Short Takes – September 3, 2007

I have depressingly little today. Part of it was my week spent goofing off, but part of it is this sort of "calm before the storm" period that we're in. In a sense the Emmys do what the start of the new car year used to do; mark the end of the old TV season and the beginning of the new one. But we're two weeks away from the Emmys and there isn't that much right now that's worthy of my usual commentary. I mean even the PTC has take the week off. But let's see what we can come up with.

NBC pulls out of iTunes: This one literally has no impact on me; Canadians haven't been able to get any video content through iTunes since they started offering it. Well I take that back since there've been some short material from Pixar and movie trailers, but when it comes to the commercial content (like stuff you buy), the Canadian iTunes Music Store offers nothing. However it's different in the United States where ABC and some fifty other networks offer content online through the iTunes Store. One of those networks is NBC, or rather it was. NBC-Universal has decided to end its contract with iTunes despite the fact that the company's networks were the top provider of downloaded content, with shows like Battlestar Galactica, The Office and Heroes representing over 40% of the video material downloaded from iTunes. Initial reports claimed that NBC wanted to increase the price of their content from the standard $1.99 to a whopping $4.99 which would mean that a complete 22 episode season, downloaded to your video capable iPod would set you back $110. In fact what NBC proposed was somewhat different. They wanted the right to offer "flexible pricing" with some shows being under $1.99, while others would be priced higher. Furthermore some shows would be offered as part of a bundled package. For example you might get an episode of The Office "free" if you bought the movie Evan Almighty. In response Apple has stated that they will not offer new episodes of NBC shows that they currently sell between the start of the new TV season and December when the contract runs out. In other words when the new season of The Office debuts you'll still be able to download last season's episodes but not those from the coming season. According to the San Jose Mercury-News the two sides are still negotiating, at least as of the end of August. The situation is a difficult one for both companies. Apple's product lines – which include the iPhone (which you can't get in Canada because they can't find a cell partner that will offer affordable Internet access), Apple TV which allows people to play their iTunes video content on their home TVs (which is available in Canada but is kind of useless because there's virtually no video content available – see above), and a reported revamping of the iPod line which is expected to include a video model with a larger screen, like the iPhone – is becoming increasingly oriented towards video offerings. However the amount of content available has been relatively small. According to the Mercury-News, "The loss of NBC's television shows would mark a big hole in iTunes' catalog. If consumers don't have readily available video for their iPods, iPhones and Apple TV's, Apple could have a harder time selling those products, analysts say." At the same time NBC faces its own risks with dropping away from iTunes: "The NBC network came in fourth place in the Nielsen ratings last year and has struggled to come up with new hit shows. Not only does iTunes provide an extra source of revenue, but it can serve as an important buzz generator and audience builder for new programs, something NBC arguably could use." Just as an example, at least some of the initial success of The Office has been credited to it becoming available on iTunes. The Mercury-News article seems to suggest that this sort of thing is likely to become the norm: "The entertainment companies' traditional business models are starting to crumble in the face of digital distribution. While they are all dabbling with distributing their content online, digital sales have yet to make up for the traditional revenue they're losing. And some analysts doubt that the entertainment companies can ever make a legitimate business out of selling individual songs or TV shows a la carte. Until they do – or figure out a better model – dust-ups with iTunes and its rivals are likely to be the norm, analysts say.

Katie Couric goes to Iraq: I'm not a huge Katie Couric basher – I think she was the wrong woman for the job (I would have loved it if they'd hired someone like Dianne Sawyer or Christianne Amanpour – someone with a serious news background) but I will give her credit for getting better at her job. And now she's headed for Iraq for what is, coincidentally (or is it), the anniversary of her taking over the reins as anchor. Starting on September 4^th she will be broadcasting from Baghdad for two days and then from Damascus Syria for two days. She will be the second network anchor to go to Iraq since the roadside bomb that severely injured former ABC co-anchor Bob Woodruff. Couric, who stated at the time that she took the job that she wouldn't necessarily travel to places like Iraq (unlike her predecessor Dan Rather) in part because she's a widow with two teenage children and in part because she felt that they didn't necessarily add to the story: "I'm not just window dressing to show that I'm at a particular story, which I think does happen quite frankly in certain situations." In this particular case the trip is timed to precede the release of the Petraeus report on the war in Iraq about which Evening News Executive producer Rick Kaplan has said "The future of our involvement in Iraq will be decided when the Petreaus report is released; if you're going to go to the Middle East at all, this is the time." It is also something that will likely have a major impact on the 2008 elections which is another part of the effort to rebrand Couric as a more traditional anchor after her rather disastrous debut. Kaplan's opinions on anchor trips seem similar to Couric's. Kaplan told Television Week, "Great coverage trips are not based on interviews. There may be great interviews, and I can't imagine taking a trip that didn't have great interviews, but that's not how you gauge a trip. When somebody goes over and interviews the head of a country or whatever, that's wonderful. But that's just not a lasting accomplishment, and that's not what we think will benefit this program, this network or Katie. If you're overseas, you want to get extraordinary interviews, but what you will find is going to distinguish the trip is the caliber and content of the stories that we do: where we go, the stories we choose to tell, the situations we describe, the situations we get into. It's the old Nightline in me. When we go somewhere, we want to come back and we want you to understand where we've been. That's what makes a great trip. That's the take-away for the CBS Evening News."

