The TV Zone

I was intrigued by this Lee Cowan story on this morning's edition of "The Today Show."

It's about "The Tonight Show."

This is a good piece, but it understandably avoids the elephant in the room. Prez Obama is going on "Tonight," but not going on "Meet the Press," whose very host intro'd this story. Obama's return tonight isn't in itself terribly interesting at all- he's been on a couple times, and I think just about every candidate, from dog catcher to potential president, has turned up too. What's unique is that this is the FIRST SITTING POTUS to go on "Tonight." That's fascinating and I've yet to see a precise answer anywhere explaining why.

But it is interesting that he's doing this in lieu of "MTP," which has been one of the first stops for just about any president who has a hugely important message to convey. Why, why, why? I address this subject in today's Newsday.

I was intrigued by this Lee Cowan story on this morning's edition of "The Today Show."

It's about "The Tonight Show."

This is a good piece, but it understandably avoids the elephant in the room. Prez Obama is going on "Tonight," but not going on "Meet the Press," whose very host intro'd this story. Obama's return tonight isn't in itself terribly interesting at all- he's been on a couple times, and I think just about every candidate, from dog catcher to potential president, has turned up too. What's unique is that this is the FIRST SITTING POTUS to go on "Tonight." That's fascinating and I've yet to see a precise answer anywhere explaining why.

But it is interesting that he's doing this in lieu of "MTP," which has been one of the first stops for just about any president who has a hugely important message to convey. Why, why, why? I address this subject in today's Newsday.

Just heard this grim news: Liz Smith is reporting that Don Hewitt is at Sloan Kettering, "felled" by pancreatic cancer.

[Now, this update: I'm told he IS NOT in the hospital but will go in this Friday.]

Here's the full piece, from WowOwow:

"Don Hewitt, the creator of CBS’s famous, long-running "60 Minutes," is in Sloan Kettering, felled by pancreatic cancer.

Mr. Hewitt invented the program in his dynamic, courageous and independent manner and took it to a victory it still enjoys. It is the most reliable, in-depth program of news on television. Even after he relinquished direct reins to the show, Don has continued his energetic race to the top with new ideas and concepts and an unending work ethic.

He is a citizen of Manhattan and also of Bridgehampton, NY, where he usually holds court Sunday mornings with pals and admirers in the Candy Kitchen of that little Hamptons town. His loyal wife, Marilyn Berger Hewitt, a former writer for The New York Times, is by Don’s side. We hope against hope for his recovery.

This is a man I admire immensely and we have had our arguments and disagreements through the years, but they have never ended our friendship."

Please allow me add to this: Don has remained very active since "60," working for Fordham, developing other media projects, and he recently authored a big thoughtful piece for Huffington Post. I know the word "legendary" gets thrown around a lot but he really was a legendary producer and director. Will find out more soon ...

Photo by Jon Filo

"20/20" tomorrow night has a somewhat interesting (read: somewhat self-serving) interview with Lillo Brancato - convicted in January for his role in the murder of off-duty NYPD cop Daniel Enchautegui. The onetime "Sopranos" actor tells Chris Connelly that he was "noticably dopesick" the night of Enchautegui's murder and that "The crack cocaine was eating the heroin to the point where I...felt every ache and pain."

"I needed a fix."

(The accomplice, Steven Armento, 48, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life without parole; Brancato got ten years for attempted burglary; he's already served three at Riker's.)

I've posted the full story from ABC on the jump. There's a lot of stuff here, including some quotes from "A Bronx Tale" co-star Chazz Palminteri, who says of Brancato's talent, "It was unbelievable. I mean, the kid just was a natural. I said, 'Listen to me right now. What you are given right now is an incredible opportunity. You have been hit by lightning.' I said, 'What happened to you is more rare than winning the Lotto. Do you understand that?"

Brancato admits that he was high during the filming of "A Bronx Tale" and during "The Sopranos;" you probably remember his character Matt Bevilaqua, who ran that pump and dump scheme for Christopha; Tony later shot him 21 times...

(Pix: David Greene, AP)

Continue reading "Lillo Brancato Speaks to ABC" »

Just got off the horn with Chris Wallace - a good guy who does a fine job with Fox's Sunday morning show, "Fox News Sunday" - and he was just out of an interview with POTUS. This is, or is among, the first of many major network interviews the prez is doing to sell his economic stimulus package over the next couple hours. "I would say in his overall demeanor he seemed utterly comfortable in his job and in the Oval Office. There was a serenity about him. He did say 'we screwed up on Daschle' appointment [the wouldbe secretary of health and human services, who screwed up on his taxes and just dropped out] and seemed disappointed this had happened..."

And why all these interviews that are about to explode all over your TV screen, no matter where you turn? (CNN...CBS...ABC...NBC...and so on) Katie Couric's is on tonight, too.

"He's got a problem with the economic package and the polls indicate the public is turning against it. He's going to the bully pulpit to make the case." Any news? "That he's considering tax credits for people who buy homes and cars..."

The interview will be on FNC's air - "Special Report" - in 30 minutes... As you may recall, Wallace couldn't get Obama, the candidate, on his show for months, and ran a "countdown clock" - as, I suppose, a form of subtle persuasion.

Oh come now, does this matter? Really? That Hudson Hero Sully Sullenberger talked to Rick Reilly before he talked to Katie Couric?

I have it on good authority that he also talked to the good people at the Danville, Ca. library. The conversation was relayed to hometown paper Contra Costa Times.

So one could argue that the CC Times scooped Rick. (Unfortunately, the CC Times story was about an overdue book. )

What was the full interview with Sully about? Here's Reilly's entire blog post on the encounter (and go to the jump for the overdue book story...this is all getting a little weird.)

"Who was standing there Saturday night - just he and his wife - in the lobby of the Marriott Waterside hotel in Tampa, but Chesley (Sully) Sullenberger, the US Air pilot who ditched safely and miraculously in the Hudson River with both engines gone. The man who saved 155 lives was about 6-2, 175 pounds with a deep radio voice and a personality that couldn't be hurried with a team of Clydesdales. He was at the Super Bowl as a guest of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, but hadn't met him yet, even though Goodell was standing 15 feet away. I had to ask him, What was that like when you realized both engines were out? He thought about it for awhile and then said, slowly and deliberately, "Shocking. It was very quiet as we worked, my co-pilot and I. We were a team. But to have zero thrust coming out of those engines was shocking - the silence." How were you feeling inside? I asked. "Calm on the outside, turmoil inside." He kept calling the whole thing "surreal." His wife, Lori, said she and Sully have been opening letters every night that are so emotional, "it allows both of us to express emotion about it all. We both sit there and cry." I wanted to ask him one more question but he got swept away. It was going to be, "Do you mind emailing me the list of all your flights coming up in 2009? I'd like to be on them."

Continue reading "Katie Scooped...By Rick Reilly" »

Here's a pix of Katie and Sully...in his kitchen. Interview took place last week....Brief outtakes on "Evening News" in just about half an hour...

Thirty years old and what day does a distinguished news program choose to celebrate the big anniversary?

THIS Sunday, of all Sundays. When the world is thinking of the pigskin.

Rather than lament its fate, CBS's "Sunday Morning" is celebrating it...this IS, after all, the Quiet Show. What better place to be than in the shadow of a giant.

"Sunday Morning?" A truly fine program that rarely gets any ink, but just happens to churn out quality editions week after week, year after year. This is a special anniversary, and while everyone else is squawking about the Bowl today - and don't fear, I'll be squawking soon enough too - I figured I would zag a bit.

I had a nice chat with the estimable Charles Osgood this morning, and for an edited version of that, please head south to the jump.

The vital stats: "Sunday Morning" launched Jan. 28, 1979 and was hosted by Charles Kuralt until April 3, 1994. Osgood took over then, so he's closing in on his 15th anniversary here.

And one more vital stat: Along with "60 Minutes" (ten years older), "Sunday Morning" is one of the jewels in the crown of network television news...

Continue reading "CBS's "Sunday Morning" Turns 30" »

Not a pinhead, not dumb, not a bimbo, likes Sweden.

There's nothing better than a good celebrity feud, and nothing NOTHING better than a celebrity feud that involves Bill O'Reilly. Now we've got a developing one, though hardly of the flame-throwing variety, between him and Jessica Alba.

He labeled her a "pinhead" on "The Factor's" Jan. 21 edition for calling "Sweden" a neutral country when in fact he thought she meant to say "Switzerland."

Oh, the things you learn in these feuds.

Here's what JA just posted on her myspace blog:

"...I want to clear some things up that have been bothering me lately. I find it depressing that in the midst of perhaps the most salient time in our country's history, individuals are taking it upon themselves to encourage negativity and stupidity. Last week, Mr. Bill O'Reilly and some really classy sites (i.e.TMZ) insinuated I was dumb by claiming Sweden was a neutral country. I appreciate the fact that he is a news anchor and that gossip sites are inundated with intelligent reporting, but seriously people...it's so sad to me that you think the only neutral country during WWII was Switzerland. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_World_War_II if you want to see what I was referring to. I appreciate the name calling and the accurate reporting. Keep it up!!"

Someone should tell JA that's it's not always a good idea to refer to wiki to prove a point (I love wiki as much as the next guy, but...)

Meanwhile, she's got me thinking - yes, Sweden was neutral, but didn't Hitler threaten to invade at one point...? I'm gonna have to wiki this...

No comment from Bill's camp. Check out his "pinhead" clip below.

(AP Photo)

Just got off the phone with Sully's San Francisco-based rep (who's been juggling all the media requests), and he's taking some issue with NBC's version of the events.

The events? That Sully and crew are going with "60" and have passed over "Today," after first agreeing to go the ayem show.

His name is Alex Clemens, and he's the boss of something called Barbary Coast Consulting, described as a government and communications strategy firm. He says that he got tied up in this because he knows Sully's wife, Lorraine. And ... he adds, the work is pro bono.

We had a nice long chat, but it's just easiest to give you the written statement, sent to me and other members of The Press (it's long; do you have a couple minutes?):

"On Thursday, January 22, I told my contact at the Today show that the five members of the crew had talked amongst themselves about how they would like to see their story told, and later that day, Captain Sullenberger told me that their collective decision was to start with 60 Minutes, and to then visit each of the morning shows – starting with NBC.

"On a day earlier this week – possibly Sunday or Monday – that same contact at the Today show and I were chatting about a wide range of topics, and he asked me about the volume of requests for endorsements, book deals, and appearance opportunities that Captain Sullenberger had received. I responded with an answer similar to this: “There have been so many requests that the Captain’s family and children yet unborn will probably all attend the college of their choice.”

"For that contact to conflate those two conversations and insinuate that financial incentives were sought in exchange for appearances on one news show or another is repulsive, untrue, and extraordinarily unprofessional."

And...for the record, Clemens says no book deal was cut with S&S; Sully just wanted to go with "60."

This just in: Katie Couric will anchor a one-time-only primetime edition of "The Evening News" next Wednesday at 8.

CBS says this will be "in addition" to the earlier 6:30 edition, while a spokeswoman says it will contain "all new content."

A big deal? Certainly a very interesting one. The last time an edition of "Evening News" aired at 8 - or one that wasn't tagged to breaking news? Never... This is as much promotional as anything else - Katie's coming off a very strong political season (see: The Palin Interviews) and the network wants to keep the ball rolling. (Head to this post if you want some more background from CBS News boss, Sean McManus...)

They also want to put a bullet in that long-standing - and probably bogus - press story that "Kate Will Be Leaving After the Inauguration."

You know that one - it ran in a couple of prominent papers a year or so ago,and soon the broad-based assumption was that Katie's days were numbered. She (and CBS) heatedly denied this, including a pointed denial at the summer press tour in Beverly Hills, but (then) you know the press: They wouldn't believe their own grandmother.

Certainly some basis for the rumors - After that big "EN" launch, the numbers softened, the fingers started pointing (as they tend to do inside CBS), and 'ere long, Katie was grousing about not getting the support she needed, or that this wasn't what she signed up for, or whatever. And then...the speculation began: What next for Katie? "Meet the Press?" "Larry King Live?" Back to NBC in some capacity?

Then...something happened. The "EN" numbers started to improve slightly; Katie got a new and particularly seasoned and competent exec producer, Rick Kaplan (who, by the way, was also good at handling the press and managing internal expectations at CBS); outside options for Katie were hardly as good as this one; and CBS wasn't anxious to see her go because it'd have to pay off the balance of her contract; most important, the show got better, and then the Palin business.

The new press narrative: "Katie's on a roll!"

Here are the canned quotes from this morning's press release: “This is a unique opportunity to showcase the CBS Evening News and give viewers who might not be able to sample the broadcast the chance to see the outstanding work being done by Katie and the CBS News team,” said Sean McManus, President, CBS News and Sports.

“I am extremely proud of the tremendous work by Katie and our entire team and the primetime broadcast is yet another platform to bring our distinct reporting and franchise news series to a wider audience,” said Kaplan.

Only one teensy, weensy hitch to this one-time-only experiment aimed at dragging more viewers to this worthy program: It'll air opposite "American Idol." (That's maybe OK too - we call this "counter-programming" in the trade.)

(Pix: John Paul Filo, CBS)

"Webcast ..."

Isn't that an ugly word? (Surely we can think up something better, or more appealing...) And surely you must wonder - as I did - what sort of benefits accrue to CBS News and Katie Couric to have done this thing after every major ping on the political calendar this year?

On paper, or on-screen, it seems like great idea - isn't EVERYONE supposed to do something on the Web, to prove there with-it-iveness and to establish that they too have hitched a ride to the future and aren't old fogies like everyone else? There were many many streaming shows yesterday, maybe hundreds provided by people who held up their cellphones. They're not old fogies, but God, I'd sure hate to watch their "webcasts."

