Who Does The PTC Hate This Week – August 15, 2008

I have been neglecting my self-appointed duty to tell you what the Parents Television Council finds objectionable. Perhaps that's partly because the PTC hasn't exactly been overly active of late. However a few things have cropped up over the past few days that I thought were worth mentioning. And unfortunately, to tell part of this story with full accuracy I am going to have to use a fleeting obscenity; a word that has appeared in this blog before, usually in connection with the PTC.

The first of these is a PTC press release expressing their outrage about something that happened on the August 5^th episode of Big Brother. According to the PTC, "During last night's broadcast, a woman named Libra was arguing with a man and said: 'Memphis was in the f***ing room!'" I'm shocked to have to say that on this one, the PTC was right – Libra did say "fucking" when she was arguing with Jesse. But here's the other thing though, I watch Big Brother including that particular episode and I don't remember her saying it. And I'm not the only one. In his August 6^th Programming Insider podcast Mark Berman's guest mentions that the PTC was protesting the use of "the word" and Berman was amazed, because he didn't hear it either. So, in an effort to discover whether she did or she didn't I asked the question at Jackie Schnoop's The (TV) Show Must Go On blog (the place to stop for Big Brother discussion). I got a reply from "Clementine" who pointed me to the appropriate clip of the show on YouTube (unfortunately the clip can't be embedded). The incident took place at around the ten minute mark of the clip. And sure enough, Libra does say "fucking." Just one thing though; I had to listen to the clip six or seven times before I could actually tell what she was saying. Now admittedly, I've been having some temporary hearing problems over the past little while, but even so it normally doesn't take me that long to pick out that word (and believe me I hear it often enough). What I think happened is that whoever was handling the editing at CBS simply missed the word – believed it was unintelligable. Why do I think so? Simply because the Big Brother Houseguests use the word "fucking" often and it has always been censored in the past. Indeed it was censored on numerous other occasions, so why let this one through unless the editor in question simply didn't hear the word. In other words, it wasn't even a simple case of human error but rather a case where someone was genuinely unable to determine what was being said.

Of course, that's not the way the PTC sees it. In their press release, which includes a link to a prepared form email that's all ready to be sent to the FCC, PTC President Tim Winter writes the following: "There is absolutely no justification for allowing an 'F-word' like this to air unedited on prime time broadcast television. There can be no question that this was an intentional act on the part of the network; someone actually had to edit the scene with the word into the show. Just this past November, CBS hypocritically entered into yet another consent decree with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) promising not to air indecent material. But apparently, CBS will break its own formal promise – again. Last time it was to air a teen orgy; this time it is for the opportunity to air the 'F-word.' CBS' behavior is a direct result of the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on so-called fleeting profanity – a case that will be heard by the Supreme Court this fall. But let me be clear: Unlike the facts of that legal challenge, this was no live broadcast. It was an intentional airing of pre-packaged program that contained obscene language. The network's reprehensible decision to air it cannot go without consequence."

Well let's look at this in a couple of different ways. First, let's look at why the word aired. As I've said, there is a plausible explanation of how the how the word might have slipped by, namely that the person editing the episode either did not hear the word or misheard the word either as something else or couldn't be sure of the word that Libra said; in other words the word was unintelligible to him. The other aspect to consider though is Mr. Winter's interpretation of the 2^nd Circuit's ruling on fleeting profanity – not "so-called fleeting profanity" but actual fleeting profanity as defined by the FCC itself before the current administration. His interpretation of the ruling was that it only applies to live events. In his majority opinion on the Pacifica case (which the PTC is so fond of quoting), Justice Stevens wrote, "This case does not involve a two-way radio conversation between a cab driver and a dispatcher, or a telecast of an Elizabethan comedy. We have not decided that an occasional expletive in either setting would justify any sanction or, indeed, that this broadcast would justify a criminal prosecution." In the case of an Elizabethan comedy of course one would be dealing with scripted, and one would presume previously recorded, material. Even in 1978, Stevens recognised that not all uses of expletives in pre-recorded programming would be actionable.

Worth noting at this point is a recent Amicus Brief submitted in the FCC appeal of the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling to Supreme Court. The brief, was submitted by a number of former officials of the FCC including former chairmen Newton Minnow, Mark Fowler, and former acting chairman and longest serving appointee to the Commission James Quello. Quello was a commissioner at the time of the Pacifica case. In the Amicus Brief, the former FCC officials stated that "... we have been dismayed by a series of recent [FCC] decisions that have transformed a hitherto moderate policy of policing only the most extreme cases of indecent broadcast programming into a campaign of regulatory surveillance that will chill the production of all but the blandest of broadcast programming." Likening the current FCC's enforcement program to "a Victorian crusade" they stated that "To effectuate its new clean-up-the-airwaves policy, the Commission has radically expanded the definition of indecency beyond its original conception; magnified the penalties for even minor, ephemeral images or objectionable language; and targeted respected television programs, movies, and even noncommercial documentaries." While one would hardly describe Big Brother as a "respected television program" there could hardly be a better definition of "minor, ephemeral...objectionable language" than the incident in the episode of Big Brother.

(Actually the former commissioners went further than just calling on the Supreme Court to uphold the 2^nd Circuit Court ruling. According to Broadcast & Cable the Brief calls on the Court to remove the FCC from the business of regulating content. According to the article, "They said the court's work would be incomplete if it simply struck down the 'fleeting expletives' policy, arguing that the FCC's indecency calls in cases of nudity and nonfleeting profanity were inconsistent and that the commission was using 'context' as a 'talisman to ward off serious questions about the extreme subjectivity of the agency's determinations.'" They also argued that the basis of the original Pacifica decision – the uniquely pervasive nature of the broadcast medium – had ceased to exist in the era of the Internet and multi-channel video (by which I assume they mean cable TV). "It is time for the Court to bring its views of the electronic media into alignment with contemporary technological and social reality. As former regulators, we appreciate that the FCC is in an uncomfortable position, buffeted by the turbulent passions of anxious parents and threats from excited congressmen. But that is precisely why the matter must be taken out of the agency's hands entirely." Needless to say, the PTC is not pleased by the Brief.)

Of course you don't actually have to say or be seen to say bad words to arouse the ire of the PTC – not if you're Big Brother anyway. The series was described as "Misrated." This was before the August 5^th incident although that incident (which I still contend was an accident – they do happen you know no matter what the PTC thinks) although it did rate a mention – in boldface type no less – in the article. No, what the PTC objected to was words that you couldn't hear uttered by lips that you couldn't see. They claimed that the episode of July 31^st should have been rated TV-14L and state that there was no rating applied to the episode at all, something that I find extremely hard to believe. Anyway, here's what they have to say: "The episode's opening recap featured a shouting match between Jerry and Memphis. The latter was upset over Jerry attacking his character. 'You calling me a ______ (bleeped, blurred f***ing) womanizer?' Memphis asks. 'You wanna see me get ______ (bleeped, blurred f***ing) real? I'll get really real, old man!' Memphis' outburst was shown several times, each with another f-bomb. 'Are you out of your mind, old man?' Memphis shouts, 'Are you _____ (bleeped, blurred f***ing) out of your mind?' Later in the episode, Jerry strikes back at the four contestants who have ganged up on him. 'You think I'm going to kiss your ass? You guys _____ (bleeped, blurred f***) me, I'm gonna kiss your ass?...You come and jump on me with your friends. Four of you. Four of you on my ass. You want? All four, come on! Let's go and get it on. ____ (bleeped, blurred F***) ya!'" Now remember, you can't hear the word "fuck" and its variants, and a lip-reader couldn't pick up on it either because you can't see the people's lips (and they did a really good job of completely obliterating the lips). And yet here's what the PTC has to say: "Given the frequency and severity of the swearing, the show should have been rated TV-14 L." By the PTC "standards", the show clearly wasn't censored enough even though – as even they state you couldn't hear or see the words in question – so one has to ask, where exactly does it stop?

Swingtown yet again earns the "accolade" of worst show of the week. I won't go into detail on what the PTC states – since I don't watch the show I'm really not in a position to judge or to entirely contradict what the PTC position – however based entirely on what the PTC says and what the series producer has claimed about the show, the episode that the PTC is complaining about is concerned with the consequences of the protagonists' actions. The consequences of these actions include jealousy and the weakening of the familial bonds. And these are consequences that the characters are aware of. The PTC summarizes a scene between a father and his teenage daughter by saying: "Bruce attempts to scold Laurie for being involved with her older teacher, but when Laurie shoots back with 'What about what you two were doing?' Bruce realizes he and Susan have no moral ground to stand on. Bruce muses, 'No wonder our kids are off the rails. The buck stops here. We are taking back control of this family.'" The PTC ignores this business of consequences of course. Instead, in their conclusion they write, "By airing content intended for premium cable channels on network television, CBS has subjected families to topics that only adult couples should be discussing. And like so much of TV today, by suggesting that monogamy is stifling and, therefore, unhealthy, the show fails to promote positive exploration of sexuality within the confines of marriage." And yet surely scenes like the one they themselves quote are indicative that even the characters of the show are coming to realize that the lifestyle they've adopted is the unhealthy one rather than monogamy. But surely the most absurd thing is the assertion that, "by airing content intended for premium cable channels on network television, CBS has subjected families to topics that only adult couples should be discussing." They seem to be taking the truly absurd position that premium channels like Showtime and HBO are only subscribed to by families without children. Premium channels are available to all who are willing to pay for them... including families with children.

