The TV Zone

By now you may have heard the big news out here in BH - that Jay Leno told USA Today that he is done with NBC next year. Done, as in: No primetime specials, no special ambassadorship, no syndicated series for some division of NBCUniversal, no guest-hosting job on "Access Hollywood"...

He's outta there.

The news broke innocuously, but like all tectonic shifts in this business, such news often does. I remember when Johnny took the stage at Carnegie Hall in '88 or '89, and told advertisers at the NBC upfront that he would hang it up at 30 seasons. There was no press release. No formal "this is it" statement. Just a brief and modest aside to a thousand stunned advertisers.

And I don't believe he ever said another word about it in public.

Then, this news this morning. The piece - by an enterprising reporter by the name of Marco R. della Cava - was ostensibly just about Jay's vast collection of cars, and his gearhead love of all things mechanical (though I was a little surprised that there wasn't much talk about motorcycles...)

Della Cava asked the right question, or maybe just snuck in it during a fascinating conversation about the 1936 Lagonda Rapide LG45 Team Car.

"Ummm, Jay, before we I ask you about the Lagonda Rapide LG46, which I believe came out in 1938 and I do believe I see one over there in the corner, I was just kinda wondering: Are you gonna stay with NBC next year...? "

Maybe that's how it came up. But Jay had a message to deliver too. Here it is: "I am definitely done next year with NBC." Another network? "I'm not a beach guy, and the last time I was in my pool was to fix my light. Don't worry, I'll find another job somewhere..."

Don't worry. He will. So let us quickly review the options, then I'll tell you what I know:

ABC: As "Nightline" replacement, and lead-in to "Jimmy Kimmel." Tricky because you don't wanna alienate JK, who certainly believes he has a right to 11:35...Letterman felt the same way, and look what happened there. Even with all the joking at press tour yesterday, Steve McPherson knows this is a delicate operation. I suspect, though, ABC will perform it adroitly. Odds are good Jay'll come here.

Sony: A syndicated deal, as reported some months ago by the NYTimes, is apparently on the table, or could be on the table. It would be for a vast sum of money. Problem is, Jay's not motivated by money. If I've heard this once, I've heard it a thousand times. I believe it. Odds here are slim.

CBS: Only if Dave walks in '10. Only, and a big only. We in the press - Okay, I in the press - have predicted in the past that Dave'll walk, only to be proven wrong. He'll walk one day. Who knows when. And Dave might just sign a new contract to keep Jay away from CBS; I imagine - nay, believe - the slightest residue of bitterness remains that Leno got the job that he believed rightfully his all those years ago. CBS odds not so high, in my opinion.

Fox: The dark horse. Jay comes here for the 11 p.m. job, and there will be - I am convinced - an offer for an 11-midnight show. The pitch to Jay could be very appealing: You'll get a younger audience here, an "American Idol" lead-in (or at least a lead-in from late local news that's been boosted by "AI"), and the chance to build a big audience that could blunt or damage or even scuttle the Conan-hosted "Tonight" show. I don't think Jay's a guy motivated by revenge, but on some level, he's a brutal competitor, and the chance to demolish the network that abused him and tossed him aside like a moldy head of cabbage has to be enormously appealing. Odds of Fox are, I think, very good. Not quite as good as ABC, which has the slight edge, because of 11:35, but still very good.

Here's what I do know: No decision has been made. I am positive - or close to positive on this, despite Jay's on-air kidding the other night (he held up that "headline of the future," which showed him at ABC, remember?) I am told reliably and told by a sterling source that Leno's camp can still not hold negotiations or discussions with any interested party. I don't know when the window opens, but when it does, it will be front page news, believe me.

But today, we know just one fact: Jay will not be at NBC after his contract ends next year.

Sorry for this very long blog entry, but this is the biggest news in TV this year.

(Photo: NBC)

After years of Emmy ignominy, "The Wire" appears poised to get a Best Drama Emmy nomination when awards are announced July 17.

How do we know this? Because in an unusual move, the Emmys Thursday night announced drama and comedy finalists, or -- as Emmy put it -- the "top ten vote-getters." The so-called blue-ribbon panel screenings of these vote-getters takes place on June 28 and 29. Then? I'll let Emmy explain: "The results of those panels, who will watch and judge the work of each finalist, represent 50 percent of the vote. Both results will be averaged together to come up with our five nominees in each category . . ."

But I'm burying my lede. You are dying to find out what the other shows are. Dying . . . and I'm delaying here, or to use a fancy word, temporizing, just to build the excitement, anticipation, thrills.

Oh, for Chrissakes, Gay, will you please open the damn envelop.

Without further temporizing, dear friends, herewith the list -- ta dum. (Quickie analysis to follow.)

Top 10 Comedy Series Finalists

Curb Your Enthusiasm
Entourage
Family Guy
Flight of the Conchords
The Office
Pushing Daisies
30 Rock
Two and a Half Men
Ugly Betty
Weeds

Top 10 Drama Series Finalists

Boston Legal
Damages
Dexter
Friday Night Lights
Grey’s Anatomy
House
Lost
Mad Men
The Tudors
The Wire

Quickie analysis

Comedies: No "Desperate Housewives" in comedy? After a pretty good season? This crop looks strong, but I'm befuddled by "Family Guy;" I must be missing something but after 20 years, the greatest show in TV history, "Simpsons", couldn't crack this list because it was animated, and had to settle for that silly and insignificant "animated" category. Why does "FG" earn a bye here? Meanwhile, glad to see "Weeds" which deserved to be here before (but you know Emmy!) and absolutely thrilled to see "Californication" is not. Thanks God, this isn't the Golden Globes. What should be on the final list? "Weeds," "Rock," "Men," "Conchords," "Office."

Dramas: What sticks outta this list like a broken thumb (swollen to 10 times its size?) You are correct, sir / madame! "Grey's," which belongs on this about as much as "One Tree Hill;" in fact, "Hill" has more right to be here than "Grey's," which had a stinky season. (Just ask Kate Heigl!) Of course my heart is gladdened by the fact that "Lost" is here. What should be on the final list? "The Wire," "Mad Men," "Lost," "Friday Night Lights" (hmmmm), and "Damages."

What it's about: Those of us who struggle to pay our gas bill always look wistfully to the day when we can pay said bill, but tonight at 10, CNBC takes us into a world where something as picayune as $4.55 per gallon is as momentous as a molecule on a mote of dust on a mite's middle toe.

The world of super duper rich.

This hour begins with a Rolls show, and ends with the stark screen graphic that tells us the average salary is $26,323, but the 400 richest Americans are worth a total $214 billion which is more than the GNP of 149 nations. "Super Rich" is filled with such stats, and after a while they'll drift away from your plain of consciousness, as if they are just more numbers in a sea, nay, universe, of grandiose figures and outsize bank-rolls. Forty-nine thousand households have net worths of between $50 and $500 mill, and 125,000 between $25 and $50 mill. In 1985, there were 13 billionaires from sea to shining sea; now there are more than a thousand.

Millionaires are the mere middle class rich and barely merit inclusion here; this is the rarefied world of wealth, where a billion is a nice pile of peanuts, but you're only really interesting when your pile is up to ten billion. The show - narrated by vet CNBC reporter, David Faber - profiles many of these people and - my suggestion - bring your sunglasses because every one of them seems to have a taste for gold lame.

There's Tim Durham, who confides that it costs 23 grand to change a tire on his Bugatti (he's got 70 cars scattered about, each one worth more than your house, twice over...). There's Glenn Stearns, a poor kid from Maryland now worth - I think I heard the program right - $100 billion. Maybe $100 million. Whatever. There's Anthony Scaramucci, of Manhasset worth only $80 million; he seems like he's almost a pauper in this crowd. These are people who go on vacation to places like Parrot Cay (above) where a lousy room costs two grand a day. Many make their lucre from hedge funds, and in fact, it seems like most do.

Bottom line: David Faber is one of the best financial reporters on TV, maybe the best, as far as I can tell, so you start out with the assumption that this will be a well-told hour that's richly - pun absolutely intended - reported. It is. But like all pornography, wealth pornography starts to wear thin after a while, no matter how skillful or thoughtful the treatment. Faber and his producers, it seems to me, do just about everything right: They offer perspective, talk to the right people (including Ron Chernow, the National Book Award-winning author and biographer of J.P. Morgan), ask the right questions, and provide the requisite beauty shots. But still something is missing, and that is opinion. A subject like this, at a time like this, absolutely demands a moral, or ethical, perspective, which can be summed up in one question: Is such wealth RIGHT? Or does it represent a serious failing on the part of a nation where so very many are struggling each and every minute? Hedge funds? Only the most excoriated financial instrument since Teapot Dome, but most of these people seem to have earned their money this new-fashioned way, by profiting off of others' misfortunes. Is that right? I'm not sure, but I think a question is merited. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, in his Harvard days, used to rail against the paper millionaires who didn't actually make anything. Do THESE people? And if they don't, isn't there a question to be asked, to wit: Is this kind of wealth and iniquity good for the longterm health of the economy and the country?

This hour is fascinating - but I do wish it would have taken another hour to go deeper, and hit harder.

There's so much more to say about George Carlin that it seems like a few little blog posts here and there, a Newsday appreciation by yours truly here, and a bounty of other tributes everywhere else seems almost insignificant.

So this morning, I have some more. First, my last word about "Seven Words." It was a routine that (for many) came to symbolize TV's rapid descent into vulgarity and coarseness. However, it's also well worth nothing that what Carlin did was to make a comment on the fact that the descent was already well under way; the point of the routine was that TV was already soaked in most of the words (notably the f-bomb) that he mentioned, but that the ever-hypocritical boob tube trafficked in euphemisms for those various words and acts. You couldn't say these words on TV -- merely demonstrate them. The point was about hypocrisy and remains valid today.

Now ... NBC set up a special site yesterday so that you can check out his entire monologue from the October '75 premiere of "SNL"; snippets of it are available in lotsa places, notably Hulu, but you get the full monologue here. What's notable about it, besides it being the first monologue on the most influential show in television history? In part, you can see exactly how deeply Seinfeld was affected by this guy. (Jerry, BTW, headlined a terrific and generous "Larry King Live" last night, which also had Roseanne Barr, Bill Maher and Lewis Black.)

Another benefit: You can see Carlin as adroit performer. We usually just seem to mention those words but forget this other aspect. Here's a quick clip, but if you want to see the whole thing, please go to the special NBC site ...

The Presumptive Nominee is a happy man right about now. He's fist-bumping whoever he's coming into contact with. He's thinking, "maybe I should make MICHELLE the vice president - hey, Hill was veep to Bill during two terms..." He's thinking, "what did Whoopi just say...Oh, it doesn't matter." He's thinking, "man, that dress was expensive but it was worth every PENNY." He's thinking, "behind every successful man, there's a woman...No, I better NOT think that. That's sexist as all get out. Hill would take me to town on that one...doesn't matter, she's not running anymore. Or is she...?"

Of course, I have no idea what the Presumptive Nominee is thinking. I only know what I am thinking: Michelle Obama's appearance on "The View" was a political slam dunk - a performance so adroit and so skillful and so savvy that the political attack dogs out there are writhing in agony. "Why couldn't SHE have said &%$*&@! instead of Whoopi," they're saying. "Why, why, WHHHYYY!!!???"

You know, I'm pretty certain (but, being a seat of the pants sort of blogger, not 100 percent certain) that millions of people suspect Michelle Obama is a Theresa Heinz type - the sort of significant o who just can't HELP but say something that will turn a hundred million Americans against her with just one verbal slip - or as Freud might say, a " lapsus linguae" that'll tell people what's really going on in her sub-conscious.

I'm no Freud, but her sub-conscious seems to match her conscious pretty nicely, if this outing was any indication. She was funny, smart, interesting and - most important - likeable. She even said nice and remarkably disarming stuff about Laura Bush. Michelle O - you don't mind if I call you "Michelle O," do you Michelle? - was seated in the middle of our kaffee klatch crew, and joked immediately (again, shrewdly) about the bump: "It's my signature bump," and Whoopi comes back with a good ice breaker (not that there was any ice to break) with, "you should be really happy it's not a chest bump."

Michelle O got all the hard questions almost before the first commercial break, which - from her perspective - is exactly when and where she wanted them.

How does she feel about all the attacks that have started up - the ones about her patriotism, etc? (Our "View" gals didn't dignify the ludicrous "whitey" slur with a question, to their great credit.)

"I take them in stride. It's part of the process. Of course I'm proud of my country. No where but in America could my story be possible. I'm a girl that grew up on the South Side of Chicago; my father was a working class guy who worked a shift all his life, and got two children through Princeton. He's now the coach of Oregon State - go Beavers! I tell people just imagine the pride that parents who didn't go to college felt through their own hard work to have us achieve the things they couldn't imagine. So I'm proud of my country without a doubt."

Now you may be as cynical as me, and think - "well, what do you expect her to say?" - to which I'd answer: I actually think she's being sincere.

Joy asked her the Hill/sexism question, as in - do you think that Hill was subjected to it during the campaign? Said Michelle O, "yes, people aren't used to strong women and at times we don't even know how to talk about them, so yes, and there were elements of racism that will go on [too.] I think Hillary Clinton has said she's created 18 million cracks in the ceiling and we need to keep pushing on it and keep pushing...so that when my girls come along they won't have to feel it as badly."

Masterful response. Notice the first use of "we," as if to suggest that even SHE might be complicit in this whole sexism thing.

Next up, Babs asked the 'ol "should Hill be veep?" question.

Michelle O stepped up to the plate, squared away, and saw a big fat pitch come right down the middle - without ANY heat or motion - connected, and sent that sucker right into the parking lot:

"My answer, and people have asked me this before, is that the one thing that a nominee earns is a right to pick the vice president that they think will best reflect their vision for the country. And I'm just glad I will have nothing to do with it."

Oh, you're good, Michelle O. You're very good.

(Above: AP photo.)

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?

I'm back!

(Or, Gay said grimly to himself, I'm back.)

"What?" (Says you.) "You were gone? I didn't even notice."

Oh, you're a clever one. I appreciate the wit. In fact, this blog was handled in my absence by my able and hardworking editor and colleague, Andy Edelstein. I was on something called a "vacation." I highly recommend it.

I was down in North Carolina. You're not going to believe this, but they don't have TV down in North Carolina. For entertainment, they run through the woods, shooting at wild boars (or so I'm told.) "American Idol?" They think it's some sort of wild boar. Never heard of it. Flava Flav? They think that's some kinda sody pop. "Dancing with the Stars." They like to dance with the moonshine down in North Carolina, if ya know what I mean.

Actually, I'm kidding. They do have TV.

It's just that I forgot to watch it. I also highly recommend that on occasion. (TV Turnoff week BTW began yesterday.)

But we need to catch up, and since all of you depend solely on this blog for news about the TV industry and other assorted chicanery, let's just go through everything as quickly as possible.

Kristy Lee: Did you hear? Ha. Ha. Of course you heard. My God, she finally got voted off. The only thing that gobsmacked me about this was - what took so long? I'm pretty certain votefortheworst - those scamps - kept her in the hunt this long. She wasn't bad, this FOB (Friend of Britney), she just wasn't as good as the rest. Plus, Michael Johns gone before KL? Jeez.

ABC News debate: I hear that Charlie Gibson showed up dressed in a clown costume and George Stephanopoulos was in some sort of court jester get-up. Very odd. They asked the candidates about stuff like their pin lapels and what sort of cereal they eat, and this hugely important question: Pizza: thin crust or regular? The debate was roundly panned! Apparently viewers thought the two anchors had trivialized the whole process. Imagine.

Tony Snow joins CNN: This is good news cuz it means the guy has beaten his cancer AGAIN. He's an amazing guy and I'm happy for him. But some people will interpret this to mean that Fox News - where he worked all those years - got bushwhacked (so to speak) by its arch-rival. In fact, I kinda doubt that - FNC and Snow never got along. It was a truly poisonous relationship.

"Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles:" Re-newed! Yes, that's huge news. I thought this bubble had burst, but nooo. Fox just announced this, plus dropped the additional news (no biggie) that Brian Austin Green is gonna be a series regular too.

Prez Bush on "Deal or No Deal:" I missed this, getting in from the moonshine state a little too late. But yes, the thought occurred to me as well. If Howie Mandel decides to step aside for any reason, I think I've got a perfect replacement for him. Plus, this has never been done - although Bill Clinton once thought of doing a talk show.

Gary Dourdan Leaving "CSI:" Holy cow (again.) This is true. I don't fully understand why. He's smart enough not to ask for a raise - ya know what Billy Petersen does to people who ask for a raise on his show. I'm guessing it's the old standby reason: ratings decline, show-runners decide to shake up cast...

Above: Me on vacation! Actually, Brian Austin Green on vacation. Not for long - he's got a fulltime gig on "Sarah Connor."

Come on, come on, come on, people. Get a grip!

GET A GRIP!

The exit of Michael Johns is not, repeat not, shocking.

Yet why has the morning buzz turned to a morning roar - that Johns exit was like some sort of amazing turn, totally unexpected, profoundly terrible, etc.? Michael Johns' exit has become, all of a sudden, this season's Next Big Flap, the First Big Flap being lap dancing pictures-or-whatever of David Hernandez.

I just saw Kelly Ripa do a Paula - Omygod omygod omygod (goes Kelly). He was a latter day JIM MORRISON.

What? Kelly, you were born like 30 years after Morrison died. How would you know what Jim Morrison was like.

I knew Jim Morrison. Michael Johns was no Jim Morrison.

Now, let's put this in proper proportion, shall we? It was a "surprise." Just a surprise. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I mean, come on. He wasn't going to win "American Idol." David Archuleta is going to win "American Idol." That is so certain, so writ in stone, so don't-even-bother-arguing-with-me (because I'll just plug my ears and go "neeener neeener neeener...not listening...not listening") that I've even written my lead for the story the night he wins. Here it is:

"David Archuleta won 'American Idol' last night."

Catchy, isn't it? You're right. I'll work on it.

But here's my point (and I do have one): Michael Johns was good, but not great. His last few outings have been blah. Aerosmith on Tuesday? Blah blah. Kristi Lee, who effectively LIVES in the bottom three, has actually gotten better - or better at getting more clever in song choice. Brooke - one of my early favorites - has gotten worse, to the point of awful. Yet she has so completely conned her fans with that sweet lil' ol' me act that they don't even hear her performances.

But Johns never seemed to work his fans, never worked the judges. He was a bit of a cypher, really, unreadable, inscrutable. The Great Sphinx of the seventh season.

Sometimes it's not just about the singing. Sometimes it's about selling yourself too. Johns never learned that little secret. That's why he's gone.

No shock. Just a surprise. And in hindsight, a small one.

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.

The people at "The Office" need help! The people at NBC need help! They've gone ahead and ordered a spinoff of the show and - as best as the press could tell - don't have the slightest damn idea what it's going to be about.

Or do they? Some unnamed source - not saying who - got a copy of this top-secret memo from Ben Silverman, which he/she has sent to my colleague Andy Edelstein and me. Personally, I think some of these ideas are idiotic - others, not so bad. You be the judge.

MEMO: To Jeff Zucker, Greg Daniels, et al.

RE: Office Spin-Off

FROM: Silverman

We need a plan, gang. Need it fast.Super Bowl's fast approaching. I've cooked up these thoughts for a spin-off. Need reax pronto. B.S.

"Dwight Schrute: The Beet Generation:" It turns out that Dwight's twin brother WASN'T reabsorbed in the wound, but was actually born, grew up, and lived in the farmhouse antic. He's a weirder version of Dwight - watches re-runs of "Good Times!" over and over - and his name is Dwight too. Anyway, Dwight returns to run the farm full time with Dwight and Moses; they grow beets and pot.

"Jan's Plan:" After the lawsuit, etc. Jan moves out - the thing with Michael just wasn't gonna work out and she needed to restart her life. She moves to Altoona to start her own paper company - direct competitor to Dunder Mifflin - and many hilarious scenes whereby Jan and Michael compete, eventually get back together again, etc. Endless cross-promotion/product placement possibilities.

"Michael: After Dark:" With his love life back in the toilet, Michael's a swinging bachelor again. This spin-off explores what he does at night - hitting Scranton's many hot-spots, occasionally getting to Altoona where he runs into Jan...

"Touched by an Angela:" Angela's hot! That's right. You heard me. She's hot - a lusty, luscious lovely babe in the after-hours. Plus, she gets pregnant - a shocker! Front page coverage in the NY papers, or at least PA papers, is guaranteed. Angela Lansbury promises to do a cameo. Endless cross-promotion/product placement possibilities.

"Love Booze Cruise:" Captain Jack is back! And this time, they're having a rockin' great time on Lake Wallenpaupak, where the booze runs freely and so does the love. Michael and gang return for another office party and...Sorry, not sure where this goes from here.

"Andy and Angela:" You've always wanted to know "what if...?" What IF Andy and Angela "get it on." What IF they're a couple. Here's the show! They get married, have a nice home life, have baby ("little Andy"), start new jobs in different offices...HILL-arious situational comedy ensues. Endless cross-promotion/product placement possibilities.

"Missus...Missuss Jones:" Rashida Jones is back. She's the manager of a new office paper supply company in Scranton, and does everything in her power to scuttle the Jim/Pam thing. (Plus, I think R's tight with Foo Fighters, Maroon 5 in real life - cameos! cameos! cameos!) Plus, Endless cross-promotion/product placement possibilities.

"Creed:" Agreed, it's a tough sell to advertisers. We do a whole show based on Creed! There's so much possibility here. Who really is Creed? What does he do in his off-hours? Does he really live in Toronto (so he can stay on the dole in the Canada?) What really happened to his missing toe? Did he really run cults? Has he been in jail? There are many possibilities here, though still working out love interest angle . (Meredith? Not sure. Just spit-balling here. Open to ideas) Plus have already talked with Creed Bratton's agent; think we can get him cheap. Endless cross-promotion/product placement possibilities.