FOX underestimates intelligence of American TV viewers: I know, so what else is new. This time around it has to do with who would host the Emmy Awards which will be on FOX on Sunday September 16^th. The network chose American Idol host Ryan Seacrest to host the broadcast. It was an unusual choice since most networks tend to go for a comedian when they host the show – previous hosts have included Wanda Sykes, Conan O'Brien, Ellen DeGeneres, Gary Shandling and Jon Stewart. Gold Derby now reports that FOX was close to naming House star Hugh Laurie as the Emmy host. Although he's best known on this side of the Atlantic for the dramatic role of Dr. Greg House, Laurie is an accomplished musician who made his name in comedy with frequent partner Stephen Fry in shows such as Jeeves and Wooster, Blackadder and of course A Bit of Fry and Laurie. According to the Gold Derby site, "In the end, Fox decided to go with its Idol star over its House star because exex felt Seacrest would draw a larger TV audience and because viewers might be confused seeing Laurie in an unfamiliar role." (Italics mine) For me this logic is up there with the CBS decision in 1970 to make have the lead character of the Mary Tyler Moore Show be a single woman rather than a divorcee because they were worried that viewers would think that Laura Petrie had divorced Rob (and then moved to Minnesota and changed her name to Mary Richards from Laura Meehan). But maybe the American public is that easily confused. They still expect FOX to let shows like Newsanchor run to a conclusion after all.

War of words possible over The War: With the new Ken Burns documentary The War coming to PBS later this month stations seem to be taking positions on exactly what they will and won't let go on the air. The documentary will use the words of World War II veterans including four which are no-nos on TV. According to the San Francisco Chronicle "two are f-; one is s-; and the fourth is –hole. They are words that 1940s military personnel and countless other Americans use every day, but expletives that The Chronicle doesn't ordinarily publish and that the Federal Communications Commission says can't be uttered on public airwaves between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m." Note that this isn't repeated use of the four words, merely four incidents when the words are used (they are "shit", "asshole" and the full versions of FUBAR and SNAFU – "Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition" and "Situation Normal, All Fucked Up"). The problem is that, as usual, the FCC hasn't made its position clear on whether stations can air the documentary uncensored and the individual stations are afraid of the $325,000 fine that the Commission can levy if the material airs and is found "offensive" by the FCC. It's more than a little circular in terms of logic – the FCC won't tell the stations beforehand if the material can be fined so they know where they stand, but will fine them if they step over the line that hasn't been clearly defined. And the line isn't clearly defined. After all, the FCC okayed the broadcast of Saving Private Ryan during primetime (in a 2005 ruling), which the Chronicle points out "included at least six times as many f- bombs" (than The War I suppose) because "the words weren't 'used to titillate or shock'," but in a 2006 ruling they fined a PBS station, KCSM in San Mateo, for airing an uncensored version of Martin Scorcese's documentary The Blues: Godfathers and Sons because "The gratuitous and repeated use of this language in a program that San Mateo aired at a time when children were expected to be in the audience is shocking." The FCC ruling came after exactly one complaint from a viewer, and was apparently overturned on appeal in June of this year. As a result of the potential for fines stations are being offered both the uncensored version and a censored version which removes the "offensive" words. Our old "friend" Tim Winter of the Parents Television Council has stated "I don't know why the stations wouldn't just air the version without those words in it.... It's hard to believe that removing four words are going to significantly damage the program." The PTC will evaluate the show when it premieres. For his part Burns has stated that he understands the position that PBS stations that will air the censored version are in; it is "absurd and yet, at the same time, I understand it. Public television has this impossible mandate to be all things to all people." He also wonders at the fact that there has been no negative reaction over the graphic nature of the violence in the documentaries, which include beheadings and "the dead bodies stacked up like cordwood" to which Winter has replied "it's hard to make a movie about war without showing what war is like." Of course part of showing what war is like includes hearing soldiers say "fuck" and "shit" but Americans are more willing to accept violence over harsh language. As a partial explanation Burns offers this assessment: "'We are both a permissive and a puritanical culture," he said. And the discussion over the language in The War 'is like one of those intersections where an old jalopy filled with drunken revelers is headed toward a bus full of evangelicals.'"

Who does the PTC hate this week?: Nobody. Well at least nobody new. There are no new press releases, no new "Worst of the Week" for either broadcast or cable, and no new "Misrated." Either they've taking the week off or the week they would be drawing their shows to hate from was pristine and totally up to PTC standards in every way. ... Nah!

Bill Maher: Fator hater: I generally like Bill Maher. I enjoyed his series Politically Incorrect and I think he got a genuinely raw deal when ABC cancelled the show after his comments about the 9-11 attacks in 2001, not to mention the reaction of then White House Press secretary Ari Fleischer who said "...they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that..." I would love to be able to see his current series, Real Time With Bill Maher on Canadian TV but it's not available. That said, I take exception to something that Maher said on his August 24^th show in his "New Rules" segment: "New Rule: If your winner is a ventriloquist, then "America Hasn't Got Talent." Besides, if there's one thing Americans have had enough of, it's the guy who puts words in the dummy's mouth. [photo of Bush and Rove shown] Oh, we kid President Bush. It's all with love." Now I know that he's taking a shot at President Bush and Karl Rove (and probably Dick Cheney), and I defend to the death his right to say it (unlike Ari Fleischer) but Mr. Maher, until you can actually do this you are really in no position to say that Terry Fator doesn't have talent.

Short Takes – June 26, 2007

Welcome back to your favourite NC-17 blog. Actually I think of that NC-17 in the same way that Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert regarded it when it replaced the X Rating. They hoped that the rating would be applied to films with artistic merit which also included adult themes but not to movies that were pornographic or "dirty". Mostly they wanted a rating that allowed deserving films to get newspaper and TV advertising because most theatres wouldn't book films that they couldn't promote. It didn't work out that way of course – NC-17 replaced X entirely, newspapers still refused to take the ads and films like most of Pedro Almadovar's work either wasn't shown in most North American cities or, once they figured things out, simply weren't submitted to the ratings boards at all. Anyway, I probably won't be using any of the words that got me the NC-17 for a while. Well okay, I'll probably use "dead" and "death" a bit. And I may use "enema," if only because it's sort of a silly word.