Here's CBS' postgame show, below, and the problem, one of them anyway, is that it is so startlingly different from the network's earlier sober coverage - which was actually pretty good. This is the let-your-hair down show - the one that's supposed to throw a spotlight on the humanity of the anchors, and pundits, and bring out all their wit, smarts and irrepressible bonhomie (whatever that is...)

But after a day on the air, those talents tend to get shaved, or evaporate altogether. You're not at your best.

Katie: "I'm not sure who's watching but some people out there are...oh look, Jordin Sparks is here [at the Commander-in-Chief ball, where she sang, I imagine, the Etta James classic, "At Last"]...I feel like I work for MTV all of a sudden...[The Obamas] must be getting sick of 'At Last'...Would you think I was really creepy if I said I think you smell good?...Sure you can get a picture...Did I mention Audi is sponsoring our webcast."

"Webcast:" That word again, which implies "cheap," and "crumby" and "low-rent," and "really really boring." Too bad, cuz Katie's not any of those things.

So here's a suggestion for a Webcast of the future, CBS. Don't let the hair down. Make this thing as smart and insightful as it can be. Don't be silly or frivolous (that devalues the overall brand.) Don't pander - people can smell "pander" from a million miles away. Make this thing even richer than what you had on the air. Make people think that if they miss this, they'll miss the more IMPORTANT part of your overall coverage. Never embarrass yourself or CBS News - you've worked too hard to establish your Big League Anchor creds. And don't forget, some people are watching - even annoying critics who post their own blog posts...

("Blog:" An ugly word....)

That's my free advice for the day.

Watch CBS Videos Online

In the course of doing a round of interviews this week and last for tomorrows' inauguration, I caught up with some old friends and contacts in various places, and in the process knocked on the door of this guy - Bret Baier.

Bret: The new anchor of "Special Report," replacing Brit Hume which means he is now the big kahuna at Fox, in terms of straight-ahead anchoring, with the (possible) exception or Shep. He's a young guy - impossibly young, late 30s going into his late '20s, or so it seems - and is a Fox News stalwart. Followed his work over the years, particularly at the Pentagon - and it has always been solid, no frills, and very very serious.

Lots of little changes at "Special Report," and here's what he told me: "We maybe want to expand a little more of the demographics, and that means attracting young viewers and means trying to reach out in different ways. Just started a Facebook page and Twitter account [Twitter? Brit probably thinks that some sort of libation]

"Brit? Continues to contribute to the show as a senior political analyst, and has been on four times [since Baier took over earlier this month] with analysis of some issue of the day - a new element, commentary, where he's on the set with me...This is what he calls semi-retirement, [and has plans for appearing] a hundred days this year, and contribute to 'Fox News Sunday' and special events...We're lucky to have him still wandering around the halls.

And...what of tomorrow's coverage? "Technology has come so far in our ability to transmit these images and sounds from every corner of this city [D.C.]. We'll be at many of the balls, and many more of them than we've ever seen before, and you'll see the Obamas many different times - you'll see them get their move on a whole bunch of places."

It's not often that a major anchor for a major network actually witnesses a major news story - in fact, I can't remember an instance - but that's what happened at 3:30 this afternoon, when Robin Roberts looked out her window and...what's that?! - a major airliner splashed down in the Hudson. If you haven't watched ABC's air, check out this clip. It's rather unusual... (BTW, if you have trouble getting the picture, hit your refresh button.)

Here's what she told Charlie (Gibson): "It completely just hit the water full force, never bounced or anything like that, and came to a relatively quick stop," Roberts said. "But… it didn't skim along the water. There was very little trauma to the aircraft. It was… I'm still… can't believe what I saw."

"I would say, 10 seconds -- I… have binoculars. I could see that the front door was, they were able to open the front door, and within a couple of minutes a water taxi just happened to be in that direction, and I could see that it was making its way to the airplane as fast as possible," she said.

Maybe you've heard tell of this special by now or maybe not, and if not, read on: This one sounds particularly worthy. Airs on the Fox News Channel tomorrow night at 9, and I haven't seen much of anything beyond the clip (below). But it is unusual: "CSI:NY's" Gary Sinise goes on a trip to Iraq to supports the troops with camera in tow. A lot of personal footage is promised, along with a fairly urgent message - don't forget the troops and support these guys in any way you can.

Here's what he said on the program notes: "With the help of the USO, my brother-in-law Jack, and my friend Jonathan Flora who used a handheld camera, you will see what happened on a seven day trip I took to Iraq last summer which will air this Saturday night on the FOX News Channel. It was my fourth trip there with the USO. My goal, as always, was to cover as many miles as possible and to take pictures, sign autographs and shake hands with as many troops as I could in the time I had. Stops included bases in Kuwait and in Iraq — Al Asad, Al Qaim, Ramadi , Habbaniyah, TQ airbase and Baghdad.

"I could not be more honored to play a small part in helping our troops and their families. We can never do enough for our veterans who have sacrificed so much to keep this nation free.

"But we can always try to do more."

(And more and more and more, especially as many come home to an eviscerated economy.)

The clip. As mentioned, "On the Road in Iraq with our Troops and Gary Sinise" airs tomorrow at nine.

Here's a just-asking blog post: How is it that Lara Logan, the respected correspondent for CBS News - embroiled in quite the scandale du TV last year when revealed she was bearing the child of a married man (not married to her, BTW - she was married to someone else; oh brother) - could actually give birth to a baby boy on Dec. 29 (Joseph Washington Burkett V), but still have a story on the air just a few days later?!!??

That woman has stamina, by heavens.

Or another possibility: The story on "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric" had been mothballed for months, which is kinda odd considering there's so much real news out there.

You be the judge. Here's the piece:

ABC, bless 'em, has gone ahead and posted a whole bunch of stuff from Wednesday night's 10 p.m. mega-mega promoted / anticipated interview with Patrick Swayze - on "The Beast" promotion hunt - and there's so much here that I suggest you read the whole thing.

Bottom line: Swayze sure doesn't sound like someone who's trying to sugarcoat his challenge and pretend that everything's just hunky-dory on the eve of his new TV series. In fact, he sounds pretty sober and intense. Here are the nut grafs from the ABC.com story:

"I've never been one to run from a challenge," Swayze told Barbara Walters in his first interview since the diagnosis [for pancreatic cancer] last January. Still, when asked if he was scared, Swayze told Walters, "I don't know. I will be so either truthful or stupid as to say no. But then I immediately, when I say that, I have to say yes, I am."

"You can bet that I'm going through hell," Swayze said. "And I've only seen the beginning of it."
Walters first interviewed Swayze in 1988, at the height of the actor's "Dirty Dancing" fame. When they met again last month at his ranch in the foothills of the San Gabriel mountains near Los Angeles, Swayze talked openly about his cancer, how he's handled the treatment, his thoughts and fears and his prognosis.

"There's a lot of fear here," Swayze said. "There's a lot of stuff going on. Yeah, I'm scared. Yeah, I'm angry. Yeah, I'm [asking] why me. Yeah, I'm all this stuff."

(See a photo gallery of Patrick Swayze through the years.)

(See a slide show of celebrity cancer survivors.)

Continue reading "Patrick Swayze to Barbara Walters: 'I'm going through hell'" »

Dick Cheney - you know who he is -- will be on "Fox News Sunday" this Sunday.

Yeah, Fox. Of course. What did you expect? "Countdown with Keith?"

But this will be very, very, very -- and I think I'll add one more "very" -- interesting. Chris Wallace will do it and the last time I checked, Chris is -- what's the word -- obstreperous.

However...there's been chatter that this interview was a "reward" for defending Prez Bush before Ron Howard at a recent screening of "Frost/Nixon." True? Thinkprogress says it's so...and apparently, so does Chris.

Come to think of it, so does CrooksandLiars.com

Whatever. Here's the release:

"Vice President Dick Cheney speaks with Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace in an Exclusive Sunday Show Interview. Vice President Cheney reflects upon the past eight years: The White House’s response to 9/11, the decision to go to war in Iraq, the detention and interrogation of terrorist suspects, the failed auto bailout, the economic crisis, the future of the GOP, and the incoming Obama Administration."

The last piece of the post-Russert era has fallen into place: Chuck Todd was just named Chief White House correspondent.

He replaces David Gregory, who went to "Meet the Press." Todd's a good choice, certainly, and was clearly in the running for "MTP" too. He did a fine job for the network as political director -- a job he'll retain -- and for as long as I can remember was reasonably forthright about the fact that John McCain had an uphill struggle against Barack Obama.

"Chuck truly made his mark in the 2008 Presidential election season where he
offered unmatched political analysis. His objective, smart, real reporting has
been honed through the years in Washington and makes him uniquely qualified to
lead our White House coverage team," said NBC News prez Steve Capus in the release.

NBC has named David Gregory as moderator of "Meet the Press," just about a half hour before this ayem's edition with Tom Brokaw and Barack Obama.

The appointment is effective immediately.

"I'm honored and deeply humbled as I take on this role," said Gregory in the statement. "I'm
filled with a great sense of purpose as I join a superb team to cover Washington
and the world from a treasured platform in our country. Above all, I want to
make Tim proud."

Tim, of course, is Tim Russert, who died in June.

OK, this is big news, so head on down to the jump for the full presser and I'll update in a bit.

Tom, meanwhile, just gave gracious handoff to Gregory on the air - "it's been a real privilege to be in this chair during this exciting and challenging time" - while Gregory said, "Tim always aid to me as you have - always be respectful but ask the tough question but also ask the smart followup and hold 'em accountable...That's what the program is about...What you've taught me in this role is what Tim has taught me, these are treasured platforms with which you have to pursue a great sense of purpose..."

As you may know, this story broke in the Huffington Post last week, and has been widely reported since. Gregory becomes the tenth moderator of TV's oldest program (61 years old), but in at least one respect, this is the most notable handoff. For all intents and purpose, this has been the very last on-air regular gig by Brokaw - now, one of the last of the legendary anchors who represented a time of real hegemony by the Big Three.

Gregory? Chief White House correspondent and chief stand-in for Matt Lauer on "Today;" he was there, I believe, as recently as Friday. Obviously, he's a talented, smart guy and was at the top of most lists - but back June NBC didn't want to make some fast switch in the immediate wake of Russert's death. Instead, it did the best thing - got Brokaw in on an interim basis.

I just got off the phone with "Fox News Sunday's" Chris Wallace - who held this job for a year and half in the late '80s:. What are the big challenges to this gig? "One are the hours. There are two aspects to the hours - getting up at 5:50 every Sunday morning and even tougher making yourself get to bed before ten every Saturday night. And secondly, though I don't think this will be a problem for David, wh o's a good, serious journalist, you really have to do your homework. You're talking to people who almost always know more about the subject than y ou do and you have to get up to speed so that when they get on their talking points, you can get them off of them."

And...off the phone with George Stephanopoulos - whom some think stands a good chance of building his "This Week" audience as viewers shop around.

I asked him about that and he said: "He's definitely a good broadcaster and a tough competitor. We hope and expect that the intense interest we've seen in politics and public affairs will continue because of the new administration and the intensity of the challenges they face."

Meanwhile...check out George's top ten list, which he posted on his blog. Amusing...

Ten Things David Gregory Needs to Know

December 07, 2008 10:00 AM
10.) Monday night is the new Saturday
9.) Saturday Night Live is a pretty cool wake-up call
8.) Dennis Kucinich is a biter
7.) You'll never have to anchor another car chase -- ever
6.) No more OJ stories either
5.) Remember to wink at the camera when you say "stimulus package"
4.) Never let Chuck Todd drive you to work
3.) Don't sit Doris Kearns Goodwin next to David Broder. Long story
2.) Rapping with Karl Rove is a guaranteed bump during sweeps
1.) Most important, don't forget we move our clocks back next Sunday.

Seriously, David, you're about to get one of the best jobs in journalism.
Good luck (but not too much).
--George Stephanopoulos

Continue reading "It's Official: David Gregory to "Meet the Press"" »

NBC has named David Gregory as moderator of "Meet the Press," just about a half hour before this ayem's edition with Tom Brokaw and Barack Obama.

The appointment is effective immediately.

"I'm honored and deeply humbled as I take on this role," said Gregory in the statement. "I'm
filled with a great sense of purpose as I join a superb team to cover Washington
and the world from a treasured platform in our country. Above all, I want to
make Tim proud."

Tim, of course, is Tim Russert, who died in June.

OK, this is big news, so head on down to the jump for the full presser and I'll update in a bit.

Tom, meanwhile, just gave gracious handoff to Gregory on the air - "it's been a real privilege to be in this chair during this exciting and challenging time" - while Gregory said, "Tim always aid to me as you have - always be respectful but ask the tough question but also ask the smart followup and hold 'em accountable...That's what the program is about...What you've taught me in this role is what Tim has taught me, these are treasured platforms with which you have to pursue a great sense of purpose..."

As you may know, this story broke in the Huffington Post last week, and has been widely reported since. Gregory becomes the tenth moderator of TV's oldest program (61 years old), but in at least one respect, this is the most notable handoff. For all intents and purpose, this has been the very last on-air regular gig by Brokaw - now, one of the last of the legendary anchors who represented a time of real hegemony by the Big Three.

Gregory? Chief White House correspondent and chief stand-in for Matt Lauer on "Today;" he was there, I believe, as recently as Friday. Obviously, he's a talented, smart guy and was at the top of most lists - but back June NBC didn't want to make some fast switch in the immediate wake of Russert's death. Instead, it did the best thing - got Brokaw in on an interim basis.