The PTC has been running their TV Trends column dutifully each week while I haven't been writing about them, but quite frankly their weekly Jeremiads have been the typical reactionary stuff we've come to expect from the author of these "think pieces." In the July 17^th column, for example, he expressed the opinion that supposedly child-friendly shows were dens of filth and inappropriate language. Proof? Hugh Hefner and his three Girl Next Door girlfriends were on Celebrity Family Feud against some actors from The Sopranos including Vincent Pastore ("Big Pussy" Bonpensiero.) and Hefner said "I think [the girls] are going to do very well against Big Pussy." Smutty double entendre of course – at least in the PTC's view. And there was "Busty Heart" crushing beer cans with her boobs on America's Got Talent (I'd be more upset that kids would try to imitate the sword swallower myself), and a singer supposedly singing "I Kissed A Girl" which supposedly were an "explicit endorsement of drunkenness and promiscuity." You can tell it was bad because they underlined it and put it in italics. If they could have bold-faced it without being to obvious you can bet they'd have done it. In the July 25^th column the writer goes on and on about TV's fixation with breasts. The writer states, "It is pathetic that a medium with the tremendous power which television possesses is willing to objectify one-half of the human race; but increasingly, remarks about breasts, scenes emphasizing breasts and even entire storylines about breasts are becoming commonplace on TV. Such a focus ignores intelligence, personality, charm, integrity and the entire host of human qualities, and essentially reduces women to objects valued only for their anatomy." Of course that doesn't stop the writer from going into exacting prurient detail about every specific incident, making sure to mention "the formerly clean" My Name Is Earl (which was also mentioned in the July 17^th column as the "increasingly raunchy" My Name Is Earl). In the current column, the writer is practically gloating over the failure of Swingtown in the ratings symbolized by the network decision to move the show to the Friday at 10 p.m. timeslot – "a day and time widely regarded within the entertainment industry as the Place Where Series Go To Die" (an assessment that ignores CBS's general success on that night, a success so great that CBS has been able to cancel shows that have won their time slot in the past two seasons: Close To Home and Moonlight) – and trumpets the decisions of major advertisers not to put commercials on the show. But yet again the writer lovingly delineates, in detail more graphic than anything actually seen on screen, the evil sexual misdeeds depicted on the show, and thoroughly doesn't get the nuances of the show, which as one of the writers pointed out included the fact that these people's actions have consequences that they don't foresee; not necessarily punishment but definitely consequences. But of course acknowledging that the show doesn't actually send "the messages Swingtown is sending to young viewers: marriage vows are meaningless; teachers kissing students is acceptable; and any kind of sex, with any number of people, has no consequences whatsoever." Nuance is lost on the PTC.

Finally (well not finally; there's a rather absurd study presented by the PTC on how TV is devaluing marital sex and emphasising premarital sex, extra-marital affairs, and perverted practices – of course being the PTC the methodology is incomprehensible and the study doesn't consider or worry about either context of nuance) we have the return of The Worst Show on Cable. For months, literally, the PTC was stuck calling a particular episode of Nip/Tuck the worst show on cable. Now they've gotten outraged by the latest episode of Saving Grace. Why? Well there's a "bigger picture" thing going on here which we'll get to but to illustrate the "big picture" badness they have to illustrate it with a specific incident. In this case it is a sex play scene in which Grace and her lover play with food. Of course the PTC lovingly describes the scene in explicit detail:

The episode opened with a shot of Ham's naked rear-end as he and Grace wake up on her living room floor, presumably after a night of drunken lovemaking. Grace tries to rouse Ham by smacking his buttocks, to which he mumbles, "Much harder." Grace obliges by licking a dirty fork clean and jabbing him with it. The couple then migrate to the kitchen, where Ham tells Grace that he has left his wife. Clearly upset, the commitment-phobic Grace sprays Ham with ketchup. Not to be outdone, Ham grabs Grace and shoves ice cubes down her panties. Grace responds by emptying a bottle of mustard on his chest. Clearly aroused, Grace straddles Ham, licks the condiments off of his body, and proclaims, "You taste like a corndog." Grace is then seen kneeling in front of Ham, licking the mustard and ketchup mixture off his abdomen. Ham reaches into the refrigerator and dumps milk all over her head. The couple finally collapse to the kitchen floor and began having sex. All of this occurred before the opening credits.

Now here's the big picture, in the words of the PTC itself: "Touted as a redemptive series chronicling a troubled female detective's struggle against her personal demons, the show's underlying positive themes are often undercut by over-the-top depictions of sex and drug use." So basically what the PTC is saying is that the eventual redemption of Grace Hanadarko's character is a "good" thing – a positive theme as they put it – but that theme is hurt by showing her the drug use, the alcohol abuse and the irresponsible sexual activities that are why she needs redemption. The thing is though, that if you simply say that Grace's activities are bad it doesn't have the impact of showing it. It's a standard dramatic maxim "show it, don't say it." But the PTC says "don't show it and don't even go into details in saying it." But of course it is perfectly alright for the PTC to show it – describe scenes in exquisite detail, and at least in the past show video clips of "bad" scenes from cable shows – rather than simply saying it – telling us that the show has explicit sex scenes and scenes of drug use. Anything is acceptable in their cause, the demand for cable choice. Cable choice is something that I agree with in principle but am realistic enough to understand that until every cable user has to use a specialized set-top box like the digital box I have on my TV. But even if you have cable choice available on your cable system, the fact that not every program on the cable channel represents "objectionable content." Do you throw out all of the "good" because of a little bit of the "bad?" (And by the way this description of "good" and "bad" is theirs not mine. Having seen several episodes of Saving Grace, my opinion is that the show is one of the better things on television, showing the complexities of a woman who seeks to escape the traumas in her life in a miasma of sensation – drugs, alcohol, and sex. The major question for me is not why she needs redemption but rather why God, through the mechanism of the angel Earl, has chosen to try to offer Grace the option of redemption. But then again I don't see things from the same obsessed single-minded perspective that the PTC adopts.)

New Poll - Who Do You Think Should Win The Emmy For Outstanding Actor In A Drama?

The Nominees:

• Gabriel Byrne (In Treatment)
  
• Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad)
  
• Jon Hamm (Mad Men)
  
• Michael C. Hall (Dexter)
  
• James Spader (Boston Legal)
  
• Hugh Laurie (House)
  

A six horse race – something I'd like to see more of from the Emmys because there are too many programming sources to make an Oscar like restriction to five entries per category – and this category is the one where we really see the sudden dominance of cable. In my mind there are five great performances here (I'll give you three guesses which one I think doesn't belong; first two don't count) and while I have my favourites I can any one of those five winning. I just wouldn't like it to be the sixth one.

Remember, I'd like you to vote for who should win, not who you think will win, and don't be influenced by my opinions.

Poll Result - Who Do You Think Should Win The Emmy For Outstanding Actress In A Drama?

I'm a little late on this one. I essentially forgot all about writing this poll on Friday, because there were a bunch of other things that came up not restricted to trying to keep up with the Olympics (and that's more complicated than you can possibly imagine). I wanted to compare the coverage by CBC and NBC but I only managed to catch the NBC coverage. I'll get something out eventually though I'm not sure when. But suffice it to say that Friday was essentially a mess. In terms of getting things done.

And so to the poll results. We had eight votes cast – one today I think. Tied with no votes are Glenn Close and Holly Hunter. In third place with one vote (12.5%) is Kyra Sedgwick from The Closer. In second place, with two votes (25%) is Sally Field of Brothers and Sisters. The winner is Mariska Hargitay of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit with five votes (62.5%).

Okay, I guess I don't get this one. I mean maybe it's because I don't watch SVU, but I guess I find it really difficult to see here performance equated with what Glenn Close and Holly Hunter have been doing. I mean I've seen Hunter's work at least, and in Grace Hanadarko she has created a dark, tormented and self-destructive character who is compelling at the same time that she is vaguely REPULSIVE. You probably wouldn't want to spend much time with Grace in the real world unless you were getting in her pants (which seem to have an "all-access pass" provision) but at the same time she seems compelling to watch, at least for me. In her own way the character is as compelling as Dennis Leary's Tommy Gavin in Rescue Me. I haven't seen Glenn Close or Sally Field for that matter, and the episodes of Kyra Sedgwick's The Closer that I've seen are older, but I have to say that I have difficulty seeing Hargitay as anything but the least in this category, but to paraphrase someon (the L'il Abner comic strip?) "you has spoken" and Hargitay it is.

New poll up in the morning.

What’s On My iPod

I haven't been posting much of late. I'm not going to say that it's because of my iPod Shuffle because it isn't. There are ... issues. And no, I'm not going to go into details. Suffice it to say that younger brother loves the HD TV for ball games and there always seems to be a ball game, and now that he's back with the City he's working conventional hours. I hope I might be able to at least see the opening ceremonies of the Olympics on the big screen but for just about everything else I'm stuck with my 25" CRT.

I do love my iPod, but there are things that I hate about the Shuffle. The big thing is that there isn't a screen which has an impact that I'll explain in a moment. It's not the capacity – I got the 2 Gig – it's that the Shuffle is smaller than the screens on either the Nano or the Classic, let alone the Touch (and the iPhone). Now when most people think of the screen on an iPod what they're concerned about is watching movies, TV shows, Video Podcasts, and probably YouTube videos. But for me the thing that I'd like to do, and which is possible on an iPod with a screen, is to go through a list of what I've got on the iPod and pick out what I want to hear rather than hitting the Forward or Backward buttons on the ring. That's truly inconvenient when you have something that has a definite order in which it should be listen to. I'm thinking of some podcasts and old radio shows, which appear with the most recently released item first. Annoying as all hell.