We`ll always have Paris: Which I guess is what I`m vaguely afraid of. I mean sure, I liked Paris Hilton in the Carl`s Jr. Ad, but what red-blooded North American male who didn`t have a stick permanently wedged up their backside (by which I of course mean the males in the PTC) didn`t. But mostly I`m like Evil Willow on Buffy The Vampire Slayer – "bored now." But they keep giving her to us. And sadly by "they" I don't just mean the tabloid TV shows and the stupid reality show. No it's now the mainstream news shows. ABC bids $100,000 to get the first interview with Hilton after she got out of the "Big House" after her harrowing 23 days in "Stir," but they get outbid by NBC, the network that piously proclaimed that that the story wasn't newsworthy. Or at least it wasn't until they could spin it in such a way that it was. NBC offered $1 million, and then when it became public knowledge and there were protests from the news division they not only withdrew the bid but proclaimed that the thing was only a rumour. So now we'll see Paris Hilton interviewed by Larry King – and presumably Larry's research staff will read any necessary books for him and provide him with questions that aren't too tough for either of them. CNN claims not to have spent any money to get this interview, and maybe they're even being honest about it, but setting aside whether Hilton got a sentence that other people in a similar situation – except for not being rich or "famous" – would have received (and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that she was treated differently by the judge because of her celebrity) what has she got to say that could possibly be worth a million dollars, a hundred thousand dollars, or whatever "consideration" CNN might be giving her. There is probably a story – even an hour-long news magazine report – on how the justice system treats celebrities (good and ill treatment alike) but this hype around Paris Hilton hasn't done anything like that.

(By the way, once upon a time I used to like Larry King. That was when he was the King – so to speak – of late night radio and operated out of Washington. He worked well with callers – except for anyone calling in to criticise Psychiatrists, who were immediately labelled Scientologists and cut off – and had interesting guests. These days, operating out of Los Angeles, he has his lips so firmly attached to the backsides of anyone in Hollywood that there are still some parts of the United States where he could be arrested for unlawful sexual activities. And he still doesn't read the damned books.)

Couric-watch: Which network has seen its evening news audience drop more since Katie Couric debuted as the host of the CBS Evening News. If you said "Well duh, that would be CBS," You would be, well duh, wrong (come on, you didn't think I'd post something like this if the answer was the obvious one did you). According the Nielsen ratings, as reported by TVNewser, the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric has lost 287,000 viewers from the same time last year. That's a drop of about 4%. The NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams has lost 533,000 viewers over the same period, a drop of 5%. It is almost twice as many viewers as CBS lost (185.71% to be exact) but then CBS obviously had a smaller audience to begin with. And while it can be argued whose fault that is, the one thing that is abundantly clear is that you can't blame Couric for having a smaller audience before she even arrived.

FOX – the clone network: A funny thing seems to happen when some networks come up with a reality or game show idea; FOX comes up with an idea that's almost exactly the same. Sometimes they even get it on before the network that came up with it in the first place. ABC brought Supernanny to American audiences, but FOX had Nanny 911 on the air three or four months earlier. ABC had Wife Swap; FOX came up with Trading Spouses and put it on the air before the ABC series. The similarities between the two shows were so great that ABC sued FOX for copyright infringement. And now Fox is doing it to NBC. One of the "highlights" of NBC's new fall line-up was a show called The Singing Bee in which contestants have to sing a song and remember the lyrics accurately after the music stops. The "bee" part comes in because the format is supposed to be like a Spelling Bee with eight people from the audience competing against each other. The show was supposed to start airing in the Fall, sharing a Friday time slot with 1 vs. 100. Except, FOX announced a new series called Don't Forget The Lyrics. In Don't Forget The Lyrics contestants have to sing the correct lyrics to songs of various genres. Oh there are "differences" – the FOX show doesn't use the Spelling Bee format. Instead a single contestant sings at various levels with the difficulty of the song increasing as the prize amount increases. So you can see, they're totally different shows. As I said, NBC planned to debut The Singing Bee in the Fall but when they got wind of FOX's plan to start Don't Forget The Lyrics on July 11 from 9:30 to 10 p.m. Eastern, that plan went out the window. NBC will debut The Singing Bee on July 10, with a second half hour episode appearing on – wait for it – July 11 from 8:30 to 9 p.m. Eastern; in other words an hour before the debut of Don't Forget The Lyrics. I love this, if only because if both of these shows suck as much as I anticipate (and to be honest devoutly hope) they may kill each other off before the start of the Fall season which will give 1 vs. 100 (a show that I really do like) a straight run.

Who does the PTC hate this week: Boy the stuff you miss when you skip a week. Before I get to that though, I want to remind all of you of the single issue on which I agree with the PTC, which is unbundling cable services and allowing consumers to choose which channels will be seen in their homes. This came up because Representatives Dan Lipinski (D, Illinois) and Jeff Fortenberry (R, Nebraska) introduced a new bill called the "Family and Consumer Choice Act of 2007" which would allow consumers to pick and pay for the channels they want. Of course the PTC and I totally disagree on why this should be done. I just don't want to pay for TV channels that I only see when I'm clicking through the channels to get to the shows I want to see. I don't particularly care for most music channels so why should I pay for Muchmusic, CMT, or MTV Canada. And if I save money by not watching those channels maybe I'll spend the money on other channels I want to watch but can't afford at present. The PTC on the other hand sees "pick and pay" as a way to punish the evil entertainment industry. Almost as soon the PTC's press announcement finishes praising Lipinski and Fortenberry (praise that consisted of most of the first paragraph) it spends eight paragraphs talking about the evils bestowed on the poor, innocent American public by cable and network TV (despite the fact that Lipinski and Fortenberry's bill probably wouldn't negate the FCC's "must carry" rules that were further strengthened by the US Supreme Court in 1997). Here's a little bit of the overheated rhetoric of PTC Governmental Affairs Director Dan Issett:

Last year, Congress acted to increase the maximum possible fine for violation of broadcast decency law, but the reaction from the entertainment industry was to file suit, claiming that the 'F-word' and 'S-word' were appropriate to air during prime time television, and that – of all things – a striptease in the middle of the Super Bowl was somehow not indecent. Clearly, the entertainment industry has lost its way, and is failing to live up to its legal obligation to broadcast in the public interest.

