definitely worth further watching.

Theories, Theories

So I have some theories about what we saw transpire on this past week's episode of Lost. If you havent' seen it yet, go watch it on abc.com. First off, I thought it was pretty creepy how Patchy knew all about "the list" and also was about to spill the beans in front of everyone about Locke's paralysis before he was interrupted by Rousseau. That being said, I have a feeling Locke has some ulterior motives to finding The Others' base camp. As we saw in the preview for this week, Locke confronts Henry Gale and says, "I'm not looking for Jack..." Interesting enough, but a preview for Canadian television (available here) has him finish that sentence with, "I'm looking for the submarine." Could it be that Locke feels so grateful to the island for changing his life that he will try to destroy any way of returning to the real world? He blew up the transmission station (and lied about knowing it was rigged with C4), he killed Patchy (in my opinion) to keep him from blowing his secret, and now he is probably looking for the sub so he can destroy it-hence the extra chunk of C4 he has stashed in his bag.

As for Jack getting along so well with The Others - and how awesome was that football spike to end the ep? - I think it is part of his master plan to get everyone off the island. I can't believe he would abandon everyone - there is definitely something to his tattoos and the Thai chick's saying he is a leader and the fact that his name is Shephard (even though they don't spell it right). There is also something major at work in the fact that his father shows up in some way in almost everyone elses flashbacks and his name is Christian Shephard. I think Jack is going to make nice with The Others just long enough to gain some advantage that will help him get everyone home. Check out the last thing he whispers to Kate in this clip.

This show is as good as ever.