Short Takes – December 16, 2007

Some interesting stuff came up this week, some strike related and some not so much. Okay most everything these days is strike related, but you know what I mean.

Oh, and by the way, this is for Phish, who made a comment on an earlier post. Before I reveal the comment let me just tell you that Phish is the guy I mentioned last week who commented in TVSquad that the best writers in Hollywood should just go back to work, and that unions in general were un-capitalistic and defied the concept of supply and demand. Not content to troll about the strike on a totally unrelated topic, he decided to pop up here to write the following: "Brent, you are a 2 bit writer and a failure. pls go get a real job and provide for your family for f***s sake! You're such a loser, i feel sorry for you!" (I edited his language). To which all I have to say is that he's about as wrong about this as he is about unions which in my view is pretty wrong. I am not a "2 bit writer"; no one will pay me that much. I have had a couple of articles on wargaming published – and paid for – many moons ago, and that's probably more than Phish can say. I also had my own zine, which had a small but dedicated following. More to the point I don't write as a job, never have. I write as a hobby – some people build model railroads, I write for relaxation. If a little money comes my way, well, I'm grateful but I hardly depend on it. Okay, enough of that.

Journeyman and Bionic Woman cancelled?: The networks haven't exactly been forthcoming with announcements about cancellations. A lot of the "news" that we get have actually been rumours reported by "our sources." Which is all well and good I suppose but it's not like someone from the network sending out a press release saying something like, "This show isn't working so we're kicking it to the curb." We're not getting that this year. For example here's what The Sun says about the cancellation of Bionic Woman (which starred former East Enders favourite Michelle Ryan and therefore of great interest to the Brits): "The ex-EastEnders star stunned Hollywood by landing the lead role in the much anticipated remake of 70s hit The Bionic Woman, but the show is reportedly about to be axed.... A final decision is expected to be announced in the coming weeks." The title of the article though is Bionic Woman Scrapped. And the same thing is true about Journeyman; E!'s Watch With Kristin has an article titled Exclusive: Journeyman's Journey Is Over but what she reports is basically rumour: "Sources tell me tonight that Journeyman has been closed down. No word yet on whether the series' final two episodes will air as scheduled next Monday and Wednesday on NBC, but we can all keep our fingers crossed."

Now I have no doubt that both of these shows are toast, and a big sign came when Chuck and Life got their "back nines" but Journeyman and Bionic Woman didn't. Neither show was getting spectacular ratings, with Bionic Woman debuting with 14 million viewers but after eight episodes dropping to 6 million. At least in the case of Journeyman – which draws about the same number of viewers or a few hundred thousand less – the blame can quite certainly be placed on CSI: Miami. There hasn't been a series yet that has been able to stand up to that juggernaut on either NBC or ABC.

I don't know about Journeyman, a show which seems to have developed the sort of fan base that sends nuts to TV executives – or in the case of Journeyman boxes of Rice-a-roni (the San Francisco treat – the show is set in San Francisco). It's on Monday night and I'm one of those people who tapes CSI: Miami on my bowling night. Bionic Woman, on the other hand is a case of expectations not being met. And while it's easy to blame the lead actress (Ryan normally speaks with a British accent and I've heard the rather absurd assertion that Ryan can't do an American accent and act at the same time), the problems with the show lie a lot deeper. Part of it is the writing but in my opinion at least the entire concept was wrong. Revived by David Eick who was one of the producers of Battlestar Galactica, like Galactica the original Bionic Woman was also a show created by Glenn Larson, so naturally but probably unrealistically viewers expected this revival to be as spectacular as the revival of Galactica. The problem is that I'm fairly convinced (and was convinced when the show debuted) that there wasn't as much you could do with the concept of Bionic Woman. What are you really able to do with a woman with replacement parts today that you couldn't do in the 1970s. I suppose you could make the character darker – I suspect that was the real attraction of Katie Sackoff's character Sara Corvus who was an almost immediate fan favourite – but how do you make a darker protagonist attractive to audiences from week to week. Instead Jamie Summers on the 2007 revival of Bionic Woman was essentially an innocent thrust into the world of spying for which she was truly unprepared, just as the original Jamie was. I think the public wanted something more.