I just got off the phone with "Fox News Sunday's" Chris Wallace - who held this job for a year and half in the late '80s:. What are the big challenges to this gig? "One are the hours. There are two aspects to the hours - getting up at 5:50 every Sunday morning and even tougher making yourself get to bed before ten every Saturday night. And secondly, though I don't think this will be a problem for David, wh o's a good, serious journalist, you really have to do your homework. You're talking to people who almost always know more about the subject than y ou do and you have to get up to speed so that when they get on their talking points, you can get them off of them."

And...off the phone with George Stephanopoulos - whom some think stands a good chance of building his "This Week" audience as viewers shop around.

I asked him about that and he said: "He's definitely a good broadcaster and a tough competitor. We hope and expect that the intense interest we've seen in politics and public affairs will continue because of the new administration and the intensity of the challenges they face."

Meanwhile...check out George's top ten list, which he posted on his blog. Amusing...

Ten Things David Gregory Needs to Know

December 07, 2008 10:00 AM
10.) Monday night is the new Saturday
9.) Saturday Night Live is a pretty cool wake-up call
8.) Dennis Kucinich is a biter
7.) You'll never have to anchor another car chase -- ever
6.) No more OJ stories either
5.) Remember to wink at the camera when you say "stimulus package"
4.) Never let Chuck Todd drive you to work
3.) Don't sit Doris Kearns Goodwin next to David Broder. Long story
2.) Rapping with Karl Rove is a guaranteed bump during sweeps
1.) Most important, don't forget we move our clocks back next Sunday.

Seriously, David, you're about to get one of the best jobs in journalism.
Good luck (but not too much).
--George Stephanopoulos

Continue reading "It's Official: David Gregory to "Meet the Press"" »

"Yoohoo, Dubya, over here...It's me! Stretch!"

I'll remove that "?" as soon as the press release comes, but it does now appear to be official: NBC News has landed on David Gregory to helm one of the great prestige vehicles in all of television AND one of the oldest.

When NBC names him - I'm guessing by tomorrow, but maybe today - he'll of course replace Tim Russert, who died in June. Tom Brokaw has held the moderator chair on an interim basis and made clear to bosses and everyone else that he wanted to step down after the election.

Yes, Ted Koppel's name came up, too, and he was genuinely interested when his deal with Discovery abruptly ended last week. But there were all sorts of reasons why that wasn't going to happen (headed by $$$.) Gregory's the logical choice and seemed to be almost from the moment of Russert's death although insiders were - logically - reluctant to seem too anxious before (as the bard might say) the funeral meats were hardly cold. That didn't stop an almost unbelievable amount of tab spec, which had people like Keith Olbermann vying for the gig - denied by him - and "insiders" pointing to political analyst Chuck Todd as a reasonable choice, too.

So why Gregory - given that his MSNBC show has zero buzz while Rachel Maddow's (she's also been in the rumor circuit) has endless buzz? That's a good question, and I would advise a quick check of his work via MSNBC.com or Youtube. His reporting style is often cocky - and it has rubbed some NBC colleagues the wrong way (the guy's bedside manners are reputed to be appalling, and have been reputed to be so for years) - but he's an extremely smart and efficient interviewer. But I do think his "likability quotient" - a phrase I just made up! - is so low that it gave NBC some pause.

Meanwhile, I do wish someone would point out that Tim's MSNBC show didn't exactly burn up the ratings either. Far from it - even though his "Meet the Press" was the top-rated Sunday ayem talk show for many years, and top-rated by a considerable margin.

I guess someone just did point it out.

Plus, why take Maddow out of MSNBC? MSNBC isn't some sort of farm team; it's worked desperately for years to get traction and finally has it with Olbermann/Maddow. If this duo continue to click during the Obama administration, MS's primetime lineup will make far greater profit than "MTP" ever could. (Could Maddow conceivably do both? I suppose - and she'd go INSANE. Working seven days a week, 56 weeks a year, and the "MTM" gig is high stress to begin with.)

Watch Gregory's stuff on "Today" too - he brings a real intelligence to the hard interviews on a show that doesn't always (ahem) require that. I know for a fact that his "people" have been vying to get him nestled into a position where he would ultimately replace Matt Lauer - when Matt decides to leave. The assumption at NBC is widespread that Lauer has no intention of besting his pal Bryant Gumbel's fifteen years in the ayem, so Gregory would have appeared to be a logical successor.

Here's some interesting inside speculation: That Gregory may have finally forced this issue by threatening to walk to "Good Morning America," where he'd end up going AGAINST Matt Lauer. Again, that's speculation, but intriguing nonetheless.

But no more. By the way, Huffpo broke this yesterday, and Politico's Mike Allen has a story up that has the scoop, and says that the decision is a fait accompli.

(I'm surprised, BTW, that NBC News didn't leak this to their usual favored recipient - the New York Times - but I suppose there's some bad blood for the moment over that devastating Sunday piece on Gen. Barry McCaffrey.)

(Photo: Getty Images)

Ted for Tom on "Meet the Press?" I mused about this a little while ago, pretty much tossing aside the possibility. But there's now some reason to think - why not?

[You ask, why replace Tom Brokaw? Because he probably WANTS to be, as he has said any number of times...]

Here are some possible reasons on why this succession could actually work...followed by some "why it might not" reasons...(A clue why not? $$$$)

* The desire's there and Ted will soon need a job. For years - let's say forever - Koppel resisted the idea of doing "This Week" at ABC, or any other Sunday ayem show, in part because he did have one of the great gigs in television ("Nightline") with a life/work schedule that he pretty much wrote. But with the Discovery job now over, he's looking for a new gig. I just got off the phone with his longtime associate and producer, Tom Bettag - these guys go back many Emmys ago - who told me, "Ted isn't at all ready to retire and at this point, will look out there to see what the next opportunity is..."

* The next opportunity may well be "Meet" and I'm told - by those all-knowing, all-seeing "sources" - that he's interested, or per one, "he's not averse to talking to NBC about 'Meet the Press' [but] I think the odds are against it."

* Koppel, 68, brings that sturdy, authorial, statesmanlike "gravitas" which one assumes is so vital to this sort of gig - the sort of gravitas that says to the bloviating congressman sitting across from the moderator, "don't BS me, pal - I'm the boss here, and I've heard every line under the sun, moon and stars." Bob Schieffer brings that to "Face the Nation" - in a nice Schieffer sort of way.

* No obvious successor to Brokaw at NBC. And frankly, if this person WERE obvious, they woulda picked him or her by now.

* Couric doesn't want it. That's my hunch anyway cuz she'd have to relocate to D.C., and her life (children) is up here. Plus, I think I heard somewhere that she anchors a nightly news show already. So she is gainfully employed.

Now...reasons against:

* He's not an NBC lifer. In a sense, a problem because this is almost more a symbol than a "job" - a symbol of a news division and culture that stretches back (on TV alone) sixty years.

* There would by ill-disguised fury among some at NBC who think they're entitled to it; no names but you can guess who they might be.

* Age - at 68, how much longer? Maybe years longer (and isn't 68 the new 58?), but it'd be hard for NBC to argue that this is somehow a "permanent" move (ah, but what is "permanence" in TV news? 'Tis a dream, a figment, an illusion...)

* He's outta practice. Seriously! Koppel's been away from an interview-style format show for years (he left "NL" three years ago...) Could he pick it up again? Sure, but...

* He's gotta big price tag. Hey, in case you haven't noticed, we're in a massive recession, and even NBC is feeling it; big cuts are coming there, and can you imagine? Ted asking for and getting his usual fee? (I think it was approaching $10 m per year in the waning days of ABC.) I leave the most obvious reason for "why not?" last.

(Above - Ted looking professorial, as well he should at this Harvard function; photos by Harvard Gazette staff photographer by Justin Ide.)

Just got off the phone with Alan Colmes...Here's the overview of our chat:

* He's leaving "because it's a great time to make a change, and I can't think of a better time - thankfully with a Democratic house and [president], what more can I do?" It's like - he jokes - he has "declared victory in Iraq - and [will] leave."
Last day: Sometime in January.

* OK, Alan - what's the real reason you're leaving the show? He said he brought up the idea to leave with his bosses back around Labor day, and "expressed my desire to make a creative change with what I'm doing. They were a little surprised but understood and asked if I'd mind staying through the election and...I was happy to do it...The timing seemed right - twelve years is a great run - a better run than most TV shows ever get. I've had a great time doing my radio show and 'Hannity & Colmes' was a terrific platform...but sometimes you have an inner voice." This one, he says, told him that he "saw where the country was going...I think it was pretty obvious. It was obvious to the country, especially [when McCain] picked Sarah Palin. I knew we'd certainly get huge gains, even if we did lose the presidency. The country has a very different mindset, people are in a very different mood, and I kind of felt that mood internally [at FNC.]"

* No word on the new show, except that it'll air on weekends, and launch sometime next year. He has not yet re-upped at Fox - "we're talking about that now...My intention is to stay and develop whatever I can develop..."

* Hannity was "surprised but he understood; he's been a partner and friend for twelve years..."

This just in, gang: Alan Colmes is outathere.

Or outta "Hannity & Colmes." By the end of the year. Go to the jump for the full press release. And...my analysis below.

"I approached Bill Shine... (program boss) earlier this year about wanting to move on after 12 years to develop new and challenging ways to contribute to the growth of the network. Although it's bittersweet to leave one of the longest marriages on cable news, I'm proud that both Sean (Hannity) and I remained unharmed after sitting side by side, night after night for so many years."

"Colmes will continue to have a presence on FNC as he will serve as a liberal commentator on a variety of FOX News programming, including Foxnews.com's The Strategy Room and continue hosting his radio program, The Alan Colmes Show on FOX Talk, a division of FOX News Radio. He will also begin developing a weekend program.

Shine said, "We're very sorry to see Alan reach this decision but we understand his desire to seek other creative challenges in his career. We value his incredible hard work in making Hannity & Colmes the most successful debate program on cable news and we're going to miss him on the show. Thankfully, he will begin developing a weekend pilot for us."

Hannity added, “Not only has Alan been a remarkable co-host, he’s been a great friend which is rare in this industry — I’ll genuinely miss sparring with such a skillful debate partner.”

Surprised? An understatement, although the more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Consider: The whole point of this show is not only under siege, but maybe even obsolete. It was born during the Clinton administration, thrived during the Bush one, and now, on the cusp of the Obama one, seems like an anachronism. One might even say - Alan finally won!

An irony, no doubt, because I always believed Fox wanted a weak-chinned lefty who would look pallid, pusillanimous and wimpy opposite the square-jawed Hannity. Surprise! Colmes more than held his own - he was feisty, smart, well-prepared. Both of these guys - I totally believe - made the other one better, or at least forced each to come up with something better than mere propaganda (Much has been written on this subject, and I assure you - FNC's Roger Ailes always insisted he wanted two strong opinions, because this show, perhaps above all others, would exemplify the "fair and balanced" claim. Whatever. I'm not even sure Roger believes that.)

Photo: Melissa Hom, for New York

Continue reading "Shockeroo: Colmes to divorce Hannity" »

They're handing contracts out like bonuses - remember those? - over at Fox News these days. Here''s the latest - and frankly, if this one didn't come down, then it would be "see ya later, turn out the lights, adios...abandon hope all ye who enter...etc."

Roger Ailes just landed a new five year deal.

I'm almost afraid to call up my friends at Fox News and ask them what he's getting paid: After they finish yelling at me, and telling me to bugger off, they'd say: "No comment."

I'm guessing he's getting $15 million per year, maybe more.

It'll be in the annual report anyway.

Here are the nice quotes:

"The new agreement states that Mr. Ailes will continue to oversee FOX News, FOX Television Stations (FTS), FOX Business Network (FBN), My Network TV and Twentieth Television. He will also continue serving as a senior advisor to Mr. Murdoch on television and news matters.

"Mr. Ailes added, 'I’m pleased to continue to work for News Corporation. It is a strong and extremely well positioned company. I look forward to carrying out Mr. Murdoch’s legendary vision in the future.'”

(Above, Rog, by Getty Images)

Here it is -- a very first look at the Ashley Dupre interview with Diane Sawyer to air this Friday.

(Let's say -- the "first look" for those who haven't yet seen the People Mag leak, or teases on ABC's air this morning, or ABCNews.com ... I believe in truth in advertising.)

After a quick scan, here are the newsiest bits I've mined. Then, head on down to the jump for the full story from ABC News.

"Dupre says she initially didn't know the identity of the man referred to in court documents as Client No. 9.

"He looked familiar," she said. "But I was 22 years old, I didn't, I wasn't reading the papers, I was so involved in my life and I was so selfish and caught up in my life and I didn't know who he was. And I was whoever they wanted me to be, and he was whoever he wanted to be."

When asked how often she saw Spitzer, Dupre was reluctant to discuss the details.

"Legally, I am not able to answer that question," she said.

Dupre remembers the moment of shock when she watched Spitzer's televised resignation.

"I didn't know the depth to my situation," she said. "That's when I connected the dots, was when everyone else found out. I turned on the TV and I said, "Oh --, what did I get myself involved in? I felt like everything slowed down around me. And it was just the TV and I and, I was shocked."

Dupre says she was not focused on the governor during the speech, but rather, his wife Silda's face as she stood by his side.

"I felt connected to her," Dupre said. "I didn't feel connected to him. Her pain. And I just saw the pain in her eyes."

-Click to see photos of Ashley Dupre

-Click to see photos of Silda and Eliot Spitzer

-Click for 27 photos of famous sex scandals

Continue reading "Breaking News: Ashley Speaks " »

As reported - pretty much everywhere by now - Ashley "Luv Guv" Dupre will be on "20/20" this Friday, as part of that on-going Diane Sawyer series on prostitution. But for some reason, ABC has withheld the official announcement...until now.