Last week, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision inexplicable to Americans families: that the 'F-word' and 'S-word' should be ok to be broadcast on the public airwaves at hours when tens of millions of children are in the audience. While we're a long way from the end of the judicial process in that case, and Congress may weigh in yet again, one thing is clear – if the entertainment industry really want to give parents 'complete control' of their televisions, as it says it does, then it would endorse the concept of cable choice.

And then there's his conclusion:

We commend Congressman Lipinski and Congressman Fortenberry for their excellent leadership on this critical issue, and we thank Chairman Martin for his thoughtful and forthright determination that parents must be given more and better tools to control the graphic sexual and violent content that comes into their homes. It takes real political fortitude to side with families and stand up to the millions of dollars the entertainment industry spends to buy influence in Washington. But make no mistake - the American people are grateful that this legislation is being offered today.

My viewpoint? If the vast majority of the "American people are grateful that this legislation is being offered today" it isn't because it will keep them from seeing the shows cited in the PTC's press announcement – Rescue Me from FX, South Park on Comedy Central, and the cleaned up version of The Sopranos that airs on A&E. It will be because it will save them money and maybe allow them to rid their TVs of multiple shopping channels and religious networks that they never watch. It is also a fact that the "American people" will vote with their pocket books and if the cable industry is smart – and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they aren't – they package their product in such a way as to make picking and paying for individual channels the least attractive option, and packages with a mixture of channels based around an apparent theme the most attractive. Those packages are what most people will buy.

I confess that one of the reasons why I look forward to Hell's Kitchen is because of the fulminating (a particularly appropriate verb for any pronouncement from the PTC – one always gets the impression that an over-abundance of righteous indignation on their part will lead to a massive explosion) they engage in when his show airs. Last week's Worst of the Week was no disappointment. The PTC had this to say of Ramsay (who "clearly plays the role of the Devil in Hell's Kitchen) and the show "What makes this show so bad for family viewing is that it is presented as "reality," when in reality no one would endure the Nazi-like persecution Chef Ramsey dishes out. In that sense, this show is unlike all other reality shows, as it tells young viewers that this type of behavior is what one can expect to encounter in life, and that obscene language, backstabbing, and vile personal attacks are acceptable in the workplace." Well setting aside the assertion that Gordon Ramsay is somehow Hitler-like, the fact is that Ramsay's own early training made Hell's Kitchen look like a stroll in the park. Marco Pierre White was notorious for his rages and bullying – indeed White's recent biography has a picture of Ramsay in tears after being screamed at by White making a mistake. Ramsay's behaviour in his working kitchens as depicted in the documentaries Boiling Point and Beyond Boiling Point is exactly as seen in the show. But perhaps the most telling proof that people will "endure the Nazi-like persecution Chef Ramsey dishes out" is that his restaurants have an astounding 85% retention rate for staff since 1993. (I'd ask Orac for the loan of the brain eating Hitler-zombie, but of course this is the PTC and the poor critter would starve looking for brains among that bunch.)

This week the PTC's Worst of the Week is the FOX series The Loop. This is a series that the network is burning off – airing the episodes during the summer – and doing so in a way that is reminiscent of a high powered industrial incinerator. FOX ordered episodes of this series as a midseason replacement after a brief run in the 2005-06 season but then changed their minds, first cutting the order from 13 to 10 episodes, then not running it at all during the main season, and finally running two or three episodes in a single night instead of one a week like even the weakest series being run in the summer. In other words it's business as usual for FOX where the network weasels are particularly obtuse. And yet the PTC treats it with far more respect than the network does, viewing it as "one of the crudest shows on television" terrible threat to the (non-existent) "Family Hour." The episode in question is called "The Window" (except that it isn't – the actual title is "Windows" which shows the usual PTC level of accuracy). The PTC quotes five "vulgar examples of sexual innuendo and dialogue from this week's episode," including "Sam: 'Did my package come?' Sully: 'No, but mine did.'" I'm not even sure I understand what that means out of context – and all of the quotes in question are out of context – let alone why I should regard it as vulgar. They finish their hatchet job review by saying "The Loop is has a simple formula: place the main character in a random conundrum, litter the script with taboo sexual dialogue and situations, and put it on the air in the family hour. The writers of this program show no regard for younger viewers or families who may be watching their program." I'm not going to defend this show as not being full of sexual innuendo; even though I haven't seen it I have seen reviews by people who have and either hate the sexual content and think that the show is getting what it deserves, or enjoy it and think that the network is treating it shamefully. But you know as well as I do that this series could air in any hour of primetime and the PTC would be condemning it as filth, all in the name of protecting the children.

Short Takes - July 24, 2006

It's hot here in Toon Town and apparently it's complicating my Internet connection because it has been dropping a lot in the past couple of days. Makes it hard to put stuff together. Oh, and by the way, vote in the poll - as of now there have only been three votes cast. I know some of you (Linda) resent the fact that Hugh Laurie wasn't nominated but that has nothing to do with me.

Oh, and by the way I have a new blog on Vox, which is basically a random thoughts sort of thing called Sleddog's Thoughts. I sort of like it.