So here I am on the third paragraph, so I suppose it's time to tell you what's on the iPod. Well, what there isn't is music. I want to rip some music from some CDs I have but I haven't gotten around to that yet, and I don't have an iTunes account. So basically what I have on the gadget is free material, which is to say podcasts. The podcasts really fall into three or four different topics. First up is some tech related podcasts. They're all from Leo Laporte's TWiT network: This Week in Tech, The Tech Guy, and Windows Weekly. The reason for these shows is that I was a long time follower of Leo Laporte when he was on TechTV, and later when he had his revived Call For Help (which became The Lab with Leo) on G4-TechTV Canada. The latter show suffered because it was an advice show where people got the answers a month or more after they got the question. I loved the show (past tense - Rogers, which owned the Canadian version of the show, pulled the plug on it) but that sort of annoyed me. The Tech Guy and the Windows Weekly podcasts are really useful for someone interested in tech, and This Week In Tech (which I'm listening to as I type this) is a great gathering of friends to talk about tech news stories.

The next class of podcasts are podcasts about DC Comics. DC has its own "official" podcast which is really recordings of panels at various cons. There's been a huge influx of new posts following the San Diego Comic-Con, some of it fascinating, some of it totally irrelevant to anything that I'm interested in, so at least I'll know what not to get next time around. The other podcast is the Raging Bullets podcast. The podcast itself is great, but the damned thing is incredibly long...and most of the time it's just two guys talking. Most of the episodes have been two hours long and the last two episodes were five and six hours long respectively. Let's just admit that this is shocking and leave it at that.

Then there are the TV related podcasts. Marc Berman's Programming Insider podcast has what is almost an industry insider's feel about it. Berman does the Programming Insider column for Media Week which is indispensible for coverage of the previous day's ratings. The podcast is an extension of that but with added news and even commentary on shows. Compared to Raging Bullets, Marc's podcast is mercifully short – usually about ten minuteslong – though by now I've practically memorised his ad for Programming Partners and their new syndicated talk show Marie featuring Marie Osmond and debuting in September 2009. Still, once you get past the ads, Marc has an informative podcast. Sure he has opinions, some of which don't agree with mine (he says he refuses to watch Greatest American Dog because he can't bear to see an innocent dog evicted from a reality show) but that's part of why I subscribe. Then there's the podcast from The TV Addict featuring Daniel and his sidekick Ariel. Not as professional as Berman's podcast there's a lot of back and forth between the two...some of it even relating to TV shows. And it's Canadian which is always nice. It's a better podcast than I think I could have put together. Speaking of Canadian, there's also a podcast from the Canadian science fiction channel Space: The Imagination Station. There's discussion of shows on the network and interviews from actors on the network's shows, including Battlestar Galactica.

The biggest group of podcasts by far on the Shuffle are Old Time Radio podcasts from something called Humphrey/Camardella productions. They have a large number of podcasts from a variety of genres – westerns, thrillers, mysteries, comedies, suspense and the like. There are also a couple of podcasts from them on specific shows. There's a series of podcasts for The Adventures of Superman and another for The Jack Benny Program. The latter has shows going back to his time on the Canada Dry Ginger Ale show. Of course I'm not sure of the rights situation for some of the material that Humphrey/Camardella is presenting. Indeed the Superman podcast hasn't been updated since May, and there's only been one episode of the Jack Benny material added since May as well. Their other podcasts are updated two or even three times a week.

In a strange sort of way these Old Time Radio shows are relevant to TV today. Oh, to be sure the subject matter is different, but some of the trends and concerns resonate today. In some ways we're in the realm of "everything old is new again," even though we seem to regard these things as bad. Take reality shows. The grand daddy of reality shows – not the competition ones but the ones that purport to show "real people and real events" – is probably FOX's series Cops. It debuted in 1989 and has been running ever since, despite an effort by FOX to kill it and its partner on the night America's Most Wanted. Well, what would you say about a show that followed real life cops on patrol one night and we heard the cops doing their job. It sounds exactly like Cops but in fact it was a 1954 radio show called Nightwatch. In fact we even got to hear the cops violating a suspect's civil rights when they forced entry into a car without a warrant because they suspect the owner of using the demon marijuana – which as we all know is a gateway drug to heroin. Or so they said on Nightwatch.

How about this one: a show where contestants are sent out tasks which are supposed to earn them prizes but have a surprise twist that the contestant isn't aware of, and which tend to involve people who don't even know they're part of the gag. Sound like a great idea for a reality competition? Maybe, but if anyone tried it they'd have to make sure that copyright on People Are Funny isn't owned by anyone. Indeed the threat of "non-scripted" programming isn't even new. The legendary Fred Allen's show was knocked of the air in part by a game show hosted by Bert Parks called Stop the Music in which people were called at home were called to participate. Naturally if they were listening to Fred Allen they couldn't answer the questions on Bert Parks's show. Of course not many thought about the odds of being called by Parks, though Allen offered $5,000 to any person listening to his show that was called by Parks – he never had to pay up.

And then there are "product placements." Reading comments from professional critics and bloggers alike, you'd think that product placement was both new and a huge threat to the "sanctity" of television. And while it's true that the practice today is more blatant than it has been at times in the past, it is hardly new. There was always a big box of Kellogg's Corn Flakes in the kitchen of the Clampett mansion in The Beverly Hillbillies, and most shows had a credit acknowledging that a specific car company provided the cars for show. And of course in an era when shows were sold to single sponsors, it was quite common for the shows to include mentions of the product in the episode. Desi Arnaz was particularly adept at this sort of thing. Not only did the Ricardos and Mertzes stop smoking Philip Morris Cigarettes when the company stopped sponsoring the show, but Ricky Ricardo extolled the virtues of the new 1955 Pontiac convertible that they'd be driving to California in Season Four to Fred Mertz. But the practice wasn't even new then. Radio shows like Fibber McGee And Molly and the various incarnations of The Jack Benny Program thoroughly integrated their commercials into the actual shows with their commercial announcers, like Harlow "Waxy" Wilcox (for Johnson's Glow Coat), and Don Wilson actually becoming members of the show's cast. In the case of Jack Benny's shows this integration of product announcements into the actual show goes back at least as far as 1933 and '34 when the show was sponsored by Chevrolet. And there was always the way that Benny greeted his audience when he was sponsored by a particular desert from General Foods – "Jell-o again, this is Jack Benny talking."

One thing – and this really has nothing to do with any other show than the Jack Benny material – is just how long it took for Jack Benny to develop his on-air persona. Listening to the material that is available in these podcasts from the beginning (they have a couple of Canada Dry shows, and what seems to be most of the Chevrolet shows before he went to Jell-o, and up to late 1936 and the miserly persona hasn't really come into play. To be sure there's reference to Jack's ego, and to a lesser extent his bad violin playing (but even that isn't being pushed too strongly). Most of the people were in place with the exceptions of Mel Blanc and Eddie "Rochester" Anderson (and Dennis Day but Kenny Baker had the same personality that would later be adapted for Day). But maybe this does relate to TV today insofar as it represents something that doesn't really happen anymore. The show adapted, and more importantly had time to adapt. To be sure this may be that the immense popularity of the show allowed Benny and his writers to develop new ideas, and it may be that this option to change and adapt was restricted to the largely extinct comedy-variety type show. What I know is that most TV shows today, be they dramas or sitcoms, are remarkably static. Cast members may come and go but the premise of the show stays the same, and for the most part there isn't a growth or development in the characters.

So that's my rambling account of what's on my iPod. Maybe it give you a bit of an idea about me and my tastes, to the point where you can offer some suggestions about what I'd like, or maybe it will give you a few ideas.

Keepin' It Clean - For Now

Created by OnePlusYou - Online Dating Service

Thanks to Bill Crider and Ivan Shreve for this one. (I've always wanted to know, has anyone ever called you Shrevey, Ivan?)

New Poll - Who Do You Think Should Win The Emmy For Outstanding Actress In A Drama?

The Nominees:

• Glenn Close (Damages)
  
• Sally Field (Brothers & Sisters)
  
• Mariska Hargitay (Law and Order: SVU)
  
• Holly Hunter (Saving Grace)
  
• Kyra Sedgwick (The Closer)
  

And can I just say "wow, what a field!" And did you notice, not one actress under the age of 40 not to mention a total of ten Oscar nominations which yielded three Oscar wins. Not to mention a host of Emmy and Golden Globe nominations and wins. And that's just for Close, Field and Hunter!

Remember, I'd like you to vote for who should win, not who you think will win.

Poll Results - Who Do You Think Should Win The Emmy For Outstanding Actor In A Comedy?

Did you notice that I changed the title of this from what the question I put up on the poll was? This better reflects what I wanted from you. And indeed it seems to have been a bit of an issue for the one person who offered up a comment, my dear blogging friend Linda who said "As for the new poll: it would be more my voting for who I would want to win. (I can't vote for who I think WILL win; I don't even like the guy.)" I'm not sure this makes the poll result more or less valid, but to make it clear what I want is to know who you think SHOULD win not who you think will win. Then again with just six voters I'm not sure that validity actually comes into the equation. But am I bitter? No, actually I'm really not. Given my level of posting recently I can't really expect a lot of people to drop around to hang on my every word. I don't really have a reason to be bitter...over this. There are plenty of other things from me to be bitter over but that's a whole other story that I'm not going to tell.

Okay, here are the results. As I've said there were six voters. Tied for fourth place with no votes are Lee Pace from Pushing Daisies and Charlie Sheen from Two And A Half Men. In third place with one vote (17%) is Steve Carell from The Office. In second place with two votes (33% is Tony Shaloub from Monk. But the winner, with three votes (50%) is Alec Baldwin from 30 Rock.