Late shows going back soon?: This is another area where rumours abound, although there is one aspect that is out of the realm of rumours. I'll get into that one in the next item because it's an interesting one. The reports are that at least some of the major late night talk shows will be returning towards the beginning of January 2008. Variety is reporting that, "the betting in network circles is that several hosts will be back on the air by Jan. 7, if not sooner," possibly with Letterman, Leno, Ferguson and O'Brien coming back at the same time. It seems more likely however that Leno and O'Brien will be coming back for sure: "Latenight insiders, however, believe Leno and O'Brien are most likely to return in early January, no matter what Letterman decides. NBC has to be concerned about the plunging ratings for both shows, which in recent weeks have lost nearly half their audience." While Kilborn's show has been doing well with audiences, he is financially the least secure of the late night hosts, and according to Nikki Finke, the financial strain of paying at least some of the salaries for "below the line employees" of his show may have pushed him to the edge of bankruptcy so that if the others go back without writers, he may well be forced to as well.

Here's an interesting thought. While the networks may well feel that they're winning a victory over the WGA by forcing the late night talk shows back into production, this can be a double edged sword if Leno, O'Brien and Kimmel make sure that everyone knows that they're doing this under protest, that they need their writers, that the shows aren't going to be as funny without the writers, and particularly if the shows suck without the writers, this could help strengthen the support, or at least the understanding, of the writers' cause amongst the general public.

Letterman and Ferguson back with writers?: This item has a lot sounder basis in fact, and it may spell considerable trouble for the other talk shows. On Saturday the WGA announced that they would be open to offering "interim agreements" to independent producers and any of the media companies that sought to break ranks. Previously they had offered such agreements to the Kennedy Center Honours and to the Screen Actors Guild Awards. An interim agreement, as explained by Mark Evanier is when, "an independent producer says, in effect, "If you'll take me off the Strike List and let my writers return to work, I'll agree to your terms." There are variations on how these pacts are structured but in most cases, the Indie has a Favored Nations option. That is, he signs a new contract that the WGA draws up and then when we make our deal with the AMPTP — a deal which presumably will have more favorable terms for a Producer — the Indie can elect to switch to that. In any case, the principle is that they agree to sign with us, we go back to work at that studio and then, whenever the new contract is finalized, it displaces the interim agreement." The first producer to announce that he will be seeking an interim agreement is David Letterman's company Worldwide Pants, producer of The Late Show and The Late Late Show, and while there may be hitches it looks as though the WGA seems inclined to make the deal.