There's this thing called the Internet: I think it might catch on. We've seen networks offer their content for sale online through venues such as the iTune Music Store, and we've seen networks offer exclusive content online, such as CBS is doing with its InnerTube service. We've also seen "viral videos" of the sort being offered by YouTube - videos of varying quality that have been posted online by people. Among the latter was an actual TV show created for a network. The WB ordered a pilot called Nobody's Watching, a show about two guys commissioned to create "the next great sitcom" but who were forced to do so in the context of a reality show. The network rejected the finished pilot - in favour of Twins according to Alan Sepinwall - and in the normal course of things, that would be that (although at one time busted pilots were shown on TV during the summer, that's not done anymore). In this case someone - no one is really sure who though there are suspicions - took the pilot and put it on YouTube, where it proceeded to become one of the most viewed things ever. This caught the attention of NBC - although there's some suspicion that it was NBC that released the pilot in the first place, which they deny - which produced the original pilot. They've ordered the production of more YouTube "webisodes" to keep interest up and also scripts for six episodes that might run on the network. This may well be something of a wave of the future; trying out shows that are marginal as far as network executives are concerned and giving them a chance to prove that they can find an audience. It is on the whole an interesting use of something like YouTube, which ironically was being sued by NBC for allowing material copyrighted by NBC - a sketch from Saturday Night Live, see the next post for the reason why I don't know what the sketch is. CBS is also considering offering snippets from their programming on the service. Now if someone can only figure out how to make money from YouTube and keep it being sued out of existence by copyright owners.

These cable TV channels might be around for a while too: Networks - well NBC - seem to be using the summer to showcase some of the shows from the cable channels they own. Last week NBC showed the premier episode of this season's Project Runway rather than repeating the previous week's episode of Treasure Hunters. It's also been announced that NBC will be airing two episodes of the new cable series Psych on the main network. This sort of cross-pollination isn't new. A few years back NBC condensed the Battlestar Galactica miniseries into a three hour movie which they then threw away on a Saturday night, and one summer ABC showed episodes from the first season of Monk. CBS went even further by showing four episodes from the first season of the (then) UPN series Veronica Mars. This sort of thing should probably happen more as an alternative to endless reruns and lame reality shows.

Katie Couric won't go to the Middle East - except she will: Earlier in the week there was a report from Access Hollywood which was reported by most of the TV critics that claimed that Katie Couric said that she wouldn't travel to the war zone in the Middle East when she takes over as anchor of the CBS Evening News: "I think the situation there is so dangerous, and as a single parent with two children, that's something I won't be doing." Given her personal circumstances I wouldn't blame her one bit. Except that as the New York Post reports Couric's statements were taken out of context. For one thing the original report was of statements she made in May after the injuries sustained by CBS correspondent Kimberly Dozier in Iraq, not to mention ABC anchor Bob Woodruff. The Access Hollywood report ignored a more recent statement made by Couric during the Television Critics Association tour that referred specifically to the current situation in Israel and Lebanon where Couric said, "In terms of traveling, I think it will be done on a case-by-case basis . . . But clearly, if it's going to serve the story, advance the story, and be helpful to the story, I would like to be there. I think it really depends on the situation and what's happening." In other words working as an anchor covering an breaking story is significantly different from going to Iraq just to go to Iraq. And again, I agree with her entirely - sometimes you're better off covering a story from an anchor desk in New York than you are being on the ground.

You can't serve two masters mistress: Tina Fey is leaving Saturday Night Live where she has been co-head writer and co-anchor of Weekend Update. Now this does not particularly resonate with me since I've never watched SNL even when it was funny - although based on comments on various newsgroups over the years I'm not absolutely sure when that was. Fey of course will be the star and head writer of the new NBC series 30 Rock and basically feels she can't do both. She's probably right, although how long 30 Rock is going to last is anyone's guess.

Usually presidents only meet sports teams: George Bush will be meeting with the top ten American Idol contestants from the last season including winner Taylor Hicks. Apparently Hicks has ties with the administration - his 9th grade teacher is now Laura Bush's press secretary. Hicks received more votes in the American Idol finale than George Bush did in the 2004 Presidential Election, although unlike most voters in the Presidential Elections, people could vote more than once for the American Idol winner.

Cancer is political: We do love our Brent "Barney" Bozell here at I Am A Child Of Television. We love him because he is such an easy target that a blind man armed with a toothpick would have no difficulty in hitting him. As you may know, besides being the head of the PTC Bozell is also the founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center. He has now decided to take on Katie Couric and amazingly it is for her philanthropic works. Couric is the co-founder of the National Colorectal Cancer Research Alliance (NCCRA). Her husband died of colorectal cancer and sister of pancreatic cancer. In a column that appears on the Media Research Council website and which has been syndicated to various newspapers, Bozell questions not the sincerity of Couric's activities, but claims that having "one of the nation's leading news anchors have an aggressive high-profile side career in philanthropy" might represent a political conflict of interest. According to Bozell - who compares Couric's activities with the NCCRA with Senator Tom DeLay's activities with his DeLay Foundation for Kids - Katie might be influenced in "how she reports the news, the stories she pushes - and perhaps more importantly, the stories she decides not to push at CBS?" by the people who assist her in her charity work. As a "smoking gun" he points to several interviews Couric has done with Michael J. Fox, where he advocates in Bozell's words "highly-controversial embryo-destroying stem cell research" - a cause that Couric has also raised money for. Bozell finishes his column by saying " Perhaps the media elite will insist on a double standard. Politicians (especially conservative ones) need special scrutiny of their charities, they will lecture us. Journalists, on the other hand, are to be seen as society’s helpers during their day jobs, so why discourage Katie Couric from a little moonlighting at saving lives, too? Media ethicists ought to be pressed to think hard about this new situation and state their opinion. CBS ought to explain its policy about disclosing any Couric conflicts before the new anchor’s era begins." Apparently Mr. Bozell gives far more weight to the notion that television news anchors personally shape the stories that get covered on their newscasts than most people do. Well at least he has a higher opinion of Katie Couric's abilities as a news person - or at least as someone who can work the system - than most people seem to. And while were discussing biases, perhaps the next time Brent Bozell goes on television pontificating in the name of children as the head man at the PTC he should also disclose his conflicts as head of the Media Research Council and other conservative organizations. Just a thought.