[Note to reader: We can't vouch for authenticity of this memo; may be another one of those hoaxes that are perpetrated on the Internets. But we had to share anyway.]

So, you're all sitting there wondering how the recently concluded writers strike is gonna be reflected on the TV screen over the next few weeks?

I can think of no better example than the one I am about to relay - ripped from the headlines, so to speak, and roaring (also so to speak) to a TV show near you in the not-too-distant future.

It involves "Law & Order" - TV's greatest headline larcenist - and its gifted veteran show-runner, Rene Balcer.

Here's the story. Early this year, during the dimmest days of the strike, Balcer was walking the picket lines outside the front gates of Fox studio lot when some moron in a shark-skin suit who was behind the wheel of an 8,000 SUV decided to teach Balcer a lesson - he ran into him. Not hard enough to do any damage, but hard enough to inflict the fear of God and SUVs into Balcer. The guy got out of the car, and a good old fashioned brawl ensued. Cameras - unfortunately - were not present, but in my imagination, Balcer decked the guy, strapped him to the roof of his SUV, and then put a large brick on the accelerator... Buh-bye shark-skin suit moron and SUV...

That last part actually didn't happen. I made it up. Sorry. But Balcer is going to exact cold revenge over the hit-and-run incident (another reason why it's never a good idea to pick a fight with someone who runs a major TV production...)

Rene told me last week that "I'm ripping from my own headline" by producing a strike episode that'll feature some "very obnoxious loudmouth picketer" who is killed while walking the picket lines...

The picketer's actually a legal aid who's on strike, and after all these legal aides go on strike, defense attorneys are dragooned into doing their work - so there's some very unhappy people all around, which means "motive."

Says Balcer, "one of the strikers gets run over, coincidentally - it never happens in real life [though.]"

He says he was inspired by David Letterman, who included Balcer in his monologue the night he got hit: "The day the thing happened, he mentioned in his monologue that a writer for 'Law & Order' got hit, and then said - 'you know what? It would be a terrific 'Law & Order.'"

Rene says he knows who the guy was - a lower-level suit - and he assured me: "It wasn't Peter Chernin."

Oh, praise be: She's here. Finally. I really couldn't wait another hour - and you do know that it's been just about a month (March 5) since we first told you this announcement was going to come.

It's here. Kathie Lee Gifford is joining "The Today Show." Her new gig was just announced on the air - the impending bombshell (no silly, the NEWS, not HER) was teased prominently on the local news and then by Matt and Meredith. Then, boom, there it was, or rather, there she was: KLG. First day is April 7, and she'll be host of the fourth hour of "Today."

(No, this is not an April's Fool Joke; April 1's tomorrow.)

She's fearless, said Matt, "and from time to time a little untamed. She's always marched to the beat of a different drummer." (Cliche alert!)

She appeared on set with the rest of the crew, and actually had an amusing pre-written joke: She's back "just in time for HDTV."

Come on! She looked pretty darned good,actually. Matt asked her why she's coming back now: Her answer was something along the lines of, kids are older, Hoda Kotb talked her into it, Cody's going to college, etc.

"Timing is everything in life," she said.

OK.

Matt asked if Frank (the Giff) was "cool with this?" "Are you kidding," KLG responded, yukking it up already with the new gang.

Of course he's cool with it, and he's writing a book too, etc. She cracked a lame joke about him being a "tight end" (old joke, she used it before), got groans, said "I'm in trouble already," and some more blah blah blah, and that was it.

You didn't miss anything. Trust me.

Why KLG? Why not? Like her or not, she's a pretty good broadcaster and knows how to roll with the nuttiness of morning TV. Plus, the fourth hour of "Today" (FHOTS) has been essentially forgettable, until now: It's kind of a watered down version of the third hour, which is kind of a watered down version of the second,which is...

Here's quickly what I posted March 5, when this news first broke (a Fla-based site, FTV, had the news first; we confirmed): Hard to believe but it's been nearly eight years since KLG lost her bully pulpit ("Live!); her last day was July 28, '00, and during that last frenetic farewell broadcast, Reeg said: This "was the most relentless, exhausting farewell in the history of TV." She also told him she wanted to return some day (she did a few years later, for a reunion). "I hope there will be an opportunity to come back" as co-host, she said. "To think I couldn't come back would break my heart more than leaving."

During that show, Reeg or someone also asked her about the relentless tabloid coverage, which (supposedly) hastened her departure after 15 years on "Live!" Those reports, she said, "always come from a miserable heart; I can only feel sorry for a miserable heart." (Actually, those reports came from a truthful heart, but maybe miserable too.)

Uh - someone who's as famous as me won "Celebrity Apprentice" last night.

Which is another way of saying - someone you never heard of won "Celebrity Apprentice" last night.

I'd like to tell you who it was, but - being that he's so non-famous - I can't quite recall who it is.

Good God, why didn't Trumpster ask Britney to be in "Celebrity Apprentice?" If she'd won, then I'd remember the name - AND be able to run a bunch of pictures, of the kind of before/after variety (like maybe Britney with make-up, or Brit without.)

If someone from Long Island won, I'd have worked all night to write the story for today's "wood" (the front page.) But I don't think this Celebrity Apprentice has ever even been to Long Island; not sure he's even HEARD of it. (Note to self: Ask him in conference call later.)

OK, his name is Piers Morgan. He's a great guy, and raised over $500,000 for his chosen charity, Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund.

Anyway, I like Piers - or I should say, I'm jealous of Piers; he's a former journalist who's made quite a career for himself hosting reality game shows for his buddy Simon Cowell (note to self: Ask Piers during conference call how to get in touch with Simon, to find out how Newsday TV writer might get lucrative job as host of "America's Got Talent.")

Piers, a Brit, has been in a lot of shows, mostly on the other side of the Pond. My favorite titles: "You Can't Fire Me, I'm Famous," "Comic Relief: The Apprentice," "The Dame Edna Treatment," "Death of Celebrity" and "The Importance of Being Famous."

Alas, these last two lasted only one episode.

But I'd pay bucks for a look at "The Dame Edna Treatment."

So here's to you, Piers. You deserved to win last night. I only wish you were a celebrity. (Note to self: Ask Trumpster during conference call to please beg Britney Spears to join next season's edition of "Celebrity Apprentice." )

(Above: no, Britney Spears did not win "Celebrity Apprentice," but as you can see, she takes better pictures than the guy, left, who did.)

Funny, but here I'm thinking NBCU bossman Jeff Zucker is putting the finishing touches on NBC's all-reality-all-the-time fall schedule (to be unveiled next week; I can hardly wait) and instead I find out he's been taping promos for "My Name is Earl."

It's getting quite a bit of pick-up, which I believe is the intended purpose, and a little bit of criticism (Nikki Finke wondered whether he was insane), which was probably not an intended purpose.

In any event, I think it's harmless. You be your own judge:

I've gone and done it again: Sparked a riotous raucous debate over something due to both my ignorance and innocence.

The debate: David Cook or Chris Cornell?

Neither needs an intro (ok, DC is the "Idol" front runner, per my unofficial count and reading of the Zeitgeist.) Cornell is - of course - one of the truly great rockers; I remember him mostly, I guess, best from his Soundgarden days although you young 'uns out there may first think of Audioslave (and let's not forget Temple of the Dog, shall we?)

Anyway - silly me - I didn't know he'd done a classic version of "Billie Jean," since turning solo, which DC performed on Tuesday; it was an "Idol" high point, and absolutely the moment that pulled DC into the front ranks this season. A bunch of smart readers told me that it wasn't only NOT original but that Ryan Seacrest even credited Cornell.

So here's my big question of the moment: Which "Billie Jean" version is better? After an exhaustive search - roughly 0.34 seconds on Youtube - I came up with about half a dozen versions of Cornell's "BJ." Sampled most of 'em, and offer you this one; the version's wonderful and exotic and raw as my old sneaker.

So what say you friends? Cornell or DC? I'm happy to report (as a DC fan), it's not such an easy choice as you might imagine...

(And since we're on a Chris Cornell kick for the moment, here's a great clip of "Revelations;" wonder if DC'll ever try this?)

(Above, Cornell in earlier days, in Rolling Stone; thanks to Destructogirl for the clip.)

I love to spread rumors as much as the next blogger, and this one I can't resist: Is Carly Smithson pregnant?

My incredibly hard-working colleague, Eileen Fredes, brought this beauty to my attention recently - telling me that it was so widespread that even WNYW/5 checked in on it last night at 10. Sure enough, it's raging across the Internets as we speak...

What does this mean? Plenty. First of all - if true - then Carly very likely WON'T be joining the "Idol" tour this summer (as Eileen pointed out). Also, why the rumors now? If true, then will this work to Carly's benefit? In other words, is this pregnancy a good career move?

I'm one of Smithson's big 'ol fans - I think she's wonderful, even if she's a pro who once had a big fat MCA contract, and couldn't even sell ten records. But I think she has a squishy fan base and may well be voted off tonight. Imagine! Ramiele (or Christy) stays but Carly goes.

What a world. As soon as I find out more about this "developing story" (as Drudge might say), I'll let you know.

(Update: Per an "AI" spokesman, "We dont comment on the personal lives of our contestants."

That's right. I'm not kidding - like I'd kid about something like this. NBC will announce its fall schedule next week, or about two months ahead of everyone else.

Yes, this is unprecedented and a little nutty, or maybe a lot nutty. I mean: Why next week? What's the logic? Why not the week after? And will we viewers - me and you - really remember any of this six months from now?

Boy, I wanna sip of what they've got in them watercoolers out in Burbank.

Anyway, why wait till next week? I've got the schedule right here, right now (let's just say your faithful correspondent has spies in VERY IMPORTANT places.) Here it is. Don't hold me to this - my source may have been gulping that Burbank watercooler juice for all I know:

Monday: "Deal or No Deal" (8 p.m.); "Deal or No Deal" (9); "My Dad is Better than Your Dad" (10).

Tuesday: "Deal or No Deal" (8); "My Mom is Better than Your Mom" (9); "Deal or No Deal" (10).

Wednesday: "The Biggest Loser: 7" (8); "The Biggest Loser: Mixed Couples;" "Deal or No Deal" (10).

Thursday: "American Gladiators" (8); "American Gladiators: All Stars!!" (9); "Deal or No Deal" (10).

Friday: "The Singing Bee: Moms Vs. Dads" (8); "Celebrity Apprentice" (9); "Celebrity Apprentice:" All Stars" (10).

Saturday: "Deal or No Deal" (encore night.)

Sunday: "Deal or No Deal" (7); "America's Got Talent: All-Stars" (8); "American Gladiators: Deal or No Deal Edition" (9); "Deal or No Deal: Gladiators Edition" (10.)

A little late catching up with "Idol" today (ok, a lot late), but this is one of those blog entries where you sort of feel that you have to jump on board the band wagon along with everyone else. Last night was a particularly interesting edition, and now, I can officially declare right here in the confines of TV Zone: David Cook is the absolute front-runner.

How do you determine these things? (I ask myself.) It's in the air, the zeitgeist, the whatever, (I reply to myself.) It's just THERE. But Archie has suddenly become passe, or vulnerable. It's strange how these things happen, but they just do; blame the ol' Zeitgeist. Honestly, I thought Cook's rendetion of "Billy Jean" was the stand-out moment this season - the one we'll remember a month from now, perhaps, maybe longer. It was "original" - but "good" original.

(BTW, I have to share this fascinating comment from Rushhoursoul, just received: "I loved David Cook's performance but if you have ever heard Chris Cornell's - Soundgarden, Audioslave - version of "Billie Jean" from 'Unplugged in Sweden 2006' then David's version is not terribly original." And - oh boy - read Lisa's less-polite dismissal of my Cook endorsement. I disgree with her, but she picks up the Cornell ref too.)

Meanwhile, who goes tonight? Here's my list from first (the most likely) to fourth (least likely). It's a tough call, and number one on my list is one of my favorites, but cruel are the "Idol" gods, and capricious too. (And if you missed DC's "Billy Jean," it follows):

1.) Carly Smithson.

2.) Chikeze

3.) Ramiele Malubay

4.) Kristy Lee Cook (for once, almost certainly safe, considering her remarkably clever and effective performance last night; if this "Idol" thing doesn't work out - I've got a career suggestion for CLC - as a TV executive.)

(Above, the winner. Randy's right.)

I've received a lot of reader comments - which in my humble realm means about three - concerning the cancellation of CBS's "Kid Nation." Now, I was initially cheered by news of this cancellation, considering how bad the show is.

But I'm in the minority. Turns out, there's a whole nation of "Kid Nation" fans, who are angry at CBS for canceling their favorite show. Some of them are distraught, and the reason I'm writing this blog entry is because last night, I got this comment from Kim: "MY LIVE IS NO LONGER WORTH LIVING!!!!!!!!!!NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO..."

Well, take heart, Kim. It IS worth living, and there is a possible solution here. CBS may have canceled this show, but there are options. Consider how fans of "Jericho" extended that worthy's life for an extra seven episodes? They sent bags of nuts to CBS executives. Sick of the nut tsunami, they relented.

So here's an idea for "KN:" Send your kids.

It's simple. Put them in a large box, and tape it up well, but be sure to put some holes in it so they can breath. For food, add a couple of Domino's pizzas (cheese only, no toppings - they can get messy.) Don't forget the iPod.

This could work. Seriously. Les Moonves - and I suppose Julie Chen - will be driven crazy by the crowd of noisy needy little buggers - all those fights over which favorite show to watch, and constant demands to buy Guitar Hero or Miley Cyrus tickets. CBS'll throw in the towel by the upfronts, and "KN" will be on the fall schedule - and maybe they'll stick your kids in it!

This isn't an original idea. Someone at New York Magazine recently suggested sending hair to ABC executives as a plan to save "Cavemen." It didn't work.

Kids will work. Don't say I never did anything for you, Kim.

Here's the address:

CBS Studios: 7800 Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, CA. 90036

You woke up this morning, wondering. "Why were the Jonas Brothers on 'DWTS' last night? Why was something that coulda been, shoulda been over in ten seconds, expanded to two full bloated insanely dull hours...? And I was so sick of all the padding and commercials that I went to bed early, and now don't even have a clue who got voted off last night?"

And that, my friends, is what I was put on this earth for: To tell you who got voted off of "Dancing with the Stars" last night...

Without any further padding of my own...and I do mean, no padding...they were...

Drum roll...

(Isn't this exciting...?)

Oops, I forgot. I already put their names in the headline.

That's right: Big Boy, or Big Foot, or Young Frankenstein. AKA Penn Jillette. He's gone. And so is Monica Seles.

This is not a surprise. I repeat: This is not a surprise. Reason is that at this early stage, if you have a really lousy judge score (counting for one half of your total) it's just about impossible to muster much audience support either. They had the lowest scores, ergo...adios.

But I'll still miss Big Foot. Comic relief is important in shows bloated to a full two hours. Plus, I was hoping he'd regale the audience at some point with his own version of "The Aristocrat."

(Above, great players do not always make great dancers...)

Well, I'm thinking tonight's double-elimination is probably one of the easiest calls in "DWTS" history. First of all, Monica. Great tennis player. Not great dancer. Last night was a deal-sealer, because whatever she did...I don't even fully recall...was not so much a display of incompetence as much a display of boredom. "This dancing business...ho hum...couldn't be bothered..." She's scored (I believe) 15 two weeks in a row, which simply means she'd need an extraordinary audience turn-out to overcome the judge liability.

That won't happen.

And...Penn. Comedy on the dance floor is fine - but trick ties, and voodoo dolls, and other tricks of the comedian/magician trade become distractions almost as much as the size 22 feet. Again, the judges penalized him last night (no score ever given for "comedy timing") which means another massive turn-out by viewers is needed. That just won't happen either.

Why not Carolla? Good question, and you could certainly call it a toss-up, I imagine, but there was a whole lotta redeeming going on last night. The "Mitch" business as a way of explaining away his "bitch" comment to Carrie Ann? That might just annoy viewers, while a simple apology might've worked a hell of a lot better. Who'll for for AC - who displayed major improvement last night BTW? Maybe radio fans. But that's a real stretch.

But only two can go tonight and my picks are Penn and Monica.

Here's Monica one more time; can't bear to watch Penn again...

Woke up early this morning, actually last night, from troubled dreams. In my fevered sleep, imagined the world today was heaping great mountains of praise on Britney Spears. "A triumph!," says the Times, in an above the fold review. "Scintillating, sly, sexy," says USA Today, equally full of delusion. "The beginning of the beginning," enthused Variety. "Last night, 'How I Met Your Mother.' Next year, could Oscar be knocking on Britney's door!"

Then, I awoke with a start. A dream, I mumbled. No, a NIGHTMARE. Britney everywhere, in my dreams, like some horrifying apparition. That last line, "can we have some sex and then go shopping?" repeating in an endless loop in my brain, and each time I groan in horror that someone actually wrote that.

Britney, Britney, BRITNEY!

Anyway, to make this long nightmare short, I got up, turned on "GMA," and there's Diane Sawyer: "And last night, Britney's acting debut, to heaps of PRAISE!!"

Aaaarrrggghhh! I had entered my own "Groundhog's Day." Just me and Brit - going around and around forever, me watching an endless re-run cycle of "How I Met Your Mother," her saying, "...then go shopping...then go shopping...then..."

I'm feeling much better though because at least (I realized) KFed wasn't on last night's show.

And that, friends, is that: CBS has pulled the plug on "Jericho," ending one of the more extraordinary tales of survival in recent TV history.

Here's the official statement from Nina Tassler, CBS chief, and - cynical beast that I am - I'd still say that it's sincere and heartfelt:

"The March 25th episode of Jericho will be the series finale. Without question, there are passionate viewers watching this program; we simply wish there were more. We thank an engaged and spirited fan base for keeping the show alive this long, and an outstanding team of producers, cast and crew that went through creative hoops to deliver a compelling, high quality second season. We have no regrets bringing the show back for a second try. We listened to our viewers, gave the series an opportunity to grow, and the producers put a great story on the screen. We're proud of everyone's efforts."

Well, really: This whole thing was a long shot, but what a story nevertheless. When CBS killed the show after the first season ('06-'07), fans organized this quite literally nutty effort to get the webheads to change their minds. They sent millions and millions of nuts to them, inundating CBS offices in New York and LA, and finally getting execs to re-think the execution. They thought...more nuts came...and thought some more...more nuts came...and then, boom, they re-newed the show they had just canceled.

"Jericho" got only a seven-episode order, but fans hoped for more. Alas, ratings shriveled and Tassler pulled the trigger.

This is the end. Forever. Hold the nuts.

OK, so this may not be your cuppa tea, but it's a very big development in the New York arts community and in public TV here: WNET/13 debuts this Sunday its long-awaited "SundayArts" program.

First show up: New York City Opera's production of "Madama Butterfly" with James Valenti and Shu-Ying Li. There'll be opera every week (at noon), plus some other diversions along the way. Here's the line-up into April: "Great Performances at the Met: Hansel and Gretel" and "Peter and the Wolf" (3/30) - the latter, I believe, that Oscar-winning program set to Prokofiev; "Great Performances at the Met: Roméo et Juliette (4/6);" and "Great Performances at the Met: Macbeth (4/13)."

Dear old "SundayArts" - it's brand new, but it does feel "dear" and "old" already - will try to mix it up a little too. Here's a direct quote from a press release that my friends at 13 just sent: "Along with classic performances, [news] segments will feature on-the-scene reports from some of the hottest shows around town, plus profiles and interviews with the people who matter in the art world — from William Wegman, Wynton Marsalis and Metropolitan Opera chief Peter Gelb, to a Brooklyn chalk artist and a hip hop artist-poet."

Honestly, I think this'll be great - for those who have time Sundays at noon to watch.

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."

Stop me if you've heard this story before but...last summer I was in this restaurant in Hollywood with one of my best friends on the planet (Mike Hruska) when who should casually stroll in but Harold Perrineau.

This entrance, after...a day at the Press Tour in Beverly Hills (how we suffered) where critics angrily confronted the boss of ABC Entertainment, Steve McPherson, when he refused (declined, perhaps is the better word) to tell them the huge secret about the new season of "Lost," because Darlton (Carlton Cuse/Damon Lindelof) planned to break the news to the nerds...errrr...the highly intelligent people down in Comic-Con, then being held at that very moment in San Diego.

Well, you just won't believe what happened: The critics started a full scale riot! They broke up the furniture. Started throwing their computers (laptops, to be exact.) Epithets were strewn about. A terrified McPherson reached for his cellphone and called Darlton; we overheard him: "Can I tell these nerds...errrr, highly intelligent people...the secret?" he said over the din.

He raised his hand. Suddenly, there was silence.

"Michael," he said, "is coming back to 'Lost.'"

This is a true story, sort of, with a few embellishments.

Anyway, Harold was so amused after I told him about that morning's Press Tour riot that he proceeded to tell me what was going to happen when he reappeared this season as "Kevin Johnson," and who the "Oceanic 6" were, and...

Well, I can't tell you any more or he would kill me.

In any event, the most anticipated "Lost" of the season: In thirty minutes.

The mentors are back! The mentors are back! And with that, the Beatles may soon be gone.

Yeah, last night Ryan Seacrest gave a fuller list of this season's mentors - Mariah Carey, Dolly Parton, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Neil Diamond - and you can be reasonably certain that they're not coming aboard to help the final ten with the Lennon/McCartney canon. I'm pretty certain Parton - BTW - was already expected, and probably MC too. Mentors - you'll recall - have been a key part of the show over the years, though producers cooled to 'em this season because they decided to focus more on the kids' back-stories as opposed to the back-stories of the rich-and-famous coaching them.