Why can Letterman make this deal and Leno and the others can't and, more to the point, why would the WGA be willing to accept Letterman's offer? The first point is fairly simple to answer; Letterman has followed Johnny Carson's practice and owns his show outright through his production company. CBS only serves as the show's distributor. According to the Tonight Show website Leno's production company Big Dog Productions does the show "in association with NBC Studios." Similarly Conan O'Brien produces Late Night with Conan O'Brien through his company Conaco with Broadway Video (Lorne Michaels's company), "in association with NBC Universal Television Studios" and Jimmy Kimmel Live is produced by Jackhole Productions (which Kimmel owns in partnership with Adam Carolla and producer Daniel Kellison) "in association with ABC Studios." This means that Letterman can make a deal for his show and Craig Ferguson's without the intervention from CBS. And as Mark Evanier points out Letterman is pretty much immune from the issues that AMPTP considers deal killers (the issues that they used as an excuse to pull out of the negotiations): "Letterman, of course, doesn't have to worry about some of the "deal killer" issues that are presently said to be an obstacle to a WGA/AMPTP settlement. He doesn't produce any "reality" shows. He doesn't produce any cartoons. Excerpts from his shows do stream on the Internet via the CBS site but that could be curtailed or kept within a window that the WGA would agree was promotional. There are, as yet, no DVDs of old episodes of Dave's show." As to why the Guild is willing to make a deal with Letterman, beyond the fact that it's a crack in the wall (albeit a tiny one) but Letterman – a veteran of the '88 strike who came back without writers when Carson did – has also been extremely loyal to his workers. As Rob Burnett, the producer of The Late Show with David Letterman describes it, "Worldwide Pants has always been a writer-friendly company. Dave has been a member of the WGA for more than 30 years, and I have been a member for more than 20." According to Deadline Hollywood Daily, not has Letterman been paying his non-writing staff (about $300,000) but he also pays the rent on the Ed Sullivan Theater and insurance costs of 200+ employees. According to a source, "triple that figure [the $300,000] and you'll be close to what he's been shelling out a week for six weeks. I'm tired of everyone being lumped together for taking roughly the same out-of-pocket hit. It's not close." If nothing else that builds up a huge amount of good will. For their part CBS seems a bit conflicted over this. In a press release, CBS stated, "We respect the intent of Worldwide Pants to serve the interests of its independent production company and its employees by seeking this interim agreement with the WGA. However, this development should not confuse the fact that CBS remains unified with the AMPTP, and committed to working with the member companies to reach a fair and reasonable agreement with the WGA that positions everyone in our industry for success in a rapidly changing marketplace." In other words, they're happy that Letterman wants to come back with writers (for reasons that will become clear) but want to cover their butts by making it clear that CBS isn't going to be standing in line to make their own interim agreement.

This is a big thing though – assuming of course that the interim agreement is granted – because it puts the late night shows that are going to be at a significant disadvantage when and if they come back without writers. It's not just the obvious either, the lack of monologues and the other services the writers provide for the shows. If you're an actor are you more likely to want to appear on Leno, passing through the WGA picket line and probably being called every name in the book, or would you be more likely to go on Letterman's show, which would not only be a pleasanter experience thanks to the lack of pickets. In fact it could almost be seen as a show of support for the writers to go on Letterman and refuse to be booked with Leno. It's almost a dead certainty that Letterman would be able to get any presidential candidate that he wanted from either party too. And if Leno's show (and Kimmel's, and O'Brien's) are really bad, the public is likely to turn to the shows that have writers, which would mean a significant boost to the ratings of the two Worldwide Pants series.

On animations writers:
Mark Evanier (again), has a nice piece on the reasons why many animation writers probably want to be in the Writers Guild rather than the Cartoonists Guild. The latter is actually Local 839 of IATSE, the one union which seems to be very conciliatory with AMPTP (which is another way of saying kissing their asses) and very opposed to the Writers Guild. The basic point is that Local 839 has rarely served the best interests of animation writers, who seem doomed to be part of the union because of the way that theatrical cartoons were made in the 1940s, without writers per se but with "story men" who developed gags but also worked as artists. For one thing, Local 839 seems far more aligned with people to punch a clock every day (like animators and assistant animators) than it is for writers who don't necessarly work "at the office." Mark points out a couple of horror stories – like a union business agent who responded to a request for assistance on some issues by saying "I'm too busy to bother with you overpaid whiners." In fact, as Mark points out they weren't overpaid, just paid more than the business rep thought they should be. In fact, thanks to Local 839's "bargaining" abilities the writers had a base pay level that even the cheapest companies in the business in the 1980s (starting with Hanna-Barbera) were ashamed to pay. Mark also offers some true horror stories about trying to move writers from the Cartoonist Guild to the Writers Guild, efforts which ultimately failed, but which saw the business rep spending more time chatting with the studio representatives than he did with the people he was supposed to be representing and was in danger of losing. And while the current business agent for Local 839 is far better than his predecessor, there is still a major fight to get animation writers into their "proper" union.