Here it is:

"A Diane Sawyer exclusive: In her first television interview, Ashley Dupre, the woman at the center of the scandal involving former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, speaks candidly about what life as a high-end escort is like, how an upper middle-class, girl next door got into the profession and the psychological journey she continues to experience. The interview is a continuation of Sawyer’s recent and extensive reporting on prostitution that was the basis for an in-depth look at the profession, which aired in March of 2008."

OK, let's parse this: You'll notice that no where here does it actually imply that this will be an interview about the actual scandal, so one is left to wonder: Is Dupre even asked about Spitzer? A so-called "conditional" interview would be almost unthinkable, but I wonder why ABC doesn't at least say or suggest Spitzer comes up in the interview? Questions, questions...We'll have answers soon. Maybe.

Did you watch last night's interview on "60 Minutes" with Barack Obama - conducted by Steve Kroft and produced by Michael Radutsky and Frank Devine?

Of course you did, and if you didn't I now offer my two cents - make that four cents. It was a huge TV event, seriously, in so many ways that are so obvious that it almost beggars the reasons for pointing them out, but I do nonetheless. The first black American president - there, on "60 Minutes," the nation's premiere news mag. Get beyond the content of that interview and what news may or may not have been parsed. It was just a stunning event in and of itself; a TV moment where you almost felt the ground move beneath your feet.

Here's my insta-analysis:

* Obama was very good. Of course, you say - he's always that way. . But I felt and maybe you did too that he THOUGHT as he spoke, and that the words he used were not dropped as mere recitations of former campaign promises, but a re-affirmation of those. Whatever you think of the wisdom or lack thereof of some of his stands - say, the closing of Guantanamo, and Kroft's obvious failure of followup (um, where do the prisoners go?) - those positions were stated precisely and intelligently.

* Michelle O was good too. ("Good?" Yes, "60" interviews are to a certain extent performances and as everyone well knows, such interviews can be easily botched.) "The White House was beautiful, awe-inspiring...a great honor to live there." Right answer, when you consider that after Nancy Reagan first walked through, she couldn't plan fast enough to demolish the second floor.

* Delayed gratification on new puppy ("gratification?" Not necessarily the right word when it comes to new puppies.) Yeah, much'll be made semi-seriously of the fact that a new dog isn't coming until maybe in the spring, maybe later. First broken promise!! Oh, puhlease...

* Great night for "60 Minutes," now the only serious news mag left on TV. The Only One. (Really? "20/20" had the bearded lady-man on Friday, will have a famous prostitute this Friday, and next week, closing up sweeps, an exclusive interview with Batboy.) "60" was the most watched program on television week before laset, and will likely do same this week. An "old" warhorse that just keeps on establishing its relevancy.

Grade: A

(Photo: AP)

Did you watch last night's interview on "60 Minutes" with Barack Obama - conducted by Steve Kroft and produced by Michael Radutsky and Frank Devine?

Of course you did, and if you didn't I now offer my two cents - make that four cents. It was a huge TV event, seriously, in so many ways that are so obvious that it almost beggars the reasons for pointing them out, but I do nonetheless. The first black American president - there, on "60 Minutes," the nation's premiere news mag. Get beyond the content of that interview and what news may or may not have been parsed. It was just a stunning event in and of itself; a TV moment where you almost felt the ground move beneath your feet.

Here's my insta-analysis:

* Obama was very good. Of course, you say - he's always that way. . But I felt and maybe you did too that he THOUGHT as he spoke, and that the words he used were not dropped as mere recitations of former campaign promises, but a re-affirmation of those. Whatever you think of the wisdom or lack thereof of some of his stands - say, the closing of Guantanamo, and Kroft's obvious failure of followup (um, where do the prisoners go?) - those positions were stated precisely and intelligently.

* Michelle O was good too. ("Good?" Yes, "60" interviews are to a certain extent performances and as everyone well knows, such interviews can be easily botched.) "The White House was beautiful, awe-inspiring...a great honor to live there." Right answer, when you consider that after Nancy Reagan first walked through, she couldn't plan fast enough to demolish the second floor.

* Delayed gratification on new puppy ("gratification?" Not necessarily the right word when it comes to new puppies.) Yeah, much'll be made semi-seriously of the fact that a new dog isn't coming until maybe in the spring, maybe later. First broken promise!! Oh, puhlease...

* Great night for "60 Minutes," now the only serious news mag left on TV. The Only One. (Really? "20/20" had the bearded lady-man on Friday, will have a famous prostitute this Friday, and next week, closing up sweeps, an exclusive interview with Batboy.) "60" was the most watched program on television week before laset, and will likely do same this week. An "old" warhorse that just keeps on establishing its relevancy.

Grade: A

(Photo: AP)

The conga line to Wasilla continues tomorrow on "The Today Show:" Matt Lauer will do the honors this time, asking Sarah Palin (no doubt) multiple choice questions about Africa (and maybe Europe too).

NBC is calling this Sixpack's "first network interview since the election," though I imagine that Fox News - which has her tonight - may take some umbrage with that (what are we, someone at FNC might reasonably ask? A flounder?)

"Today" says the interview will be "extensive" (code word for fun multiple choice questions about Africa) and portions will air on the show Tuesday and Wednesday. Matt's in Alaska as we speak...getting that requisite tour of the Governor manse.

Meanwhile, here's a special bonus: "Today" will release portions and outtakes later tonight, and I will get those to you posthaste.

Well, I have a million impressions from last night's coverage, and I guess I'll burden you with only couple thousand. Let's play the "who won" game.

"Who won": Not numbers, but the smartest coverage, or the coverage that seemed to best capture unfolding history, or the coverage that really gave you, the viewer, that sense that the earth was about to shift, and "so prepare yourself," etc.

So, what you are about to read are flat-out snap impressions and snap judgments - not necessarily deeply informed, or thought out or exhaustive (ha!) but merely hunches.

Generally, coverage was good, but I still can't get over the simple fact that the networks employed a fig leaf for so very long. Everyone knew that the race was absolutely over at 5 when the first exit polls came out, but they still pretended that there was still a possibility that "anything could happen." Of course it couldn't and wouldn't.

Also...why not more people of color as analysts? Of course, Fox has Juan Williams and NBC has Tavis Smiley. But why not more? A truly historic election took place last night, and network coverage would have been deeper and richer had the on-air analysts managed to convey that throughout the evening, and had more of them been black.

Anyway, here's my winner. Drum roll..............


CBS. But by a whisker.

Here's a quick net by net look:

CBS: I love Schieffer and Greenfield, and like the less-is-more style of chatter that these guys engage in; liked Katie too. The coverage didn't feel necessarily "deep" or exhaustive, but it felt fine. Like everyone else, caution ruled. Best part of the night? It actually occurred during the end of a very good edition of "Evening News." There was a two-minute collage of shots from the past two years, cleverly constructed with a soundtrack from The Last Goodnight! The Last Goodnight? I wonder if Katie even knows who they are?

Grade: B

NBC: Brian Williams desperately needed a strong "co-" last night, and he really didn't get one in Tom Brokaw, who seemed to be rarely on-camera. Brokaw was, it seemed, more visible after 11, when the race was over. Through the night, he tried to throw in the rare cautionary "don't rush to judgment" note, but it sounded unconvincing, hollow. Tim Russert was sorely, sorely missed, and last night revealed exactly what a huge contribution the guy gave in political seasons past simply by his absence and clarity. Plus, was it just me or did NBC's visuals look dowdy? The ice rink was more a bauble than constructive - oh great, look down over there by the Sea Grill! California's blue!

Grade: C

ABC: Too leisurely by half. A night where I found myself missing Peter Jennings. Charlie's fine, of course, but the whole thing felt terribly civilized and genteel; the only thing missing was a tea service. Diane (Sawyer)? My God, she looked bummed sitting over there wasting her time with the stupid exit poll stuff. At one point she had to yell over to Rudy Giuliani - yoo hoo, Mister Mayor! Remember me?

Grade: C

Fox: There was something curiously lax about FNC, and I still can't put my finger on it. Brit Hume was good, always is, and this was maybe his last full night on the air. An historic election, and he seemed like, ho hum, another election, another night. Fox's analysts, like Bill Kristol, were fast to jump on the bones of the McCain campaign. Viewers woulda been better served had they laid out the impending doom in the weeks leading up to the election.

Grade: C

MSNBC: I hate to be hard on dear ol' resurgent MS, but I felt like they were speaking in code all night, or using body language to convey the ultimate outcome; Keith Olbermann looked like the cat who swallowed the canary - ready to burst out at any moment, "Take THAT MISTER BUSH SIRRR!!! Your repudiation is AT HAND!" Instead, he looked smug and so did Chris Matthews. The hot new commodity, Rachel Maddow? Honestly, I hardly saw her on air at ALL! Was I simply looking elsewhere when she was on? I suppose so. "Stretch" - you know, David Gregory - tried to be the resident adult here, but even he couldn't seem to resist "it's over Dubya! Revenge is here." I honestly think MSNBC had an opportunity to throw caution to hell last night and say, "look, we've got this exit data and the election is OVER. The first black American president has been elected. WOW!" And then, take it from there. Instead, they played the same kabuki news drama that everyone else did. Too bad.

Grade: D

CNN: CNN and Wolf Blitzer were fine, but lemme tell ya, all that technical wizardry is best suited and designed for a CLOSE election. It's a complete waste in a blowout. John King's magic board is one of the real innovations in TV news coverage, and King - an absolute machine of a reporter - plays it like a violin. But - sorry for the horrific mix of metaphors here - it's like taking a bazooka to a fly. Last night, he teased all this data out of Indiana, which was actually quite helpful early in the evening, but the thing was utterly useless for states where the outcome was obvious. Virginia, Florida, Ohio...the magic board was useless because those states were quickly called by the networks, and that was that. The holographic stuff? Fun but ridiculous.

Grade: B -

I wonder why the Friars Club occasionally invites press coverage of its legendary roasts. Honestly, what's to be gained - for either roasters or roastee? If you roast well, per the Friar's hoary tradition, you have turned the roastee into something resembling a night-stalking beast with multiple sex organs (each of gargantuan proportion) and the libido of a thousand nymphomaniacs.

If you then happen to have, as often seems to be the case, Gilbert Gottfried as one of the presenters (doesn't seem to matter if he knows the victim or not) then the whole affair turns into an orgy of scatology that would humiliate anyone within a thousand feet, including pedestrians walking down 55th Street outside who would hear the shriek and groans from within, left wondering, "who died?"

Well, apparently poor Ann Curry did during Matt Lauer's roast on Friday...

Anyway, press usually shows up to these things, laughs along, then writes a nice adulatory piece about the roastee, with the usual conditional clause that "some of the language was indeed so blue that it couldn't be included in the pages of family newspaper...."

Thank God the Village Voice isn't a family newspaper. Check out Tony Ortega's posting right here, then watch the incredibly lame and tame clip that aired on "Today" this morning. (Fair warning - the Voice post contains some pretty crude language, so you may want to skip - but it does explain that Curry reference during this morning's "Today.")

Ortega, in fact, explains why Ann Curry was "beet-red;" believe me, you would be too, and then call your lawyer...

Here's something that almost makes you wonder -- so THIS is what our courts are up to: Christie Brinkley got a restraining order barring her kids from watching tonight's train wreck of an interview between Babs Walters and Peter Cook.

It's all here, in black and white, in New York Magazine's "Daily Intel":

"Christie Brinkley obtained a restraining order in court yesterday to prevent ex-husband Peter Cook from letting their two children, Jack, 13, and Sailor, 10, watch his much-publicized interview with Barbara Walters tonight on "20/20." Brinkley also insists that Cook, who has custody of the kids for the weekend, keep them away from his Sag Harbor home in order to avoid prying media eyes."

Now, my Questions:

1.) Why would they want to break away from "SpongeBob" f or THIS? (No conceivable reason.)

2.) If police are giving out restraining orders barring kids from watching TV, maybe I could pursue a number of restraining orders myself, right?

3.) Let's see - which kids shows should have restraining orders placed on them? (Anything on Cartoon Network -- but that's a whole network. Can you get restraining orders on networks? )

4.) Why would Cook let the kids see this anyway? Isn't it all a terrific embarrassment? Oh wait, I just answered my own question -- his threshold for humiliation was incinerated MONTHs ago. There is no threshold remaining...

5.) How will Christie keep the kids from watching later on the Internet, which is where kids watch a lot of their TV anyway?

I could go on. But I won't. This is just all too sad ...

Oprah? Are you listening? It's getting to look like you'll be the last one in this conga line. Sean Hannity has Sarah Palin this week. Charlie Gibson had her last week. And now ... Katie Couric will interview her in a week and a half.

(Oh, and Brian? Are you starting to feel like chopped liver? Blame the Bickerson Boys.)

The details - which, in fact, first got out via a Page Six item this morning: Katie'll spend a couple days with Tina Fey ... err, Palin on Sept. 28 and 29, then excerpts will air that Monday, the 29th.

Additional details from the presser: "Coverage of Couric’s travels and interview with the Republican Vice Presidential nominee will include behind-the-scenes access [with] Palin Senator McCain as they campaign in battleground states.

"The interview will take place just days before the Vice Presidential debate between Palin and Senator Joe Biden in St. Louis on Thursday, October 2. Portions of the interview and extended coverage of the trip will be available across all CBS News platforms..."

I guess we'll get the press release next week saying Wolf will have Sarah. Oh wait: The McCainers have a problem with Campbell Brown, so ...

(Getty Images Photo / Frederick M. Brown)

As you're doubtless aware, the chatter of the network TV news biz beyond ABC the last few days has been the Sarah Palin/Charlie Gibson interview - much of it surfeited with envy, annoyance and a grudging admission that once again (dammit) "we've screwed over by a campaign that's decided Big Media - Us! - is a convenient whipping post." NBC didn't get Palin; CBS didn't get Palin; CNN didn't; and neither did Fox - though Fox couldn't very well argue that it was being punished for some real or imagined transgression by the McCain campaign (right?)