But...obviously a bad decision in retrospect. They were (or at least were sometimes) viewer faves, and the contestants got a kick out of them as well. And - arguably - they made the songs and performances better, or at least as good as they could be. Certainly Diana Ross knows a little bit more about how to sing one of her own hits than one of the "Idol" resident musical pros, right?

The absence of mentors has also been a possible, or probable, reason why the last two Beatles weeks have been such a considerable disappointment. The singers, half the age of the songs, in some instances didn't know the songs, and certainly weren't plugged into their rich, mythic lore. Result - a lotta bad performances.

Last year, in fact, "Idol" DID get permission from Sony/Micheal Jackson to dip into the Beatles songbook (they could choose a few songs - this season, the whole book was open to them.) But they canned the idea when they couldn't get a Beatles "mentor." They wanted legendary Beatles producer/frontman George Martin, and here's what "Idol" bossman Ken Warwick said at the time:

"The problem we found - or the problem we've had, obviously - is that we need a mentor who's up to the job. We were after George Martin, and his schedule unfortunately... we tried every which way. We had permission from the record company, we just couldn't get George."

Ummm, what about Sir Paul? He did write the songs that people sing, so...

Said Ken: He "took exception" to Simon's comments about the contestants."

"[McCartney's] a nice guy. He doesn't like Simon saying, 'You're horrible. You're the worst I ever heard. You shouldn't be singing.' So the chances of Paul coming on the show were pretty slim."

Oh, Simon...

(Of course, Paul has had his hands full of a few other problems the last few months, so can't put all the blame on our favorite judge...)

The winner! (Um, already?)

Oh, I'm on to your game, "Dancing with Stars." Oh, yes I am.

Can't fool Uncle Verne. It's so obvious, so ridiculously obvious, that no one will be fooled.

The women are pretty good to excellent, overall. The guys are horrific to good, overall. Do we smell a trend here?

We do. Why have they stacked the odds in favor of the women? Because - of course - women don't vote for women contestants, and "DWTS" is simply attempting to tilt the balance so dramatically in their favor this season that there will be - that there CAN be - no doubt whatsoever that a woman should win "DWTS." A woman MUST win this season; it's the only way the franchise will keep a shred of credibility, otherwise the word will be out, more or less officially, that only guys can win this show, because women viewers are voting for them.

Guys? Honestly - I think I'm the only one on the planet who actually watches "DWTS."

Kristi Yamaguchi was so accomplished last night that she's already secured a final four position - unless the ghost of Sabs Bryan returns to prove once again that (only) the good die young on "DWTS." (And knowing "DWTS," she will...)

Let's break 'em down:

Shannon Elizabeth/Derek Hough: Sets the tone for the whole evening, with a surprisingly good open round; Hough's great so that shouldn't be a surprise, but Eliz? Who'da figured. All legs and torso. Her Achilles heel: women voters, who will likely discover she was in Maxim or some such mag. That won't help. No, it won't.

Monica Seles/Jonathan Roberts: Youth and athleticism. Those were the things I thought she had in her favor. But last night's performance was so somnolent that I nodded off then fell into a deep dreamless sleep. But...that said, she was still competent.

Marissa Jaret Winokur/Tony Dovolani: Tracy Turnblad brings it on home. Man, I just knew the actress in Marissa would trump whatever other deficiencies she might bring to this thing, but you know what? There's raw potential here, and with that big 'ol smile and show biz savvy, I see her as a contender for weeks to come.

Priscilla Presley/Louis Van Amstel: Again, a shocker! What I like about Priscilla is that deep - almost ridiculously deep - sense of purpose. She's so so serious. But that paid off because she took a relatively complicated routine and worked it out nicely. Again, I see HER around for a while, too. And there was also a very telling comment by Sam Harris: "You need to vote guys..." That's right. They need to, but will they?

Kristi Yamaguchi/Mark Ballas: You already know what I think. She's so absurdly good that this whole comp is suddenly over. Good thing ABC needs to stretch this out through the May sweeps... She was actually fun to watch, and "fun" doesn't usually come into the equation in the first round.

Marlee Matlin/Fabian Sanchez: And so it went - a female contestant who was solid on her feet again, and "solid" in a good way. She's someone else who's on this show for a while.

Big Hair is good. Very good.

Yesterday morning, Simon Cowell woke up on the wrong side of bed, fell out flat on on his face, scrambled to his feet, then tumbled head first out the window and straight down into a scummy pond filled with duck poop where he was then set upon by a thousand homicidal Canadian geese.

How else - I ask you in all genuine sincerity - is one to explain his horrendous mood last night?

I've seen Cowell in black moods before - that square Brit face of his scarlet with anger, bile, rage, disappointment, and (flat-out) scorn.

But last night? That was the record. It was that flock of homicidal geese, I suppose.

I mean, seriously people. Where to begin? He spat out insult after insult, until he was so spent he had to consult his (recently published) "Simon Cowell's Book of Insults" for fresh material. By the time poor 'ol Malubay rolled around, he basically just threw up his hands - "you chose really mediocre songs and didn't show the best of your ability."

So, it was also McCartney and Lennon's fault now, eh?

How DARE they write mediocre songs for Ramielle Malubay and all these other pretenders?

Good Lord, man.

He was kinda nice to Mercado and Archie. But that was it.

In some cases, he was absolutely right. Brooke White - my heroine - was horrendous. Amanda Overmyer was so bad that if she gets voted off tonight, then even Paul will feel a little better (after giving Heather a king's ransom.)

But the rest of his judgments were flawed - especially with Carly Smithson. Here. You don't believe me. Watch. She was fine. Simon was nuts.

What's the problem? Simple: Simon, and doubtless the rest of the "Idol" production brain trust, are beginning to regret this Beatle thing. It's become a straitjacket, whereby songs that were gorgeous and indelible when sung by the one-and-onlys almost half a century ago, now sound tinny and trivial when sung by this crew. Yes, Malubay was the perfect example (and Brooke too). "I Should Have Known Better" should have only been sung by Lennon (I think it was Lennon) and no one else, ever. But Simon is so clearly incensed by all this ruination of the Beatles that he's completely lost his judgment and apparently, marbles.

I wonder: When will "Idol" start mixing in other standards again?

Simon slugs Carly. Carly slugs back and scores!

GACK!! This is what "Dancing with the Stars" has wrought:

"Secret Talents of the Stars"

Tuesday, April 8 at 10.

On CBS (which is kinda treading water on Tuesdays, so this rabbit comes outta the hat.)

The news on this show broke during the writers strike, when about 6,000 other reality shows were announced. I kinda hoped CBS had forgotten about it. But they didn't. Details were out this morning:

Let's shorthand this for you. Marla Maples doing gymnastics.

Does that say it all?

Okay, howabout George Takei singing country.

Malcolm-Jamal Warner on bass guitar.

Joe Frazier as an R&B; singer.

Danny Bonaduce (oh you just KNOW he had to be in this one) on a unicycle.

Clint Black doing stand-up.

Mya doing tap dance...

I could go on. But why bother. You'll watch. You can't help yourself.

There will be a bunch of other celebrities who didn't get invited to "Dancing with the Stars" doing a bunch of other stuff that you might not normally associate them with, and then viewers during this seven-week sillyfest will vote on who they think does whatever it is they do best, and we'll end up with two finalists, and then sometime in May, a winner will be crowned, and if ratings are REALLY big, then I'll be forced to write a "news" story for the Newsday.

Thanks "DWTS."

Front-runner. Night One.

So let's get straight to it: The guys are weak. Not awful. Just weak. Add 'em all up together, and you end up with "average." Which isn't good enough.

Of course, there were exceptions, though the best performances last night were still only OK, and enhanced by the ol' charm factor.

Will a guy win the sixth season of "Dancing with the Stars?" With statistics and past history as indicators, the answer is yes. But based on last night, the answer is no.

Let's break 'em on down:

Penn Jillette/Kym Johnson: He absolutely reminded me of that classic sequence in "Young Frankenstein" when Gene Wilder first introduced his gorgeous creation to the world, and what did Frank do? Dance a soft-shoe on stage. "DWTS" seems to think comic relief was missing from last season, but I'm not sure viewers come to this for laughs. Penn was certainly funny. Bantering with Bruno about card tricks, the latter says: "I've done a few tricks in my life." Penn: "We don't wanna go there..." No, we don't.

Jason Taylor/Edyta Sliwinska: Like this Dolphin so far, and the best example of charisma trumping raw talent (OK, maybe Cristian is the best example, but more on that in a sec.) He's got game and humor and a sense of purpose, and you need all three to click with the viewer at home. So he'll be fine through the opening weeks. Problem is perspective: This combo LOOKS odd, because he's six six and 255 pounds. Edyta is (like) half his size.

Cristian de La Fuente/Cheryl Burke: I see great possibilities here, and you know darn well that so does Cheryl who - I would bet my bottom nickel - insisted on the Mad Chilean after having to slump around the stage with Wayne Newton last year. She wants to win again, and probably insisted on a comer as opposed to a loser. He's got pure charisma, and so does she, but he's gotta cut down a bit on that vanity; women voters may swoon at first, but the act will wear thin. He needs to project "sincerity..." He's an actor - should be able to figure it out.

Adam Carolla/Julianne Hough: Well, you just know this one's doomed. Why did "DWTS" producers decide on this act? I can tell you why. The show - and ABC - want to enrich the male demo on the show, because it's skewing too heavily female. More guys watching means an even bigger audience, and maybe a possibility that they'll vote for women contestants. (Women viewers usually seem to vote for male contestants...) But only problem - Adam could be voted off first. He's funny. That might count for something. But likely not.

Mario/Karina Smirnoff: We're on to ya, "DWTS." Those little openers are dead giveaways to performances, always. Karina has a herniated disk. Oh, doom, doom! And of course they were just fine. Mario's the male front-runner - not quite David Archuleta, perhaps, but the guy to beat so far.

Steve Guttenberg/Anna Trebunskaya: Yeah, my first thought too: Steve has had a lot of work done, and by that I mean, "face-lift." He's been completely re-modeled, and my sincere compliments to the surgeon who did the honors. But bless 'im - who cares? He's in Hollywood! You just don't let your face fall and call it a day. In the city of perpetual youth, youth must be served and preserved. Steve's feet did a reasonable job last night too. I think he's on this show for a while - maybe quite a while. People will like his charm and enthusiasm - I believe it's called "infectious." Plus, he'll start giving plugs for his charity, and that'll seal the deal. How could you vote off a guy who has his name on a major charity? You can't! Steve's good to go, plus how savvy can you get? He wished his parents a happy 50th. Oh you're good, Guttenberg. You're very good.

Mr. Hollywood. A keeper - for now.

Yes, this is the first look - the very first look - at BS's turn on CBS's soundstage, which must have come to an absolute grinding halt when she showed up last week to do this cameo in "How I Met Your Mother." Pictured here with Josh Radnor, she's a receptionist in a dermatologist's office and has fallen hard for our hero. (Episode airs next Monday.)

People Mag paid millions of bucks for this photo - but we're giving it to you for free, and all we have to do is credit "People" (ah, the power and fairness of the Internet...)

Anyway, four things to deduce from this photo:

1.) She's lost weight.

2.) Not sure, but I don't expect she'll win an Emmy for this.

3.) Pretty sure the hair is fake, like that guy on "American Idol" (even looks like the same wig...hmmm). But what do I know about hair...

4.) There's no such thing as a book called "The Power of Me," which means she got the book at the same place she got the hair.

Don't you just love TV?

(Photo - and a good one - is by CBS's Monty Brinton.)

Laurie Dhue - not to be confused with Jane Skinner, but if you did confuse the two, you'd be forgiven - is bolting Fox News Channel. Anyone who doesn't watch FNC would go right about now, "huh? so what?" but anybody who does will go, "huh! WHAT!" She's been a reasonably visible fixture on the channel that has essentially cornered the market on attractive blonds. There are exceptions - FNC has also "indefinitely" cut loose "Big Story with John Gibson," and as you accurately note, he is not an attractive blond. (He's not leaving FNC, but Eric Burns - longtime media critic - is.)

What's going on over at Fox News? Honestly, I'm not certain: It's always had this swaggering, biggest-baddest-dude-in-town attitude - all courtesy of Roger Ailes - but lately the dude feels pale and wan, like a pitcher who's just lost his devastating breaking ball and everyone on the opposing team knows it. (I'm into mixed metaphors today - just can't help it.)

Is Dhue's departure a huge deal? Of course not. People leave TV networks all the time...but it's still gotta make you wonder. TVnewser, which broke this over the weekend, got a statement out of Fox which says,"Unfortunately, we were unable to come to terms on a new agreement with Laurie. She has been a valued member of Fox News, and we wish her all the best in her future endeavors." (A spokeswoman who just called added nothing to this.) TVnewser added, "Since September she has been working as ombudswoman for The O'Reilly Factor for a segment called 'The Dhue Point.' In what would be her last installment Thursday night, Bill O'Reilly told Dhue, 'I hope you know, this is my favorite segment of the week.'"

Just finally catching up to this (old) news from last week, but Defamer had a particularly intriguing account of David Caruso's on-set behavior at "CSI." What's amazing to me - why has Forest Hills-own DC been on good behavior for so long? Or maybe no one's paid attention, which seems highly unlikely? I'll never forget DC's exit from "NYPD Blue" - in a blaze of bad karma, as he sought an early out from his contract to get into "serious" acting on the big screen. Show-runners were furious, while his co-actors felt both betrayed and deeply grateful (a curious feeling no doubt) because he was such an incredibly difficult guy to work with, or as someone put it to me, "he sucks all the oxygen out of the room..." But karma's karma and after DC's "Jade" and "Kiss of Death" tanked, he had to get back into TV. But he got smart, avoided a Don Johnson-type rep, kept his head down and made "CSI: Miami" one of TV's biggest hits. But what does this bad press (all of a sudden) mean?

I never learn. Never ever... I know full well that Kristi Yamaguchi should easily win this season's (the sixth already; how time flies) "Dancing with the Stars" but by so saying, I know now that she won't. Just because she's a world-class athlete? Has performed in a thousand ice shows? Knows how to work audiences? Has a gifted pro by her side (Mark Ballas?)

I'm onto your game, "Dancing." Won't be fooled again. Know you always like to put in a "can't miss" contestant, just to EMBARRASS me when I post my odds, and just to make everyone think, "oh, it's over already..."

It isn't. Simply consider - the odds are far in favor of a guy winning.

Anyway, here are my odds. (This is a repeat of those published in today's paper, so if you've seen 'em already, sorry...)

Adam Carolla/Julianne Hough: "The Man Show" man, and LA radio personality. Amusing fellow though, one wonders, how will this act play with the predominantly female voting base? Odds: 24:1.

Cristian de La Fuente/Cheryl Burke: Chilian actor, and VERY ugly. Plenty of U.S.TV exposure but low name recognition. That could hurt, but not too much. Also, shades of Helio? Also, Cheryl; I believe she's a two-time winner, and after getting stuck with last season's comic relief (Wayne Newton) probably wants to step into winner's circle again. Odds: 7:1.

Shannon Elizabeth/Derek Hough: Actress ("Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back") and, I hear, a pretty good poker player. But will she rate here? Unlikely - guys usually (in fact, just about always) win. Odds: 25:1.

Steve Guttenberg/Anna Trebunskaya: Most of us remember Steve back when he was famous ("Diner," et al.) But what have you done for us lately Steve? He's head of something called the Guttenberg House which helps foster kids. Ladies will LOVE that. But this feels like a Mark Cuban kinda entry; he's serious but probably doesn't expect a win. Odds: 8-1.

Mario/Karina Smirnoff: Ah, youth. Mario's 21 and also very ugly. Best known of the male celebs here, although demo that watches this show (post 35-year-olds) will think Mario is some kind of an Italian guy. He knows how to rap, but dance? Can probably learn pretty easy if he doesn't. Odds: 10-1.

Marlee Matlin/Fabian Sanchez: Plenty 'o TV exposure, but missing that one...big...break (since "Children of a Lesser God.") She's one of my favorites to go far. Odds: 5:1.

Penn Jillette/Kym Johnson: Great to have PJ here; he'll add that rare caustic element. Also, I can hardly wait for "DWST" to start showing outtakes from "P&T;: Bull&%$@!" or "The Aristocrats." Odds: 200:1.

Priscilla Presley/Louis Van Amstel: She's in that sweet spot, demographically, with vast name recognition. Love her chances to go far, but not into winners' circle. Odds: 7:1.

Monica Seles/Jonathan Roberts: Youth and athleticism and (of course) winner's spirit. But I just don't think voters'll go all the way for her. Odds: 10:1.

Jason Taylor/Edyta Sliwinska: The Dolphins?! (Gulp.) But like Mario and Cristian, he's very VERY ugly. That said, I like his chances best of all the guys. Odds: 4:1.

Marissa Jaret Winokur/Tony Dovolani: Love the thought of Tracy Turnblad winning "DWTS." She's a very good actress too, which counts for a great deal on "DWTS." Odds: 6:1.

Kristi Yamaguchi/Mark Ballas: On paper (and maybe on-screen), KY is unbeatable. Forget the skating championships - millions of them - it's the ice show tours that give her such a huge edge here. She makes it to the final two, unless she's done in by that "why vote for her because she's so good" syndrome, which did in Sabrina Bryan last year. Can a woman win this show (ever again)? That's the big question. Odds: 3:1.

Another big night on "Lost" (and aren't all you non-"Losties" out there totally amused by the navel lint-picking we "Losties" continually engage in? Sorry but no apologies forthcoming...):

I do believe we finally have the full tally of our Oceanic Six - those who "survived" the crash of 815, were rescued, and became (in the future) almost as famous as Britney Spears. They are...

Sun (revealed last night)

Jack

Kate

Hurley

Sayid

Aaron (this being Claire's baby.)

Now, we have to wait to see whether this list will be formally confirmed, but Darlton (Damon Lindelof/Carlton Cuse) said in an interview in TV Guide recently that they will do so after the March 13 episode; that was last night, so we await confirmation. Meanwhile, the identity of Aaron as a O 6 is possibly debatable, because Jin could also have been one of the O 6, who just happened to die after he was rescued.

Whatever. The joy of lint-picking.

Now, what's the significance of all this? Honestly, I don't have a clue. But...these six do appear to all be members of those who stayed with Jack (except for Hurley and arguably Kate; oh dear.)

Also, does Ben count? That's an interesting question because he clearly does get off the Island, but clearly not considered an O 6 member.

Oh, yes, how could I forget: Michael Dawson - Harold Perrineau - finally returned last night. We haven't seen him of course since he sailed off into the sunset with Walt.) He was swabbing the deck, so to speak, and quite clearly is Ben's plant on the freighter.

Ah, "Lost" lint-picking. Almost as good as the first cup of coffee in the ayem.

Miranda Cosgrove...Miranda Cosgrove...Miranda Cosgrove...

It's an amazing thing about this name. You put it in a blog, and like magic, your blog suddenly gets a million hits. And since my sole purpose in life is "click through," then...once again, "Miranda Cosgrove."

Who is Miranda Cosgrove? Oh puhlease.

If you have to ask, then move along. You must have better things to do. But if you've gotten this far, then you are absolutely reading this blog with bated breath because Miranda Cosgrove, 14, is only the BIGGEST 'TWEEN ACTRESS on the planet, and her Nick show, "iCarly," is seen by something like 100 million kids, and since they're the only ones that seem to use the Internet, then, excuse me, but I just have to mention the name one more time, Miranda Cosgrove. Plus, she was on "School of Rock," and "Drake and Josh."

Anyway - I know you want to strangle me - but here's the deal. I interviewed her about four hours ago. It was the highlight of my day. She's very nice, smart, has a very cute giggle, talks very fast, and I think she speaks English; you can't be entirely certain with these 'tweens.

So, here's the big news: There are going to be TWO "Drake and Josh" movies. The first one is "Drake and Josh in New York," and other one will be "Drake and Josh at Christmas." (Don't hold me to the titles; the first one is in pre-production, the other still in even earlier stages.) Super-duper kids producer, Dan Schneider, is doing both.

Who's Drake (Bell) and who's Josh (Peck)...Oh puhlease. If you have to ask...Etc.

More news: Josh Peck is expected to direct an episode of "ICarly" next season (they start taping the new season in May.) Plus, Miranda Cosgrove is going to star in both movies.

Whatever happened to Nick megahit, "D and J?" Says Miranda (Cosgrove), "little kids always ask, 'are there going to be new episodes,' and I usually say, 'there's a few more.'" She doesn't want to hurt their feelings and tell them it ended production well over a year ago.

What's she gonna do at the Kids' Choice Awards? (March 29, 8 p.m.) "Present, but I don't know what..."

What's she been doing with her time since she's not taping "iCarly?" "I've been playing a lot of 'Guitar Hero;' I'm on medium."

What's her favorite show? "'American Idol'...but missed the last couple weeks." Oh, yeah, she loves going to the mall.

What's new on next season's "iCarly?" "Some more love interests..."

Does she miss Drake and Josh? "Oh yes...they're like brothers."

What'll Josh be like when he directs?

"He'll be bossy."

Thank you Miranda Cosgrove. (And "iCarly.") I can hear the clicking already...

(Above, MC, with Tom Higgenson of the Plain White T's.)

Here's how the world works: You do something really notorious - say, become a prostitute and unwittingly become the instrument by which you unseat the sleazebag governor of New York - and then you look to cash in. In the olden days, you'd first line up the "respectable" interview with Babs Walters. You'd cry a little. Confess a little. Babs would ask you about stains on dresses, and you'd have to deal with that too.

Then...straight to the bank! Absolved by Babs, your agent could then score you a book deal, a magazine deal (one of those pay-for-play profiles in some very thick glossy), and best of all: The TV deal. That might be a full-blown series (reality of course) in an ideal world.