Videos on iTunes Canada: This isn't a strike story except it kind of is in a peripheral sort of way. Earlier this week the Canadian version of the iTunes Music Store began making TV shows available for purchase. It isn't a big selection right now. For one thing there are only thirteen series available at the moment. For another thing, of those, it seems that only about five are American and they aren't the major network series like Cane or Boston Legal. This has a lot to do with precisely which rights Canadian networks buy when they purchase an American series. Currently Canadians can watch the following (shows marked * are American series airing in Canada:

• From CBC: Dragons Den (a show about people trying to get money from entrepreneurs for their inventions/business ideas), Little Mosque On The Prairie, The Rick Mercer Report.
  
• From CTV: Corner Gas, Instant Star, Degrassi: The Next Generation, Robson Arms.
  
• From the Comedy Central (which is owned by CTV): The Sarah Silverman Program*, South Park*, Drawn Together*.
  
• From the NHL: Stanley Cup Classics, NHL Games of the Year.
  
• From MTV Canada (also owned by CTV): The Hills*.
  
• From YTV (or Nickelodeon): Avatar: The Last Air Bender*.
  

Here's where the peripheral aspect of the strike comes into play. For the most part the contract that the Writers Guild of Canada has managed to get with TV producers in Canada has been inferior even to the deal that WGA writers had before the current strike began. However, as Denis McGrath points out in a piece in his blog Dead Things On A Stick this is one area in which Canadian writers have it better. A statement from the WGC explains where the writers stand on revenues from iTunes: "The flow of revenue for use of these programs is governed by the terms of those licence agreements as well as the WGC collective agreement – the Writers IPA. In addition to other payments under the collective agreement, writers have a royalty formula calculated on Distributors' Gross Revenues when a conventional TV show is delivered over any platform, including online. Digital downloads may be included in an original licence between the independent producer who owns the program and the Canadian broadcaster, for which the broadcaster has paid a licence fee. This licence fee forms part of the writer's royalty formula.... In any case, the digital distribution of made for t.v. programs always results in revenue flowing into the writer's royalty formula." In other words the Canadian writers of the shows available on iTunes get a royalty payment (because they retain authorship) when their shows are downloaded. Also, though it doesn't seem to apply for iTunes yet, animation writers are covered under the WCG contract. This of course is one of the six points that AMPTP demanded that the WGA take off the table when they withdrew from negotiations. Another issue that APMTP was adamant about having removed from negotiations (claiming that it could end up with producers paying out more money than they made from online sales) was the question of using Distributors' Gross Revenues as a basis for payment for online distribution. As you can see, this is something else that the Canadian writers already had. In the terms of handling this area at least, the Canadian contract is ahead of what the union in the US currently has and well ahead of what the Studios and Networks seem willing at present to give them.

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 - May 7, 2006

I keep falling behind on trying to get the West Wing thing done, not to mention my TV On DVD list, which won't be out again this week. Big hearty sigh. I'm going to blame it on the weather around here, which has been hot for early May and the resulting other distractions for my time. I guess it's easier to write when it's 20 below and a serious wind chill, and a foot of snow that needs to be shovelled on the ground. Still, here are a few short takes from the week.

CW dumping Reba? My fellow blogger Ian J. Ball reported this (with the usual amount of glee that he reserves for anything negative related to this show - sorry Ian, but I like it when I get the chance to see it) but the actual source is something called Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood Daily. She(?) reports that despite the fact that the show was renewed by the WB last year for a two year period, and the fact that when the UPN/WB merger was announced Les Moonves stated that he expected that the contract would be honoured by the new CW network, and the fact that Reba is the highest rated sitcom on either UPN or The WB, the CW now wants out of the deal. According to Finke's article "in mid-April, the CW execs told Fox they wanted out of the deal - the reason being that the show doesn't attract "the desired demographic" the new network wants tuning in." Fox refuses to break the contract without a sizable payment as required by the renewal contract. Finke reports that "Officially, the show is not canceled yet. But the cast is devastated, and the crew have been told to grab any other work that's offered. I've also learned from some Reba insiders that the show's season finale, which airs this Friday, was originally scripted and shot as a cliffhanger. But they tell me it's been re-edited to reflect Moonves's kiss-off, so it may be the series' finale." Now here's where I'm flying blind. I didn't see the season finale for Reba which involved Reba being hospitalised so I don't know whether it was a cliffhanger or not.