Right now, this is a category where I don't really see most of the shows – well okay any of the shows – except in moments of boredom when I'm flipping through channels. Sitcoms aren't my thing. I've seen parts of some old episodes of Two And A Half Men and like the Odd Couple style relationship between Charlie Sheen and Jon Cryer even if it is an inferior copy of the brilliant original. In fact I might even go so far as to suggest that the reason why the show gets such good ratings – something that is incomprehensible to many and is probably why it gets Emmy nominations but never won the award – is because it is familiar. Pushing Daisies is an undiscovered country for me. Last season I was pretty much locked on CBS on Wednesday nights pre-strike and ABC wasn't good enough to either produce new episodes after the strike or to repeat the show. I know it's a show I should watch if only because it features one of the great objects of my affection, the dynamic Kristin Chenoweth. But I didn't get a chance, and maybe it's really not a show you can pick up in mid-stream.

Moving on to Steve Carell and The Office it's a show that I haven't see much but which I know in my heart is good. Carell's performance as the terminally oblivious Michael Scott, who think that he's a good boss and that the people who work under him actually like him and his team building exercises, is beautifully realised. Or you know, so people tell me. As for Tony Shaloub in Monk, well that's a show that I haven't seen since ABC aired some first season episodes years ago. Yeah I missed the handful of episodes that NBC aired earlier this year as an aftermath of the strike. It's not available here or at least not on any channel that I'm able to get (but that leads to a whole discussion of how broadcast rights are handled in this country which is a topic for another time). As a result I don't think I get why Shaloub is constantly on the list for this award. I mean I enjoyed the episodes that I did see enough so that I hoped that episodes beyond the first season would somehow find their way to something that I could get, but I'm not entirely sure that this really qualifies as a comedy. Sure there are funny moments but there were funny moments in Columbo (a show that Monk is occasionally compared to) and all of Peter Falk's nominations and wins for that show were in the Drama category.

But the big thing about Shaloub is that in my opinion at least I don't think that he rises to the level of the man that the poll results – and I – think should win this category, Alec Baldwin as NBC executive Jack Donaghy in 30 Rock (I'm also betting that this is who Linda was talking about in her comment). Granted, Baldwin plays Jack as someone with an outsized combination of ego, bombast and self-importance, but let's admit that these are exactly the qualities that you'd expect someone in his position to have. In fact I have a suspicion that the Donaghy character is a not particularly subtle caricature of Jeff Zucker, or at least what people think Jeff Zucker is like. It's an outsized unrealistic character (at least it is to those who aren't in the entertainment business if some of the stories that Ken Levine tells are even half true) but Baldwin is strong enough to pull it off. I think he's going to win.

New poll up in a few minutes.

Poll Results - Who Do You Think Will Win The Emmy For Outstanding Actress In A Comedy?

Okay, this is going to be short and not overly sweet. Only two of you voted and you both voted for Tina Fey. Tina's picture is probably going to take up more space than this evaluation of the results.

Now I happen to agree with you – both of you – on this. I think Tina Fey is a standout in 30 Rock. Of course it probably doesn't hurt that she's the head writer on the show. Nor does it hurt to be working with Alec Baldwin Of course, since I so rarely watch sitcoms (including 30 Rock I confess) I'm not really in a position to judge the respective nominees.

But still: only two votes!?!?!

I might as well put the new poll up now, in hopes that it might garner more than two votes. This time around the question is "Who do you think will win the Emmy for Outstanding Actor in a Comedy?" As usual it isn't who do you believe will win, but rather who do believe should win. Feel free to comment here.

Two votes?!

Appeals Court Overturns “Nipplegate” Fine

In a unanimous decision a split panel of the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit has overturned the fine levied against CBS for the incident at the 2004 Super Bowl in which Janet Jackson's right breast and nipple were exposed for "nine sixteenth of one second" before the cameras were able to turn away. In the decision, written by Judge Anthony J. Scirica, with a concurring opinion delivered by Justice Marjorie Rendell, the court found that the FCC acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" in its decision. (The complete decision, which also deals with the matter of whether CBS would have been liable for fines even if the FCC had not acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, can be found here – this is a .pdf file) While acknowledging the FCC's authority to regulate indecent content, Judge Scirica pointed out that it had long practiced restrain in doing so: "During a span of nearly three decades, the Commission frequently declined to find broadcast programming indecent, its restraint punctuated only by a few occasions where programming contained indecent material so pervasive as to amount to 'shock treatment' for the audience. Throughout this period, the Commission consistently explained that isolated or fleeting material did not fall within the scope of actionable indecency." The decision of the court was that "Like any agency, the FCC may change its policies without judicial second-guessing. But it cannot change a well-established course of action without supplying notice of and a reasoned explanation for its policy departure. Because the FCC failed to satisfy this requirement, we find its new policy arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act as applied to CBS." (italics mine.)

While the FCC claimed that "its restrained policy applied only to fleeting utterances – specifically, fleeting expletives – and did not extend to fleeting images. But a review of the Commission's enforcement history reveals that its policy on fleeting material was never so limited. The FCC's present distinction between words and images for purposes of determining indecency represents a departure from its prior policy." But of course this is also a policy which the current FCC has chosen change in an arbitrary manner in their decision against FOX in the case of the Billboard Music Awards, a decision also overturned on appeal and currently being considered by the US Supreme Court.

For those, like the Parents Television Council which cite the Pacifica decision (when a station owned by the Pacifica Foundation aired a recording of George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue), the court pointed out that the FCC itself issued a clarification order covering live broadcasts: "Expressly acknowledging the forfeiture order's potential negative impact on broadcast coverage of live events where 'there is no opportunity for journalistic editing,' the FCC stated its intention to exclude such circumstances from the scope of actionable indecency." This is a point which the concurring decision on Pacifica, by Justices Powell and Blackmun emphasised: "Justices Powell and Blackmun concurred in the judgment, writing separately in part to reiterate the narrowness of the decision and to note the Court's holding did not 'speak to cases involving the isolated use of a potentially offensive word in the course of a radio broadcast, as distinguished from the verbal shock treatment administered by respondent here.'" Judge Scirica's decision points to two cases after Pacifica (in 1983 and 1987) where the FCC ruled on cases where language was used that did not meet the "verbal shock treatment" standard. And while in 1987 the Commission did change its standard to "rely on the broader terms of its generic indecency standard, which defined indecent material as 'language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs, when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.'" (again, italics mine). But this did not overturn the basic standard as stated in the clarification to Pacifica or the 1983 and 1987 cases (and in the Powell concurrence) related to isolated or fleeting material. In other words a policy had been established. This was reaffirmed in 2001 when the broadcast industry sought clarification of the FCC's policies on broadcast indecency, which the FCC provided in a policy statement. "The policy statement included multiple examples of FCC rulings as 'case comparisons' highlighting the factors that had proved significant in prior indecency determinations. One of the factors noted as leading to prior determinations that a program was not actionably indecent was the "fleeting or isolated" nature of potentially indecent material in the context of the overall broadcast." Indeed this was an even clearer assertion of the standard.

This policy changed just three years later when the Commission overturned a finding of their own enforcement bureau concerning Bono's statement at the 2003 Golden Globes in which he said "this is really, really fucking brilliant." While in its May 2004 decision the FCC "acknowledged the existence of its restrained enforcement policy for isolated or fleeting utterances, it overruled all of its prior cases holding such instances not actionable. ('While prior Commission and staff action have indicated that isolated or fleeting broadcasts of the 'F-Word' such as that here are not indecent or would not be acted upon, consistent with our decision today we conclude that any such interpretation is no longer good law.'). But the Commission made it clear that licensees could not be held liable for broadcasting fleeting or isolated indecent material prior to its Golden Globes decision." That would be three months after the Janet Jackson incident. And that's an important point in the current decision, even setting aside the Second Circuit Courts decision overturning the decision on the Golden Globes case: "Accordingly, we find the Commission's unsubstantiated contentions in this regard contradict the lengthy history of the Commission's restrained enforcement policy. While "an agency's interpretation of its own precedent is entitled to deference," Cassel v. FCC, 154 F.3d 478, 483 (D.C. Cir. 1998), deference is inappropriate where the agency's proffered interpretation is capricious. Until its Golden Globes decision in March of 2004, the FCC's policy was to exempt fleeting or isolated material from the scope of actionable indecency. Because CBS broadcasted the Halftime Show prior to Golden Globes, this was the policy in effect when the incident with Jackson and Timberlake occurred."