Instead, what we've got here is a very simple situation: An untested, marginally knowledgeable, arguably unsuited vice presidential nominee who hardly needs a battery of interviews that will pry and pry and pry at each of those issues - experience, knowledge, suitability - to find some chink, some deviation from one response to the next, which would then provide the next day's lead story. Too many interviews means too many opportunities for mistakes, and "mistakes" always - always - are the grist for more stories, more controversy. So McCain kept it to just one - Charlie Gibson.

Why Charlie? There's been endless chatter about that, too, though no one seems to accept the most obvious explanation - that he is fair, and that he is prepared, and that he doesn't betray a taste for a victim's blood. Yeah, you could say the same thing about Brian but Katie? 'Nother story altogether. Why NOT chose Williams (whose audience and various venues exceed ABC's?) The obvious answer is MSNBC, along with Chris and Keith Bickerson, now thankfully divorced. McCain is hardly going to reward that network.

But I'm also thinking cosmetic: Brian is a young, good-looking guy; Charlie's her elder, a father-figure as opposed to a brother figure. On-screen, it's the same visual composite as McCain-Palin - the old guy with the young attractive woman. That accentuates Palin's youth and vitality; with Brian, she'd be another youthful face; with Katie, another attractive woman. Visually - which is what campaigns think deeply about - the Charlie/Palin combo worked best.

The interview: As expected, Charlie was respectful, if not kind. He seemed at times the professor, prodding his student for the answer he knew she must know, but really didn't. The Bush doctrine? An unintentionally hilarious moment, when the student suddenly realized the prof tossed her a question she hadn't crammed for. It was almost a Ralph Kramden hum-a-na-hum-an-a-hum-a-na moment, but she smiled, recovered, and guessed at what she thought a "doctrine" might be. Charlie patiently explained what it was, but the cat was out of the bag - she didn't know. The other answers - Russia, Georgia, Iran, Israel? She did just fine, although you got the sense that she practiced hard to pronounce the name "Saakashvili" and this beaut - "nucular weapons... given to those hands of Ahmadinejad" - is a keeper. That line about most veeps never having met heads of state? Charlie blew that one - he should have known, as a longtime Capitol Hill reporter, that that was bogus - of course many, if not most, have. Her preparedness for the presidency? Obvious question and well-asked, and I thought her answer was certainly appropriate, and certainly expected (however, I would have loved if she had parroted Letterman's line the other night, that "George W. Bush had set the bar so low that of course I can!" Hey, humor never hurt a candidate, right?)

There's a lot more of this interview, and believe me, we'll see outtakes over and over and over. But so far, neither candidate nor interviewer have done anything they'll live to regret.

(Pix: Getty Images)

ABC News just released a few additional details on the big Charles Gibson/Sarah Palin debriefing - the only major network interview the McCain campaign's agreed to. The headlline: Outtakes of the interview will be EVERYWHERE on ABC Thursday and Friday.

Says ABC, "The first excerpts will air on Thursday’s 'World News with Charles Gibson' and 'Nightline,' followed by 'Good Morning America,' 'World News,' '20/20' and 'Nightline' on Friday. Additional portions will air across ABC News’ platforms, including ABC News Radio, ABC News NOW, ABCNEWS.com, and ABC NewsOne beginning Thursday."

The interview is, of course, a big deal and not for exclusivity reasons alone; Palin remains a cipher to most and Oprah's refusal to even have her on her show until after the election has even made the entire process a controversial one. Gibson - handed one of the biggest scoops of his career- has already been made out to be a patsy in some corners of the all-knowing-all-seeing blogosphere (Josh Marshall of "TPM" has declaimed that it will be "unwatchable.")

My sense: It'll be fine. Gibson's actually a pretty good interviewer - fair, down the middle, no tricky questions. He can be a softie, too - some of the interviews with Hillary during the campaign were marshmallows, but some were not. In any event, viewers'll know a lot more about the woman from Wasilla by Friday than they do now...

Another thing to keep in mind: This interview will fall on Sept. 11, and I'm sure the coincidence hasn't escaped the notice of the Mc Campaign, which perhaps even orchestrated the timing. Knowing Charlie's in Alaska through the middle of this week for the interview, they had to know that outtakes would air on Nine Eleven. Why important? Because Palin automatically now becomes allied with one of the most important dates in modern history in the eyes and minds of viewers.

Of that hurricane which dominated news coverage over the long weekend, sent a thousand TV reporters south, and an equal number of anchors, hair stylists, rain gear accessory experts (very nice Burberry outerwear, Brian!), and (of course) heavy-weather makeup specialists to New Orleans?

Nevermind.

Instead, the real "storm" was taking place a thousand or so miles north - I borrowed this tired and much-used weekend cliche from those wordsmiths at AOL, "Gustav Fades, A New Storm Looms."

What are ya gonna do? I actually thought the networks did a pretty good job last night, considering there was nothing to report on. Question: How do you fill an hour of hurricane specials when there's not even any wind kicking up to add some desperately requisite and much-absent drama? You go to pregnancy and teen experts who talk about the issue of teen pregnancy, and (of course) borrow some clips from "Juno" just to make it a little more "culturally relevant."

The networks - ABC, CBS and NBC - offered their dueling poly specialists - former party political consultants now masquerading as "objective political experts" - about the impact on Minneapolis of Hurricane Bristol, now churning from the west from stormy Alaska and expected to strike the Twin Cities tonight at around 8. These guys didn't say much that you couldn't have said, but I was struck by the fact that the Republican expert always seemed to have a very serious look on his/her face, while the Democrat seemed very pleased.

My only question: I didn't hear the two words uttered last night that I would have expected to have received instant and sudden currency...the words that would have the big league anchors googling from their Blackberries....

Thomas Eagleton. I don't even think Katie (and certainly not Brian) were even born when those were the most controversial words in the land. (Charlie reported the story...)

I await the Eagleton references tonight. Sure as hell will beat those tired Ellen Page shots.

There will be - and effectively has been the last few hours - a pretty amazing concentration of network news talent down in New Orleans as Gustav approaches. Herewith some of the full coverage plans now and at least over the next 24 hours, if you're tracking network news crews. What's notable in this rush to cover? That so many people - including WilliamsCouricGibson - will be in New Orleans that there will hardly be anyone around to cover the Twin Cities convention. The RNC has no choice but to scale back or postpone altogether if they hope to get ANY coverage this week.

The press release facts, beginning with NBC:

NBC: "Nightly News" Anchor and Managing Editor, Brian Williams will report live from the region beginning this evening with an exclusive interview with Presidential
hopeful Senator John McCain. NBC News' Ann Curry, Lester Holt, Al Roker and a team of correspondents including Contessa Brewer, Don Teague, Janet Shamlian, Kerry Sanders, Lee Cowan, Mark Potter, Mary Murray, Michelle Kosinski, and others, will also be on location. Coverage will extend across MSNBC, and the networks of NBC News will benefit from Weather Plus and a preliminary agreement with The Weather Channel by utilizing their expert teams on and off air.

NBC News' Tom Brokaw will head up the network's coverage of the RNC live from St. Paul. He will be joined by the network's political team of Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, David Gregory, John Yang, Luke Russert, Kelly O'Donnell, Mike Taibbi, Savannah Guthrie, Tom Costello, among others.

CBS: CBS Evening News Anchor and Managing Editor Katie Couric will report from the Gulf coast beginning tomorrow ...at 6:30...CBS News Correspondents Cynthia Bowers, Randall Pinkston, Byron Pitts, Dave Price, Tracy Smithari Sreenivasan will report from the area for all CBS News broadcasts....Harry Smith will anchor from the area beginning tomorrow morning (7:00-9:00 PM, ET/PT), along with Earrly Show weather anchor Dave Price...CBS News’ live Republican National Convention primetime specials—Monday, Sept. 1 through Thursday, Sept. 4 (10:00-11:00 PM, ET; check local listings) will include coverage of both the hurricane and the RNC....(Sunday's) EN will be anchored by Russ Mitchell from New York, with Bob Schieffer contributing from St. Paul.

ABC: As Hurricane Gustav nears the Gulf Coast, ABC News continues to bring viewers up-to-the-minute reports from the storm front. This evening, "World News" anchor Charles Gibson will report live from New Orleans - just hours before the storm is expected to hit. Further plans to be announced as news develops.

ABC News will continue to report from the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN. "This Week" host and Chief Washington Correspondent, George Stephanopoulos, will anchor and report from the RNC and ABC News correspondent David Wright - who has been covering the McCain campaign for ABC News - will continue to report from the trail for all ABC News broadcasts and platforms.

On Monday, September 1, "GMA" weather and news anchors, Sam Champion and Chris Cuomo, will bring morning viewers reports on Hurricane Gustav and the damage and destruction that Hurricane Gustav is expected to bring to the Gulf Coast area during the morning broadcast. In addition to reports on the ground, co-anchors Diane Sawyer and Robin Roberts will anchor the morning Labor Day broadcast from Times Square Studios in New York.

ABC News will have complete coverage from throughout the New Orleans, Mississippi, Texas and Florida regions with reports from ABC News anchors and correspondents, including: Bill Weir; Dan Harris; David Kerley; Jeffrey Kofman; Terry McCarthy; Steve Osunsami; Barbara Pinto and Mike von Fremd.

"Nightline" co-anchor, Terry Moran, will also anchor the evening news broadcast live from New Orleans with reports on the storm's latest developments.

As long rumored - and officially reported as fact in the pages of this morning's Times - MSNBC has named Rachel Maddow host and full time occupant of what has become the catbird 9 p.m. hour, following Keith Olbermann and his "Countdown." Here's the line from the press release: "'The Rachel Maddow Show' will feature Maddow's take on the biggest stories of the day, political and otherwise, including lively debate with guests from all sides of the issues, in-depth analysis and stories no other shows in cable news will cover. .." Maddow's been a rising star at rising MS for some time now, so this is no surprise though it woulda been a huge surprise if this didn't come her way. Launch is Sept. 8.

Former White House communications dude Dan Bartlett is about to become CBS News' newest political talking head dude - that is, "consultant." He joins Dem Joe Trippi in the spin, errrr, commentary booth.

Per CBS, he'll "provide on-air analysis on a variety of political issues, including at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions and beyond. The appointment is effective immediately. He joins Joe Trippi in that role for CBS News."

As you know, Barlett was top PR man for President Bush, and I think the most common phrases in his lexicon were:

"...That simply is not true."

And, "I don't understand the motivation of Mr. [name an ex-Bush official to publish a damning account of the Bush Presidency] other than financial."

And, "The war in Iraq is going very well."

There may be others but these are the ones that come immediately to mind.

I don't know about you, but I always find it amusing and somewhat troubling too when any top official - be he/she Democrat or Republican, be he Barlett or Howard Wolfson - leaves a job where they were in charge of fibbing or to be kind, truth stretching of monstrous proportions, for a well-paying news gig in which they're supposed to finally utter words bearing some semblance of veracity.

(Photo: ABC News.)

This just announced by the Commission on Presidential Debates: The peerless Bob Schieffer will moderate a "third and final debate" between the two presidential candidates.

You will note: The peerless Katie Couric will not be doing the honors.

It'll be hosted at Hofstra on Wednesday, Oct. 15. Here are the other details: 90 minutes long, eight segments, each segment 10 minutes long, then Schieffer will "facilitate conversation" between both candidates.

Why NOT Katie? Good question, though Schieffer has done this before, and done it exceedingly well, so his choice is certainly a reasonable one. Katie had been in line to moderate one on April 27 from North Carolina, but it was canceled last minute, making her the only one of the Three Majors to miss out on grilling the presumptives and would-be presumptives. Meanwhile, ABC got shut out entirely this time - a real slap, and one can speculate as to why, but its last debate was roundly panned. Jim Lehrer will moderate the Sept. 26 debate at Ole Miss, and Tom Brokaw will moderate NBC's Oct. 7 debate in Nashville.

You can bet everyone at the three major news divisions for ABC, CBS and (especially) NBC are devouring that sensational story in the LATimes about the biodefense worker in Maryland who committed suicide just as the FBI was about to charge him in the string of those 2001 anthrax attacks. Reason: They were the ones attacked. Letters, as you recall, were also mailed to anchors at the major networks and even a tabloid newspaper in Fla. (The Sun, where a photo editor who came in contact with the stuff actually died...) NBC's case was most sensational because Tom Brokaw's longtime assistant, Erin O'Connor, handled the letter and became ill and every employee at NBC News was tested; Casey Chamberlain, another NBC Newser, got sick too, and here's her story; the seven-month old son of an ABC producer became sick, and Claire Fletcher, one of Dan Rather's assistants, was treated too. Needless to say, the anthrax attacks rattled the networks - emotionally and professionally - just about as much as Nine Eleven, which happened just weeks earlier. Now...they may never have answers...

Remember Luke Russert? Of course you do: He's the poised and articulate son of Tim Russert and the kid who spoke so movingly at his father's memorial service. He now has a job working for...guesses?....go ahead, take a while stab at this...come on...You can do it...

That's right: He's joined NBC News as "correspondent at large" covering youth issues during the network's coverge of the 2008 political conventions. Why not Luke? He's obviously a smart chip off the old block although there was a little controversy about this a couple of days ago when rumors began to spread. Apparently he was photograhed with a bunch of young ladies in a hot tube (all in bathing suits) and the shot was thus pasted onto a facebook or something or other. Apparently some people were shocked, shocked, that such things happen in college.... (He went to BC.)