But like I said. Those are the old days. In these days, you head straight to TV, and cash the check fast. So, who's bidding for Kristen/Ashley? NBC News or ABC News? They - of course - couldn't pay outright for the interview, but they could "hire" Kristen/Ashley as a "consultant," who could offer on-air "opinions" about the Luv Guv. (I rule out CBS only because I don't think they'll come up with the necessary change.)

Or...will be it be "Extra" or "Access Hollywood?" My money, ahem, is on "AC" because as part of the NBC Universal empire, NBC can offer "Access," "Nightly News," maybe a cameo on "The Office" and a reality show (it would be offered, but probably never air.)

But I'm getting ahead of myself. I always do. Here's the news. A website - I'm assuming a reputable one because the very reputable TVNewser says it's got creds - claims "Extra" is already offering $100,000 for the interview.

Let the bidding begin!

(Hey, wasn't Babs spotted camping outside Kristen's apartment bldg last night?)

It's now official: Former strippers CAN'T win "American Idol." Producers have to be happy about last night's results; Coke has to be happy too; as I think I pointed out before, "The Coke Side of Life" does not, under normal circumstances, include lap dancing. And most viewers - certainly the granny vote - aren't gonna warm to this past, ummm, vocation either. So it goes.

Oh, and how DID Coke - AI's most important sponsor by far - feel about our departee? Go to "American Idol's" site and check out the "behind the scenes" photo slide-show "Presented by Coke:" Not one, I repeat, there is not one shot of Hernandez (he appears off to the side in one picture). But there are half a dozen out of twenty with Brooke and Kristy.

Coke may not "cast a vote," but it's a more important presence on this show than any judge (Simon included) or producer. Money talks on TV, and Coke is the biggest money of all. They wanted Hernandez gone.

Nevertheless....nevertheless, Hernandez deserved another shot. Maybe another two shots. He massacred "Saw Her Standing There" on Tuesday, but oddly enough, did a pretty good rendition during the exit routine. He was a very good singer, and up until Tuesday, was maybe a top-sixer. But here's the thing: This top twelve - now eleven - is so good that one bad turn (with the exception of Archie) means that just about anyone can land in the bottom three week to week. David just happened to pick a bad time to be bad.

Gone. Too bad.

Tough night tonight.

Who is gone?

Who DESERVES to be gone?

Anyway, here are my weekly odds, adjusted as we go. (Odds, by the way, reflect chances of eviction tonight.) Answers below:

David Archuleta: I'm a lover of counter-intuitive logic and therefore will say right now - Archie had a great Beatles night. Great because he bastardized "We Can Work it Out?" No, because he thus proved that he is fallible. Again, you never want to be infallible on this show, or at least until that moment you're crowned. He's human! He forgets words! He's not perfect! He's still the frontrunner, but he won't be if he screws up next next week. Odds: 2:1.

Jason Castro: Not a particularly memorable performance ("If I Fell"), but still a memorable guy. He's safe tonight. Odds: 5:1

Chikeze: For some reason, Chicky remains low on the popularity poll (if TV Guide's weekly power rankings are to be believed.) He probably won't win "Idol," but after last night's "She's a Woman," he's a lock - to continue. Odds: 4:1.

David Cooke: Forget about moving on to next week; he could win the whole dang thing. (3:1.)

Kristy Lee Cook: The perfect illustration of why Sony and MJ (Michael Jackson) have zealously protected this song book - that someone would take a standard and turn it into something not only unrecognizable but actually ghastly. "Eight Days a Week" - I'll never listen to it the same way again. But Paula made a rare blunder last night wen she revealed that KLC has a "huge" following. In other words, Paula knows the numbers, and she knows KLC is safe. Maybe. After last night, that's not a sure bet. Odds: 25:1.

David Hernadez: What the..??!! This is not the stage of the competition where you screw up. This is the stage of the competition where you get better, or turn up the gas, or do something to prove to viewers that you deserve to go on to the next round. DH actively encouraged viewers to NOT vote for him. A neat trick.He's in the bottom two tonight. Odds: 50:1.

Michael Lee Johns: He was better than the judges (Paula of course loved him) gave him credit for being. Not boring at all ("Across the Universe") but engaging. He remains safe. Odds: 7:1.

Ramiele Malubay: I still like her but I fear fans do not, or fear they have no idea who she is, or why they should vote for her. Tonight, Ramiele leaves. Odds: 100:1.

Syesha Mercado: Solid "Got to Get You Into My Life." Why doesn't she get more press? I'm confounded. Se's darned good, and at least deserves to move forward. And...will. Odds: 14:1.

Amanda Overmyer: Personality deficient, refuses to sell herself to the judges. That'll work against her in the long-run. But after Chicky, this was the best John/Paul of the night. Odds: 12:1.

Carly Smithson: "Who's that Irish girl?" asked Simon. Good Lord! The man's got senioritis already! How could he forget? Carly's worry has to be that others have forgotten who she is too. Please, please, please...Carly HAS to move on. (Plus, I want a professinal to win "Idol" so that this show can go into contortions trying to explain why it's still an amateur competition. Odds: 10:1.

Brooke White: My own personal dark horse. I actually thought her "Let it Be" was only OK, but it's what she does after the song; dabbing an eye and thanking the audience without affectation. I assure you, millions of others were dabbing their eyes too - as they dialed in her vote. Odds: 4:1.

By George, I think they've got it.

In fact, take "I think" out. They've got it: The most important development, maybe, in the whole history of web TV launched a few hours ago, and for once, the hype is justified. Hulu is amazing. Simple. Elegant. Dynamic. And vast.

Hundreds of shows, movies, clips - thousands of hours. Enough to fill, or waste, a whole lifetime. I am blown away by Hulu.

Now, please keep in mind - this is a first impression, and I'll check back later in the day when the servers are being overloaded by millions of viewers; that's where the rubber meets the road for sites like this. But I've gotta imagine NBC and Fox have anticipated this, too.

What is "Hulu?" The omnibus site created by Fox and NBC, featuring (most) of their shows plus many classics, and a vast amount of other stuff as well. Like the ABC and CBS sites, you'll get current episodes, and the full season as well. But, alas, Hulu makes their (nice) episode sites feel clunky and a little moldy.

Yes, there's advertising here, but in a funny way, you'll almost welcome it. "So this is the price to pay...?" Big deal. Worth it. An example: I picked, for no particular reason, the pilot episode of the classic "Firefly." You get a choice - either the full trailer for "Leatherhead," or "regular commercial interruptions" (which, like at, say, ABC, involves a 30-second spot at the outset.) If you pick "Leatherhead," then no other commercials.

Again, an insignificant price to pay.

Hulu gives the illusion of totality, but it is an illusion. I don't (for example) believe I saw any episodes of "American Idol," though "1 vs. 100" is here. What's the logic for inclusion on Hulu? I'm not sure it's evident, and I'm not sure I care either. "Idol" isn't going to be here, of course, because Fox already has a lucrative deal with iTunes. So what. We can live with that. And besides, YouTube and Idolstalker already have this show covered thoroughly.

A quick note on screen quality: It's generally adequate. The actual video screen will fill about a quarter of your's, and it's surrounded by clutter of various sorts, some of it distracting. Naturally, you'll then click on "full screen." Under normal circumstances, "full screen" can be a ticket to on-line hell, with either horrific quality or a frozen hard drive. Not here: Full screen resolution is pretty good, and I had no technical problems to speak of.

As mentioned, I'll check back later, but you should check it out now. Hulu is amazing. I promise.

Here's last night's top ten. Couldn't wait to share (P.S. This one's inspired):

"Messages Left on Eliot Spitzer’s Answering Machine"

10. “Hey, what’s new?”

9. “It’s Barack Obama. Remember our conversation about being my running mate? Never mind.”

8. “Ralph Nader here. Glad to hear I’m not the only politician who has to pay for it.”

7. “Hi, I’m calling from the ‘New York Post.’ Would you rather be known as ‘Disgraced Governor Perv’ or ‘Humiliated Whore Fiend’?”

6. “This is John McCain. If it makes you feel better, I once got caught having sex with Lincoln’s wife.”

5. “It’s Dr. Phil. Call me if you need any horse**** advice.”

4. “This is Sen. Larry Craig. Do you ever go through the Minneapolis airport?”

3. “It’s Wolf Blitzer. Call me if you ever want a hot Spitzer-Blitzer three-way.”

2. “Paris Hilton here. I would have done it for free.”

1. “It’s Arnold Schwarzenegger. Thanks, I’m no longer America’s creepiest governor.”

It's a beautiful world. New York's Luv Guv consorts with hookers and Mary Ann of "Gilligan's Island" scores some Maui Wowie and HAS TO DO TIME.

Or, a three hour tour, as the AP account of this tragedy so amusingly notes. Here's the story if you - like me - have been brain-dead to this huge development that broke late afternoon:

"A surprise birthday party for Dawn Wells, the actress who played Mary Ann on 'Gilligan's Island,' ended with a nearly three-hour tour of the Teton County sheriff's office and jail when the 69-year-old was caught with marijuana in her vehicle while driving home.

Wells is now serving six months' unsupervised probation for the crime. She was sentenced Feb. 29 to five days in jail, fined $410.50 and placed on probation after pleading guilty to one count of reckless driving. "

"Hulu!?" "Hulu!?" "Hulu!?" "Hulu!" "Hulu!?"

You're probably asking yourself, "What's this Gay guy babbling about now?"

I'll tell you what I'm babbling about: Only the most exciting, interesting, anticipated development in Web TV in my whole life, or at least since the advent of YouTube. That's what I'm babbling about. And no, the backers of Hulu - NBC and Fox - haven't even paid me to say this.

Hulu starts tomorrow, or just about...ohhh, fifteen hours from now...and in my limited knowledge of the matter, there's nothing else quite like it on TV, or the Web, or whatever. Streaming episodes of thousands of shows, and free, baby, free. (Yeah, Joost, I guess, promises some of the same, but not in this volume.)

Don't bother going to the site - it doesn't tell you much - but I can tell you that if you have a computer and you have broadband, then this will be a pretty extraordinary thing, assuming it's not a disaster of monumental proportions. Even though I've bought into the hype, I don't think it will be a disaster.

Here's why: There's too much at stake. One false move, one unending buffer, one insurmountable firewall, one busted real-time transport control protocol - I don't have a clue what I just said, but it sounds good, doesn't it? - and Hulu will be re-named BooBoo.

But it won't happen. Fox and NBC may be many things - but not stupid.

What will we/you get from Hulu? Two hundred TV shows. NCAA basketball games going back deep into the 20th century. There'll be advertising of course - that's why it's free - but in an intriguing, and methinks clever, departure, you'll be able to choose which ad you want to see. Banners will always be cluttering up the screen.But so what: THAT EPISODE OF "BEVERLY HILLS 90210" THAT YOU JUST HAVE TO SEE WILL BE THERE!

ABC and CBS remain hold-outs to this point, and yeah - those are pretty big holes. But if Hulu's a big hit, they'll probably join up too. Of course, at some point, you'll be saying - hey, no reason to watch a network show at all anymore. Just watch it on Hulu. (And you think newspapers have troubles? The networks are laying the groundwork for their own demise.)

(Above: Gaga over Hulu. Soon, will we all just watch TV's Greatest Show on the computer instead of the TV?)

If you - like me - have recovered sufficiently from the absolute gobsmackery of this afternoon's news, then you (like me) have been wondering: What did Bill and Lou do? (And while I'm at it, what does Jeanine Pirro to have to say. And how about Karl Rove? Wouldn't it be interesting to hear what KR has to say about Client 9?)

Bill, as in Bill O'Reilly, who is not a Spitzer supporter at least in this universe and had his own interesting indiscretions in years gone by, and "Lou," as in Dobbs, who is an outright, no-holds-barred, Spitzer antagonist.

All this should make for good TV, and - I'm happy to report - there's been some pretty good TV tonight.

Let's start with Lou. A year or so ago, he clashed violently with Spitzer over latter's brief support of giving driver's licenses to illegals. Lou blew a stack, used Spitz to drive ratings, and Spitz - who quickly learned that you don't pick a fight with someone who has a TV network for a bullhorn - backed down, or so Lou said.

So, tonight, would Lou gloat? Would Lou smile that wonderfully wicked Great White Shark smile of his? Yes, on all counts! Although...Dobbs was also pretty constrained, by his standards, and even referred to the "alleged" allegations, and this "alleged" business about the "alleged" Client # 9. Of course, Lou had that look of withering disgust as only Lou can achieve - especially as he noted how Spitzer's approval rating dropped all the way down to 25 percent after their public run-in, or "that episode," per Lou.

Bill: This was a pretty good edition of "Factor," with guests who included the always astute Ellis Henican of Newsday. Ellis laid Spitzer's extraordinary fall to "hubris - the rules don't apply to me." Bill O said it all part of a "death wish...He wanted to get caught."

(My thought: They're BOTH right.)

And there was much, more more. On to "Hannity & Colmes," and who should appear but none other than Jeanine Pirro - onetime Republican canon fodder against Hill. (Both of whom have had their own share of husband issues.) Pirro, re Spitzer's poor wife, Silda: "When something like this happens in politics, you are shell-shocked. You gotta catch your breath."

Jeannine looked like she knew what she was talking about.

Sean had a pretty good line (or at least I think it was Sean): "My wife told me if this ever happens to me, she's holding her own news conference."

Karl Rove, Bush's Brain, then turned up. He looked to the camera and said, "It's very sad...Very, very sad."

I could almost swear when he said this, he was smiling.

Meanwhile, I now see that Dick Morris is on the air. No one's asking him about prostitutes. I wonder why...

(Above: Why are all these guys so happy?)

Is this for REAL? By "this," I mean the breaking news that Britney Spears has signed on for a CBS sitcom.

(Forget about Client 9, in other words. This is the big news.)

No finer an authority that Pink is the New Blog is reporting this, and professional courtesy obliges me to give credit, while E! has gone ahead and confirmed. Here's the story:

She will guest-star in a future episode of "How I Met Your Mother" (no airdate yet, but I'm sure you'll hear about that the minute it's decided.) It'll air at the beginning of May sweeps (where else? the end, maybe.)

Here's what PITNB says: "I am dying y'all! I just found out from a source that Britney Spears is scheduled to appear on an upcoming episode of the hit CBS show How I Met Your Mother. I was just informed that Britney showed up at the FOX Studios lot this morning with only her agent in tow to sit down with the cast of the show for the episode read-thru." Etc. No other details.

Now, before y'all get exercised, and say, "how can CBS exploit that poor insane girl," (as I did), keep in mind a.) she is an adult. b.) This is an easy gig. c.) She'll get paid and pay for lawyers and such. d.) Keep her mind off all of her other troubles. e.) Maybe put her on the road to a brand new career.

This sitcom deal isn't as bad as it sounds.

E! found out she'll play someone named Abby who works in Ted's (Josh Radnor) office.

(Above, Brit may be on the road to a new career.)

Wherefore art thou...?

Not much time to break down last night's "Lost" - sorry, friends, but I'd only add to the confusion if I had any more time to puzzle this out.

Nevertheless, we point out one (maybe two) intriguing developments: First and foremost, of course, we learn that Charles Widmore is in fact the boss of the Freighter People and that he does want the island for his own evil purposes, possibly even more evil than Ben's purposes. (And Ben, grossly lovelorn in his flashbacks with Juliet, becomes more demonic with each passing week...)

Next, "The Tempest:" That's the name of the other hitherto-unknown DHARMA station in the jungle, that one with toxic gas. And yes, those rascals at "Lost" have gone ahead and layered in another literary reference that only wants to make us scramble to Wikipedia or dig up some well-thumbed, ink-stained, rumpled "Cliff Notes" edition on the play. Is Ben Caliban? Is Juliet Miranda? (And who the hell then is Prospero.) Curse you, "Lost" writers. CURSE YOU!

And OK, here's another thing: The man/woman on the boat? I'm open for suggestions. Locke has to "sit down?" What or who could be so dramatic and shocking that Locke will be gobsmacked when he hears the name? (I'm still wondering whether Juliet's long-lost sister, Rachel Carlson, is on board...Naomi's bracelet with the initials, "RC," remember? Could she be tied to Ben in some way? But Locke wouldn't even know who she is, so...)

Curse you, "Lost" writers. CURSE YOU!

Bottom Line on "The Other Woman:" Yet another brilliant outing by TV's best drama. "Lost" keeps getting better and better and better and...

We now have our top twelve (Amanda Overmyer, Brooke White, Carly Smithson, Chikezie, David Archuleta, David Cook, David Hernandez, Jason Castro, Kristy Lee Cook, Michael Johns, Ramiele Malubay and Syesha Mercado) and a very worthy crew this is.

But with the endgame developing, I share these "Idol" thoughts with you this morning, reserving the right to change them at a moment's notice the minute someone comes up with reasonable counterarguments.

How thrilled can "Idol" producers be that...David Archuleta is a such a ridiculous front-runner? They certainly have an idea at this point who they want to win - that is, who will ultimately sell the most stuff for RCA Records, Planet 19, and the 1001 other entities that exploit winners of this show. Archie's gotta be close or at the top of their list. But being the presumptive winner this early the game is not good because everyone assumes it's already over, so why vote for him anyway?

How thrilled can "Idol" producers be that....Carly Smithson might eventually pull this out? Everyone, or most everyone, deserves a second act in show biz, and Carls is getting her's now, (and she deserves it, given her evident talent.) But she sold like ten, or was it nine, albums when she had that big multi-million dollar contract for MCA last century. Will she do better with a new record label, or...?

How thrilled can "Idol" producers be that...David Hernandez might win? I think the guy's one of the most talented of the field, so he has a shot. But that stripper past..."Idol" producers say (or pretend that it) "doesn't matter." But what about Coke? I wonder how those guys feel? The winner's gotta represent their interests too (along with that of many other sponsors.) What's Coke's slogan these days? "The Coke Side of Life." I wonder if the Coke Side of Life includes lap-dancing?

How thrilled can "Idol" producers be that...Michael Johns is the winner? Fine singer, certainly, and plenty of talent. He has a real shot too. But he was born in Perth, Australia and still has a passable Aussie accent. It's a wonderful thing, but this is "AMERICAN Idol" is it not? Wonder how they'd feel down under if an American contestant rose to the top of Australia's "Idol" edition. I'll tell you how they'd feel - outraged! (That's the Aussies for you.) No one here'll care too much, but if Carls and Michael reach the top final two, can this show reasonably be named "American Idol" this season?

Those are my "Idol" thoughts for the day. Feel free to throw verbal darts...

Lucky you!

You are about to get the full benefit of my many years studying "American Idol" (I DO have a Yale PhD. in American Idology, by the way.) I will tell you who will advance to the final 12, who will falter. Who's got the upper hand. Who's got no hand. And by the odds which I have so generously posted below, you too will be able to see into the future to find out who will win the seventh season of the world's most watched show.

Enough babbling. Here's the handicap:

Asia'h Epperson, 19, Joplin. 10:1. Like her, but does she have that 'ol "remembrance" factor (in which you remember who she is.) Not sure.

Brooke White, 24, Mesa. 5:1. My own dark horse. No one picks her to win, but I see her advancing beyond tonight. (Of course, I'm the one who thought Marie O had a shot at winning "DWTS."

Danny Noriega, 18, Azusa, Ca. 50:1. Almost (not quite) winner of this season's Sanjaya Special Award. OK singer, snotty personality.

David Hernandez, 24, Glendale, Az. 4:1. Stripper Boy is a wonderful singer, and in my opinion better than Archie the Unbeatable. If only this guy knew how good he was...

Kady Malloy, 18, Houston. 1000:1. Gone tonight.

Michael Johns, 29, Buckland, Ga.: 5:2. Pro Boy is pretty good, knows how to work the stage, etc. etc. But is he likable? Hmmm.

Ramiele Malubay, 20, Miramar. 7:1. Love her! She's one of my favorites! She had a wonderful night last night! But will she go all the way? No.

Amanda Overmyer, 23, Mulberry, Tn. 9:2. Didn't really see why she was even in this comp, until last night's performance. She was commanding, and is easily in the top 12.

Chikezie, 22, Inglewood. 8:1. Love Chicky, and would love to see him make it to the final four. But...

Carly Smithson, 24, San Diego. 4:1. I've given poor Carly such a hard time because she's a pro in a competition that pretends to be an amateur competition. But I'm so over that. Why blame Carly because the producers were desperate to get reasonably high caliber talent this season after last season's flounders? She gets better...and better...and better..and...

David Archuleta, 17, Murray, Ut. 2:1. Beware the Sure Bet in "Idol." And by the way, isn't his stuff (so far) just a little bland and safe and dull? But the kid's great. Archie's in the final two or "Idol" will lose all credibility, forever.

David Cook, 25, Blue Springs, Mo. 5:1. Another one of my favorites. A really talented kid.

Jason Castro, 20, Rockwall, Tx. 6:1. Distinctive look and style, God knows. I think - and hope - he'll go far.

Kristy Lee Cook, 24, Selma. 20:1. Beauty queen with the nice voice. Last night was not good, though.

Luke Menard, 29, Crawfordsville, In. 25:1. Probably gone tonight, but could still surprise.

Syesha Mercado, 21, Sarasota. 20:1. Fine voice, but as Si might say, a little like a million others you might hear on the radio. Not sure what her style is, exactly.

Here's something we can take a little bit of solace in: Jack Bauer may be back sooner than later.

The Hollywood Reporter is saying that Fox and producers are in the early pre-production stages of a prequel that will air this fall; of course, as you know, the actual series won't hit the air until January of '09.

Of course, as you also know, a prequel of this sort raises a few interesting questions: Notably, will this be the first two hours of the day? Or some sort of scene-setter explaining the move to Washington? Or telling people what Jack's been up these last few "months," or...