The court then went on to address the FCC's contention that the fleeting materials policy was limited to words rather than images, meaning that the Golden Globes decision would be inapplicable in this case. This relates to whether there was an adequate an explanation for changing its policy. The FCC holds that it had no prior policy on fleeting images and therefore did not have to provide an explanation, reasoned or not for their new policy. CBS contended that the FCC's indecency regime treated images and words alike "so the exception for fleeting material applied with equal force to words and images." The Third Circuit Court found that "The Commission's conclusion on the nature and scope of its indecency regime – including its fleeting material policy – is at odds with the history of its actions in regulating indecent broadcasts. In the nearly three decades between the Supreme Court's ruling in Pacifica and CBS's broadcast of the Halftime Show, the FCC had never varied its approach to indecency regulation based on the format of broadcasted content. Instead, the FCC consistently applied identical standards and engaged in identical analyses when reviewing complaints of potential indecency whether the complaints were based on words or images." (again, italics mine.) They mention a 2000 decision rejecting a claim that nudity in the movie Schindler's List was indecent in which they said "the FCC noted 'nudity itself is not per se indecent' and applied the identical indecency test the agency used to review potentially indecent language. The Commission did not treat the nudity complaint differently – factually or legally – from a complaint for indecency based on a spoken utterance.... The Commission even referred in a footnote to its policy towards fleeting material, never suggesting the policy would be inapplicable because the offending broadcast content was an image rather than a word." The Court noted that the FCC policy was also upheld in a decision on the revocation of the license for WGBH Boston for broadcasting indecent material: "Among several 14 broadcasts at issue in WGBH were: (1) 'numerous episodes of Monty Python's Flying Circus, which allegedly consistently relie[d] primarily on scatology, immodesty, vulgarity, nudity, profanity and sacrilege for humor'; (2) 'a program entitled Rock Follies . . . which [the petitioner] describe[d] as vulgar and as containing profanity' including 'obscenities such as shit, bullshit, etc., and action indicating some sexually-oriented content in the program'; and (3) 'other programs which allegedly contained nudity and/or sexually-oriented material.'" In their argument, CBS provided several complaints accompanied by a corresponding reply letter rejecting the complaint. These incidents included "the early-evening broadcast of a female adult dancer at a strip club and alleges the broadcast contained visible scenes of the woman nude from the waist down revealing exposed buttocks and 'complete genital nudity' for approximately five to seven seconds," and "a Sunday-morning television broadcast of the movie Devices and Desires, which included "scenes of a topless woman in bed with her lover, with her breast very clearly exposed, several scenes of a topless woman running on the beach, and several scenes of a nude female corpse, with the breasts clearly exposed." While the FCC contended that these form letters were irrelevant since they "do not even explain the grounds for the staff's conclusions that the broadcasts were not indecent, much less rely on the 'fleeting' nature of any alleged nudity as a reason for rejecting the complaints," the court held that "the rejection letters illustrate that the FCC used the identical form letters and indecency analyses to address complaints of indecent nudity that it had long used to address complaints of indecent language." Accordingly the Court found that "In sum, the balance of the evidence weighs heavily against the FCC's contention that its restrained enforcement policy for fleeting material extended only to fleeting words and not to fleeting images. As detailed, the Commission's entire regulatory scheme treated broadcasted images and words interchangeably for purposes of determining indecency. Therefore, it follows that the Commission's exception for fleeting material under that regulatory scheme likewise treated images and words alike. Three decades of FCC action support this conclusion. Accordingly, we find the FCC's conclusion on this issue, even as an interpretation of its own policies and precedent, "counter to the evidence before the agency" and "so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise."

One interesting point that the decision recorded was that it was nearly impossible to determine the actual number of complaints receive from "unorganized, individual viewers." According to the FCC, they received "an unprecedented number of complaints." However, in their brief CBS pointed out that "Of the 'over 542,000 complaints concerning the broadcast' the FCC claims to have received, over 85 percent are form complaints generated by single-interest groups. Approximately twenty percent of the complaints are duplicates, with some individual complaints appearing in the record up to 37 times." In other words the sort of thing that the Parents Television Council does all the time when they complain about "indecency.

Needless to say, the Parents Television Council is incensed by this decision. In a press release PTC president Tim Winter claimed that "Once again, a three-judge panel has hijacked the will of the American people – not to mention the intent of the Congress acting on behalf of the public interest – when it comes to indecent content on the public airwaves. While we are not surprised that the legal venue hand-picked by CBS would rule in favor of the network, the court's opinion goes beyond judicial activism; it borders on judicial stupidity. If a striptease during the Super Bowl in front of 90 million people – including millions of children – doesn't fit the parameters of broadcast indecency, then what does? If the Court doesn't think that the event wasn't shocking enough, even though it was the single largest news story for weeks when the nation was at war, then what is shocking enough? By saying that the FCC still retains its power to regulate the public airwaves, this court shows that its ruling was merely to second-guess the FCC's decision to fine CBS. The Third Circuit Court is wrong, and we urge the FCC to appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. We urge the public to speak up on this matter by contacting their congressional representatives and the White House too."

I can't help but wonder at the degree of legal "expertise" that Tim Winter brings to the table on this one. The question here isn't one of a "three-judge panel" hijacking the will of the American people, since it seems to me to be unclear what the "will of the American people" is in this case. The number of independent complaints on this case not generated by single interest groups is significant but would hardly seem to be overwhelming. The questions turns then to the matter of judicial activism. It seems that what the PTC is arguing for is a variant on that – regulatory commission activism if you will. The Court decision seems to be a well reasoned statement of both the facts in the case and the precedents up to the point of FCC clarification related to the Bono statement. There are ample examples provided that prove not only the existence of the FCC's prior policy related to "the 'fleeting or isolated' nature of potentially indecent material in the context of the overall broadcast," but also that policy had not been inclusive of fleeting examples of speech but also to nudity. And indeed far from what is implied by the PTC description of "a striptease during the Super Bowl," this was far more fleeting than previous examples, the duration being precisely "nine sixteenth of one second." The event which according to the PTC was shocking because "it was the single largest news story for weeks when the nation was at war" simply does not equate with the FCC's position at the time – as defined in Powell and Blackmun's concurrence to the original Pacifica Decision – that indecency must represent "verbal shock treatment," or in this case "visual shock treatment." Certainly this is the case given the duration or the nature of previous incidents which the FCC has chosen not to fine in the past. And remember this is even before factoring in the Second Circuit Court's 2007 overturning the FCC's decision on Bono. And of course one must ask to what degree it was groups like the PTC and its fellow travellers such as the American Family Association, and the politicians which they lobbied, that made this the "single largest news story for weeks" (and let's set aside this business of the nation being at war – by the time of the 2004 Super Bowl "major combat operations in Iraq" had been concluded for nine months and President Bush had declared "Mission Accomplished")? No, it seems clear that this doesn't represent "judicial activism" but rather a well thought out evaluation of precedent and policy and the degree to which the FCC itself overstepped its own boundaries.

In the end one is left to wonder how Justice John Paul Stevens would feel about the matter. It was his majority position in Pacifica that is constantly cited by the PTC as the justification for censoring even something so fleeting as this. In Pacifica Stevens wrote that "It is appropriate, in conclusion, to emphasize the narrowness of our holding. This case does not involve a two-way radio conversation between a cab driver and a dispatcher, or a telecast of an Elizabethan comedy. We have not decided that an occasional expletive in either setting would justify any sanction or, indeed, that this broadcast would justify a criminal prosecution." In other words, even at the time Justice Stevens recognised that there were circumstances in which the fleeting use of expletives could be broadcast. What he objected to in Pacifica was what has since come to be called the "verbal shock treatment" effect of something like the Carlin routine, or someone like Howard Stern. But even more interesting is the evolution of his opinion on Freedom of Speech which might have an effect on rulings in the current cases such as the appeal of the Second Circuit's decision on Bono or this case. In his dissent to the 2002 decision in ACLU v Ashcroft related to the Children On-line Protection Act (COPA), Stevens wrote, "As a judge, I must confess to a growing sense of unease when the interest in protecting children from prurient materials is invoked as a justification for using criminal regulation of speech as a substitute for, or a simple backup to, adult oversight of children's viewing." If nothing else is true, it seems obvious to me that what Stevens intended in Pacifica is
neither what the PTC thinks he meant or what the current FCC has used it to justify. In any event, this issue will bear watching.

Emmy Awards – An Overview

The Emmy Award nominations were announce on Thursday and it's time to give an overview of the "big stories." And there are some interesting stories, mainly around the drama categories and who and what was nominated, and where the shows came from. In this overview I'll look at eleven categories and you'll see what I mean. The Emmy Awards will be broadcast on September 21, on ABC.

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy

• Kristin Chenoweth (Pushing Daisies)
  
• Jean Smart (Samantha Who?)
  
• Amy Poehler (SNL)
  
• Holland Taylor (Two and a Half Men)
  
• Vanessa Williams (Ugly Betty)
  

The only real surprise here is the inclusion of Amy Poehler, who will be starring in the Office spin-off which as it turns out isn't really a spinoff, for her work in Saturday Night Live. Is it me or is it rare for a member of the ensemble cast of SNL to be nominated in an Emmy category. My best intuition (okay, my best guess) is that it's going to be Kristin Chenoweth.

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama

• Candace Bergen (Boston Legal)
  
• Rachel Griffiths (Brothers & Sisters)
  
• Chandra Wilson (Grey's Anatomy)
  
• Sandra Oh (Grey's Anatomy)
  
• Dianne Wiest (In Treatment)
  

This is the category that last year's winner Katherine Heigl refused to be nominated in because she said that her storylines in the season weren't good enough. She was right but she came off sounding like an ego-driven bitch who wants to be the star, which I'm pretty sure is not what she wanted when she said it. I think it could come down to Rachel Griffiths or Dianne Weist. Bergen is nominated because she's always nominated and while I think that Chandra Wilson's storyline was the strongest on Grey's Anatomy I'm not sure the show was at its best. I haven't seen either Brother & Sisters or In Treatment but I don't think you can get a bad performance out of either Griffiths or Wiest.

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy

• Jeremy Piven (Entourage)
  
• Kevin Dillon (Entourage)
  
• Neil Patrick Harris (How I Met Your Mother)
  
• Jon Cryer (Two and a Half Men)
  
• Rainn Wilson (The Office)
  

Not hard for me to pick the two top contenders in this one – either Neil Patrick Harris or Rainn Wilson. Jon Cryer is great as the straight man in Two and a Half Men, and the show always picks up nominations (see Holland Taylor above) but those nominations always seem to come off as an acknowledgement that the show is the highest rated comedy around, and that's the only reason why that show is even mentioned. I don't really know Piven or Dillon's work in Entourage but I think that Harris and Wilson's performances are first rate. Go with the two broadcast guys and you pick'em.

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama

• William Shatner (Boston Legal)
  
• Ted Danson (Damages)
  
• John Slattery (Mad Men)
  
• Zeljko Ivanek (Damages)
  
• Michael Emerson (Lost)
  

Now here's where we start to see the big trend in this year's awards. Three of the five nominees are from cable shows, and one is from a show on a network not renowned – at least recently – for original production. Ignore Shatner; he's nominated because he's always nominated. I haven't seen Damages, even though it's been shown on Showcase up here, but it's always good to see Ted Danson in a dramatic part. John Slattery is suitably slimy for his role in Mad Men. Still I think it's most likely to go to Michael Emerson for his deeply unsettling turn as Ben Linus in Lost.