"I am extremely humbled and grateful that NBC News is giving me this opportunity," he said in a statement. "I believe youth issues will continue to play a significant role during this election and I want to do my part to report them honestly and objectively."

This is, by the way, a fulltime gig. An NBC spokeswoman just emailed to say "he will continue to work with NBC News beyond the election as a correspondent at large, focusing on youth issues."

NBC, meanwhile, said it'll devote a total of 200 hours of coverage (across all networks) to the convents.

Mark Whitaker, well-known member of the D.C. chattering class, longtime Newsweek editor and an NBC News exec last coupla years, was named NBC Washington bureau chief a little while ago. Significance thereof? Tim Russert, who died in June of a heart attack, was the longtime NBC News D.C. bureau chief and invested this gig with a fair amount of symbolism (internally at NBC News) and a fair amount of power as well. Said Mark in a statement, "I am honored and humbled to succeed Tim..."

Do you know who Lara Logan is? You should - she's a heckuva courageous reporter for CBS News who has done stand-out work for the network from Iraq and Afghanistan for years. (She's also a former South African model whom some at CBS News initially viewed with considerable suspicion because they assumed she was just another pretty face, which, of course, she wasn't...) She's leaving Iraq, and has just been named the network's chief foreign affairs correspondent. Will be based in D.C.

“Lara is among the most talented and respected journalists in our industry,” said CBS News boss Sean McManus. “She is extraordinarily determined and courageous, but never fails to see and report the human side of conflict, including some of the most horrific stories of our time. Lara’s deep and varied experience around the world over the past 17 years positions her remarkably well for covering this expanded beat, which she will handle with the same fervor and dedication that our viewers have come to expect.” She joined CBS six years ago.

Interesting aside: on a recent "Daily Show" appearance, she was harshly critical of U.S. TV's - and by association, CBS's - dramatic reduction of news from Iraq. She joked - or was this a joke? - about having to point an RPG at her news bosses to force them to air her stuff...

Tom Brokaw, the last of the major anchors who symbolized the dominance of the Big Three networks news divisions for over two decades, is about the assume the last great ride of his distinguished career: NBC has named him moderator of "Meet the Press."

The post is effectively a temporary one - he'll hold down the job that Tim Russert came to represent during his 17-year reign before his death at age 58 a little over a week ago through inauguration, NBC announced. At that point the network will name - in all likelihood - a permanent successor. Of course, if Brokaw's ratings soar....

I suggested this scenario on Monday, thinking of seven solid reasons why Brokaw should be named the replacement, until at least inauguration. Here's the link, and scroll up if you want to see what I had to say, or check out these comments. They're fascinating and informed, and readers didn't exactly stand and salute my suggestion. I suspect they reflect a little of the dialogue that went on internally at NBC during this last painful week. Nevertheless, Brokaw is absolutely the best person for this job. NBC News - and really, the entire industry - is lucky to have him.

Here's the press release, just over an hour old:

"Beginning on Sunday, June 29, NBC News' Tom Brokaw will serve as moderator of "Meet the Press" through the 2008 presidential election. The broadcast will continue to originate from the NBC News Bureau in Washington D.C. The announcement was made today by NBC News President Steve Capus.

"A lot has been said in recent days about what 'Meet the Press' means to NBC News and to the nation," said Capus. "To have someone of Tom's stature step up and dedicate himself to ensuring its ongoing success is not only a testament to his loyalty to Tim, but his enduring commitment to NBC News and our viewers."

"Some of my best memories from covering the last several presidential elections have included working closely with Tom, so I know just how lucky we are to have him step in as moderator for 'Meet the Press,'" said executive producer Betsy Fischer. "His intellect, focus and calming presence is exactly what we need to move forward smartly and remain the No. 1 public affairs show on television as we head into one of the most pivotal elections in our nation's history."

For his part, Brokaw said, "I've been appearing on 'Meet the Press' since the days of Watergate when it was moderated by Lawrence E. Spivak right through the distinguished tenure of my great friend, Tim Russert, so I feel right at home. Tim made 'Meet the Press' the center of the universe for informative and lively discussions of public affairs, particularly the exciting 2008 campaign for president, and I intend to continue that commitment to our viewers."

Betsy Fischer is the executive producer and Michelle Jaconi and Rebecca Samuels are the producers of "Meet the Press," which is seen on the NBC Television Network from 9-10 a.m. ET in most markets. In Washington D.C. and New York City, the broadcast is seen from 10:30-11:30 a.m. ET. Please check local listings or the "Meet the Press" website www.mtp.msnbc.com) for television and radio broadcast times in your area.

(Photo: Andy Ryan / Corbis for Time Most Influential)

I got some reaction to a post yesterday about why Tom Brokaw would be the best person on the planet to replace Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," and - as usual - much of it proved why the bloggees are better informed than the blogger. (That's not an observation I plan to share any time soon with my bosses.)

However ... I still strongly believe Brokaw's the best guy, but as a temporary measure only. Let this transition work out over the next seven, eight months. Have stand-ins stand-in for Brokaw ... get a sense of who's most comfortable there ... and groom the new man or woman slowly and carefully, just as NBC - flawlessly, in my opinion - groomed Brian Williams. There should be no rush here, no panic; only a deliberative, intelligent process.

Meanwhile, allow me to address two candidates whose names came up. These are the two likely front-runners and probably should be. First, Gwen Ifill. She's familiar with the show, been there/done that dozens of times, knows Washington intimately, has great credibility, is a first-rate journalist.

Only one significant problem: She's already got a job, as host of "Washington Week." One does not stand up and walk out on a gig like this simply because something else beckons, even if it IS "MTP."

Next, David Gregory. Let me be perfectly clear, my friends. Even though yon David has a lean and hungry look, he's very good. He's not a pleasant Harvey milquetoast guy, and heaven knows, local TV (and all of TV) has enough of those already. Yeah, he won't win any popularity contests in the newsroom and I hear D.C. waitresses have joined into a secret pact to mix up his orders from now on ... but this ISN'T a popularity contest.

Now, if you're still with me, watch this clip, and then I'll offer my final observation. (It's grainy and old, but the only one I could find of this famous encounter, so sorry about that) ...

OK, that's it! That's what I like best about David Gregory. He told this windbag of a press secretary - who sounded like a manure salesman with a mouth full of samples - that he just wanted a yes or no answer. Instead, what does said windbag do? Go out and write a book and tell the world what a lousy president we've got and that as press secretary he spun fabulous tales and fallacious fibs.

Gregory knew this, and just wanted a yes or no answer. I like the guy's spirit, like his drive, like his bull-in-china-shop bedside manners, like his evident anger, like his passion (even though I'm not entirely certain I like HIM.)

Still: Brokaw for the transition period.

Tom Brokaw, the next moderator of "Meet the Press?"

Yes, the next moderator. As always, NBC News is luckiest news division - despite what happened last Friday just before 2 p.m. - simply by virtue of having Brokaw on its payroll. Once again, duty calls and if I know Brokaw, and I think I do, he'll answer that call as he's done so many times before.

There are so many reasons why Tom Brokaw should be the next moderator of "Meet the Press" - at least on what might be called a "transitional basis" - that the best way to lay them out is a list, so here goes.

1.) Soothing for viewers AND the network: The death of Tim Russert is, like any death, disruptive, but this one was profoundly so. Russert manned this program for seventeen years and manned it brilliantly. He WAS the face of Sunday morning, to a large degree, and WAS the face of NBC's political coverage. As a result, NBC needs a new face that is also profoundly familiar and trusted. There's only one at NBC which comes to mind.

2.) Brokaw knows the territory. He, like Russert, is an encyclopedia of political fact and trivia, so much so that he's had to bat down rumors for literally decades that he would run for office from home state South Dakota. Moreover, Brokaw has worked by Russert's side, on-screen and off, for nearly twenty-five years. No one knows the rhythm of this coverage better than Brokaw.

3.) No one else is ready. This is beyond self-evident. Of course, there will be the insta-rumor that Katie Couric is up for the gig, but any whiff of positioning on her part will kill this possibility so quickly that heads will spin. Yes, NBCU topper Jeff Zucker wants her back at NBC, or so I believe, and maybe for a role at MSNBC. Katie wants the 9 p.m. "Live" slot on CNN - that I believe too. Now, "Meet the Press" will be considered almost a certainty too. But she won't be back, if ever, at NBC until next year. NBC needs someone next week. The others? Chris Matthews? Never ready for this job - he's too cable. David Gregory? Smart guy and first-rate interviewer, while his agent would dearly love him to replace Matt Lauer one of these days. I say - as good as he is - the guy's got "trust" issues with viewers who are pretty good at reading faces on the tube. Gregory's not ready for this job, and maybe never. Brian Williams? No. Absolutely, no. Viewers - and NBC staffers - will see it as a part time gig for him, and one to which he will devote neither all his time nor energy. He'll fly down to Washington on Fridays, and back to NYC on Sundays; this schedule would devalue his role at "Nightly," and you can't have that.

4.) He'll answer the call. I think and believe Brokaw will. He'll need assurance, and I'm sure get it, that this is only a temporary measure, say for six months or at most a year. He'll get the assurance too that NBC will offer try-outs to others, so that someone else will be ready to step in the moment he's ready to move aside. He won't want this forever, but maybe he'll grow into it. I've always believed - and still do - that Brokaw needs more work, even though his doc unit keeps him very busy. On some level, one that even he won't admit to, he misses the "Nightly" tonic - the stardom, influence, excitement, rush. Brokaw, meanwhile, is a terrific multi-tasker in the game of life: He can work very hard, and play pretty much the same way. (His idea of "play," of course, is running the rapids in some wild river out west.) This shouldn't be a major pull for him, again if it lasts only through election.

5.) Brokaw will get the bigshots to appear. Sure - you say - anyone would wanna come on "Meet." But what about the other Sunday shows? They compete for guests too, and without a major player at the helm of "MTP," those guests may be more disposed to appearing on ABC or CBS. With the eminence at the helm - that would be Tom - "MTP" will be better positioned to meet this immediate challenge.

6.) Brokaw will be handling much political coverage through November anyway - this will make him both sharper, and give the network more gravitas in the process, much as David Brinkley did for ABC News. So, Tom as anchor of "MTP" through inauguration, and THEN hand-off to someone else.

7.) Finally, Brokaw is the choice that will most completely, and most deeply, honor Russert. Yes, I leave this until last, even though it may be the most important reason of them all. There is only a handful of on-air people left in this business who exemplify the glory of the Big Three network news divisions of decades past. Bob Schieffer is one. Russert was another. And Brokaw is the last. It's a very abbreviated list for the simple reason that the heavyweights are all gone. Even Mike Wallace will likely NEVER appear on the air again. "Meet the Press" is network television's oldest program, born in the half-light of this industry's creation. It crept out of the primordial ooze, so to speak, and became, instantly, a vitally important program in news and politics. Russert intuitively believed that, consciously understood it, and adjusted his professional bearing accordingly to meet that vital role. This is why Russert was so successful, and why the mourning that we now see on NBC's air (and elsewhere) is so genuine. There's only one person who similarly understands "Meet the Press's" role and who can meet it accordingly, and imbue it with the symbolism that it so richly deserves. You know by now who that person is.

Well, Tom. What's your answer?

Tom Brokaw, the next moderator of "Meet the Press?"

Yes, the next moderator. As always, NBC News is luckiest news division - despite what happened last Friday just before 2 p.m. - simply by virtue of having Brokaw on its payroll. Once again, duty calls and if I know Brokaw, and I think I do, he'll answer that call as he's done so many times before.

There are so many reasons why Tom Brokaw should be the next moderator of "Meet the Press" - at least on what might be called a "transitional basis" - that the best way to lay them out is a list, so here goes.

1.) Soothing for viewers AND the network: The death of Tim Russert is, like any death, disruptive, but this one was profoundly so. Russert manned this program for seventeen years and manned it brilliantly. He WAS the face of Sunday morning, to a large degree, and WAS the face of NBC's political coverage. As a result, NBC needs a new face that is also profoundly familiar and trusted. There's only one at NBC which comes to mind.

2.) Brokaw knows the territory. He, like Russert, is an encyclopedia of political fact and trivia, so much so that he's had to bat down rumors for literally decades that he would run for office from home state South Dakota. Moreover, Brokaw has worked by Russert's side, on-screen and off, for nearly twenty-five years. No one knows the rhythm of this coverage better than Brokaw.

3.) No one else is ready. This is beyond self-evident. Of course, there will be the insta-rumor that Katie Couric is up for the gig, but any whiff of positioning on her part will kill this possibility so quickly that heads will spin. Yes, NBCU topper Jeff Zucker wants her back at NBC, or so I believe, and maybe for a role at MSNBC. Katie wants the 9 p.m. "Live" slot on CNN - that I believe too. Now, "Meet the Press" will be considered almost a certainty too. But she won't be back, if ever, at NBC until next year. NBC needs someone next week. The others? Chris Matthews? Never ready for this job - he's too cable. David Gregory? Smart guy and first-rate interviewer, while his agent would dearly love him to replace Matt Lauer one of these days. I say - as good as he is - the guy's got "trust" issues with viewers who are pretty good at reading faces on the tube. Gregory's not ready for this job, and maybe never. Brian Williams? No. Absolutely, no. Viewers - and NBC staffers - will see it as a part time gig for him, and one to which he will devote neither all his time nor energy. He'll fly down to Washington on Fridays, and back to NYC on Sundays; this schedule would devalue his role at "Nightly," and you can't have that.