HR says it'll "bridge the two-year gap" between seasons six and seven; what does that mean? I'm not sure. My hunch is that it's simply smart scheduling by Fox. This - after all - isn't "The Sopranos," which had the luxury (thanks HBO!) of taking multi-year hiatuses between seasons. This is "24," which has to fight for mindshare among viewers with precious little time and even less patience. Getting SOMETHING on the air before January of '09 thus whets appetites and reminds people that evil is still out there and Jack is too.

As you also know, "24" was hit hardest by the strike by just about any show, given its reliance on the 24-hour gimmick. (And, umm, Kiefer was also somewhat indisposed for a little while too.)

We have news that may thrill you, or chill you, but in TV terms, this is a biggie:

Kathie Lee Gifford - and I think it's fair to say we all know who SHE is - is expected to join "The Today Show," as anchor of its fourth hour, which premiered last fall to poor reviews (mine) and so far flagging ratings.

The news is being reported by a Florida-based subscription website for the news industry, FTV, which suggests that an announcement will come in two weeks. An NBC source tells me - let me add, a RELIABLE and smart NBC source - that the report is true, and that Gifford is set to join.

Meanwhile, here's the FTV post:

"Several high ranking NBC insiders tell FTVLive that the Peacock is about to name Kathie Lee Gifford as a new host of the Today Show.

"'Gifford will work on the 4th hour of Today,' said our NBC source.

"If you are going to hire Gifford it makes sense to put her on the 4th hour of Today. Gifford is definitely going to 'skew older females' when it comes to ratings. The four hour is geared toward the stay at home women.

"Gifford rose to fame in 1988 when 'Live with Regis and Kathie Lee' went national. She spent years hosting the morning talk show and talking about her kids, Cody and Cassidy. Since Cody is now 18 years old, we're guessing we won't hear as much about him on Today (Thank God!)."

Hard to believe but it's been nearly eight years since KLG lost her bully pulpit ("Live!); her last day was July 28, '00, and during that last frenetic farewell broadcast, Reeg said: This "was the most relentless, exhausting farewell in the history of TV." She also told him she wanted to return some day (she did a few years later, for a reunion). "I hope there will be an opportunity to come back" as co-host, she said. "To think I couldn't come back would break my heart more than leaving."

During that show, Reeg or someone also asked her about the relentless tabloid coverage, which (supposedly) hastened her departure after 15 years on "Live!" Those reports, she said, "always come from a miserable heart; I can only feel sorry for a miserable heart." (Actually, those reports came from a truthful heart, but maybe miserable too.)

Anyway, I personally am thrilled KLG is coming back. Without Ro around, it's all become so bland and tired. Yes, of course, Reeg is still great, and sure - I love Babs Walters. But the dear girl isn't on all the time, and when she's not (even when she is) "The View" is so dreadfully polite. What we're missing are some good, honest-to-goodness backstage brawls - the sort of stuff that leaks to the tabs (which always dutifully ended their stories with the line, "a spokeswoman for Ms. O'Donnell, however, denied that chairs were thrown..." )

What I'm really saying here: We need KLG back. We need to read (and write) about the diva behavior, about the dressing room tantrums. We need to hear about Kathie Lee and Al Roker getting into a brawl on the sixth floor (while Jeff Zucker is looking on!)

TV news, or "faux" news, as the fourth hour is, should be a contact sport. And no one hits harder than KLG. (By the way, please read Mr. Borno's comment below: It's one of my all-time favorites and to which I respond: You are correct, sir! My life is, sadly, empty and I desperately DO need a hobby. But, really, there's nothing better than a good, solid catfight between two people who make a total of $20 million per year. Now THAT's entertainment. )

I, for one, couldn't be happier.

Oh, yes, by the way: I've calls out to all the usual suspects (publicists, handlers, and so forth.) You'll get the official statement here first, as soon as I do.

Don't know about you, but I now know what I'LL be doing this summer: Writing about Dina Lohan's new reality show, which will hit the air on E! during the warm months. (Watching? That too...oh yes, that too.)

E! earlier announced that this alarming and doubtless intriguing new show - following Dina and 14-year-old Lindsay kid sister, Ali, around North Merrick to CVS and the like - will finally get an air date this summer. The exact date/time is TBA, and the working title is "Living Lohan."

"Alarming?" Must I spell it out?

I spoke with "Real World" co-creator Jonathan Murray and the man behind "Living" a little while ago, and he got the usual "stage mother" and "parenting issue" questions and so forth. He also had a few other details, including the fact that this will start taping in a couple weeks (a "presentation" tape was shot just before Halloween; none of that'll make the air.)

"I think Dina's a somewhat remarkable woman [who] got married at a young age, raised four kids and her marriage came apart," he says. "She's sort of like in this period where she's coming into her own - the divorce is being put behind her and she's sort of figuring out the next part of her life."

"I'm a strong believer that you've gotta like people on television and if you want viewers to come back, a viewer has to like the subject of the show. I came away liking this family [and] I think they're misunderstood to some extent. We all know what the tabloids have said about them [and] that's not an accurate representation of peoples' lives."

Here's outtakes from the E! press release, in all their understated glory:

"Dina has faced intense scrutiny over the past year due to daughter Lindsay's (21) highly publicized mishaps and her long-simmering divorce from her ex-husband. But the Lohan family has demonstrated great resiliency and, with Dina at the helm, they are moving on with their lives. Dina is determined to help each of her four kids fulfill their dreams and refuses to live in fear of what others may think, despite being under the paparazzi microscope.

"E!'s cameras will follow the single mom every step of the way as she manages Lindsay's hectic schedule, while helping Ali jump start her music and acting career. This takes the family to the Palms Casino in Las Vegas, where Ali will record tracks for the Maloof's Iterscope-based record label.

Maloof? That'd be Phil Maloof, chief of Maloof Productions, which is a co-producer along with Bunim-Murray of "Real World" fame.

And more:

"The series will also feature Dina keeping track of her son Cody (11) whose sports teams, homework and endless energy are enough to keep any soccer mom busy, as well as her older son, on-the-go college student Michael (20). Viewers will get to know the Lohan's close-knit extended family as well. "

No official word on potential Lindsay or Michael cameos, though Murray says there's "no agreement" for L to show up.

(Above, Dina and Ali, but who's that in the middle?)

Yeah, I know "The Real Housewives of New York City" has gotten a ton of pre-launch buzz and (if not mistaken) even received above-the-fold treatment in the New York Times. But watching this (11 p.m., Bravo, seven episodes) series should be an option only for the masochist at heart. "Real Housewives" - oh, right, sure, these well-stocked supercareerists are "housewives," nyuk, nyuk - is the anti-zeitgeist show, soaked in a let-them-eat-cake and aren't-I-FABULOUS tone that will force all but the deeply envious or deeply insecure to the exits. WE are in a recession. THEY are in a perfectly formed, shiny bubble. The juxtaposition isn't just jarring, but obnoxious.

Here we have Alex, Bethenny, Jill, LuAnn, and Ramona, and - if I'm not mistaken - the only thing missing from their absolutely fab and gorgeous ME-ness is a starring role in a TV show.

Now, thanks to Bravo, they've got that too.

Anyone familiar with "The Real Wives" format knows what we're talking about here. But - if memory serves - the "Orange County" babes were a little more randy, or at least a little more reflective of their primetime "Desperate" counterparts. This fivesome of the Upper East East and the East End seem fairly chaste and happily married by comparison, though this impression could change. They lead perfect lives, uncluttered by the frazzle of OUR daily grind. The Hamptons or St. Barts, they muse? (God, it's so hard to make a choice.) They have fabulous husbands, fabulous careers, fabulous children who - nonetheless - assume the role of the Greek Chorus in this fable.

That is: They tell us what's really going on. Says Avery of her mom and friends, "they'll do things that are so unladylike. They're SO embarrassing."

From the mouth of babes.

(Above, our heroines, from left: Ramona, Jill, LuAnn, Bethenny, and Alex.)

So, you're waking up - or maybe you're not waking up - to the news that Hillary was on "Saturday Night Live." It was a cameo, and after the opening skit, she delivered one of television's true classic lines ("live from...etc.)

An election must be coming up.

More news: She wasn't bad, though not particularly HI-larious (no fault of Hill's - these sorts of things never are), but considering what preceded her brief walk-on, she was a particularly good sport too. The opening skit was a re-wind of last week's Ohio debate, with Amy Poehler/Hillary, delivering this line:

To battle special interests, we need "someone so annoying, so grating, so bossy and shrill with a personality so unpleasant that at the end of the day the special interests will go - 'enough, we give up, life is too short to deal with this awful woman. Just give her what she wants so she'll leave us in peace.' I think the American people will agree that woman is ME."

A few minutes later, the "editorial response" from the real Hill: "...I was asked, should I take that as an endorsement? I was told absolutely not..."

Amy Poehler comes on, and asks how the campaign is going: "Oh, the campaign is going very very well. Why, what did you hear?"

And by the way: Fred Armisen's Obama. Will he ever smile or say more than five words? THIS is an impersonation that needs work - and by that I mean a little humor too, because this remains oddly, profoundly humorless.

Ya know, I don't often confess to this sort of thing - being the sort of fellow who watches TV with a jaundiced eye, and fully expecting the worst and often getting the worst. But last night's 44 minutes of "Lost" were among the most satisfying forty-four minutes in front of the tube in my life.

It wasn't merely a brilliant episode, which pushed the Mythology forward more rapidly and richly than any episode in my memory, but it was an emotional release. This, I say, by way of explaining that I actually cried when Penny and Desmond finally - finally, oh God, FINALLY - connected. Yes, what a silly ass I am - shedding a couple of hot tears over a reunion we've been waiting a year for, when the world is going to hell, and the economy along with it, and Newsday whacking 120 jobs...Yet here I am, blubbering over Penny and Desmond.

"I love you," said Desmond.

"I love you too," said Penny.

"Me, too, me TOO," said a silly ass who pretends to be a TV critic.

Oh what a fool am I, but who cares? This is why we watch TV - to escape the follies of our daily existence, and no TV show I can think of has more successfully achieved that standard - OK, maybe "The Sopranos," maybe "The Wire," maybe... - than this one.

There wasn't one, single, solitary false note, or at least nothing that let us momentarily try to reconcile Desmond's past history on "Lost" with his time-travel toggling last night. It was an episode in and of itself, pulling in just enough back story to enrich that spectacular climax. (And that wonderful off-key endnote, when Faraday stares at the piece of paper and learns that HIS "constant" will be Desmond.)

As always, "Lost" was a joyous hall of mirrors that forces the viewer to navigate - mentally - off-screen to understand, or attempt to understand, the maze (rat's maze! another wonderful touch) of references and links.

Minkowski? Our dearly departed communications man? Named for the German mathematician who - to quote "Lostpedia," which as usual is the indispensable source for such matters - created the "hyper-dimensional manifold in which Einstein's equations for special relativity are perfectly solvable."

Hyper...huh, whaaa??? That strange outgrowth of quantum mechanics which establishes, sort of, that we exist simultaneously, in different realms of "realities," hence hyper-reality.

Now you're crying too. I'm sorry. But I hope you see my point: That there's nothing like "Lost" on TV, never has been, never will be, and four seasons in, that I still care so deeply means a.) That I need to get a life; or b.) These guys are doing something right.

The first pro is gone: Robbie Carrico, as you probably know, got the boot last night, but he's the first of "Idol's" professional-rich crop this season to find little favor with the fans.

Others gone: Alaina Whitaker, Jason Yeager, and Alexandrea Lushington. We're down to sixteen now.

Carrico a surprise? Not entirely, given the faux-rocker-I-wanna-be-Daughtry performances (and especially Tuesday night's pan by Simon) whose "Hot-Blooded" left everyone cold-blooded. Plus, voters may have been distracted by the raging hair debate: real or fake? It's REALLY hard to concentrate on a performance when you're studying the roots.

Nevertheless, Robbie knew how to do this, and he should: He was a member of "Boyz N Girlz United," which used to open (I understand) for Britney. He is, or was, also part of "Idol's" concerted effort to lift the quality of the field this season by salting in seasoned pros/or highly experienced and polished neophytes. Not that there's anything wrong with that (other than the fact that I always foolishly assumed this was an amateur competition), but the two current front-runners are also of that breed. You could argue, I suppose, that Joanne Borgella - also gone last week - was a "pro" too, but her background was in modeling/acting. Amy Davis? Also a model (Maxim...)

Lushington? Too bad. I liked her. Whitaker, too - girl next door type, and howabout that make-up job Wednesday. Yeager? Si was way too hard on this kid; yeah, it may have been a lounge lizard croon act, but he had a good voice and decent stage presence. Life goes on, but sorta wished he had too...

In any event, let's say goodbye to Robbie in style: He's a clip from the Boyz N Girlz days, and better days - apparently - they were. Plus, no wig:

"quarterlife?" What? You didn't watch it the other night? Neither did 297 million other Americans, which is why it's being shunted over to Bravo from NBC - which plucked it (so to speak) from Myspace.

What's "quarterlife?" It got a lot of ink during the strike in part because of its provenance (the web) and its auteurs (including Marshall Herskovitz, TV/movie scribe superstar.) But it then got a one-night try-out on Wednesday, was seen by just over 3 million viewers (the debate, yes, the debate got more than twice as many viewers), and the hook was produced.

By the way, it's not a bad show - a little too cute and tiresome perhaps, and kind of a rip-off of "iCarley," which had the idea of kids producing their own webcast last fall. Plus, why isn't the "q" capitalized? (cuz it's a web show - get it?) Oh well - it'll work fine on bravo, i imagine.

Major-shakeup-at-WNBC/4 alert!

Dan Forman, the top news director and a Channel 4 vet who oversaw the recent overhaul of the early evening news, has been ousted. He'll stick around until the end of March, per a memo sent out by station boss, Frank Comerford.

While hardly as important to Ch. 4 as Chuck/Sue (though Sue has lately been dropped somewhat from that linkage), Forman's been the captain of this ship for years (and he was once Howard Stern's producer.) His most recent gambit - dropping Sue Simmons off the early evening (she's back on 5 and has remained at 11) while letting Chuck S. run solo.

Problem is, numbers. They're awful.

Chuck's 7 p.m. solo shot in February, for example, got only 249,000 viewers; at 6, NBC was seen by ONLY 248,000 viewers. Keep in mind, friends. This is New York City - the biggest apple in the barrel, and only 248,000? Which is EVEN less than Ch. 41 (280,000)?

The local news market got hit hard in February sweeps overall, (although there were isolated bright spots for Ch. 2.)

How does this affect Chuck and Sue? We await...

(Above, is Sue happy about all this?)

Before I get to the meat of this quick blog, one quick observation about last night's "Idols" women edition: Wow. They're all, or mostly all, damn good. You can whine or moan or wheeze or blow about "style" or "pitch" or whatever, but still - wow. This is probably the best "Idol" crew in memory - an infinite improvement over last season. I could easily add a couple asterisks to this assessment - yeah, there were some weak performances, but nothing horrendous.

But let's get to this other observation: The Ones To Beat? They'll be beaten. (By the way, please check out the comments - I got some smart and thoughtful reactions to this blog, and you may well agree with them...)

I am amused by Simon's glowing tributes the last two nights to David Archuleta and Carly Smithson. You're the ones to beat! His direct quote re: Carly: "I don't think the other girls can touch you..."

But comments like this consign the recipient to...well, you know what. An exit.

Here's why. First, forget that these two contestants are in fact marvelous - they're SUPPOSED to be, as part of "Idol's" concerted effort to avoid dogs making it into the final rounds (as has happened too frequently in recent years.) They are top notch...they are budding pros...Smithson (as you all know) WAS a pro...and Archie is so good he could have easily taken the traditional route of agent/to-role-on-"iCarly" (or one of those shows)/to record deal.

We call that the Ashley Tisdale route.

But here's the thing, friends. When You're the One To Beat, you're the one people ultimately don't end up voting for. They assume you've already GOT the vote, so why bother?

We call this The Melinda Doolittle Syndrome.

She was the greatest singer in "Idol" history, by far. She was indeed the Great One.

Where O' where is Mel now?

Here's my choice of the one to beat: Brooke White.

But what do I know.

(Above, Brooke White, the real one to beat?)

The biggest "Idol" news of the year broke yesterday, and some of us are now left to wonder: Did Michael Jackson have something to do with this?

Ryan Seacrest broke that news on his radio show yesterday morning, saying that Sony/ATV has FINALLY given "American Idol" the rights to perform songs from the Beatles' catalog.

That's just under 200 songs, and some of them - OK, many of them - the greatest of the 20th century.

It's a huge break for "Idol" (as if "Idol" needs a huge break) because it has tried to get 'em for years but has met resistance for reasons both mysterious and obscure. "When the Top 12 sing for the first time this season, it will be the music of Lennon and McCartney," top boss Nigel Lythgoe told Seacrest (as quoted in RealityTVworld.com.) "We've given them a list because it's all of the early songs -- from 'I Want to Hold Your Hand' to 'Got to Get You Into My Life.' These fantastic songs. It's one of the few areas that everybody knows."

Why now, after all the foot-dragging? Said Lythgoe, "I think it was the talent this year. They see that it's real talent, and hear it. Everyone's so good this season, that they're saying, 'Yeah, go ahead. Sing the songs.'"

Well...ummm...ahhh...As we say in the TV trade, that sounds bogus (no offense, Nigel.) Money certainly changed hands - lots and lots of green - and the banks apparently are about to auction off Neverland, so...back to that question about MJ.

Yes, the first thought you may have, or at least I did: What did Michael Jackson have to do with this? Neverland was, in fact, scheduled to go to auction in mid-March but CNN is now reporting that Jacko has kept the wolves at the door by raising a loan and will now avoid foreclosure.

Jackson appeared poised to sell his share of the catalog (total value around half a billion, with 251 songs, although Lythgoe used the 180 figure) back to Sony a couple of years ago. Because of the legal problems, the gloved one's financial condition was so desperate that it looked like he was about to part with one of the world's greatest cultural treasures. There was a flurry of press at the time (2005) that it was even a fait accompli.

But...it's unclear whether he actually ever did sell.

If sold, he likely had nothing to do with the "Idol" Beatles deal; if not sold, maybe he did, and "Idol" has saved Neverland.

I'll try to get to the bottom of this curious story, sports fans.

In any event, yesterday's coincidence is certainly interesting...

Illustration, top: Günter Edlinger

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."

Long before there was Bill O'Reilly, or - for that matter - long before there was SeanhannityKeithOlbermannChrisMatthews or any other talking head who makes his living by slinging words with bite (or bile) there was William F. Buckley, Jr.

We like to offer our own parochial views here at TV Zone when something momentous happens (you know the drill - how was TELEVISION involved in that major event that just took place). But you really don't have to stretch too far when it comes to Buckley, who has died at the age of 82. Most people - fleetingly in recent years - tend to have thought of him as that stiff-upper-lipped tight-jawed Connecticut Yankee Brahmin (and staunch Roman Catholic who probably frowned at Vatican II.) If they thought a little harder, they might have realized that with astounding verbal dexterity and an authorial prolixity that was both hurculean and borderline absurd (novels! autobiographies! magazines!) he redefined the Conservative Movement. But if they thought just a little bit further after THAT, they also realized this: He redefined TV too.

Over thirty-three years, "Firing Line," and by association, its host, symbolized public TV almost as much as "Masterpiece Theatre" or Fred Rogers. With his brilliance and erudition, Buckley forged a country's - maybe even an entire world's - image of American conservatism; he made the "movement" respectable and even (if this is possible) INTELLECTUAL. Hence, the power of TV. There's certainly much, much to remember about WFB and "FL" (and my thanks to Wikipedia for jogging my memory): It actually began at Ch. 9 before shifting to Ch.13, while Jeff Greenfield, Mark Green and Michael Kinsley appeared frequently over the years as well. It was civilized if not always civil, while watching Buckley mumble his questions, and fold those bandy legs of his, created indelible sounds and images to last a lifetime. Went off the air just as the last century came to a close.

Here's a vintage clip that can give you a sense of the style; it's a little jumpy,but there's Bill debating Noam Chomsky. Imagine ANYONE - O'Reilly, let's say - debating Noam Chomsky these days?! But that's the kind of show this was. Charlie Rose may, in fact, owe far more to this style than any of the cable gunslingers, but they are all indebted.

Yes, we're all talking about that made-for-TV moment in last night's debate when Hill suggested that maybe Obama get another comfy pillow, just so he's really comfortable.
It was a segue - and doubtless, pre-cooked - line referring to the "SNL" "debate" open this past Saturday, when cast-members masquerading as debate moderators knelt on bended knee before their hero, Obama. (Funny, though - duh - hardly accurate.) Well, it's worth noting that Tim Russert took a swipe at the implications of the skit, as well as Hill's agreement that she always does get the first question, on this morning's "Today." (By getting the first question in a debate, it's presumably an advantage for the other contestant because he or she then has time to think out a response - hence favoritism by reporters towards Obama.)

Tim said that the "first question charge" was BS: Re that Putin question that came in the last section of the debate, he said "I didn't direct it at either - she LIKES to answer the [first] question."

But what do you expect Tim to say? He's obviously in the Obama camp. Hey! A suggestion: Maybe for the 21st debate, Tim should square off opposite Tina Fey.
(Above: Tim, left, thinks there's no moderator bias; Tina, right, obviously has other ideas, if Saturday's "SNL" is any indication.)

OK, sports fans: After all these months, we can finally, officially, absolutely (positively) declare the writers strike over.

The contract approved a couple weeks ago went out the general membership for a vote, and it came back resoundingly approved. And that, as they say, is that. (I remain, however, perplexed at the relative low number of votes casts - less than half the total WGA membership...but it's still all over.)

Here's the official letter from the bosses of the WGA, received just moments ago:

To Our Fellow Members:

Today, it is our pleasure to inform you that members of the Writers Guilds of America, East and West, have voted to ratify the MBA contract with 93.6% approval. With a total of 4,060 votes cast, the tally was 3,802 to 258. These numbers reaffirm the tremendous level of support and commitment our membership has continuously demonstrated over these last few crucial months.