Outstanding Actress in a Comedy

• Christina Applegate (Samantha Who?)
  
• Tina Fey (30 Rock)
  
• Julia Louis-Dreyfus (New Adventures of
  Old Christine)
  
• America Ferrera (Ugly Betty)
  
• Mary Louise-Parker (Weeds)
  

I want to say Tina Fey for this one but I could definitely see Mary Louise-Parker taking it. From what I've seen Christina Applegate's part seems to be oriented towards slapstick and people underestimate how hard that is to do, while I think the scheduling of New Adventures of
Old Christine have hurt Julia Louis-Dreyfus's chances. As for America Ferrera, I've been left with the impression (from what I've read) that this hasn't been an outstanding season for Ugly Betty. Definite edge to Tina Fey.

Outstanding Actress in a Drama

• Glenn Close (Damages)
  
• Sally Field (Brothers & Sisters)
  
• Mariska Hargitay (Law and Order: SVU)
  
• Holly Hunter (Saving Grace)
  
• Kyra Sedgwick (The Closer)
  

Another Drama category where there are more cable shows than broadcast series. Ignore Field and Hargitay and (and I hate to say this) Kyra Sedgwick. This one is going to come down to Glenn Close for her part as no holds barred litigator Patty Hewes, and Holly Hunter for the self-destructive Grace Hanadarko. I've seen more of Saving Grace than I have Damages and I have to say that Close's role would have to be something special to take this one from Hunter. Then again this is Glenn Close and I can't imagine her coming to TV as a regular except in an outstanding role. Three Oscars in this category and amazingly Glenn Close has none of them even with the most nominations.

Outstanding Actor in a Comedy

• Steve Carell (The Office)
  
• Alec Baldwin (30 Rock)
  
• Lee Pace (Pushing Daisies)
  
• Tony Shalhoub (Monk)
  
• Charlie Sheen (Two and a Half Men)
  

Comes down to Steve Carell or Alec Baldwin, with Lee Pace having only a slightly better chance than Sheen (who has one of those "we hate this show, but it's the top rated comedy around so we'd better acknowledge it" nominations) and Shaloub, who gets nominated as a matter of course. It's still a two horse race and I'm not sure who'll win.

Outstanding Actor in a Drama

• Gabriel Byrne (In Treatment)
  
• Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad)
  
• Jon Hamm (Mad Men)
  
• Michael C. Hall (Dexter)
  
• James Spader (Boston Legal)
  
• Hugh Laurie (House)
  

Six nominees in this one (the Emmys do that if there's something that resembles a tie in their voting; it doesn't have to actually be a tie, it just has to be very close). Two thirds of them are for shows on Cable. Two of those shows are on AMC and only one is on HBO?! Three of the shows are in their first season. Again, you can practically eliminate the broadcast shows. Much as I love Hugh Laurie he's in a deep field on this one. I'm going to say Michael C. Hall for Dexter but there's a part of me wants to say Jon Hamm for his conflicted but amoral advertising man in Mad Men. Give it to Hall though.

Outstanding Reality-Competition Series

• Amazing Race
  
• American Idol
  
• Dancing with the Stars
  
• Top Chef
  
• Project Runway
  

Bet the house on The Amazing Race and wonder at the stupidity of CBS for not ordering a second series in the 2007-08 season.

Outstanding Comedy Series

• 30 Rock
  
• The Office
  
• Entourage
  
• Two and a Half Men
  
• Curb Your Enthusiasm
  

NBC has the best comedies around. Not the best rated (Two and a Half Men and most of the CBS Monday line-up) but consistently the funniest and most sophisticated. It comes down to the low rated 30 Rock and the veteran The Office. I think maybe The Office this year.

Outstanding Drama Series

• Boston Legal
  
• Mad Men
  
• Dexter
  
• House
  
• Lost
  
• Damages
  

Again there are six nominees. Three are from cable and guess where I think the winner is going to come from? My heart says Mad Men but my head and my gut instinct say either Dexter or Damages and I don't know which.

Overview

If anything is apparent from these nominations it is that for this season at least Cable has taken charge in the drama categories. And it's not just HBO this time around. In fact none of the Drama Series, only one of the Actors (in both Drama categories) and one of the Actresses is in an HBO series. In fact most of the nominated cable series and acting nominees are from Basic Cable networks – AMC, FX, and TNT. And given the lacklustre performance of the broadcast networks this past season it shouldn't be a huge surprise that this is the case. Sure, they were hurt by the strike but there has to be more to it than that. And I think that there is; the networks are running scared. They're running scared because when they try something that's a bit "out there" like Jericho or Friday Night Lights or (dare I say it) Studio 60 they get hit in the ratings. Sure, ABC took a different tack last season with Pushing Daisies and Dirty Sexy Money and were generally rewarded. But let's face it, it's easier and safer to put on another procedural, or a hospital show, or a lawyer series, than it is to push the envelope. And let's admit it; thanks to FCC regulation (or rather the seemingly capricious way the current FCC has chosen to rule) and the pestering protests of organizations like the Parents Television Council and the American Family Association the broadcast networks aren't in a position to push the envelope with edgier stories and the sort of language and images that some of those edgier stories need in order to be told well. And the Emmy Awards in drama are reflecting this, by taking the term "Outstanding" seriously. The sad but true fact is that in Drama there is little that is truly outstanding on Broadcast Television. The network productions dominate the Comedy categories of course but this is even as the sitcom, which used to be a dominant form, is effectively restricted to one night a week on each of the five networks.

I'm putting up the first of the Emmy polls. The polls for the four acting categories I'm doing this year will run for a week, while the polls for the three series categories (Comedy, Drama and Reality Competition) will run for ten days. This time around it's Outstanding Actress in a Comedy. As always vote for the actress that you think should win, not necessarily the one you think will win.

Poll Results - Which Of The New CW Shows Sounds Most Promising?

Apologies for not posting more often but it's the summer and there's not much to post about... or not much that I can motivate myself to post about. I haven't seen the first episode of Flashpoint yet so I may well wait until the second episode to write about this show. From the little I've seen it looks very good. Also, in a fit of insanity I've signed up for a Twitter account. I'm BrentMcKee – highly original I know. I don't know how much you'll get out of this; past experience has proven I'm no Leo Laporte when it comes to stuff like this. I also have a Facebook page that I haven't done much with.

Turning to the subject at hand, the new CW shows. There were seven voters. In a tie for last with no votes are 90210, Privilege, Stylista, Surviving Suburbia, Valentine Inc., and Easy Money with no votes. In second place with one vote (14%) is In Harm's Way, but the big winner, with six votes (86%) is "They all sound like a big steaming pile of poo."

Of course this isn't a scientifically valid survey. Only the people who are motivated to vote do vote, and there hasn't been a lot to draw people here of late. Still, I think that the seven of you who voted pretty much got it right. Most of these shows do sound like a big steaming pile of poo. I might take a look at Privilege because I've been a fan of Joanna Garcia since she was on Reba, but I never watched the original Beverly Hills 90210 so why should I watch "the next generation." I will confess that the Sunday night offering In Harm's Way seems interesting but I'm not sure it will pry me away from just about anything else on Sunday nights.

In all honesty I don't know what to do with The CW as a network. It's not that they don't have good shows – Reaper, Supernatural, Everybody Hates Chris – but I don't think that The CW as an entity has never really gotten traction. In this at least the whole is less than the sum of its parts, those parts being the old WB network and (to a lesser extent) UPN, and I for one don't know how to turn it around.

I'll post general thoughts on the Emmy nominations later today and then work out a schedule for my Emmy polls which will likely start tomorrow.

Big Brother Idol...For Dogs

I'm a dog guy – I love them, though I confess that I prefer the medium sized guys. Needless to say, as a dog guy I was looking forward to seeing Greatest American Dog, the latest reality competition series that CBS is putting forward this summer. I wasn't necessarily looking forward with high hopes. That way I knew I wouldn't be disappointed. And guess what, I wasn't disappointed, which is good. I wasn't surprised by the quality of it either, which is bad because I wanted to be surprised. There was little to justify high hopes and a considerable amount that was cringe worthy, but at least the dogs were mostly bearable.

If you want to sum up Greatest American Dog in terms of other shows it could be best described as Big Brother meets American Idol with a touch of Survivor on the side. The basic concept is that twelve dogs and their humans are moved in to "Canine Academy." The location looks to be a big mansion in California decorated with dog related kitsch – it would be a stretch to describe anything associated with the place "art." The dogs and humans are a diverse lot. There are several professional dog trainers, and some of the dogs have either worked professionally or appeared on TV shows or commercials as novelty acts. Others are just people who love their dogs and have taught them some tricks and think they're talented. On the whole the dogs seem relatively young – the oldest is eleven years old and the average age is probably closer to three or four. With one exception the dogs are all purebreds. There is however no real explanation or understanding of how and why these particular dogs were picked and why they deserve to be describes as "The Greates American Dog" beyond the owner applying and sending in a good audition tape – in other words, exactly like every other reality-competition show.

The legendary Barbara Woodhouse felt that there were no bad dogs just bad owners. I'm not sure if you'd call and of the participants on this show truly bad owners. There are however some people whose affectations with their dogs make you want to shake your head...or their heads. There's the guy who, when his Parson Russell Terrier reached the age of 13 in dog years, threw the dog a "bark-mitzvah" (a doggie bar mitzvah). At least the man's friends seemed to enjoy themselves; no word on the dog's friends. There's the woman who insists that her dog wears an outfit every day because otherwise she'd be naked. Yeah, she actually said that. Finally there was the woman whose dog works in Broadway plays who takes the dog where it needs to go in New York riding in a child's stroller. At Canine Academy the stroller was replaced by a wagon.