4.) He'll answer the call. I think and believe Brokaw will. He'll need assurance, and I'm sure get it, that this is only a temporary measure, say for six months or at most a year. He'll get the assurance too that NBC will offer try-outs to others, so that someone else will be ready to step in the moment he's ready to move aside. He won't want this forever, but maybe he'll grow into it. I've always believed - and still do - that Brokaw needs more work, even though his doc unit keeps him very busy. On some level, one that even he won't admit to, he misses the "Nightly" tonic - the stardom, influence, excitement, rush. Brokaw, meanwhile, is a terrific multi-tasker in the game of life: He can work very hard, and play pretty much the same way. (His idea of "play," of course, is running the rapids in some wild river out west.) This shouldn't be a major pull for him, again if it lasts only through election.

5.) Brokaw will get the bigshots to appear. Sure - you say - anyone would wanna come on "Meet." But what about the other Sunday shows? They compete for guests too, and without a major player at the helm of "MTP," those guests may be more disposed to appearing on ABC or CBS. With the eminence at the helm - that would be Tom - "MTP" will be better positioned to meet this immediate challenge.

6.) Brokaw will be handling much political coverage through November anyway - this will make him both sharper, and give the network more gravitas in the process, much as David Brinkley did for ABC News. So, Tom as anchor of "MTP" through inauguration, and THEN hand-off to someone else.

7.) Finally, Brokaw is the choice that will most completely, and most deeply, honor Russert. Yes, I leave this until last, even though it may be the most important reason of them all. There is only a handful of on-air people left in this business who exemplify the glory of the Big Three network news divisions of decades past. Bob Schieffer is one. Russert was another. And Brokaw is the last. It's a very abbreviated list for the simple reason that the heavyweights are all gone. Even Mike Wallace will likely NEVER appear on the air again. "Meet the Press" is network television's oldest program, born in the half-light of this industry's creation. It crept out of the primordial ooze, so to speak, and became, instantly, a vitally important program in news and politics. Russert intuitively believed that, consciously understood it, and adjusted his professional bearing accordingly to meet that vital role. This is why Russert was so successful, and why the mourning that we now see on NBC's air (and elsewhere) is so genuine. There's only one person who similarly understands "Meet the Press's" role and who can meet it accordingly, and imbue it with the symbolism that it so richly deserves. You know by now who that person is.

Well, Tom. What's your answer?

Tim Russert's personal physician offered an informative debrief of what happened to the "Meet the Press" moderator yesterday just before 2 p.m. In case you missed this last night, here it is again. It's well worth watching for a whole host of reasons, but helps explain why this death was just so sudden - and shocking.

Tim Russert, one of the most powerful news executives in television who headlined what is arguably one of the industry's most powerful and influential programs - "Meet the Press" - has died. NBC News has broken into regular programming and is right at this moment airing tributes on MSNBC. "Our friend was 58 years old," says Brian Williams. "We cannot believe that he's gone," said Tom Brokaw, his voice breaking.

Buffalo-born and intimately associated with that city and its Bills, which he loved, Russert was first a politician before he was a journalist - counsel to Governor Mario Cuomo in 1983 to 1984 and chief of staff to Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan from 1977 to 1982. He went to NBC in '84 and later became Washington bureau chief. Over those years, Russert was a storied figure at NBC - he was considered a shrewd inside operator, but also probably one of the most effective news executives at NBC over the last twenty years. He was hugely respected there - as legendary a figure as a suit could be - and feared as well. He ran the Washington bureau - reputedly - as his own separate fiefdom from New York headquarters, which was fine with the big staff there - wary of New York interference and thanks to Russert, it became a singularly powerful news organization in its own right. While CBS News' Washington presence declined, NBC's influence grew - again, all thanks to Russert, who became a genuine Beltway power-broker as a result.

But here was Russert's greatest contribution: He re-created and revivified "Meet the Press," which had grown tired and moribund, and that was reflected in ratings. By the time he got there, the once mighty "Press" had sunk to third place, while the hot Sunday morning show was over on LaSalle Avenue at ABC - where David Brinkley, Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson held forth. Russert brought a unique style to "Press" - aggressive and comprehensive. He would ask a question, and then - just so the subject of his inquisition didn't wiggle away - he'd throw up a quote from a newspaper article on the screen, which would either offer support to his question, or force the senator or congressman or what-have-you to address the fact on screen.

Before long, "Press" was considered sport TV as much as informational TV - a Sunday destination where spin-meisters would meet a brick wall thrown up by Russert. "There was nothing more chilling than watching Tim walk in with those two thick folders under his arm," said David Axelrod - Barack Obama's chief media strategist on CNN a little while ago. "You always spent a little extra time preparing for him. You knew your candidate was going to be put through the paces on that show," who added: "He also gave you a chance to answer. He was tough but he was fair."

But maybe Russert's most indelible moment was during the Florida primaries - one of the longest nights in TV news history, or - let's say - one of the most sweat-inducing. Through that night, Russert - and through many other nights leading up to the historic primary - Russert scribbled figures on a chalk board, in which he tabulated delegates or votes; that night, he scribbled "Florida, Florida, Florida," meaning this was the state where an election, and history, were about to be made. It was one of the most prescient and dramatic moments of the 2000 race.

There's a lot lot more to say, but here's a personal note: I just got off the phone with chief Pentagon correspondent, Jim Miklaszewski: "Everybody is just devastated," he said. "As hardbitten as we all are, we can't talk to each other without breaking down. This is a huge personal loss to everyone at NBC. He was the real deal."

Here are some other quotes that came over the transom:

"This is a loss for the entire nation," said Steve Capus, NBC News president. Everyone at NBC News is in shock and absolutely devastated. He was our respected colleague, mentor, and dear friend. Words can not express our heartbreak. Our thoughts and prayers are with Maureen,
Luke, Big Russ and all of Tim’s family. "

"We are heartbroken at the sudden passing of Tim Russert," said NBCUNI boss, Steve Capus. "We have lost a beloved member of our NBC Universal family and the news world has lost one of its finest. The enormity of this loss cannot be overstated. More than a journalist,
Tim was a remarkable family man. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife,
Maureen, their son, Luke, and Tim’s entire extended family."

.

Well, ya missed last night's "Evening News" and that's too bad 'cause Katie (again) came to Hill's defense; she decried the media's sexist coverage of the candidate, etc., saying that...well, watch for yourself. But I wonder: Did Katie miss the whole point? Wasn't the media - rightfully - astounded at a campaign that refused to end, even when the end was a foregone conclusion? And weren't the absolutely harshest critics WOMEN?! I'm talking Maureen Dowd (NYT) and Peggy Noonan (WSJ). Go ahead, Katie. Read what they had to say. (Question: Can women be sexist when discussing other women? I suppose, but...) Anyway, I've gotta run. Rach is on the other line. We're talking about last night's brilliant performance...

CBS News should be announcing...oh...any minute now...that the great Bob Schieffer has just signed a new contract that'll keep him at the network for at least four more years - as host of "Face the Nation."

This is a big turnaround from a year ago when Bob had pretty much decided to get out while the going was good. He had planned to retire, until CBS News boss Sean McManus asked him to stay past inauguration.

This - of course - immediately set up speculation by TV writers, who added two and two together and came up with seven (we write about TV; we can't add). Aha! (we mused.) This could mean Bob will be taking over when Katie Couric leaves "Evening News," as has been reported (and re-reported) so often that it'll be huge news if she stays.

In any event, I asked Bob about the new contract and whether this means a little show with the initials "EN" is in his future. Said he:

"This is just about my continuing role at 'Face the Nation.' Covering Washington is still more fun than anything I know, so when Sean asked me to stay around, it was hard to say no."

(Above, Bob, courtesy the New York Observer)

Oh what fun they're having at CBS News these days. And we in the TV press, likewise.

But enough fun. I now direct your attention over to TVNewser.com which has been running a very interesting poll. It asks readers to predict who will replace Katie, assuming she leaves as the blood-in-the-water-loving press would have you believe.

What's so interesting? People seem to think -- and by a wide margin -- that ANDERSON COOPER is the guy. Problem is, AC's locked into a long-term contract at CNN, which has allowed him to moonlight on "60 Minutes," although it might be stretching the definition of "moonlighting" if it allows him to anchor "Evening News" as well.

Interesting, smart poll. Check it out here.

Talked to someone late yesterday who's plugged into the CBS rumor mill, and one thought making the rounds is that Katie could be gone long before the various news reports have her gone. Conventional wisdom now stands that Katie stays through inauguration, and then leaves. But the crush of recent press may force the issue sooner, and the standout line in today's New York Times wrap is "in a few weeks."

A few weeks? At the outset of the May sweeps? Maybe even just in time for the Pennsylvania primary (April 22) which should be one of the biggest stories of the political season?

It's certainly possible, but maybe it's also worthwhile keeping a couple of thoughts in mind. If Katie's forced out, then CBS has to eat the balance of her contract, which is around $40 million. That's a far worse outcome than anyone at CBS wants to contemplate. In other words, this decision may pretty much be in Katie's hands - assuming CBS doesn't believe the recent press has caused so much damage to her and the franchise that it's WORTH $40 million to cut bait.

Another consideration: Who would replace her? It now seems pretty obvious that the network prevailed upon Bob Schieffer to postpone his retirement for just this reason. If Katie goes, the call will go out to Bob.

And another consideration still: How will he feel about that? Ever the trooper, he gracefully bowed out when Katie came aboard a couple years, yet I always believed that this was a reluctant exit. He'd never admit it, but Schieffer knew his stint was a success, knew he should have been in the chair years earlier, but out of deference to his friend, Dan Rather, never forced the issue. Schieffer had something to prove - that he had the chops and talent to be the heir to Cronkite - yet he never got the chance to fully prove it.

It was - if you will - an instance of anchor interrupted.

Now he'll be asked to save the franchise once again, knowing full well that he'll be shuffled aside as soon as they get the Next Anchor of "Evening News" (assuming they don't cancel the program outright.)

Schieffer, I imagine, has complicated feelings about this whole situation right about now.

Now that the jackals of the press - me! - have poor Katie Couric out the door, we are left with this inconvenient question: Who, ummm, will replace her?

I pondered that briefly this morning, while putting a few nails in the coffin of "Evening News," but here's one suggestion that occurred to me (or rather a friend more thoughtful on these matters:)

What about Ted?

I speak of Koppel, who disappeared into the bowels of the Discovery Channel two years ago and has been in the witness protection program ever since. (No, really, he's done a bunch of thoughtful documentaries, and remains pretty much in the game.)

What about Ted? Has anyone called him. Do they know what he's thinking? Is he on ANYONE'S radar at CBS? There are advantages (and disadvantages, perhaps) and I lay them out now:

1.) He's the right demographic. That's right - white male of advanced middle age. Rather elderly people watch these newscasts, and they sometimes prefer same in their anchors; sometimes, but not necessarily, with Brian Williams being the obvious exception.

2.) He's got that anchorly mien - the voice, the eyes, the head, the hair. It's a compleat anchor package, if you will, but not a compleat Ron Burgundy blow-dried anchor package.

3.) He's done it all. Ted is embued with almost exactly 30 years of big-league-anchor-experience; "Nightline" was birthed during the Iranian hostage crisis, and he didn't miss much of a stride over those thirty years (though he had plenty of experience, at State, and elsewhere at ABC News.)

4.) He could come cheap. No $15 million anchor man here! Pay his production company a million bucks a year, and all he has to do is read a telePrompter every night for a half hour (plus another half hour for the west coast feed.) I don't think Ted is greedy, honestly. (I don't think Katie is either, but ...)

Disadvantages:

1.) He's not off the CBS News farm. This is important: To be hugely successful at CBS News, one must have spent the vast bulk of one's career there; there are a couple of exceptions (sure, Mike Wallace worked for ABC back in the dark ages), but for the most part this holds true. CBS News has a unique culture - to a certain extent, it is bottled up and walled off; David Burke, a one-time news president and transplant from ABC, once told someone he couldn't understand the place - there were metaphoric walls everywhere that he didn't know how to get around. He didn't last any time at all. CBS News is not kind to outsiders - that's just the way it is - and Ted would be an outsider.

2.) Ted probably wouldn't want to do it. Yeah, he'd be flattered to get the call (he ALWAYS is), but at the end of the day, he's got a great life - plus, ego stroking gets old - and he doesn't need the camera like others who shall remain nameless. CBS has come after him before - he once told someone (I forget who) that he'd never work for Larry Tisch. Could he work for Sumner and Leslie?

Okay, that's all I've got for now. Four advantages versus two disadvantages - maybe someone at CBS SHOULD think of Ted...

So we've got another major newspaper story on the departure of Katie Couric after the inauguration - yesterday's appeared on WSJ.com (and today's editions of the Journal.) It repeats - almost uncannily in fact - the exact same story that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer last fall under the by-line of Gail Shister; it was Shister's swansong on the TV beat and included an unnamed source who predicted (confidentially) Katie's departure.

That story was combustible and carried - I'm fairly certain - the exact same denial as yesterday's WSJ - no changes are contemplated, and Katie's not leaving, etc.

In other words, both stories are true - absolutely true. Katie will be gone by next January.

But here's the question both stories studiously ignored, and it's the far more important question: What about the "Evening News?" What about TV's most storied newscast - the one once anchored by Walter Cronkite (and Dan Rather) and the one that once dominated the American news industry much as the New York Times does today.

What about "The CBS Evening News?"

My educated hunch - and it's only a hunch - is that while the network "sources" can confidentially predict the exit of another anchor (and what really is an anchor other than a newsreader? They're expendable) but they can't even consider the other possibility, as if the very mention of it would invite a bolt of lightning from the heavens: What if CBS cancels "The Evening News?"

I (and others) have called this the nuclear option, and many people have speculated about it for years - always inviting derision. But here, now, for your consideration is the cold, hard truth: The world of news no longer has a sacred cow. The cows have all been butchered and the hamburger is arriving at dinner tables as we speak. Nothing is writ, nothing is forever, nothing...gimme a minute and I'll think of another cliche. CBS could, in fact, cancel "The Evening News." It's a possibility and one I'm confident they've considered.