We are also pleased to report that the trustees of our health fund voted yesterday to follow the recommendation in our strike settlement agreement to provide additional coverage and an extension of the earnings cycle for a full quarter (three months) to participants who would otherwise lose health coverage following an earnings cycle that included all or a portion of the strike period. Participants whose health coverage is paid for by points will only be charged points if they have ten or more points as of April 1, 2008.

As we close this chapter in our union's history, what we together have accomplished should not be underestimated. The 2008 MBA establishes a beachhead on the Internet and in new media that will guarantee our share of a potentially vast and bountiful future. Writers already are working on new media projects under this agreement and residuals must now be paid for streaming and downloads of our library of films and TV shows.

Language in the contract will allow us to monitor and audit these new technologies and new business models, but it will take vigilance on the part of our membership to make sure that original Internet writing is done under a WGA contract and with appropriate terms and conditions.

The same sort of vigilance will be needed to assist members of SAG and AFTRA. They are about to go through a similar process to the one we experienced. Their support of our cause was invaluable. We must use all our efforts and experience to support them as well. Further gains that they can achieve will have an immediate, positive effect on our contract.

We must take our newfound spirit and unity and use it to move our two unions forward. We look to the future and our newly revitalized member engagement to reaffirm writers as the first among equals in the most collaborative art form in history. As the last few weeks proved once and for all, we are all in this together.

Best,

Michael Winship

President

Writers Guild of America, East

Patric M. Verrone

President

Writers Guild of America, West

(Above, Verrone, right, Winship, left. Courtesy: Variety)

You know and I know and pretty much everyone else knows that ratings stories are kinda boring unless they're the Oscars or something to do with P. Diddy. Since this is about the latter, we proceed: Last night's "special" presentation of "A Raisin in the Sun" was seen by 12.7 million, which easily helped ABC win the night AND turn in the network's best Monday this year. Monday - when not propped by "DWTS" - has been a tough night for the Alphabet. And - in fact - the whole idea of "movie of the week" has turned into one of the late, great anachronisms of the network TV biz. Not that "Raisin" is or was an "MOW" - it was a "special" based on a classic with some other very famous names attached (Phylicia Rashad, Audra McDonald.) Nevertheless, one never knows how these things might turn out... After the horrific Oscars performance, ABC got a little ray of sun last night, pun intended. (Above: From the Broadway production.)

It does appear that MyNetworkTV will finally have a program that will actually get some sort of rating: The WWE and the Ch.9-based web just announced that "Smackdown" will launch as a weekly two-hour show this fall.

Here's the spin from the press release: “WWE SmackDown” will feature a star-studded cast of WWE Superstars, including Edge®, Rey Mysterio®, Batista®, MVP™, Kane® and Undertaker®, as well as present all the action, excitement, drama and great athleticism that have made it for nine years one of the most popular programs among males on broadcast television, and one of the top ten English language prime time programs among Hispanic households."

Don't you just love it that people like Rey Mysterio have actually trademarked their names? I mean, who's gonna infringe on "Undertaker...?"

But I digress: You'll notice that WWE did not mention the CW in their press release, and my hunch is that they'd like to pretend their longtime TV partner doesn't exist. The CW dropped the WWE recently (like Batista dropped MVP...or whatever.) Too much money apparently (reportedly $700,000 per "Smackdown" telecast.)

You'll also notice that WWE/My didn't mention a night: I'd expect something other than Friday, and probably midweek. But that's a wild guess.

(Above: Rey Mysterio and WWE about to land at MyNetworkTV.)

Is it possible that last night's telecast of the Academy Awards was the lowest viewed in TV history?

Yes, it's possible, but...

We can tell you this much: The telecast of the “80th Annual Academy Awards” was seen by an average audience of 32 million viewers. That is, in fact, the lowest figure since Nielsen began tabulating total viewers all the way back to 1975. For the most part, it ain't even close: Last year's show was seen by 40.2 million, and the year before, 38.9 million (when "Crash" won best picture.) "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" Oscar night (43.5 million; 2/29/04) was the high-water mark of the decade, unless you like to start your decade in 2000, when the "American Beauty" broadcast topped out at 46 million. "Titanic" (on March 23, '98, was the high-water mark of the last couple decades, when 55 million tuned in.)

"Chicago" (3/23/03) was 'til now, the low-water mark, with 33 million viewers.

Now, back to our trivia question: Lowest EVER? It's tricky to answer because Nielsen didn't tabulate "viewers" but only households in the prehistoric days of TV (pre-'75), yet the Oscars telecasts were routinely among the year's most viewed programs - or at least one can easily surmise from the available data. For much of the '50s and '60s, Oscar telecasts often scored ratings in the high 40s, while shares (the percentage of audience that's actually tuned into something) occasionally soared into the '70s. On March 19, 1953, the show even got an 82 share! Of course, viewership was probably no where near 30 million because TVs (after all) had only begun their widespread penetration a few years earlier - in '47-48 - when the first network shows were broadcast.

So, I guess we've answered our own question: NOT the lowest viewed.

But good Lord, what HAPPENED? By any measure, last night's show was a bomb. Some quickie theories:

1.) Too boring and overlong (see reviews, below.)

2.) Jon Stewart is swell, but no Johnny Carson (or, gulp, even Whoopi.)

3.) No one had ever seen the movies, and the movies they did see - "There Will be Blood!!" - were not exactly the sort one cheers for at Oscar time.

4.) Everyone in the potential viewing audience had heard for so many months that the writers strike was gonna derail the big show, they decided (what the hell), don't bother to watch anyway.

5.) Everyone was assuming Billy Bush was going to be the MC of this one as well.

6.) Jack Nicholson was sober (shows seem to get much higher ratings when he attends several pre-awards parties, for some reason.)

(Above: Bang-bang. You're dead. Oscars loves "No Country for Old Men" but viewers do no reciprocate. And how.)

That was no broadcast for old men. But then it never is. Ending late, sometimes with the rising sun, Oscars telecasts tend to bring out the worst in critics, who look for any reason to hate the show and find the ceaseless nature of this beast the most convenient one.

But me? No. Not me. This one ended at around a quarter to twelve which is sort of like a reprieve - an unexpected and thoroughly welcome early release for good behavior. Whom to thank? Not just Jon Stewart, who was in fact brisk. Not just the writers' strike which meant (I'm spitballing here, of course) that writers didn't have enough time to over-write this thing. It was helpful that most of the winners didn't speak English. One tends to be gloriously brief in one's acceptance speech when one tends not to understand a word of what one is saying.

But we should be deeply, eternally grateful to Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, "No Country for Old Men" winners over and over and over. I think they got up on stage fifteen times, or something like that. Each instance, Joel said about ten words, Ethan just two ("thank you.") They're kind of like the Penn and Teller of directors - Ethan's Teller, of course. It must be that austere Minnesota temperament, but Ethan - shorter of stature and words - is the perfect, or at least, ideal winner. Imagine if these two were the type of winner who needs to thank every aunt and uncle four generations back? Last night's show wouldn't end until Wednesday. If these guys were also actors, writers and set designers, they woulda won those awards too and we'd have all been in bed by 10.

What of Stewart? For the most part, pretty good. His monologue (you can always tell whether a show will be excruciating, depending on these five minutes) was solid and often funny. Discriminating tastes may have found offense in the Barack Obama/"Gaydolf Titler" line - but such tastes would find offense in anything. I thought he was fine, overall.

Clips? Yeah, a lot and none particularly nourishing (there were too many, given that this was the 80th.) Political jokes? A few (see above) though I can't remember any (from Stewart) with any bite. The writers' strike? Seemed like ancient history - forgotten already, as if nothing had really happened over the last three months. Diablo Cody dedicated her award to the writers; I'm sure they all appreciated the gesture, even though meaningless. Stewart called last night's show "makeup sex," but the broadcast's relative brevity, overall garage-band rougher-around-the-edges feel, and gloom-and-doom nominees/winners list gave the sense that the long enforced period of chastity was even better.

Back April 21, with five new.

Now...the CW's turn for new show return announcements. As expected, most stuff back mid to late April. Here's the list: "The Game," March 23 (9 episodes); "One Tree Hill," April 14 (6); "Smallville," April 17 (5); "Gossip Girl," April 21 (5); "Reaper," April 21 (5), and..."Supernatural," April 24 (4).

Also..."Everybody Hates Chris" has 12 remaining that'll start March 3, while "Aliens in America" has eight left. Per CW, those'll air March 2-23, and April 27-May 18.

Hitman.

This flashforward world is a hell of a world, is it not?

Up is down. Left, right. North, south. Sayid works for Ben.

Say...whaaa?

Anyway, I'm tired of asking questions (without any answers). So maybe the best way to
get an instant handle on last night's "The Economist" is to do a quick list of the top five
oddities, top being the oddest:

1.) Not merely that Ben is off the island and that Sayid works for him as a HITMAN, but that Ben is a vet. Who knew he loved dogs.

2.) Sayid's rough love scene. This is a tough man to love - witness the departure of Shannon (killed by Anna Lucia) and Nadia, presumably dead too. Now Elsa. Who was her boss who isn't an "economist...?" (Sorry, just can't resist questions...) Meanwhile, we also learned the name of another member of Oceanic 6 (Sayid), which makes - I think - four. So two to go.

3.) The bracelet. Naomi's bracelet, with the inscription, "N, I'll always be
with you. RC." Of course, we all have to ask, who's "RC," so let's just ponder this a moment. In the entire "Lost" hierarchy of characters - Tailies, Losties, Flashbackies, Others, etc. - there's only one "RC." That's Rachel Carlson, Juliet's sister (played by Robin Weigert). (Biblical significance to name, for she was Jacob's wife, who could bear no children.) Oh, there are plenty of Lostian theories about Juliet: That she was actually a guy; or that Jack rescued her in the car, preventing him from doing that header off the bridge.

Or this: That Rachel has teamed up with Desmond squeeze Penny to find her long lost sister. Hmmmm.

Beyond that, why would Naomi have any sort of tie to Rachel? I haven't a bloody clue.

(Of course, some people think the initials read "RG," in which case to all of the above - never mind. But I'm fairly certain it was "RC." Isn't this SAD that I've even gone on this long about it?)

4.) Daniel's payload. "Oh no, this is not good," he says after the little projectile slams into the ground, and the numbers don't sync up on the respective digital clocks. Why "no good." With Daniel Faraday, I think you've got to go to his namesake Michael, who discovered the laws of electromagnetism - basically by showing that a changing magnetic field produces an electric current (and that "magnetism" and electricity are one in the same.) Isn't "Lost" fun? You learn stuff. But what does any of this have to Daniel's "Oh no" line? I haven't a bloody clue.

5.) Finally, Jacob's disappearing house and that line (of sand or gunpowder?) in front. Oh come on. Did anyone really expect the house to be there when Locke pulls up in front? But where did it go? All together now...I haven't a bloody clue.

Remember "Kid Nation?"

It was only the cause celebre of the '07-'08 season, with endless stories written about, and over which countless calls were made by reporters to child welfare services in New Mexico, state investigation panels convened, and critics so exercised by the possible legal and moral ramifications of it all that they lost sleep AND weight (often at the same time.)

It was quite a show.

Anyway, it's dead.

Or almost certainly dead - or like that soap that's 99.999 percent pure - it's 99.999 percent dead.

CBS announced its '08-09 returning shows last night, and "Kid" was not amongst the living. Here's the complete list, and no major surprises: "Cold Case," "Criminal Minds," "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," "CSI: Miami," "CSI: NY," "Ghost Whisperer," "NCIS," "Numb3rs," "Two and a Half Men," "Without a Trace," "The Big Bang Theory." Of the reality crew, CBS had already announced that '"Survivor" and "The Amazing Race" were back.

I emailed CBS's laudatory primetime press man, Phil Gonzales, about the unfortunate state of affairs with regards "Kid Nation." He wrote back: "Other than the shows that we just announced as renewed, no final decisions have been made on any shows for next year. We just ordered 4 more post-strike originals for 'Moonlight' and 'Jericho' is in 'Cane’s' time period for now."

Phil is just too polite to say it, so I'll say it for him:

"Kid Nation" is dead.

Without "Kid Nation" to kick around, what will give critics exercise this fall? (They'll have to go out and run around the block, I guess.) At least they'll get some sleep.

And - I'm glad you asked - what about "Cane." Again, I think this announcement pretty much says it all. It too is gone. That's a bummer - especially for Jimmy Smits fans. But here's the silver lining: This means that the splendid Nestor Carbonell - who just happens to be one of my favorite actors in the solar system - will get to return to "Lost" where he can complete his great and never-aging portrayal of Richard.

Yes, "Others" dude Richard Alpert with 99.999 percent certainty WILL be back and that's the best news today.

"24" is a year away.

Get used to it.

Even though this has been in the press for days - with the Times saying this Monday that it was "official" - in fact Fox has YET to officially declare that one of the great signature shows of our era - or at least "great signature shows" when it's really really good which is most of the time, with the exception of some of last season when it was really not - is on hiatus for a year.

I can tell you now, though, with no equivocation, hairsplitting, or other forms of BS: "24" is off for another year, to return in January of '09.

It's official. Finally.

Is this a bad thing? Well, duh, YEAH. A very bad thing. A terrible thing.

But it is a real thing, and we'll just have to deal with it.

But just imagine what the world will be like a year from now? A new president - and very possibly an AFRICAN AMERICAN president, which would make dear old "24" remarkably prescient. It will be set in Washington. Kiefer Sutherland will be on the wagon. Chloe - or at least Mary Lynn Rajskub - will have a new baby.

Yup, it'll be a whole new world and whole new "24." Can't wait.

As the world continues to enjoy the amusing - and doubtless inadvertent - utterance of a very uncouth word on "Today Show" this morning, courtesy of Jane Fonda, let us not forget that there's a trend going on here:

Senior-aged Oscar Winning Actresses Who Say Unspeakable Words (for TV Anyway) On the Morning Shows

Heck of a trend, and it began last month with this engaging chat between Di Sawyer and Di Keaton (It's four minutes and change in.)

Who's next in this merry morning round of shocking the hosts and scandalizing (or amusing) the audiences? (Does Helen Mirren have a movie coming out in March? Does "GMA" plan to have on Sally Field when "Brothers & Sisters" comes back? Could...)

One of the things fans come to "Idol" for - or maybe one of the things this fan comes for - is that indelible sense of there-for-the-grace-of-God (and maybe a little more talent) go I. That person up there - that person could be ME! It's the reality part of reality TV, or that innate sense of identification or rejection (oh, I HATE that contestant cuz she reminds me of the mean girl at school, blah blah...)

So, as usual, Simon was right: Losing Kyle Ansley was a mistake.

He wasn't gonna get far, this kid. He wasn't gonna get to the top twelve. He wasn't gonna win. But he WAS gonna add that extra dimension of simple heartfelt appeal which much of this top 24 seems to lack. (Seems to - there are clearly some people we don't know yet.) Oh, most are good and attractive and talented and (in more than a few instances) professional. But Kyle had no wall between him and the camera - no artifice or camera smarts or polished, gimlet-eyed, mother-staged savvy. He was just there - with some talent and sweetness and everyman/woman-ness.

Now, gone.

I liked the way Simon stuck up for the kid. Liked the way he said he was "Really really disappointed."

Not to feel too bad for Kyle. He won a foreign affairs fellowship at Oklahoma State last summer. Here's what he said at the time: “I’m so excited. The fellowship is typically awarded to students from Ivy League schools like Harvard, Yale and Princeton, and I am blessed to have been selected and represent Oklahoma State University.”

“I enjoy learning about people. Representing American’s interests abroad and visiting cultures around the world will be very fulfilling,”

Smart AND gracious. It would've been fun to follow him, if only for a few weeks.

Meanwhile, still waiting for "Idol" to tell thirty million viewers that several of these final 24 have had some professional experience - including an album produced by a top record label - while there's a "Star Search" winner here too.

Not that there's anything wrong with.

Waiting and waiting and waiting....

Why is "Idol" being so coy?

Here's your top 24 list. Remember these names. They'll be with us for a while now...

David Cook, Amanda Overmyer, David Archuleta, Kristy Lee Cook, Brooke White, Danny Noriega, Jason Castro, Luke Menard, Alexandra Lushington, Ramiele Malubay, Syesha Mercado, Robbie Carrico, Garrett Haley, Kady Malloy, Amy Davis,Alaina Whitaker, Jason Yeager, Asia’h Epperson, David Hernandez, Colton Berry, Joanne Borgella, Carly Smithson and Michael Johns.

And...we now have show return dates from the Peacock. Yes, I've noticed a trend here too: Looks like the bulk of returning faves, etc. will arrive in April, just in time for May sweeps.

Don't worry if you don't see something you love/cherish/miss-desperately below. Here's NBC's qualifier: "Specific plans for other NBC scripted series are currently being determined and
will be announced later."

Here's what we've got so far:

"My Name Is Earl" (Thursdays, 8-8:30 p.m. ET)
Resumes April 3 with one-hour episode

"30 Rock" (Thursdays, 8:30-9 p.m. ET)
Resumes April 10

"The Office" (Thursdays, 9-9:30 p.m. ET)
Resumes April 10

"Scrubs" (Thursdays, 9:30-10 p.m. ET)
Resumes April 10

"ER" (Thursdays, 10-11 p.m. ET)
Resumes April 10

"Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" (Tuesdays, 10-11 p.m. ET)
Resumes April 15

"Law & Order" (Wednesdays, 10-11 p.m. ET)
Resumes April 23

There were so many interesting questions that came out of last night's "Idol" that I suppose the best way to handle them all is just ask 'em, and let 'em hang there. So here goes.

I was just wondering...

...when is "Idol" going to at least HINT that Michael Johns, Carly Smithson and Kristy Lee Cook have had professional experience?

...how Josiah Leming is going to handle possible (probable) rejection?

...whether Danny Noriega is the next Sanjaya?

...why Robbie Carrico looks like Axl Rose?

...why Colton Berry looks like Josiah?

...will Kyle Ensley be the next Sanjaya?

...why Kyle Ensley is my favorite contestant so far?

...why Perry Cataldo got dropped (thought he seemed kinda good during that a capella shootout)?

...whether "Idol" will ever show clips of the time David Archuleta - who's probably a front-runner already - won junior singer comps at "Star Search" in 2003?

...why Angela Martin got dropped (who I thought was good) and (whether it's just a coincidence that there's also an Angela Martin in "The Office?")

(Right: David A., from his "Star Search" days; courtesy: CBS)

Yes, we can tell you officially: Tina Fey will be the first guest host on "SNL" when it returns after a very long hiatus on Feb. 23.

Frankly, it's kind of an inspired choice, given her starring/head-writing/production role of yore here. Also, she won't be around until April 10 when "30 Rock" comes back. No word yet from "SNL" on music guest or future guest hosts.

But I wonder...I wonder...has an invitation to host gone out yet to Barack Obama?

This morning, I wrote a bitchy, snide, mean, querulous, cynical, argumentative post about the low turn-out for the Writers Guild vote yesterday, because....well...THAT'S JUST THE WAY I AM.

To restate my observation (see below), I fail to understand why only 4,000-or-so writers cast a ballot when the other 7,000 members couldn't get their butts over to a polling place in LA or NY to cast a ballot too. I mean, it wasn't like this thing wasn't publicized.

Well, since posting this, Sherry Goldman - who's done a fine and honorable job representing the WGA to the east coast press since this strike began and is never any of those things that I demonstrably am - had a detailed and reasonable response to my questions about the turn-out.

I quote Sherry in full:

"The reason that only 3,775 writers voted is because it was a 48-hour vote and writers had to go to meetings in either NY or LA or vote by proxy. Many Writers Guild members do not live nearby either - for example, the WGAE membership covers everything East of the Mississippi and also England and Ireland. So, it is difficult if not impossible for people to get to the meetings. We consider this vote turnout a strong turnout.

"But, since the 48-hour vote is not easy for everyone to vote, that is why the Guilds decided that contract ratification vote will be a mail ballot. Later this week ballots are being sent to all members covered under this contract - and members can vote by mail, proxy or in person at membership meetings on Feb. 25. Constitutionally, we are required to give 10 days for a mail ballot - so this process works for the contract ratification vote. But, our membership told as (at the member meetings over the weekend) that they did not want to wait 10 days for the strike to be lifted either by the contract ratification vote or by a separate mail vote. That's why it was split this way."

And speaking of voting: Let's ponder this one number.

92.5 percent.

Big number.

Nice number.

Seemingly overwhelming number.

That's the percentage of writers who voted to end to walk-out last night.

But only 3,775 ballots were cast. What about the 7,000 - that's write, errr, right - almost SEVEN THOUSAND other members of the WGA who didn't bother to vote?

True, people had to actually go to the Guild Theater in Beverly Hills (or Crowne Plaza in NYC) to cast a vote, so maybe traffic, or something else (God knows what), kept most people away. But you'd think that with all the anguish, all the fighting, all the picketing, all the canceled contracts, all the damaged careers, derailed shows, and general meshugas, that EVERYONE would want to show up to cast a ballot, either thumbs up or down.

Instead, only 3,775.

So, were the other 7,000-or-so unhappy with the new contract? Just couldn't be bothered? Had other things to worry about instead of their livelihood?

I just don't get it. (By the way, about 280 cast a no vote.)

Of course, there's no such thing as 100 percent compliance in any WGA vote, but writers have turned out in greater numbers before. When? Back in October, when WGA West and East members cast a total of 5,507 ballots to authorize a strike, which at the time was reported to be the largest turnout in WGA history.

Oh yes, the actors.