The similarity to Big Brother and Survivor really picks up when it comes to the "Bone Competition." Although the prize is similar to Big Brother's "Head of Household" – a private room for dog and owner complete with special treats for the dog, the key to which is, no kidding, a golden bone – it is more like a Survivor reward in that there's no power associated with one little exception that I'll get to in a moment. The first competition was a game of musical chairs. Well musical boxes really. Dogs and owners had to circle a group of boxes, not unlike dog show stands, and when the music stopped the dogs had to get up on the stands and sit down. As in musical chairs there was one, and sometimes two, stands fewer than the number of dogs. If a dog was on the stand and didn't sit and another dog jumped on it and did sit, the first dog had to either find another box or was out.

The winner of the competition was won by professional dog entertainer (he entertains with dogs, not for dogs in case you were wondering) J.D. and his nine year old English Pointer, Border Collie cross Galaxy. The power that J.D. earned for winning the competition was the ability to send one of the other dog and owner combinations to "The Dog House." Think "Exile Island" on Survivor; it's a place where the chosen team is sequestered away from the others in an uncomfortable living situation. J.D. picked David & Elvis, a New York Doctor and his Parson Russell Terrier (he was the guy who gave his dog a Bark Mitzvah) entirely – so he said – because David showed up wearing a suit jacket. The "Dog House" is what I guess you might call an out building. It's a single room but big enough to stand up and move around in with thin mattresses from David and Elvis. There was a rattan screen and shutters for privacy. As David joked it wasn't what they were used to but it would probably rent for about $2,000 a month in New York. Some of the other competitors took pity on David and moved in a mattress for him and some other things.

The big event of the episode was the Elimination Challenge. Dogs and owners had to split into groups of four and develop a performance that would show off the dog's talents and abilities, and almost as important the owner's ability to control their dogs and to get them to act on command. The shows would be judged by a trio of dog experts: Animal Fair editor in chief Wendy Diamond, Dogs In Review editor Allan Reznik, and dog trainer Victoria Stillwell. They used the performances to see how well the dogs were trained and would select three dogs for elimination based on a variety of indicators, including whether the owner could get the dog to act on command, whether the dog seemed stressed, whether the owner had to manipulate the dog to get it to act (a very big no-no), whether the dog needed a lot of treats to get it to do what was needed, and whether the owner compensated for the dog's lack of ability by performing themselves in a way that would distract from the dog's lack of ability. The dogs chosen as candidates for elimination were Brandy & Beacon (a white schnauzer), Beth Joy & Bella Starlet (an 11 year-old mutt – this is the dog that gets hauled around in strollers and wagons), and Michael & Ezzie (a brown Boston Terrier – one of my favourite breeds although I prefer the black and white colouring). It seemed obvious that Brandy & Beacon should be eliminated. She found it difficult to get her dog to perform on command and at one point forced Beacon to sit by pushing down on the dog's hindquarters. However the partnership that was eventually eliminated were Michael & Ezzie. Ezzie seemed to be a bit of a problem child outside of the performance segment. The judges also noted that Ezzie was licking her lips a lot which indicated to them that she was feeling stressed. Worst of all they thought that Michael seemed to try to take center stage in terms of performing possibly to draw attention away from his dog's lack of discipline. But yeah, I did think that Michael & Ezzie (but mostly Ezzie) were robbed.

As I mentioned, I went into this with fairly low expectations and I will state that I wasn't overly impressed with the result. It seems like they've cobbled together unrelated concepts and put dogs into the mix. The result isn't a train wreck the way a lot of summer reality shows without dogs are and it is enjoyable enough. You do get a real sense that these people are proud of their dogs even though in some cases they take it to extremes – Brandy is a particularly memorable example of this. And of course, while viewers are "hooked" by the gimmick of the dogs, the real subjects are the different personalities of the owners. And the public seems to be responding, either because of the dearth of new shows in the time slot or because they're interested in the dogs. The show drew 9.46 million viewers and had a 2.2/7 rating in the (all important) 18-49 demographic. Moreover it built slightly in both areas between the first and second half hours. Still, I can't give it much more than a half-hearted recommendation. It's enjoyable enough to watch, and viewers can really become attached to the dogs to the point where you have to be the ultimate cynic (like my brother Greg – he finds it impossible to watch just about anything that isn't sports without making snide and even ridiculing comments, usually ending with the phrase "the collapse of western civilization") not to at least say something nice about the dogs. And yet I find it more than a little dismaying that they couldn't come up with something more original with this for a basis. Worst of all there is something about this show that is almost worthy of the description "cheesy." This one gets a very weak recommendation from me but only because it's the summer and there's not really that much to choose from.

My New Channels

Most of what follows isn't going to make much sense to many of the people who are going to read this, but it illustrates a number of things. Or maybe I just want to do some writing. And if, by doing a bit more writing I get some of you off your hands and voting in the poll then that qualifies as a good thing. The little tale that I have to relate today is going to ramble around a lot because this post is positively designed to go off on tangents.

On Friday I was finally stirred to action by my mother and added some new channels to my Digital Cable service. I've had Digital Cable since a couple of months after the digital specialty services were introduced in September 2001. It has been an interesting ride. The first three months were a trial period that let you really get your feet wet. There were a number of stations that were mandated as "must carry services" by the CRTC, meaning that cable companies that were offering digital specialty channels had to carry them. These "Category 1" services earned that by programming a high percentage of Canadian produced content – somewhere in the 70 to 75 percent range. It didn't take me too long to figure out that most of these services weren't anything that I really wanted. These were networks like FashonTV – all fashion all the time; iChannel – TV about public, social and current affairs; One: The Body Mind and Spirit Channel – focused on the issues of "natural health, personal growth, new ideas, holistic lifestyle and intriguing possibilities"; BookTV – TV devoted to books and literature (which is broadly defined enough they can show The Paper Chase and Batman).

I made my initial selections based on a deal Shaw has that allows customers to great their own packages. At the time you could take individual channels or you could pick five, ten or all of the channels for less that the base priceper channel. That's essentially what the Parents Television Council wants every cable company in the United States to provide for every cable channel, but it isn't practical for every channel unless the system is entirely digital –no analog cable signals at all – where every subscriber has to have a digital cable box to receive a signal. That's because the cable box essentially a computer that can be programmed to block or allow through specific signals, and changes can be made from the local office while you're on the phone with them. For analog systems such changes would require individual mechanical connections made at the point where the cable to the house connects to the main line – impractical both in terms of time needed to customize each customer's order and in terms of cost. Based on other sources I am given to believe that there are no Canadian cable systems that 100% digital, and presumably the same holds true in the United States.

At the time that I got Digital Cable the 10 pack of channels suited me just fine. It allowed me to pick and choose the individual stations that I wanted without being bound by "theme" packages that forced me to take things I didn't want. Indeed at the time Shaw didn't offer themed packages, (today they only offer two – one for sports and one for movies) beyond what you get automatically when you got Digital Cable. Indeed, Shaw didn't even require you to subscribe to their premium movie channels to get the four US Superstations (WSBK, WPIX, WGN, and KTLA) which virtually every other cable and satellite company in Canada requires. For the most part, over the years I've been happy with the channels that I picked (particularly when they've accidentally given me channels for extended periods of time that I haven't paid for). So here's what I've been getting over the past few years:

• Independent Film Channel – the place where I saw Zatoichi the Blind Swordsman and parts of some of Ingrid Bergman's Swedish movies.
  
• The Documentary Channel – where I made the acquaintance of Dennis Hof, Air Force Amy and the rest of the gang on Cathouse not to mention Taxi Cab Confessions (those people have no shame).
  
• BBC Canada – where I lusted after Anna Rider Richardson, was amazed at Charlie Dimmock's denial of undergarments, and watched the complete run of Coupling and knew that the Americans couldn't do it justice.
  
• Tech TV – where Leo Laporte and Patrick Norton made me a geek and I lusted after Pat Boone's granddaughter (Jessica Corbin). But Patrick, Leo (and Jessica) are gone now.
  
• Deja View – Canwest Global's answer to TVLand...but not as good. The only choice in Shaw-town though.
  
• Discover Civilization – allows me to indulge my interest for archaeology and other bits of esoteric knowledge.
  
• Fox Sportsworld – This used to give me the world of Soccer and other non-North American sports but these days most of the games are on tape, there's no cricket, no Aussie Rules, and "International Fight League" is inflicted on the viewer.
  
• Lonestar – I bought the channel with western movies and TV shows. More on this shortly.
  
• Showcase Action – mostly action movies and TV series.
  
• Showcase Diva – mostly chick flicks and romantic movies (just remember, chick flicks have the best nudity).
  
• BBC World – BBC's world news service.
  

In addition, over the past few years they've added MSNBC, the National Geographic Channel, NFL Network, American stations from Spokane Washington, and Cosmopolitan TV (hey, it's a place where I can see Veronica Mars) to the Digital Basic line-up.

However over the years Shaw's packages have changed. Today they offer 7 and 14 packs instead of 5 and 10 packs for the same price. Of course they haven't exactly made a lot of fuss about it – like telling people that the changes have been made. Unless you've had reason to contact Shaw Customer Service you've literally gone on paying more for less. About a month ago when my mother contacted Shaw about a problem with her bill after we got the HD-PVR box. During the course of the conversation, the Customer Service rep mentioned that we really could be getting more channels for the same amount of money. My mother put me in charge of selecting the added channels. I finally got around to it last Friday.