Who does the PTC hate THIS week? After last week's failure to find anything new to hate and being forced to hate America's Got Talent for two weeks in a row because of Michelle L'Amour, the PTC has found someone new to hate Big Brother All-Stars, although for the life of me I can't figure out why. They accuse the diary room sessions of "graphic descriptions, foul language, and even violent threats" but the only examples they could come up with were Howie saying "boobies" a lot and Allison saying "I'm probably gonna drag her by her fake hair and her fake boobs and drown her in the pool." This is worthy of their ire? Here's their summation though: "It is shocking that CBS would air many of the scenes from Big Brother 7 on network television at all, but to show them in the 8:00 hour is over the top. In fact, everything about the show is over the top. From the challenges to the contestants themselves, the show constantly pushes the limits of broadcast decency and never considers its message to families or children." It must either be a slow time at the PTC, or they found their most prudish member to do the review because if anything is over the top it is this assessment.

Short Takes - June 17, 2006

I really need to get back into the swing of writing for this, and this Short Takes piece is going to be a starting point. A couple of things have been keeping me from this - one has been the World Cup, which is ongoing, while the other is that on June 9 I had my dog put to sleep. She was 15 and had a lot of things wrong with her but I really miss her. Anyway...

Rose Leaves Doctor Who: I can't say I'm surprised, and certainly I'm considerably less surprised than a lot of people who have written on the subject. I don't recall what the average duration of a companion on the old show was but two full seasons was most unusual. I think the only ones who lasted much beyond two years were the Second Doctor's companion Jamie McCrimmon (Fraser Hines), Sarah Jane Smith (Elizabeth Sladen) who bridged the Third and Fourth Doctors, and Tegan Jovanka (Janet Fielding) who was in the last Tom Baker serial and then appeared in all but the last two of Peter Davidson's run as the Fifth Doctor. In fact as I understand it John Nathan Turner (who was the long time - perhaps too long - producer) didn't want companions to be on the show for more than a year. I suppose that the reason for the surprise about Billie Piper leaving the series is that the current run of Doctor Who has very much been about the partnership of Rose and The Doctor rather than having The Doctor as the primary character and the companion as the "designated screamer" and reason for story exposition.

Couric on the news pays: Pays her salary that is. According to Advertising Age Katie Couric's salary will pretty much be paid for by increased advertising on the CBS Evening News. According to Les Moonves "Katie probably paid for herself in the first week of our upfront. We brought in about $15 million more for the 'Early Evening News' in the first week." That just happens to be the amount of Couric's salary. So much for needing "gravitas", although I still think people would take her more seriously if she went by the name "Katherine Couric."

One stays, one goes: Apparently it is now all but official - Dan Rather will be leaving CBS after 44 years, during which he reported on hurricanes, the assassination of a president, Watergate, trekked into the mountains of Afghanistan right after the Soviet invasion, faced down Chinese government officials to keep the CBS news feed active as long as possible at the time of Tiananmen Square, and covered elections in his own inimitable style. I think it will be the elections that I'll miss him most on - somewhere along the line he'd suddenly go all East Texas on you with expressions that no one could possible script, like "If a frog had pockets, he'd carry a handgun!" Who but Rather could come up with something like that

Meanwhile, longtime 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley is reported to have signed a new contract to remain on the show after a number of weeks of arguing over money to the point that Bradley essentially went on strike.

Indecent in several ways: Two items on indecency. First we have President Bush signing into law a bill that will increase the maximum fines from the current $32,500 to $325,000 per incident if "obscene material or indecent material broadcast between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m." Indecency is defined as "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities." According to Bush "This law will ensure that broadcasters take seriously their duty to keep the public airwaves free of obscene, profane and indecent material."

In the other item, CBS is appealing the fine that they received from the FCC related to the episode of Without A Trace depicting a teen orgy because the people who emailed in the complaint didn't actually see the show according to Media Week. The FCC fined 103 CBS affiliates in the Central and Mountain time zones the then maximum $32,500 fine for airing "indecent material". According to the CBS filing all 4,211 e-mail complaints came from websites operated by the Parent's Television Council and the American Family Association, and only two of the e-mails claimed to have watched the program - or more accuartely a "brief, out-of-context segment” which had been posted at the PTC website. Even more suspiciously no e-mail complaints were received by the FCC until January 12, 2005 - the day that the PTC posted their alert on their website - despite the fact that the show that aired on December 31, 2004 was a repeat of an episode that aired on November 6, 2003. The CBS filing points out that to be valid, complaints must come from an actual viewer in the service area of the station at issue, the filing said. The CBS stations stated the obvious when they said that “The e-mails were submitted … because advocacy groups hoping to influence television content generally exhorted them to contact the commission.” For his part PTC president Brent Bozell stated “Every complaint filed comes from a United States citizen who, last I heard, had the constitutional privilege to petition his government. Rather than these stupid legal maneuvers, CBS and Viacom should spend time pondering why it’s wrong to broadcast scenes of teen orgies in front of millions of children.”

I have a couple of problems here. First of all the increased level of fines is a punitive action and is undoubtedly a move to shore up support from the social conservative wing of the Republican party before the Congressional elections. Presumably these are people who will vote for the Republicans based entirely on their willingness to bash Hollywood and take "moral" stands despite the economy, the war and a ton of other issues that most people would regard as more important. On the other hand CBS's filing on this issue, while I think it has considerable merit based on the evidence presented (and the total number of complaints is based on material CBS obtained from the FCC under the Freedom Of Information Act despite Bozell's complaints that the number was too low) it doesn't really argue the merits of the case. There are problems with the definition of indecency which is far more open to interpretation than the FCC seems to believe. There are problems with the ability of the Commission to require that fines be paid based on a loop hole; the fact that the third hour of the prime time period is from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. in about half the United States and between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. in the other half. This sort of dichotomy means that the networks have to pander to groups like the PTC in producing programs for their networks because they have to produce programs "suitable" for the Central and Mountain time zones. As much as CBS is trying legal maneuvers to block these fines, between 2003 and 2005 the PTC probably had a sharp lawyer point out that there was a way for them to control television content for all people not just for children.