In all this talk about writers and yesterday's Writers Guild of America vote, we almost forgot about them. But this oversight should be corrected shortly. Here's why: There's pressure mounting on the Screen Actors Guild, the larger and certainly more visible union that represents just about everyone that works in FRONT of the camera, to start negotiating its next contract.

SAG's deal is up June 30 but per the trades this morning, the studios want to get the Guild to the table quickly - perhaps to seal a deal similar to the one the writers just agreed to?

As evidence of this pressure, here's a fascinating nugget in Dave McNary's piece in Variety this morning: "Studios are indicating to agents this week that they're generally holding back on commitments to feature projects until SAG signs a new deal - particularly since they've been stockpiling features in recent months as a hedge against a SAG strike."

But here's the big question: Will actors embrace the writers deal? The WGA deal is considered roughly similar to the Directors Guild deal, signed earlier, but SAG disparaged the DGA deal at the time. So...how does it feel about the new WGA deal?

It's unlikely the actors will go on strike, but really, who knows for certain. Here's one intriguing development: There's a huge fissure between the haves and have-nots in the union, with working actors - a total of 800, in fact - having signed a petition demanding a "qualified voting requirement."

This means...that only working actors making a buck - apparently at least $7,500 a year - would be allowed to vote on the new contract. Their fear? That those who aren't working, or the vast majority of actors, will vote for a strike.

(That guy pictured above - can't think of his name at the moment - wants SAG to get talking.)

The Hollywood Reporter's Nellie Andreeva has the Big "Lost" News of the Day: Carlton Cuse confirmed to her yesterday that the show will produce five more episodes which will be (sigh) still three short of the original order.

He told her, "We're going to have to hit the ground running, go from zero to 100 mph in a matter of days to make as many episodes as possible."

Darlton's (Carlton and Damon Lindelof) plan is apparently to squeeze the original eight remaining into five - which, no matter how you slice/dice it, is a stinging disappointment to "Losties." What's being dropped? What loose ends won't get tied? What mysteries will remain stubbornly unsolved? (Eh, they'd probably remain stubbornly unsolved anyway...) These final three (shortened) seasons will be as carefully mapped as any final arcs in TV history - now the map has a bunch of white spaces on it.

Enough whining and moaning. At least five is better than none.

There was some hope - admittedly dim - that ABC would order the final eight when the strike ended (for a total of sixteen this season), but in these now very parlous times, the strike has forced the network to cut costs, and this is just one obvious way.

Of all the yawning voids over the last three month, I can think of few greater, wider, more noticeable, more dramatic and - in its own particular way - more unsettling than the absence of "Saturday Night Live."

This isn't a critical comment, per se, but a comment on the show's symbolism - almost as great, if not greater, than "The Tonight Show," which - thanks to Jay Leno - got itself back on the map at the beginning of the year.

But "SNL?" MIA, or DOA.

I've been worried about "SNL," and don't ask me why. Maybe because this is one of the last great pillars of NBC, which has turned - sadly - into a pretty crumby network. This was once the network of Brandon Tartikoff and Grant Tinker and (in fact) Lorne Michaels. Not that Lorne is in the past tense, but in this New Awful Downsized and Crummified NBC, he feels terribly marginalized, and so does his classic.

Anyway, this is a long roundabout way of getting to the good news: "SNL" will be back on February 23. Seth Meyers was quoted somewhere over the weekend as saying that this Saturday is the return date, but - alas - poor under-worked Seth got a little ahead of himself. I'm told (reliably) that the 23rd is the big day.

I'm glad. I feel a little better. The glorious NBC past isn't completely dead and buried - yet.

Reader poll: Favorite current recurring character

Remember that huge fine the FCC slapped ABC with over a naked butt scene that appeared in "NYPD Blue" over five years ago? ABC got around to re-butting (stop me before I pun again) the FCC today.

Here's the statement:

“Today, ABC filed a formal response to the FCC's proposed $1.43M fine for an episode of the Emmy Award-winning drama, “NYPD Blue.” ABC strongly opposed the proposed fine, noting that when the brief scene in question was telecast almost five years ago, this critically acclaimed drama had been on the air for a decade and the realistic nature of its storylines were well known to the viewing public, and arguing that the FCC's action was inconsistent with the Commission's own indecency standards, procedural requirements, and prior decisions; with the indecency statute; and with the First Amendment."

The affiliates backed up ABC, too.

"Also today, the ABC Affiliates Association filed a response to the NAL on behalf of the 50 non-owned ABC affiliates named in the NAL. Ray Cole, Chairman of the ABC Affiliates Association's Board of Governors, commented: "The ABC Affiliates support our network in its view that the portion of the episode of NYPD Blue in question is not actionably indecent under the law. ABC Affiliates also believe that the process and procedures employed by the Commission in the handling of this matter were deeply flawed and violate well-settled legal standards."

Not back next season? Is this possible?

We may have the first evidence of the draconian effect of the writers' strike on returning series or, to be more precise, those series not returning.

ABC on Monday announced a slew of shows that will return for the 2008-09 season - "Brothers & Sisters,” “Desperate Housewives,” “Dirty Sexy Money,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Lost,” “Private Practice,” “Pushing Daisies,” “Samantha Who?” and “Ugly Betty.”

And on Tuesday, we get word that it's also cut back on its order of "Lost" for the remainder of the season.

Yesterday's list may be more interesting for what is NOT on it: "Cavemen," "Carpoolers," "October Road," "Men in Trees," and "Big Shots." The only truly surprising omission? "Boston Legal," which is the last surviving series of uber-producer David E. Kelley on primetime TV (and which of course, grew out of the ashes of "The Practice.") ABC says the show's fate won't be determined until May, but this definitely looks bad.

What could be going on here? Too expensive? That's a very real possibility - and I did note that William Shatner was asked in a recent magazine survey whether he missed working at the show during the strike, and his response (I paraphrase) was "not in the least..."

"Cavemen," alas, was expected to be a casualty, strike or no. The others were certainly bubbles, too, though the strike may have hastened their demise.

"The strength of our schedule this fall was unprecedented and speaks for itself,” said Stephen McPherson, president, ABC Entertainment, in a statement. “We’re looking forward to building on that success.”

Jeez, what was THAT all about? A three-and-a-half month strike. $2 billion hit on the LA economy. Thousands put out of work. About 70 "housekeeping deals" - writers put on retainer - killed outright. Dozens, hundreds of shows shut down.

In the very cold light of dawn, the new deal doesn't really look all that great given the fall-out. On the page, the numbers actually look kinda puny. After all that - all that picketing, too - here's (part of) what writers ended up with: "residuals [will be] paid at 0.36 percent of distributors gross receipts for the first 100,000 downloads of a TV program and the first 50,000 downloads of a feature. After that, residuals are paid at 0.7 percent of distributors gross receipts for television programs and 0.65 percent for feature films.”

And that's just in the third year of this deal.

Now, let's get out my calculator - five of the most dangerous words in the English language - and see what this comes to. If we're talking (hypothetically) about "The Office" which goes for $1.99 (although it's no longer available on iTunes, but just stay with me here), and you reach the threshold of 100,000 copies downloaded, then that comes...to the grand total...of...$720.00.

In Los Angeles, I believe, that's the typical weekly grocery bill.

That's if you get to 100 large. Most shows don't do that well. Few do in fact. Of, course, my math could be all wrong (probably is) and I'm prejudiced by what appear to be very picayune figures. The Writers Guild would say that I've missed the point. This is about the FUTURE. This is about erasing PAST INJUSTICES. This is about GETTING OUR FAIR SHARE and tapping into the DISTRIBUTION PIPELINE OF THE NEXT DECADE. In that sense, they're certainly right. The producers wanted to indefinitely delay any new media payout pending a "careful industry study." Oh, yeah, we know all about THOSE careful industry studies.

For writers, the crucible that this strike was forged upon were DVDs. Twenty years ago, scribes pretty much abdicated any significant residual stream from videos because they were an unknown new business, and who the heck knew what they were gonna do? Videos boomed, then DVDs; writers got chump change from this revolution. Ironically, DVD residuals ended up taking a back seat in this negotiation because the Guild was hell-bent on getting Internet residuals.

A stray thought here: What if the real cash comes from DVDs in the next ten years, while downloading and streaming remain small potatoes? Clearly, the "distributors' gross" from the sale of a DVD is going to be far higher than an Internet sale simply because DVDs cost more.

One more stray thought: I think this battle was as much about the past as the future. Knotted deep within the DNA of Hollywood is distrust between writers and suits. Writers always think the suits are trying to screw them over - either financially or creatively; suits think writers are whiny layabouts who dress badly. Both camps hate each other and almost always have - though you have to go way back to the '20s when the first stirrings of this antipathy occurred. It's a fascinating, complex, serpentine story, but I think this latest strike proved (once again and thanks, Faulkner) that the past isn't dead - it isn't even past.

(Above: Irving Thalberg, left, who first did battle with scribes back in the '20s and '30s, alongside Norma Shearer and LB, who had his own share of battles; picture from "The Lion of Hollywood," by Scott Eyman.)

For sale on Ebay soon.

You can - as Dan Rather might say - put a period, end, full-stop and exclamation mark on the writers' strike of 2007-08.

The Guild got a positive reax to the proposed deal in meetings on both coasts last night. It now goes to general membership for vote, but the strike won't be lifted until Wednesday. WGA bosses met today to make a formal pronouncement, allowing writers 48 hours to mull the deal, and then vote yea or nay - the latter, per a press conference today, considered unlikely to derail the deal announced today.

Monday was the expected start date, but instead, so-called show-runners will return to work tomorrow, setting up shop - so to speak - and preparing to re-hire all those hundreds who were fired.

There was plenty of reason for celebration by writers - anxious to end this crippling strike - though they didn't get everything they wanted at the outset. One scribe explained, "I do feel the Guild made amazing strikes [and] the two things I am most happy with are [the fact] there are no sunset clauses like the [Directors Guild]" while this deal goes to May of 2011, "not November or February which aligns us three years from now with SAG and DGA. If we didn't get stuff this round we will be stronger next go round."

What "stuff" might that be? Representing animation and reality writers for one; and Sunday morning at ...ohh, 10:30 ...it's still unclear whether writers got any residuals for DVDs. That was a key striking point, and an emotional rallying point as well, but hardly any word (best I can tell) in the proposed agreement addressing this. They got a boost in residuals for streaming and downloads, but only after so many downloads. (See below.)

Meanwhile, I share this handy Reuters wrap that goes over the numbers: All the key stats that give you an overview of the cost, human and financial, of the now-ended strike:

The following are some economic factors at stake in the strike by some 10,500 members of the Writers Guild of America.

* The motion picture and television industry generates $30 billion in annual economic activity for Los Angeles County alone.

* About 254,000 people are directly employed in the county's film and television industry -- from actors and directors to hairstylists, set designers, truck drivers and clerks. That is double the number who worked in the industry 20 years ago.

* The Los Angeles Economic Development Corp. estimates at least $650 million in wages have been lost in the region's film and television industry since the strike began Nov. 5, with $1.2 billion more in lost earnings caused by a ripple effect in the local economy.

* The last major Hollywood strike was in 1988, when a 22-week walkout by the WGA delayed the start of that year's fall television season and hit the entertainment industry with at least $500 million in lost earnings.

* Production on some 60 prime-time television dramas and comedies normally filmed in the Los Angeles area were shut down by the latest strike, idling roughly 11,000 crew members.

* A private industry analysis reported by Daily Variety projects that lost spending on U.S. film and television production would reach about $3 billion if the strike were to last another two to three months, with collateral economic losses topping $5 billion.

* A key stumbling block in contract talks had been writers' demands for higher "residual" fees when their work is resold in the form of Internet downloads. The union originally sought 2.5 percent of the distributor's gross revenues, while the studios wanted to hold the rate to the equivalent of just 0.3 percent. The tentative deal would pay 0.7 percent of gross revenues, but that rate only kicks in after the first 50,000 downloads for movies and 100,000 downloads for television.

* The U.S. download-to-own market for movies and television episodes -- a small but growing chunk of entertainment revenues -- was expected to reach $315 million at the end of 2007 and nearly $1.2 billion by 2011, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers.

* Payments of all residuals to screenwriters amount to more than $100 million a year, according to industry figures. The union says such payments account for as much as half the income earned by "middle class" writers who make up the bulk of the WGA's membership.

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.

With all due respect to Churchill, these do seem to be the big questions on the eve of this momentous weekend in the entertainment industry.

You know - questions about the writers strike. The thing that's kept shows like "American Gladiators" far too long on the air (and "24" off the air probably for the rest of the year, and "Grey's Anatomy" MIA.)

Will this weekend's meet be the end? Or the beginning of a long and brutal stalemate?

In the last 12-24 hours, there have been a lot of declarations on both sides (see: Eisner, below.) Some say its over. Some say it ain't over until it's over.

Tomorrow, the writers meet together with the Guild leadership to review particulars of the deal before them. ALL writers on both coasts have been urged to attend, which means a very big and very disparate and VERY noisy meet. Anyone who expects 13,000 people to sing Kumbaya in merry unison is either foolish or ignorant or full of wishful thinking. This strike has caused so much anger and disrupted so many lives - THEIR lives - that it's impossible to imagine perfect unity.

Bottom line: Anything could happen this weekend.

So let's say - hypothetically - I'm a writer whose electricity was turned off a week ago, and who's wondering whether that job at McDonald's will come through.

After so much sacrifice, here are the questions I would want positive answers to this weekend:

1.) Will our DVD rate be increased to 8 cents?

This is what put me on the street in the first place. I've been screwed out of home video and DVD residuals for two decades. All I want is my fair share here - 8 cents. If you tell me we're still gonna get paid 4 cents for ever $19.95 video that's sold then put my vote in the "no" column.

2.) Will we get a 2.5 percent residual on both streaming AND downloads of our shows on the Internet?

If the answer is no, again, then my answer is no, again. What's the point? Wasn't this all about getting our Internet rate (with no distinction between downloads and streaming) the same as our TV residual, which IS 2.5 percent (or 2.5 cents for every dollar the studio gets?) I've read all the press reports - you know, that we'll get this by the third year of our deal - but I'm still confused.

So there you have it, friends. The bottom line (again), and the two numbers (8 cents and 2.5 percent) that drove this strike in the first place. What are the answers? What are the compromises? Will the hardliners outvote those who want to accept the "compromise?" Or vice versa?

In other words, this strike really isn't over until it's over. Let's wait until this weekend to see what happens.

If you can believe Michael Eisner - and you can, can't you? - then we've got great news for you: The writers strike is over.

He's a guy, I should add, who's in a pretty good position to know, and not just because he ran Disney for what seemed like an eternity; he also runs his own investment company (Tornante) that has stakes in media companies, so he's got money in the game.

But not too fast. This from a WGA spokesperson just a little while ago: "The strike is NOT over - as you know, we are under a press blackout, but I can tell you that the strike is NOT over."

Eisner made his "it's over" declaration a few hours ago during an interview on CNBC's "Fast Company, Eisner - the feisty former chairman of the Mousehouse, now with an occasional hosting gig on CNBC, was flat-out blunt (he always is) about the end. He told anchor Dylan Rattigan "They [studios and writers] made the deal, they shook hands on the deal. It’s going on Saturday to the writers in general" for agreement. He was apparently referring to scheduled meetings here and in Los Angeles between writers and the Writers Guild scheduled for this Saturday. He added, "A deal has been made. They’ll be back to work very soon. I know it’s over."

Eisner's declaration is the first by an industry bigshot affirming widespread reports over the weekend that a deal had been struck Feb. 1. Both studios and the Guild, under a self-imposed media blackout while negotiations have been underway, declined comment, while a spokeswoman for the WGA could not be immediately reached for comment.

He also took a potshot at the writers: "I think this was not the time [to strike]. If there was going to be a strike, it should have been three years from now when you really knew the definition of the online business and where you knew the revenues were coming. I think a lot of writers lost their deals and they will not be reinstated," referring to dozens of those writer/producer contracts that were terminated by the studios over the last month.

Here's the place to go to see Big Mike insist that the fat lady has sung.

(Photo: Forbes.)

Yes, this story was way to good to be true - another joyously ridiculous example of our over-entertained age - but now the question is: What this just another one of those web hoaxes (that are too good to be true?)

I'm speaking of that Hillary Clinton invite to "Dancing with the Stars" that made the rounds everywhere yesterday. The genesis of it was a little difficult to track - TMZ claims it had the story first, though TVGuide.com lays authorship off on "ET."

What am I talking about? Simply this - and I quote fully from the TVGuide.com story:

"ET reports that [Dancing with the Stars] invited the presidential hopeful to appear on the tour after she expressed an interest in the show during an interview with Tyra Banks. (Clinton said that if she had to choose between appearing on America's Next Top Model or Dancing, she'd go with the latter.)"

That's it; yuk yuk. We were all left to ponder Hillary doing the Mambo with Derek Hough or maybe Jonathan Roberts. And also wonder: Why would "DWTS" send her a letter to join the tour when they know full well that she'd have no intention of joining? Ever.

Yuk yuk.

But what if this was all one of those dumb stunts, cooked up to fool the press (and maybe embarass a candidate too)?

TMZ claims it got a copy of a letter/invite from the show, and has posted it on its site. (It takes a little while to download; be patient.) But something like this, of course, would be very easy to fake.

I tried to get a comment from ABC, and they sent me to "DWTS'" uber-PR agency, Solters.

Here was their one-line response, received last night: "We weren't able to confirm the letter's authenticity."

I'll leave it to you to figure out the meaning of this. It seems obvious to me.

Remember Sayville's Tom Westman?

How could you forget?! He won "Survivor" back in May of 2005 and was (arguably) the most popular winner in the show's history. Everyone liked him - even those he clocked on the show, which he won with a combination of smarts, class and unusual stamina.

He was a genuine "favorite," but - bizarrely - you won't be seeing him in tonight's favorites/fans" season launch. You can determine for yourself whether this line-up is a "favorite" one. In any event...this all gave me an opportunity to catch up with Tom, and there's a lot of catching up to do. Here's how AP reported the winner nearly three years ago: "On Sunday night, Tom Westman was a reality TV star and the winner of a $1 million-dollar prize.On Thursday morning, he was just another New York City fire lieutenant.

"Westman returned to work at Ladder Company 108 in Brooklyn today, after winning the top prize in CBS's 'Survivor: Palau.' And, despite his instant fame after spending 30 days on an uninhabited island, he says he's just one of the guys...'They don't suffer prima donnas too well in a New York City firehouse.'"

Tom - as you're likely aware - is no longer with 108; instead, he's a group benefits executive with the Hartford in New York. Yeah, he was contacted about the "favorite" edition, but declined; as he told me (quoted in today's paper), "I've got a year invested in a career," then added with
a laugh: "The bottom line is, no one's going to give you the money the second time around."

"I've got my friends from that little moment I had there [on Palau.] Jen [Lyon] was out and stayed at the house. Ian [Rosenberger] was out. We see each other...Gregg [Carey] and Stephanie [LaGrossa]. Talked to two days ago. The people who were close to me, I kept just as close [afterwards.]"

Why did he go back to work and what happened to the million?

"Basically you walk away with half of that [after taxes] and then I invested the rest in [college savings plans for three kids, ages 8,10, and 12.] After [buying a new] car and a couple of home improvements, it's time to work again."

Nevertheless, he says the money and experience were "huge" and "life-changing...In fact, it let let me try and start a new career. I get the 5:44 out of Sayville [to Penn] so it's kind of changed my life, from a guy who watched Letterman [to someone] tucked in by 10..."

Does he miss the firehouse? Sure! But..."if I went back and rolled back the clock, most of those guys are gone anyway, so that old 'you can't go home again' line still exists. I still see them, and people can't believe I'm happy doing anything but that, but I feel kind of like the way you feel when you left college. You knew those were the best days of your life, but you also don't wish you were still there, still hanging around the dorm at this stage. So I'm trying to figure out where this new life leads me."

By the way - and he's glad you asked - yes, his wife, Bernadette, is doing great.

A split decision!

No massive screw-ups. (No noticeable screw-ups of any sort). Solid coverage. Good graphics. Competent field reporting. Amazingly detailed and informed commentary. Lower thirds...well, a little more on that in a bit.

All in all, a pretty good night of TV coverage.

But during an historic evening, personalities - network personalities - tend to emerge, stripped of flackery or spin, they show their true colors. Last night wasn't about "who was first" but "who was most watchable," which is a whole different metric. So let's just go network by network:

CNN: By God, it's Grand Central Station at five, with bodies moving endlessly, restlessly, about the cavernous set, and anchors trolling for commentary from one set of desks to the next; meanwhile, where were all those people in the background going? To get coffee? Find the bathroom? WHAT DO ALL THOSE PEOPLE AT CNN DO? To watch CNN for any length of time last night was to induce motion sickness - with so much activity, and that wall of verbal sound, accompanied by hand-held cameras and a lower third - bottom portion of the screen - stuffed with more information that the Manhattan directory, you start to get the sense that you’re swimming in an aquarium over-filled with lovely, exotic, tropical, and slightly deranged fish. You start to lose perspective (why is Anderson walking to one desk, why Wolf to another). Up becomes down, down up, the chatter is voluminous..and that magic wall? Amazing!

Best part: John King's mastery of said wall. To watch his dissection of Missouri was to get a real sense of what vote counting is really all about. Worst: Lou Dobbs. When he smiles the screen cracks, and his outright dismissal of McCain (the three Repubs are all equal!) smacked of pure, bilious bias. Fox's ill-disguised pro-Romney bias was equally grotesque.

MSNBC: The less-is-more approach, and Keith Olbermann to boot (who, yes, is the personification of more-is-more...) The tactic here was to create a distinct visual anti-thesis of CNN, and in some ways that was the better approach. While CNN overwhelmed ( a sign of innate insecurity?) MS usually underwhelmed. MSNBC also kept your eyes focused on the screens, ears attuned to the speaker. It was a less disorienting experience as a result.