I'm dropping into the realm of personal opinion here. I'd be much more likely to believe this story if there were more supporting evidence. Like any. There has been nothing on any mainstream media site that I've been able to Google that confirms this, or references to blogs that I trust, like TVSquad or Aint It Cool New, let alone Zap2It I also note that Finke's articles on Les Moonves seem to be as complimentary of him as a "Swift Boat Vets For Truth" ad was of John Kerry. Long story short, I don't expect Reba to be cancelled but as usual, none of us will really know until the network up fronts at the end of the month.

Commander-In-Chief pulled from the line up ... again: I think that with ABC's decision to pull this show for sweeps, the writing is on the wall. This series is done like dinner, and I can't say that it doesn't deserve its fate. This series has been so thoroughly mishandled through its short career that it drives one to tears. Can you think of a show that has had three show runners in one year, not to mention show runners as diverse as Rod Lurie - who created it and had probably the clearest vision of what it should be - Stephen Boccho, and most recently Dee Johnson. I won't mourn this show - in part because it was never really that good and given a choice I would much rather have seen a second season of Jack And Bobby - but I will most assueredly mourn the wasted opportunity. This show had one of the best casts to come along in quite a while and it was squandered on bad writing and idiotic plot lines. It is tempting to wonder what might have been if Commander-In-Chief would have had been written and produced by the people who made the last couple of years of The West Wing. On a good day Commander-In-Chief wasn't half the show that The West Wing was, and it didn't have that many good days.

West Wing Alpha and Omega: NBC has announced that instead of airing the previously announced retrospective of The West Wing, they will be showing the pilot episode of the show before the series finale. It may be for the best if all the retrospective was going to be was poorly put together clips from previous episodes. I'd rather have seen the cast talking about working on the show and their takes on their characters. This is probably the sort of stuff that should be relegated to a DVD boxed set anyway. Interestingly, the West Wing finale, starring Bradley Whitford will be on opposite the Malcolm In The Middle finale starring Jane Kaczmarek - Bradley Whitford's wife. Of course they're also opposite the first hour of the Survivor: Exile Island finale, so it's a question of whether anyone will notice.

CBS introduces Inner Tube: In yet another example of networks trying to put content online, CBS has introduced Innertube. According to the FAQ page on the site Innertube "is CBS.com's new FREE broadband channel offering new videos five days a week. It also features an archive of all video available on CBS.com, including all the original innertube shows." The videos are commercially supported and therefore free to users. The major thing is the exclusive online content. According to Daily Variety, "The first shows on the channel were developed expressly for broadband, including "Greek to Chic," in which frat boys learn personal hygiene and dating tips; "BBQ Bill," a scripted sketch comedy series; and "Animate This," in which celebrities narrate events from their lives via animation. The net announced seven other original Web skeins to debut during the summer, as well as companion programming for CBS shows, such as "Beyond Survivor." Existing online programs such as "House Calls: The 'Big Brother' Talk Show" will also get a window on Innertube." Les Moonves told Daily Variety "Let's say we had an idea that was a little bit out there," Moonves told Daily Variety. "We could do five minutes a week (on Innertube) ... and see if it catches on. It's a cheap R&D lab." In an article on the new service the Center for Creative Voices Blog describes the new service as "a cable network - without the cable." So far the project offers videos tied to primetime shows but as far as I can tell no actual content from those shows. I find that the controls don't work very well, at least not on Firefox (haven't tried it on Internet Explorer), but in contrast to AOL's "service" In2TV, a Canadian like me can at least see something other than the site's commercials.