And now for something completely different: Although I have a suspicion that some of the stuff that John Cleese and the Monty Python troop were able to get away with in Britain could have come close to an FCC fine. Sadly it seems that Cleese will be retiring from performing, although it's not absolutely clear if it is total retirement or just from writing and performing in sitcoms. The BBC News article announcing his retirement only mentions sitcoms, but a profile article that accompanied the piece indicated that he is giving up writing and performing entirely. Cleese intends to write a book on the history of comedy and become a "comedy professor" to ground younger talent in the "rules of the game." In his opinion too much TV comedy is "poorly written and aimed at US teenagers." (Personally I think he's giving it too much credit.) According to Cleese "It is very rare today to see someone with that grasp of old-fashioned comedy. The last truly excellent performance I saw was Eddie Izzard. But Ricky Gervais is also a match for the great American sitcoms." He'll be missed, but if a future generation of comedy writers and performers learns from him it won't be a total loss.

Katie Couric And the Force Of Gravitas

I've been doing a lot of thinking about Katie Couric and I'm afraid. Not of her, for her. I get the distinct impression that she's being perceived as the "saviour" of The CBS Evening News, and if - or probably more accurately when - things don't improve for the program people are going to look for someone or something to blame and it's going to be her. It's starting already - most of the comments on the CBS News blog The Public Eye seem very negative and it all comes down to one thing, "gravitas" and her lack thereof.

In ancient Rome gravitas was one of the virtues that a public man was expected to have; it "communicated a sense of dignity, seriousness, and duty." In modern times it has come to mean "a sense of substance or depth of personality." Of course it most cases what it really means is to be perceived as having a substance or depth of personality. Certainly that would seem to be the case of TV news anchors - they need to be seen to have a depth of personality and substance, and even the Roman virtues of dignity and seriousness, regardless of whether they actually possess those qualities in any real sense. Consider if you will the great anchors of the past - Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, John Chancellor, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and of course Walter Cronkite. They practically oozed gravitas. There was a reason why Cronkite was known as "the most trusted man in America" - and would probably still be anchoring the CBS Evening News if he wanted it - and it was because he was perceived by the viewing public as having the sort of substance and depth of personality that demanded to be trusted. Even his personal prop (if you want to call it that) - his pipe, which he occasionally smoked during shows although not during the evening news - signified depth, dignity and seriousness. Cronkite probably understood it. Certainly Lyndon Johnson got it; Johnson's response to Cronkite's 1968 report during the Tet Offensive that the Vietnam War was unwinnable "If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I've lost Middle America." Johnson decided not to run for reelection soon after, influenced I suspect by polls which showed that his evaluation of the situation was correct.

You may have noticed that my listing of anchors with gravitas did not include Peter Jennings. Jennings is a special case, maybe the case that proves the theory. By the time of his death last year Jennings was one of the most trusted figures active in American broadcasting, certainly better respected than Dan Rather was following the "Memogate" scandal, but it was not always so. When he started as anchor of the ABC News the first time, back in 1965 he was inexperienced as a journalist and in American topics. Even at his own network in this period he was known as "Stanley Stunning" and "Peter Pretty". It took years of working in the field as a reporter, primarily covering the Middle East, to earn respect both from his colleagues and the public, so that when he was named as sole anchor of ABC's World News Tonight in 1983 following the death of Frank Reynolds he had a stature greater than that of "Peter Pretty" almost 20 years before, and the trust in him grew as his depth of personality, dignity and seriousness were revealed to the public.

So what does this have to do with Katie Couric? Through no fault of her own she lacks gravitas and has been thrust into a situation where gravitas is demanded. For the past fifteen years she has been the co-host of NBC's Today Show starting in 1991 and for two years before that, while she worked as an NBC correspondent she was also filling in for absent cast members on the Today Show. The perception is that her actual journalistic abilities is next to nil even though she has in the past served as a replacement anchor on the weekend NBC Nightly News, was a "contributing anchor" at Dateline NBC and had filled in for Tom Brokaw as anchor of the NBC Nightly News on occasion. The problem is that the Today Show isn't seen as a news program or journalism so much as it's seen as an entertainment program that occasionally dips its toes into news stories. It doesn't help her credibility that when she guest hosted on The Tonight Show on May 12, 2003 the desk was cut away to show off her legs (in fact there's a website devoted to Couric's legs). Such things don't exactly help to build a sense of "dignity, seriousness, depth of personality or substance".

Certainly this feeling is reflected in the comments to The Public Eye that I mentioned at the beginning of this piece. One person called her "a mere lollipop", while another called her "giggle-box". Yet another commenter wrote "I don't think I thought at all about her gender, hairstyle, age, etc. I thought about her credibility. She has been a morning host doing hard hitting interviews with Gwyneth and cooking with Emeril in the kitchen. Are we to assume she can put the moves on Chirac or Putin and be taken seriously?" It's that matter of gravitas again, the notion that Katie Couric hasn't paid her dues and isn't fit to fill the shoes of Cronkite, Rather or interim anchor Bob Schieffer. The initial impression of people - who of course haven't seen her in the new job - is that she's all perky style and no real substance. Instead of being perceived as a serious appointment, it is - fairly or unfairly - seen as a cynical move on the part of CBS President Les Moonves and the new President of CBS News and Sports Sean McManus to undermine the importance of journalistic experience and to emphasize the importance of personality by hiring an underqualified "star".

I'm not sure that Katie Couric will be successful in her new role. It's not a matter of her gender but whether people will take her seriously. There are other women who would probably be able to muster the gravitas that the job requires - Dianne Sawyer and Christianne Amanpour come to mind immediately. I'm afraid that I have to come down on the side of those need to have it proven to them that she can be effective at doing more than raising the ratings temporarily. I know she'll be successful in that; the question is whether she'll be able to earn the trust and respect of the viewers that is needed to keep the ratings up after the initial curiousity has worn off. I just don't know if perky and gravitas can co-exist in the same person.