Best part: Olbermann, hands down. Love him or hate him, when that giant manhead fills the screen, and that near-parodic anchorman voice fills your ears, you tend to pay attention. But he also had a "please explain this baffling business to me" attitude which brought everything down to earth. Analyst Chuck Todd - if I'm not mistaken - also had the first clear, or at least intelligible, snapshot of the final delegate count. Worst part: That torture chamber, or the set from "Tron" (per Keith) where anchors were encased while they dodged swirling and unintelligible graphic bars.

Fox: Spend much time with Fox and you feel like you want to sidle up to a bar somewhere and order a Mai Tai. It - the set - is all so dark and sinuous and alluring, who the hell wants to leave? Then...here comes Megyn Kelly – good, by the way - and the effect is complete. But then the dissonance: When Brit (Hume) and Michael Barone get together (for example), you wonder: what language are they speaking? And then, those little swooshing sounds when a state's called and the bumper spins - you look over your shoulder to see if a bird just flew in the window. Karl Rove - the master of dark arts for the Bushies - was pretty good, but occasionally incomprehensible too. With that soaring dome and all those shiny spots, you also realize: TV is not kind to him. He like everyone else was scratching his math on the back of envelopes, and you wonder yet again: with all that money poured into the set, not enough $ left over for Fox to afford NOTEPADS?

The best: The set and the best of all the networks, period. Hume, who always looks like he's having a pretty good time, was a solid center.
The worst: Like CNN, Fox and its bounty of T-heads babble over the rest of us, the great unwashed, who are left wondering..."uhhh, what did that guy say?"

ABC: Visually, the cleanest look of anyone - plenty of blues, reds, black suits (but then everyone last night wore black) and exquisite ties. There's something terribly British and civilized about the ABC style on election nights - no one raises their voice, or is disputatious, or uncivil. Diane - regal of bearing - completes the effect while Charlie is the grand pooh-bah, with baritone voice and jowly good humor. ABC likes containment - nothing flies around the screen, while direction is steady-as-she-goes. It's all nice, very nice, to look at but devoid of pitched drama or surging emotion. Staid...I think that's the word I'm reaching for.

Best: Di. The queen was terrific. Worst: Tone. It...was...just...too...dull.

CBS: Think back four years ago to this night, and who was sitting here? Dan? Ed Bradley? Probably some other icon? Last night: Katie, who had a fabulous hairstyle with a dashing little flip that made her look like a '20s flapper. But get past this stuff - no apologies, but I just can't - and you realize she had a pretty good night. She was poised, and smart and well prepared, and simple. The drama? It was here: Bob Schieffer, the last lion, would talk about something and then she'd start chattering, and he'd keep chattering and then she'd keep chattering...WHO IS GOING TO GIVE UP THE MIKE, you wonder? Then, there is Jeff Greenfield - terrific, as always, last night - who stood down (and where can I buy the ringtone on his cell?)
CBS, overall, had a good night - even though you could tell they didn't spend ten bucks on their set. My bet is that millions of viewers at home had better-equipped dens then this set.

The best: CBS's lower third. Someone had the brains to realize that the only count that mattered was the DELEGATE count, which is what the screen graphics paid attention to. It was very simple, and effective. The worst: Some irrelevant remote from a New York bar; an absolute waste of airtime.

NBC: "The Biggest Loser" - the show, that is - crowds NBC out of the action until 10 p.m., which was an eternity of invisibility. As a result, if you want a real loser last night, look no further than here. They weren't bad, just irrelevant. Brian Williams comes on and says Ann Curry's been sifting through a "mountain of numbers" - I doubt that very much - and then we get a few crumbs.

The best: Honestly, didn't see much, but I did like Williams' interview with Bill Richardson; Tim Russert, as always, was solid too. The worst: The simple fact that NBC just doesn't seem to give a damn anymore. At least MSNBC does.

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.

Having recovered sufficiently from the Greatest Super Bowl in History (GSBIH), I can now render my verdict on all the other aspects of the big show. With grades, and best moments in boldface. I'm certain I've missed a few here and there (sorry), but Newsday lets you vote for your favorite, if you haven't already.

Here goes..

Jordin Sparks: Starts low and slow with the anthem but crowns if off with that big clean voice. And why wasn't she this good on "Idol?" (A)

Diet Coke: Bad start to Super Bowl ad parade (D).

SalesGenie: Huh? What's a "salesgenie?" Don't know from this. (F).

Under Armour: One of those puzzlers that makes you wonder, what's an "under armour." I'm still not sure (athletic stuff, I think). (C)

Bud Light: The big cheese, and guys will be guys. Droll but predictable. (C -)

Bridgestone: Game's big sponsor has the game's big winner - screaming squirrel, and easily the advertising highlight of GSBIH. (A+)

iTunes: Whatever. (Just tell me how to sync my list). (C)

"Wanted:" The trailer. Did not work. Forgettable. (D)

Godaddy.com: with male heart-racer, Danica Patrick, but just weird, and what the heck is a godaddy? (D).

Fed Ex: Attack of the giant pigeons. Animals to good, if destructive, effect. (B)

"Iron Man:" Trailer. I dunno, he looks like he's made of nickel. Good trailer though. (B)

Corolla: The badger will chew off face if disturbed. Good. Funny. Clever. (B+)

"Leatherheads:" Trailer. Clooney in a muddy comedy? Uh-uh. (D).

Garmin: Napoleon? Whaaa? (D)

CareerBuilder.com: Beating heart on two legs. Disgusting. The worst of the GSBIH ads. (F)

Lifewater: Dancing lizards. Gimmickry for expensive sugar water. (B-)

Yukon Hybrid: That drawing of guy pushing rock up hill. I liked it visually, but still can't fix the idea of a hybrid gashog Yukon in my head. (B)

Bud Light: Poking fun at people with funny accents. That'll sell beer. Right. (D)

Narnia: The best of the trailers. (B+)

T-Mobile: With the round mound of rebound. Not there. (C)

Pepsi/Amazon: Justin Timberlake gets the worst of it. So do viewers. (D)

Doritos: Attack of the giant mouse. Low-budget look that works. (B +)

Daytona 500: The best of the Fox promos - visual dynamo, with aural fireworks. (A)

Ideacast: Semi-naked guy? (D -)

Chase (Protection): Secret agent man. Blah. (D)

"Ax Men": The wood cutters. Remember? Of course you don't. That's the problem. (D).

NFL Network: The in-house ads, with the guy who can't get his story straight. Amusing but will we watch? (B-)

Halftime Show: Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. One of the great rockers in history gets center stage at GSBIH, and I'm sorry to say, it was soporific. This recent habit of going to the standards (Stones, McCartney, now Petty) may have broad demographic appeal, as they say in the ad trade, but sometimes at the expense of energy and spontaneity.

Zantac: Heartburn. 'Nuff said. (C -)

SemiPro: No. (D)

Cars.com: Witch doctor. Whatever. (C)

SalesGenie: Still blowing all that IPO money, eh? And still no go - the pandas. (F)

Vitawater: Shaq on horse. Strange. (D)

Bud Light: Cave men discover the bottle opener. Terrible. (D).

Ice Cube Ice Breakers: With Carmen Electra. A bore. (C).

Bridgestone: Alice Cooper...Richard Simmons...great, again. (A)

CareerBuilder: The spider. Hmmm. (C)

Hyundai: Little surprise twist. (B)

Wall-E: "Toy Story" riff. Endless. (D)

E-Trade: The slick talking baby. Creepy. (D)

Geico: The return of the hairy dudes, who offer their critique of the TV show ("what's with the make-up.") Still amuses. (B).

Audi (AKA "Godfather.) I still don't know what was in the bed. (D)

Dell XPS: the exploding PCs. Liked it. (B)

Coke: Stewie and Charlie race for the Coke bottle. This one seems to be the overwhelming favorite of everyone, and understandably. I still like the Screaming Squirrel. (A)

Zohan: Trailer. With Sandler. Dumb and dumber. (D)

Gatorade: Thirsty dog. Only average. (C)

Bud Light: Jackie Moon, AKA, Will Ferrell. The only decent "Light." (B)

Victoria's Secret: For the guys. Eye-opening. (B).

Yes, it is nearly over. Finally. If you can believe the spate of reports out this morning, everywhere from the NYT to Variety, which unequivocally state that a breakthrough on new media payments - long a sticking point - was reached Friday during informal talks between studios and writers.

There's always reason for pessimism, and for a good healthy dose of that, go to Unitedhollywood, which has been a solid barometer of writer sentiment since this walk-off began Nov. 5.

But the simple fact is simple: Neither studios NOR the Writers Guild would have authorized Saturday's media leaks (which of course they did) were they not confident that the end is near. And once that trigger (so to speak) has been pulled, it would be inconceivable to think that some sort of reversal will take place.

In other words, it's almost certainly over.

Without getting into details of the pact (and they're everywhere, but the LA Times seems to have most of the key ones), the BIG question for you and me is: When? When will shows get back on the air, and when will we be able to say goodbye forever to reality twaddle like "The Farmer Wants a Bride Who's An American Gladiator" and get back to the real stuff we tune in for, like "24?"

Great question, and here's my rule of thumb (effectively sanctioned, I should add, by Entertainment Weekly, which put together a pretty good strike survival guide recently): Four to six weeks.

This means that if the strike ends tomorrow, a brand new episode of just about any scripted show could hit the air by early to mid-March. I would go with the four-week-rule of thumb, however. When the green light goes on, shows will be RUSHED, and I do mean rushed, to the air. Four weeks wouldn't be out of the question, especially since it takes typically eight full days to shoot one hour-long drama (for example.) Shows won't have much of a back-load of scripts, if any, since many - "CSI," just one prominent example - used every word they had on the page to squeeze out additional episodes when the strike was on. Under Guild rules, writers were barred from writing anything during the walk-out, but it's inconceivable that many haven't doped out plots of potential episodes in their heads. In fact, they may come back with even better shows - given the simple fact they had so much time to think about them.

In any event, I'm going with the four week rule. This means everything you might imagine it to mean: That a show like "Lost," which had only eight episodes in the can, will now be able to get its full complement of sixteen on the air this season. Many other dramas - with 22-24-episode orders - had only completed one third of those by strike-time; they should be able to add at least eight more fresh episodes as well, if not more.

Of course, the biggest question looming - at least to fans - is "24:" Where does it go from here? Many scenarios have been floated, including a spring/summer run - which I think is unlikely - or a fall 2008 run, which is equally unlikely. Another crazy/unlikely possibility - that "24" bundles up hours into TWO hours per night, or a couple hours per week, which means the show could run unbroken starting in (say) March, and be over by the end of May or early June.

Why unlikely? Only because I think this would be a crushing challenge to the production team - and maybe unnecessary, given the fact that "Idol" will hold the Fox fort until May.

There's much much more to report/speculate. We're just at the beginning of the post-strike era.

Now that we've all experienced the thrill of The Return of "Lost" (parts one and two), I have questions. Many questions. I see that the exemplary website Tvtattle recently posted a "48 'Lost' Questions" - all great ones, by the way - but let's see if we can top that based on just those two hours last night.

And, so here goes (in no logical order whatsoever). Fifty-four questions:
- Why did Locke really kill Naomi - the ravishing Marsha Thomason?
- Is he nuts?
- Is Naomi really dead? (Or course not! Repeat: OF COURSE NOT!)
- Does Miles see ghosts? (Or just talk to them?)
- Where do you buy one of those funky ghost vacuum cleaners anyway?
- (Walmart?)
- What is "The Wire's" Col. Cedric Daniels - Lance Reddick - doing in "Lost" anyway?
- Any chance Bunk Moreland might show up too?
- (And how about Jimmy McNulty?)
- Why did Daniel Faraday squint at the light and talk about the refraction?
- The name "Faraday?"

(Michael Faraday: The great English chemist/physicist who effectively determined the principles of electromagnetism which - ultimately - helped shaped the special theory of relativity, etc.)

- Any significance?
- What do YOU think?
- Why is Karl such a dork?
- Why does Flashforward Jack want to grow a beard?
- Why did he shave it?
- Why does he have such a lousy basketball shot?
- Where is Flashforward Kate?
- Why couldn't SHE visit Hurls in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest Rest Home?
- Where is the REAL captain of Oceanic 815?
- Who was that rotting dude in the driver's seat of Oceanic 815?
-Where was Desmond during the second hour?
- Didn't Locke have the kidney on the OTHER side removed? (Just wondering...)
- Why was there a polar bear in Tunisia?
- Why is there a polar bear on the ISLAND?
- If Oceanic 815 went down near Sumatra, does that mean the island is somewhere nearby?
- There are over 150 million people in Indonesia - what are the chances none of them would know about an island this strange?
- Hey! I thought 815 was heading from Sydney to LA, so what was it doing in the Indian Ocean?
- Or was that REALLY O 815 down there on the ocean bottom? (Answer: Of COURSE NOT!)
- Are all the tailies dead? (I guess so...)
- Does the Island polar bear wear a collar too?
- About the other Others - why do they need a social anthropologist to find Ben?
- Why do they need to find Ben?
- Who's Ben's plant on the boat?
- Is there a boat?
- Why is Miles such a jerk?
- (But Ken Leung was great - crazy great in "The Sopranos" - wasn't he?)
- What happened to Walt?
- Is Locke gonna introduce everyone to Jacob?
- What does Jacob think about that?
- Does Charlotte - Rebecca Mader - seem kinda strange to you too?
- When does Michael show up?
- How did the helicopter make it to the Island without crashing?
- Why didn't Bearded Guy pilot 815?
- What was he doing in the Bahamas?
- How did Miles know there were O 815 survivors but Charlotte did not?
- Why does Flashforward Charlie want Flashforward Hurls to go back to the Island?
- What's Flashforward Jack so afraid of?
- Who - or what - remained behind?
- Will there be flashback sequences during the flashforward ones?
- Will there be flashforward sequences during the flashforward ones?
- Is there such thing as "real time" in "Lost" anymore?
- Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

Well?

That's by far the most important question in all of entertainmentdom at this very moment, and some are even daring to answer in the affirmative. Go to Nikki Finke's authoritative blog where she posted yesterday that a source told her "things are looking very good..."

That got me to thinking: Is this just another red herring from the Big Bad Studios, who would love nothing more dearly than to rewind the clock back to the days of Louis B. Mayer - when creative types were told what to do and TO LIKE IT (OR ELSE)?

A source - a very savvy veteran producer who's worked on numerous award-winning shows - emailed this observation to me not long ago. It's valuable because it puts the current break-in-the-clouds in some perspective. (Meanwhile, we've all got our fingers crossed...)

"The writers I picketed with on the line today are of two camps... 'rumor is it's over soon,' vs. 'We're out until April.' But with the news blackout it's all speculation. No one in the trenches knows anything. My vibraphone is unplugged (to stay sane) so no vibes here either way.
The cynics among us say the 'progress' meme is being floated by the opposition so that when the truly bad deal is revealed and the WGA rightly walks away the writers can be slimed by the highly paid and very crafty PR team the AMPTP [studios] hired: 'We were making great progress -- the rumor mill said so -- and those damn greedy writers walked because they wanted more.'

"I hope I'm wrong. I hope the rumors are right. But the rumors are just that. Rumors.

"The AMPTP jacked us around twice before (urging us to take DVDs off the table to make progress then they stonewalled us. This stunt was followed by their later promise to keep negotiating but instead they walked away from the table at 6:30 pm and issued a strenuously pre-cooked full-of-crap press release at 6:31 telling the media that we stonewalled). You'll pardon us if we expect a third [screwing-over.] The congloms are playing for real. Their goal is break the Guild and eradicate the residual system. It's not personal. It's business. Our goal is to stay united and move the residual concept into the 21st Century. For us it's very personal. It's our lives and livelihoods. If the AMPTP does the WGA dirty in this round of talks then, in my opinion, There Will Be Blood. "

(How would L.B. himself - above - handle these troublesome scribes?)

That massively gaseous windbag "Doctor" Phil was featured in heftily-promoted "exclusive" interviews on "Today" and "GMA" this morning - so what snake oil was he peddling THIS time?

At first it appeared that he was there to talk about more Britney Spears stuff - more nuggets from that memorable moment when he stole into her hospital room (all in the service of helping an old "friend" and goosing ratings on his daytime gabfest. Remember? He later issued some statement, saying “My meeting with Britney and some of her family members this morning in her room at Cedars leaves me convinced more than ever that she is in dire need of both medical and psychological intervention.” Hundreds of REAL doctors whacked him for making that declaration; he backed down and called off a special "Britney" show - doubtless because he didn't actually HAVE anything.)

Instead, he peddled the same old bull to Di Saywer and Matt Lauer: How he'd made the situation worse by saying what he said about Brit after he was kicked out of her room..."Make no mistake - I regret making the statement," he told Diane Sawyer. "This wasn't a publicity play for me," he said without conviction.

Of course, he's already said this before - on his own show, no less - so a disappointed Di started to fish for something fresh. No luck. She asked about the fact that he obviously didn't have a license when he went in the room to bug the desperate Spears; nah, that didn't phase him either.

Desperate herself, Di then went the route that all anchors go when they've either run out of stuff or don't wanna dignify "rumors" by asking about them straight out - what about all those "tabloid" stories, she wondered?.Phil pretended he was happy to clear the air: They're all "absolutely untrue." No, his wife has not left him; no, Oprah did not give him "a pink slip...absolutely untrue." No, he never "planned a [Britney] intervention..absolutely untrue."

Of those widespread reports of a rift with O? "In fact, Oprah is an absolutely wonderful guest on our 1000th show [Friday]...we talk about that. We talk about everything."

Finally, the reason for these "exclusive"interviews - to promote the Friday show.

Ah, TV - what a game.

Remember that moment on last night's show...who could forget? A memorable "Idol" moment for the ages (or at least until we forget in a couple hours.)

This wonderful corn-fed talent-free kid named Chris Bernheisel comes on bearing gifts for Simon and Randy (Paula was sleeping in - hey, this gig only pays $10 million a year...) He mangles a song, then charms the uncharmable Simon into harassing the local Fox affiliate - KPTM/42 - to hire him for its red carpet coverage of the finale.

Bulletin: The corn-fed Fox affiliate has apparently declined. Or at least that's the way it appears: Check out the station's website and go to the video with Bernheisel and the two local anchors; it's an amusing addendum to last night, and Bernheisel even breaks a little news of his own - that "Access Hollywood" has offered a Red Carpet on-camera gig for the kid. "Oh my gosh - 'Access Hollywood' has called, MTV, the Fox [station] out of LA...'"

The Fox station out of Omaha - which had a golden opportunity plumped right in its lap? Apparently no call from station management there. The anchors end the interview by saying they'll check back with him now and then, and otherwise don't let the door hit you on the way out.

We call this in the trade a "badly bungled promotion opportunity."

Now, I wonder if Simon will call and harass them personally?

Ok, as it turns out, after that last blog posting, ABC did send a follow-up email saying that it would - indeed - have to kill me if I gave up any plot details to this Thursday's two-hour "Lost" premiere.

This then leaves me with two options. 1.) Not give up any details, in the interest of personal safety, or; 2.) Give up some stuff but make it so oblique and obtuse that even ABC would have a hard time in court justifying the elimination of a TV critic (even though most courts are favorably disposed to actions of this sort.)

I'm gonna go with Option No. 2. Why bother (you ask)? Because this is "LOST" - the only scripted show left on TV, with maybe a "House" here, or a "Prison Break" there. What am I supposed to? Sit on my hands and pretend I haven't SEEN THE FIRST HOUR?! (which I have.)

Bottom line: It's good, very good. Anyway, without further ado, herewith some visual clues to the first hour of "Lost," back Thursday. At first glance, they may make no sense. At second glance, they make no sense. But trust me, each has something to do with Thursday's biiig show... (And assuming this doesn't bug you TOO much, I'll post clues to the second hour later.)

1.)That's right - lemons.

2.)Sweet ride. (Or was.)

3.) Thursday's key storyline centers on...

4.) Great movie - but who's crazy and who isn't?

5.) Can you, ummm, follow a lock? hmmm

6.) He's alive! Uhhhh, no, he's not. Or is he? Or...

Here's a You-Can't-Make-This-Stuff-Up Blog entry: The Federal Communications Commission has hit ABC with a $1.43 million fine over a scene that aired in "NYPD Blue" over five years ago.

This is big story (seriously) because this amounts to one of the biggest fines in FCC history. ABC sent out a statement a short while ago saying that it will appeal.

"Blue" - one of the greatest dramas in TV history - ended its brilliant run in March of 2005.

The scene in question?

Let the FCC statement do the talking: "[In the scene in] question, a woman wearing a robe is shown entering a bathroom, closing the door, and then briefly looking at herself in a mirror hanging above a sink. The camera then shows her crossing the room, turning on the shower, and returning to the mirror. With her back to the camera, she removes her robe, thereby revealing the side of one of her breasts and a full view of her back. The camera shot includes a full view of her buttocks and her upper legs as she leans across the sink to hang up her robe. The camera then tracks her, in profile, as she walks from the mirror back toward the shower. Only a small portion of the side of one of her breasts is visible. Her pubic area is not visible, but her buttocks are visible from the side."

(Sorry - Newsday will not be providing a picture at this juncture.)

Here's the ABC statement (and a call to Bochco productions yielded a "no comment.")

"NYPD Blue, which aired on ABC from 1993 to 2005, was an Emmy Award-winning drama, broadcast with appropriate parental warnings as well as V-chip enabled program ratings from the time such ratings were implemented. When the brief scene in question was telecast almost five years ago, this critically acclaimed drama had been on the air for a decade and the realistic nature of its storylines was well known to the viewing public. ABC feels strongly that the FCC's finding is inconsistent with prior precedent from the Commission, the indecency statute, and the First Amendment, and we intend to oppose the proposed fine."

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).