Short Takes - April 22, 2006

Some interesting tidbits from the world of TV. On a personal note, the Powell River Regals will be playing the Whitby Dunlops tonight for the Allan Cup which is the Canadian Senior AAA hockey championship tonight. One of the associate coaches for the Regals is my cousin Larry Cole, so a big shout out to La (although I'm sure he'll never see this) and best of luck to the Powle River Regals.

Fox to put most of its content online and affiliates like it: While Fox might be the last of the major networks to make their content online, they are going to be putting a higher percentage of it up than the other networks. Fox will have 60% of its content available for downloads this year and expects to have it all up by 2008. Apparently the networks are restricted in what they can put online by agreements with their affiliates. This restricts the amount that ABC (for example) can make available to 25%. The Fox deal gives the affiliates 12.5% of the revenue from downloads as compensation and in the future will allow affiliates to have content available for download from their own websites

Possible surprise renewals: There's a rumour out there that Scrubs will be renewed and that 7th Heaven will be one of the shows that survives the impending WB-UPN merger. This is despite the fact that The WB is promoting the next four episodes as the "last four episodes of 7th Heaven. This comes from TV Guide's Michael Ausiello although other sources - like the Hollywood Reporter's Ray Richmond - are unwilling to confirm the Scrubs announcement. As far as Scrubs goes it could be a good fit back in it's old Thursday time slot where NBC is losing Will & Grace and (I hope to all that is holy) Joey. On the other hand Ausiello is the only one with anything to say about 7th Heaven. I realize that the hip young froodlets (an expression someone I used to know used) hate the show, but the fact is that the show draws the highest ratings of any show on either The WB or UPN and (I say this with considerable trepidation since I know the anger it will bring from a lot of people) it consistently drew better ratings than Arrested Development when that show was on Monday nights. Obviously if The CW can possibly retain the show in its line up they'd be fools not to.

NBC wants Mike Wallace - in other news end of world approaches: I wouldn't mention this since the original report came from the New York Post's infamous Page Six column, and even before the recent revelations about the columnist taking payola for favourable stories I wouldn't wrap fish in the New York Post for fear of contaminating the fish, but the man himself has confirmed that NBC would very much like to have 88 year-old Mike Wallace in their news department doing whatever he wants to do for them. According to TVNewser "Mike Wallace confirms that NBC News execs have "been talking with me off-and-on for some time about coming over there." But "at the moment, I want to stay where I am," the veteran CBS newsman tells the AP. Wallace tells David Bauder that NBC has "suggested to me if I might be interested that they would very much like me to come over. [But] I'm not having serious talks with them." Wallace has been a fixture at CBS most notable spending 37 years as a correspondent on 60 Minutes where he is credited with developing "ambush journalism." His son Chris Wallace started with NBC, where he spend 14 years before going over to ABC for another 14 years before joining Fox News in 2003.