Short Takes - April 8, 2006

I confess that I didn't think I had much for this piece. In fact I was thinking about not writing it and instead trying to figure out my feelings (and how to present them) about Katie Couric going to CBS to anchor the CBS Evening News. I'll probably get that out eventually but the short answer is that I'm not sure she can fully pull it off. Hey, personal opinion okay. I do have a couple of things though.

- Liberalism on morning TV is poison?: When Couric announced her move to CBS, her former employers at NBC's Today show were forced to find a replacement for her. In all honesty I don't think they were scrambling because they announced that Meredith Vieira will be the new host of Today the day after Couric announced her departure. Vieira is one of the five women on ABC's "after Good Morning America morning show The View as well as the quiz master (I desperately wanted to say the "hostess with the mostest") on the American syndicated version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Now I don't have much of an opinion on this - I'm never up early enough to watch Today, and my exposures to The View have been few and mercifully brief even if I have seen it more than Live With Regis & Kelly. So beyond a vague feeling that CBS owes ABC a coupe of draft choices and a journalist to be named later I don't have any opinions on Vieira or her fitness to work on Today. There are those who do. Apparently during her time on The View Vieira expressed her opposition to the War In Iraq literally from the beginning, and at one point said "Everything's been built on lies. Everything! I mean the entire pretext for war." She's also expressed her opposition to the death penalty on the air and when Ann Coulter, a guest on The View, repeated her claim that "liberals hate America” Vieira called her view "stupid". All of this has led to conservative websites such as Newsmax.com to condemn her appointment, as has Brent Bozell. When he's not trying to save America from what he and his acolytes regard as violent, obscene and otherwise objectionable television - all in the name of protecting the children of course - as head of the Parents Television Council, Bozell is also the founder of the conservative media watchdog Media Research Center. In response to Meredith Vieira being hired to host Today Bozell issued a statement on behalf of his groups that said in part that "NBC promises to poison Americans' mornings with liberal bias."

My take: Setting aside my personal biases (except to say that anyone who has the intestinal fortitude to call something that Ann Coulter says "stupid" to her face is all right by me) but if we're going to talk about bias, what about Bozell's own. I have to wonder just how much of Bozell's own pro-conservative bias filters into his work with the PTC? Isn't that as legitimate a question as wondering about Vieira's opinions, probably even more given Bozell's efforts to set his group up as the protector of American morals (in defense of the children of course)? When are we going to see Bozell come out with a statement that "NBC promises to poison America's children with liberal bias" since Today does air when America's children are getting up and getting ready for school?

As for Vieira and her views - the show she was working on when her opinions came out was called The View. The hosts are expected to express their opinions, as she did and as did Elizabeth Hasselback who happens to be a Republican. If you were to only watch Meredith Vieira on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, would you know her political stance? No. During her period working as a journalist on West 57th and 60 Minutes were her political opinions readily known? I don't seem to recall them being featured. I fully expect that Vieira will be able to be as successful in reining in her political views as Couric has been.

- Who "owns" Smallville?: This is a rather complicated legal story. As virtually everyone knows, Superman was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in 1938 but through a variety of legal methods the rights to the character were owned by Detective Comics, the company which eventually became DC Comics. What's not so well known is that the character of Superboy was created separately by Siegel alone. He submitted the idea of Superboy to Detective Comics several times starting in 1938 and in 1940 he wrote a complete story which laid out the basis of the character. According to the reports of the case at comics news site Newsarama this included "his family life, his small town upbringing, and concealing his powers and true self while using his powers to help others." Sounds of sort familiar doesn't it. Siegel's pitch was rejected three times between February 1941 and August 1942. Subsequently Siegel went into the army and was stationed in the Pacific. In November 1944 More Fun Comics #101 hit the news stands with the first Superboy story, based on Siegel's materials but not credited to him. He sued, and in a 1947 decision the courts determined that Siegel owned the rights to Superboy while DC owned the rights to Superman. Siegel then sold the rights to DC - at a price that was favourable to DC. This would seem to be the end of it, but in the tortuous realm of copyright law a new element has appeared. There have been various copyright renewal laws - starting with the Copyright Act of 1976, and most recently the Bono Amendment (the Copyright Extension Term of 1998) - that have extended the duration of existing copyrights. A key beneficiary of these laws has been Disney, but other organizations have benefitted as well including DC Comics and its parent company Time-Warner. These extension laws also included provisions for creators or their spouses (if the creator is deceased) and direct descendants - and under the Bono amendment their executors - to terminate the transfer of copyright for material transferred under the old laws. Jerry Siegel's widow Joanne and his daughter Laura Siegel Larson filed Notification of Termination in November 2002 to take effect in November 2004. DC has subsequently argued that Siegel's work on Superboy was a work for hire situation. In a March 23 decision reported by Mark Evanier Judge Ronald Lew tossed out Time-Warner's arguments against the Termination Notice stating that the 1947 court case which awarded the copyright for Superboy to Jerry Siegel clearly proved that it wasn't work for hire, confirmed by DC Comics' purchase of the copyright. In other words the Siegel family has owned Superboy since November 2004. What hasn't been ruled on yet is what effect this will have on the TV series Smallville. In his decision, Judge Lew stated that "Smallville may be infringing upon the copyright to Superboy" In their argument Time-Warner states that Smallville "does not feature Superboy, but rather a young Clark Kent, which appeared in Superman comics prior to the first publication of Superboy in comics (1944). In making this claim, Warner Bros. said that the use of Clark Kent in Smallville are not subject to the termination of the transfer of copyright filed by the Siegels – even if the court does find the termination to be valid." However comic book scholars and the Siegel family attorney Marc Toberoff have noted "that images of a young Clark Kent that pre-date 1944 were limited to showing Superman as a baby, or as a toddler, not as a teenager or adolescent." Profits from Smallville are undoubtedly the most valuable aspect of this case particularly since, in the current comics Superboy (two versions of him actually, neither Superman as a boy in the current continuity) has been killed off during the current Infinite Crisis series. There's undoubtedly more to come in this case.