The real question about Katie isn't about whether she's going to leave - she is, get over it - but who will replace her. Another cold hard truth: There is no one in the wings. No one. No one at CBS. No one anywhere else. There are certainly intriguing possibilities out there. George Stephanopoulos? I think he'd be a viable candidate but don't you think ABC has him under lock and key? Diane Sawyer? That might work too - except that Diane, possessed of many many talents, does not possess the talent of anchoring. Bob Schieffer - one of the most gifted anchors in the world? He wanted to retire (sort of) but CBS didn't even have candidates to replace HIM on "Face the Nation," and now he's sticking around. Russ Mitchell? Excellent anchor and smart guy - too bad viewers don't even know who he is.

To show you how incredibly dry this well is, the former president of CBS News once stumped for John Roberts - Roberts! Who can't even draw viewers to CNN's morning program.

So, if there's no one to anchor "The Evening News" then can there be an "Evening News?"

You may say, "well, Gay, you're thinking like an old fool as usual - this is the new world of TV news! You don't need an old fashioned anchor monster. Put your money into field reporting - do a different broadcast. Counter-program!"

A great point (and I may indeed be an old fool), but...unfortunately, "The Evening News" is beholden to the conventions of the industry because it created those conventions. It is a creature of the '60s and '70s, when millions sat down to watch an evening news program anchored by one godlike and profoundly trusted figure. To dispel this convention means dispelling the economic underpinnings of the program; in other words, without the conventions (like a giant anchor-monster) it can't then pay for itself, and no longer has a reason, economically speaking, to exist. I think this may be called a catch-22.

One more point and then I'll let you go on with your day: for years, people said these evening news programs existed for political purposes, as sops to the FCC or congressmen eager for face time. That no longer holds water either; "we have '60 Minutes;' we have 'Face the Nation,' we have 'Sunday Morning...'" They have, in other words, other shows that also cover the news (and make money for the corporation in the process.)

There's a rumor at CBS that Sean McManus will leave his role as news chief to go back to sports full-time early next year too. The loss of Katie - AND "The Evening News" - very well may be his legacy.

Here's some great news from the world of television news: Bob Schieffer, one of the greats in CBS News history who indicated in a recent AP story that he was hanging it up at the end of this season, has had a change of heart.

And more big Schieffer news - he's at work on another book. His last - "This Just In: What I Couldn't Tell You on TV" - was one of most interesting and lively accounts of a journalist's life that I've ever read....

Here's what Bob told me in a recent email: "[CBS News prez] Sean McManus has asked me to rethink my decision so I am rethinking. We are working out the details but he has the basketball tournament to think about this week and I am away on vacation but it looks like I will stay around a bit longer.

" I would rather not say more about it until we get it all worked out. I got the galleys for the book last week and just sent them back to Neil Nyren, my editor at Putnam (also publisher of This Just In ) It is scheduled to be released in September, just after the political conventions. It is a collection of my commentaries from 'Face the Nation' and even includes some of the longer opinion pieces I wrote for CBS Radio way back in the '70s. The collection includes essays on everything from war and peace to advice to fathers on how to 'act normal' which was the order I got from my daughters when we held the first boy-girl party at our house."

TV news people love to talk and here's what the dears are talking about at CBS News, right now at this very minute: That Rick Kaplan, "Evening News" executive producer and recently installed at "Early Show" in the wake of the ouster of the very sharp-elbowed Shelley Ross, will be setting his alarm clock for quite some time to come.

Reason: Katie Couric has set her eye on network veteran Chris Dinan to become the new executive producer of "EN."

Why am I posting this now and why should you care? (Well, it is Monday morning and nothing else is going on, and I do have to fill this blog and...)

It's interesting because nothing EVER happens within a vacuum at CBS News (never has) and any major level executive shift is usually symptomatic of some broader change. I'm still not telling you why this is interesting (sorry.)

OK, two works: Katie Couric. Enough said?

There's more speculation over at the Milk Factory (fondly so-named because once milk flowed through this wonderful old eastside sprawl as opposed to gossip). Here it is:

- That...Sean McManus, president of the news division will hang up his news spurs by the summer and return full-time to Sports (unlike the news division, CBS Sports is biggest, baddest, meanest, toughest sports TV entity this side of ESPN.) Mc is prez of both news and sports.

- That...pressure will grow once again on "60 Minutes" boss, Jeff Fager, to take over the news division.

Do I believe any of this? Well, yes, a little bit (just not sure how much.) The ever reliable Sandy Genelius, CBS News top spokeshuman, tells me the Dinan rumor is utter hogwash: "There's nothing to it. Nothing to it."

Do I believe SANDY? Sure, but...Dinan, as we say in the trade, IS "well-regarded" (Kaplan appointed him his number two last fall) and no one ever believed Rick and Katie would get along forever (only diamonds are forever - not TV news executives.) Rick's very talented and tough; Katie's the same, and SHE wants to be the one calling the shots. The only thing that gives me pause: Katie's broadcast seems to have settled down with Kapan at the helm. ("Seems to" but nothing is ever as it really "seems" at CBS News, so...),

Fager to the president's office? He doesn't want it (last time I checked.) Morevoer, he's got a much better gig at "60," so why go to the hornet's nest across the street where the news isn't always (ahem) good. Meanwhile, I'm also hearing...that CBS is also shuttering its Paris bureau (actually, it's a three-person satellite; the real bureau, per my recollection, was shuttered years ago.)

(Above: RK, taking over mornings after Ross fiasco.)

I've followed MSNBC a lot of years - early years, promising years, fat years, then the bad years, which frankly have been just about all the years. (Remember Jesse Ventura? Phil Donahue...?? Ratings you couldn't find with the Hubble Telescope?)

So it's fitting that I call attention to the best night in MSNBC history, which happened just last night. Yes, there was a debate, and yes, a lot of people have been interested in these debates. But this performance is still extraordinary: 7.8 million people tuned in, which is just astounding for any network that's spelled with these five letters. It was the third biggest debate audience to date. Here's network boss Phil Griffin kvelling in a press release - he's entitled:

"Voters are incredibly engaged and passionate about the presidential election; it's one of the most exciting in history. I'm proud that millions of viewers were able to experience the most anticipated debate of the season on MSNBC. This is an exciting time for MSNBC, and numbers like these show that our work in establishing the network as the place for politics over the past two years has paid off."

They've done it again! Another MSNBC on-air dude insulting Hillary.

What is going on over there across the river?

In any event, a couple weeks ago, Chris Matthews whacks Hill - then apologizes. Yesterday, reporter David Shuster jokingly talks about Chelsea being "pimped out" by the campaign. Now...yes, HE's apologized, too. But apparently he didn't grovel enough: MSNBC has just announced that Shuster was suspended (a fate, notably, that Matthews avoided.) No word for how long.

Here's the MS statement:

"On Thursday's 'Tucker' on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.

"Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns accepted invitations from us on Thursday evening to participate in a February 26th debate. Our conversations with the Clinton campaign about their participation continue today, and we are hopeful that the event will take place as planned."

Much of the story is on HuffPo, but if you want to go directly to the Shuster clip, here it is right now.

Was this serious? Well, her campaign boss did threaten to pull out of the next (MS-sponsored) debate, so...

Here's the AP on the foot-in-mouth attack at MS:

"Howard Wolfson [campaign boss] called the comment 'beneath contempt' and disgusting.I, at this point, can't envision a scenario where we would continue to engage in debates on that network,'" he added.

I'm just catching up with this tragic news now, so apologies for the late file, but John McWethy, ABC's former Pentagon reporter, was killed in a skiing accident in Colorado.

Here's the top of the AP piece filed late yesterday:

KEYSTONE, Colo. — John McWethy, a retired ABC News correspondent who had to flee the Pentagon after the 2001 attacks but continued reporting live, died Wednesday after a skiing accident. He was 61.

Witnesses said McWethy was skiing fast on an intermediate trail when he missed a turn and slid chest-first into a tree, Summit County Coroner Joanne L. Richardson said. McWethy died of blunt force injuries, she said."

David Westin, ABC News president, also released a statement which read (in part): "He was one of those very rare reporters who knew his beat better than anyone, and had developed more sources than anyone, and yet, kept his objectivity."

My recollections of McWethy: as an extraordinarily solid and meticulous pro, who helped make "World News Tonight" (now just called "World News") probably the best of the three nightly news programs for the better part of a decade. He was closely allied with Peter Jennings' broadcast (naturally) over those many years, so I - and I'm sure you - best remember him from Sept. 11. But there were many, many other instances; he was one of those reporters who would come on screen - another is CBS's David Martin - and instantly capture your attention, because you knew that what you were about to hear was both momentous and absolutely, unerringly accurate. He was just a flat-out first-rate TV correspondent.

For more on McWethy, go to Poynter.org, where Bob Steele has posted a personal tribute.

Also, here's Bob Zelnick - ABC's former Pentagon legman, now a prof at BU, on McWethy:

“I helped recruit Jack from U.S. News in the late 1970s and assigned him to the Pentagon beat. There, along with competitors Fred Francis of NBC and David Martin of CBS, he transformed the beat from a sleepy understaffed outpost to the most competitive center for enterprise reporting in Washington.

“Jack was a gifted journalist. He had great sources and knew issues relating to both theory and hardware. He reported with neither fear nor favor. When he chose to transfer to the State Department as Chief National Security Correspondent, I replaced him at the Pentagon and remained there for eight years until Jack returned.

“He was a valuable and valued colleague whose integrity adorned him like a tailored cloak. He will be missed.”

Finally!

A genuine benefit of the writers' strike: The networks will wash out so-called "entertainment" programming tonight (don't worry - that doesn't mean "American Idol") for soup-to-nuts coverage of Super Tuesday.

Ummm. what's going on?

I ask because the networks - outside of Sunday, morning shows and the nightly news ghettos - sometimes like to pretend that there isn't even a political race for the WH going on. If you were from Mars (let's say for argument sake), then you might think one of the most exciting issues facing Americans was: Shanay or Evan? Just who WILL advance to the finals of "American Gladiators?"

What's going on is the simple fact that people are interested in politics: CNN got an unheard-of 8 million viewers for last week's debate, which would be a big number for any of the commercial majors; so it's off to the political races they go.

Here's quick run-down of everything tonight - with grateful acknowledgment to Chris Ariens of TVnewser.com who did much of this legwork. (And by the way, if you're looking for a quick non-TV wrap of some of the big questions looming, check out Glenn Thrush's posting. It's worth a look.)


• ABC: Diane Sawyer, George Stephanopoulos, Charles Gibson team for a five-hour blanket-coverage starting at 8:

- Why watch: At least ABC made an effort to cover Iowa/New Hampshire/Florida in primetime, which suggests seriousness of purpose. Also, the three leads are certainly solid and competent though offer little in the way of flash. But who needs flash when there are 26 states to get through?; plus, I like Jake Tapper.

• CBS: Katie Couric, along with Jeff Greenfield,Bob Schieffer and...Joe Trippi; stars at 9.

- Why watch: Schieffer and Greenfield, period. I felt sorry - almost - for Greenfield during Iowa/NH/Florida, who had to sit on his hands while former employer CNN went nuts with magic charts and whatnot. He's a terribly smart and knowledgeable guy who needs the camera; didn't get that at CBS when it counted most. Will make some amends tonight. Also, Trippi, who's another political encyclopedia.

• NBC: Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Tom Brokaw, starting at ten.

- Why watch: Why TEN? NBC's happy to punt everything to MSNBC, so one wonders why hardcore MSNBC viewers would feel a need to switch to NBC at ten, or why NBC viewers - goaded all night to switch to MSNBC - wouldn't have already vacated the main network by this time? What's the point? Simply to plant a flag? This effort feels half-hearted.

• CNN: forty hours of coverage! At least that's the promise. There aren't enough hours in a day (obviously) to fill CNN's appetite for this stuff (which is why it'll flow into the next day.) On-air line-up: Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper, Soledad O'Brien and Campbell Brown. Also starring: that "multi-touch" screen that sometimes has a mind of its own.

- Why watch: Certainly for the personalities - who include Mr./Ms. Multi-Touch. There are an awful lot of cooks in this kitchen, and though Wolf's head chef, I suspect Lou thinks otherwise. Also, this is Campbell's first major outing for CNN - supe Tuesday.

• FNC: Karl Rove joins up tonight! Brit Hume is anchormaster starting at 8, but Neil Cavuto, Shepard Smith and Trace Gallagher handle chores from four to six. Brit Hume takes over at 8.

- Why watch: Did I mention Karl Rove already? That's the major reason, of course - his first TV-post-Bush-White-House foray. This should be intriguing, no matter what he says. Also, Hume: He's become the de facto solid/ leading-man/ anchorly type on all of cable news.

• MSNBC: Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are the evening folks (starting at 6), with analysis from Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow. Russert/Williams/Brokaw should dip in and out, too.

- Why watch: Coverage of Iowa/NH/Florida was pretty good, even if Matthews is insufferable.

Anyone who spends any time watching cable TV news knows that the latest scandal du jour is about this former cop in a Chicago suburb named Drew Peterson whose wife went missing a few months ago. Said cable news has already tried and convicted the guy of murder, but lemme tell ya - he didn't help his case a little while ago.

Peterson was star of a much-hyped exclusive interview with Shepard Smith; interview was going along swimmingly, when Peterson decided he didn't like the drift of the questions, and ripped out his IFB. And that was that. This sort of stuff doesn't happen too often (especially with heavily-plugged interviews) so here it is for your viewing amusement. (A piece of advice: Drag the button up to about 4 minutes to skip all the other stuff, if you're not interested in this over-wrought case).