Cartoons going out of Cartoon Network - what else is new: Amid Amidi at Cartoon Brew has been making several comments about Cartoon Network's recent efforts to stop actually showing animation at all. The first announced the network's decision to start production on an original live action series and was followed by a post on the network's decision to pick up reruns of Saved By The Bell. Finally there was a post about the feelings of people working for Cartoon Network and possible reasons for the change. I can remember when Ted Turner started Cartoon Network as a place to run all of those Fleischer, MGM, and Warner Brothers cartoons he had in his inventory so that they weren't cluttering up the early mornings on TBS. Now it's just about impossible to see them on TV. They've been pulled out of syndication on local channels and Cartoon Network seems more interested in original productions. Boomerang was supposed to become the new home to classic animation but all I ever see there (on those rare occasions when I get a chance to see the channel) are Hanna-Barbera series from the '60s, '70s and '80s and reruns of stuff that Cartoon Network made for themselves like Dexter's Laboratory or 2 Stupid Dogs. Still I can't see why anyone would be surprised that an American network would change like that. Unless you find Dog The Bounty Hunter entertaining, the Arts & Entertainment Network has long since ceased to be either artistic or entertaining, and we all know how far TLC has come from being The Learning Channel; Tuckerville with the disgusting Tanya Tucker and her brood are objective proof of that (I can remember when she was a sweet teen sensation who was determined to earn a horse from some fan by not smoking or drinking until she turned 18 or 21 or something - what a change). In Canada the CRTC makes if very difficult for a cable network to change it's focus radically without jumping through a lot of licensing hoops - it's one reason why the new MTV Canada doesn't show music videos (still operating under the TalkTV license) and why G4TechTV in Canada actually shows programs about technology and computers instead of reruns of The Man Show and every Star Trek ever made (they're licensed as an informational channel). In the United States, such licensing restrictions - if they exist at all - are extremely lax. So while I doubt we'll ever see the Cartoon Network without cartoons it wouldn't be impossible either and there's very little that anyone can do about it.

NBC pulls Celebrity Cooking Showdown - no one notices: NBC's initially decided to pull the last two episodes of Celebrity Cooking Showdown or whatever it was called and first make it exclusive to the Internet. Then they decided to bury the final two shows on Saturday, thereby eliminating the audience participation portion of the thing entirely. Of course based on the ratings the network was probably worried that there wouldn't be any calls to decide a winner.

CNBC irritates a Canadian - ME!: You all know I'm a big Poker fan but for a variety of reasons I missed the first round of NBC's National Heads-Up Poker Tournament. No worries though, the episode would be repeated on CNBC on Friday night. In fact CNBC was where I first saw the first season last year. Come Friday and no Poker!!! Instead there was a CNBC World show about business in the Middle East. Trump's pal Donnie Deutsch we get, but something that people actually might want to watch can't be shown in Canada. Sigh!

Deal Or No Deal - The Online Game

Last night I took a rip at Deal or No Deal as being a boring idea for a game show. I still think I'm right, but Mark Evanier doesn't agree. He likes it, in fact he likes it so much that he wrote not one but two posts about it. I still think I'm right, but it's a case of horses for courses and for him it's an enjoyable way to waste an hour.

However since I wasn't interested in the show enough to check out its website (and I rarely am by the way) it took a mention from Mark to get me to find out about the Deal Or No Deal online game, which is a rather interesting way to spend a few minutes. You can't win anything - that's left to their phone in thing that runs during each episode and seems about as interesting as watching paint dry - but you can take part in the sort of decision making that the players have to go through. As I expected there is no real optimal strategy for picking cases - picking 1-2-3-4-5 seems to work as well as randomization. The big question is when is the right time to make your deal. Unless you've had a truly atrocious run of luck you shouldn't make a deal before you get to the level of picking one case at a time. At the same time, unless the choice is between two extremely high amounts of money you should make a deal at some point in play - in other words don't open all of the suitcases. Beyond that, your strategy depends on perceived odds of winning. Try it yourself.

Canadian TV and the New Technology

There was an interesting article in the Friday November 25 issue of TV Times, the listing book that comes with many Canadian newspapers on Friday mornings (because of course most Canadian newspapers don't do Sunday editions and putting it in on Saturday would be just too much for people to read on one day).

The article, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be available online, is by Eric Kohanik the TV Times editor. In it he writes: "Canadian TV broadcasters are in big trouble" and goes on to explain why.

"First, ABC revealed that it will now be 'podcasting' episodes of Lost on its website....

The next logical step in this iPod craze is video. Once it really catches on, everyone will have tiny portable TVs that let you import shows and watch them whenever - and wherever - you want.

Shortly after ABC's announcement, CBS and NBC unveiled deals with American cable and satellite services to make CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and the Law & Order spin-offs available via video on demand for 99 cents US per episode. VOD basically turns your cable or satellite box into a video player, letting you watch stuff at your convenience.