The first thing that I decided to do was to rid myself of Lonestar. As I mentioned the network had started out as a western oriented network – showing things like The Big Valley and Bonanza. Despite an abundance of product they never seemed to show a lot of the shows I expected – no Maverick or half-hour Gunsmoke. More recently they stopped showing westerns altogether and started showing action movies and TV shows. I already have Showcase Action and they do the genre better. So, once I was clear on the deal that was available to me I told the Customer Service rep that I no longer wanted Lonestar. The conversation went something like this:

She (shocked and amazed): You don't like that channel?!

Me (shocked and amazed that she is shocked and amazed, but not showing it): No I don't. What I signed up for was a channel that showed westerns. It's become a cheap knock-off of Showcase Action and I already have that.

She (no longer shocked or amazed, rather fully understanding and even showing some sympathy): Ah, I understand.

After that the whole procedure went just fine. I named the stations that I wanted and she added them. And best of all, when I got off the phone and was able to turn on the TV less than a minute later, the stations were all activated. My new stations are these:

• Bold – When this was called Country Canada and focused on the rural lifestyle I wasn't interested. But CBC, which now owns it outright, has converted it with sports including rodeo and equestrian events, arts and culture programming, and programming that includes the current Doctor Who and The Lone Gunmen.
  
• Travel & Escape – the name pretty much says it all. Travel to places you aren't likely to go to on your own and see and do things you're not likely to see or do on your own (probably because you can't afford to).
  
• BBC Kids – I didn't order this channel just to watch Liz Sladen on The Sarah Jane Adventures...but it didn't hurt. The network not only provides content suitable for my nephew but after about 8 o'clock (my time at least) it starts showing more mature shows including Little Britain, Blackadder, Hollyoaks, and classic Doctor Who.
  
• GSN – It used to be The Game Show Network and it's probably the only channel I know of that is proud – to the point where they actually promote the fact – that one of their shows was awarded the PTC's Seal of Approval. Me, I watch the network for the Poker, and the classic game shows like I've Got A Secret and What's My Line? are bonuses.
  
• Gol TV – I am a soccer fan and this channel has a number of the Central and South American leagues as well as both the German Bundesliga and the Spanish La Liga. It doesn't have everything I'd want, but I'm not paying $14.99 a month for the English Premier League – heck I wouldn't pay that for porn.
  

I think that I've got the best stations – at least for me – that I can choose from. But there's a problem, because of the channels that Shaw makes available to me. I have nothing but good things to say about Shaw Cable's local service. When they schedule an appointment they show up on time which I'm given to understand isn't always the way it is with cable companies. Where I do have problems is with the upper levels of the company's management. The big thing in this story is the way that Shaw decided to pick and choose the Category 2 stations that they would accept. Of forty-nine Category 2 English language Digital Cable channels (not counting the HD channels) Shaw carries twenty-four. There seems to be little explanation of why some channels were taken and others weren't. Only one digital music channel is available (not that that matters to me). Only one Category 2 station originally owned by the CHUM group was included, a Canadian version of Court TV that was only added because Shaw carried the American network until the Canadian version replaced it. Only one of the three stations formerly owned by Craig Media was offered. On the other hand four of the five channels owned by Canwest Media were offered (and the exception, the jazz channel CoolTV was offered in Manitoba) as were all of the channels in which Alliance-Atlantis owned a majority stake – those channels are now owned by Canwest Media as well. I'm not suggesting that I would have made different choices if a fuller range of stations had been available. After all I only picked two Category 2 stations the other day, and I'm not unhappy about the choices that I've made. My major concern however is the paternalistic attitude exhibited by Shaw Cable in deciding what I, the consumer, should be allowed to choose from. Of course, given the attitude of company CEO Jim Shaw towards the Canadian Television Fund and what amounted his demands that "his money" because it doesn't produce programming he thinks is suitable (he has long complained about the funding that goes to the series Trailer Park Boys) not to mention his repeated demands for the "right" to bring in more American services without restriction (notably HBO and ESPN), this probably shouldn't be unexpected.

New Poll - Which Of The New CW Shows Sounds Most Promising?

This is the same basic set-up as always, complicated slightly by the addition of the four MRC shows that will be seen on the CW on Sunday nights, and for which I have to provide a brief summary (well, actually Futon Critic will be providing the summary with a little help from me) . Also, note that Surviving The Filthy Rich has been retitled Privileged.

In Harm's Way: A reality show that looks at lives of people doing dangerous jobs for the benefit of society, such as avalanche hunters, subway tunnel diggers, and hurricane chasers. From Craig Piligian, Executive Producer of Dirty Jobs, Survivor and some episodes of American Chopper (and many others).No relation to the 1965 John Wayne movie produced by Otto Preminger.

Surviving Suburbia: A half hour comedy from Kevin Abbott (writer on Roseanne, Grace Under Fire, and Reba, and "consulting producer" on My Name is Earl) about a family and their new neighbours. Reportedly the husband is the main character, a grumpy working class guy vaguely resembling Roseanne as a character. I also recall reading that this concept has been bouncing around for about ten years.

Valentine, Inc.: Originally developed as a feature film this series features Aphrodite and Eros living among us as the owners of a matchmaking agency that finds lost loves, true loves and mends broken hearts. Or maybe not, since this is somewhat at odds with the description provided in a CITY-TV press release.

Easy Money: Described by Futon Critic as being about "a family that runs a high-interest loan business." That's a euphemism for loan sharking. The family is led by the mother (Laurie Metcalfe) and while her middle son is great at this line of work he's not so sure he wants to stay in the family business. The same CITY-TV press release adds this rather cryptic statement: "Morgan must deal with his dysfunctional family in this hilarious unique world of Easy Money" From Andy Schneider and Diane Frolov whose production credits also include Alien Nation, Northern Exposure, The Chris Isaac Show and sixteen episodes of something called The Sopranos.

This isn't a lot to go on, and in fact we know none of the critical details of these shows beyond what I've put down here. Even most of the casting seems to be secret.

The usual rules apply. Please provide comments particularly if you opt for the "steaming pile of poo" option. This poll will run until the Emmy nominations are announced – not that anything to do with the Emmys really interests The CW.

Poll Results - Which Of The New FOX Shows Sounds Most Promising?

I admit that posting around here has been in a bigger slump for a while than the Washington Nationals (my former beloved Montreal Expos *sniffle*) but it almost completely slipped my mind just how long ago I started this poll until I put up yesterday's post.

I'm going to put part of the blame on my new toy. Yeah I broke down and bought my first MP3 player, a 2 Gig iPod Shuffle. Yeah, it's not much and I can't watch movies or TV on it (but then again here in Canada there isn't the choice in that area that you find south of the 49^th) but it serves my purposes. All of the used space is occupied by podcasts, including three of Leo Laporte's (TWiT, Window's Weekly, and The Tech Guy), a couple of TV podcasts (TV Addict, and the Hypa-Space podcast from the Canadian science fiction network Space), and old radio shows from something that calls itself the Old Time Radio Network. I download a lot of those. (This gives me a chance to ask a question of Ivan; the other night I was listening to an episode from a show called Frontier Town. The lead actor was unmistakably Jeff Chandler, a voice I recognise from years of hearing episodes of Our Miss Brooks; however in this he was billed as "Tex Chandler" a name that doesn't appear in his IMDB entry, which means he never used it in a movie. How long did Tex stick around before Jeff took over?) One of these days I'm going to have to put some music on this gadget.

Oh and did I happen to mention that five and a half year old nephew rode Space Mountain at Disneyland five times – in two days? The only thing that kept him off the Indiana Jones Adventure ride was the height restriction. This is an example of parental guidance over some arbitrary, non-safety related, restriction based solely on age – his father knows what Brian can take and went with him on those rides. The Disney restrictions aren't based on "this is too intense for a five year-old" they're based on "we can't make the safety equipment on this ride work for someone shorter than 48 inches regardless of age." Parents know their children because for them children are individuals rather than an arbitrarily defined, identical, mass.

Okay, right, the poll results. There were nine respondents this time through. Tied for last place, with no votes, were Do Not Disturb, Secret Millionaire, and what is rapidly becoming the troubled Sit Down, Shut Up. Tied for second place with one vote each (11%) were Fringe, The Cleveland Show, and "They all sound like a big steaming pile of poo." But the big winner, with six votes (67%) is Dollhouse.

This one is clearly a triumph for my fellow Whedonistas. But let's not get complacent folks. After all, this is FOX, the network that killed Firefly, shut off Wonderfalls, sounded last call for Tru Calling and said over on Drive. In other words they haven't exactly been friendly to Joss and his crew. I am looking forward to this show but then I'm also looking forward to Fringe, a show which has a distinct X-Files feel to it. These two shows look fantastic and if they can live up to the previews they could be the big successes for FOX this year. Certainly they're about the only shows that set the FOX line-up apart from a big steaming pile of poo. Do Not Disturb looks like a poor replacement from even the lacklustre Back To You. The Cleveland Show seems innocuous enough, although it's likely to be a lightning rod for the PTC thanks to the fact that it is being produced by Seth McFarlane. As opposed to Secret Millionaire which is almost certain to be beloved by the PTC for being "touching" and "heartwarming." So far as Sit Down, Shut Up goes, I wonder if it will even be broadcast. There's a dispute between the writers, who were assured that the show would be covered by the Writer's Guild contract, and the production companies, who insist that the writers will be covered by IATSE's Cartoonist Guild contract. At this writing the dispute has yet to be settled, and the writers have yet to go to work.

New poll dealing with the CW's new shows will be up shortly. It is going to be complicated because of The CW's deal with Media Rights Capital (MRC). No previews, and very few details, are available for the four MRC shows, so I'll have to provide brief summaries for the shows with the poll.