There's also the news that TV programming will now be available on cellphones. And at the other end of the TV spectrum, American networks are moving aggressively towards digital and high-definition television.

Add all of this to the fact that many shows are available on DVD or can be downloaded from the Internet, and you suddenly realize that TV is in the midst of a huge transition."

So far, Mr. Kohanik has basically reported material that is reasonably well known to anyone following recent technological developments. (Well except for the fact that he doesn't seem to grasp the real importance of the ABC announcement. They aren't podcasts; what ABC is offering in cooperation with Apple and the iTunes Music Store is the ability to download the complete one hour TV show to be seen on the Video iPod. In other words, what he calls the next logical step has already been taken.) He also missed - or it wasn't announced at the time that he wrote the article - that it will be possible to download shows recorded on a TiVo to the Video iPod. What he hasn't explained yet is why Canadian networks are in trouble although perceptive readers may have already figured that out.

Mr. Kohanik continues:

So why are the Canadian [broadcasters] in trouble? They've been lazy. Many have lagged behind technologically, not even embracing stereo television, let alone HDTV.

The far bigger problem, though, is content. Rather than creating a healthy appetite and market place for homegrown shows, government regulation and television welfare funds have led to shows that - with a few notable exceptions - are mostly just filler.

This isn't about Canadian culture; it's about economics. Canadian networks have become addicted to American shows because they're cheaper to air and they can simply rake in the advertising bucks.

But Canadian channels don't own the American shows they air. And so, the emerging revenue streams will flow elsewhere.

In short Canadian broadcasters will suffer because they don't have quality content of their own to offer for sale and they, rightly, won't participate in any revenue generated by the recent technological developments.

Of course by this he means the Canadian private broadcasters, and he's also speaking about English language television. For the way that people - and in particular the private broadcasters - bitch about it, the CBC has been essentially free of American programming content for a number of years. Certainly they show American movies but virtually all of the CBC's prime time programming is Canadian or British. No other Canadian English language network - broadcast or cable - can make that claim. In a world where content is finally coming to be seen as king, the CBC is better placed than networks which have treated their Canadian content requirements as a cross to be borne rather than an opportunity to be embraced.

The private broadcasters have always worked under a philosophy stated by the then Roy Thomson, later Lord Thomson of Fleet who described owning a television station as "a license to print money." For them the easiest way to make money was to show as much American programming as possible and then state that they had to because otherwise most people would watch American stations (since the largest proportion of Canada's population lives within range of American TV stations - mostly in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia) and Canadian advertisers wouldn't spend their money on TV. When cable became widespread they demanded and got the ability to overlay their signals on top of the same show running on the United States station (if it was being shown at the same time and the Canadian stations arranged their schedules so it would happen that way) to protect their revenue stream. That is as much an example of television welfare as government funding for programming but it's not something that gets mentioned for what it is.

I am less concerned about the fate of private broadcasters than Eric Kohanik is. I am sure that the Canadian cable and satellite industry will not introduce American programming "on demand" - or they won't be allowed to. If nothing else the private broadcasters will use the regulator - the CRTC - to block or delay it. Even if I had the Video iPod I can't buy Lost or Desperate Housewives at the iTunes Music Store. They don't have the rights to sell it in Canada. It may be that when we're finally able to purchase content either for the iPod or through Video on Demand, government regulation will see some funds going to the company that owns broadcast rights to the content in Canada. I'm sure that eventually the technology will come to Canada but it will come with the broadcasters kicking and screaming and figuring out a way so that they could make money on the deal even if they have nothing to do with the creation of the content.

It would be desirable if the development of new technology, which threatens the existing advertiser driven model of television, would result in Canadian private broadcasters spending money to to produce quality Canadian programming rather than make "filler" to put on the air because they have to. I don't think that's going to happen for a long time, not before the pressure to bring in the new technology become too much to resist and if they can get the right deal maybe not even then.