NBC, in an effort to hold off hatred of its network for the fact that it will not show any more episodes of its hit show Heroes until April 23, wisely chose tonight to offer a glimpse into Spider-Man 3, which hits theatres this summer. Clicking here will take you to 7 minutes of "exclusive" video that only NBC.com will have for you to view, and of course, which I'm about to finally view now.

Of course, I can't complain too much, as NBC has done what no one had done before - that is, hold me off from flipping over to CBS to watch CSI: Miami at 10pm, or at least watch 24 off the TiVo - by putting The Black Donnellys on, a show that I'm definitely digging.

Oh, and while I'm at it with this pseudo-trashing of NBC, did anyone else except me notice that really great SEO technique on the home page, nbc.com, noting that the site is the "TV Network for Primetime, Daytime, and Late Night Television Shows." Umm, yeah, like there aren't some others that happen to cover that same slice and dice?

In Thursday's New York Times, Bill Carter and Jacques Steinberg report that NBC may be replacing the executive producer for the network's "Nightly News with Brian Williams" program, John Reiss, "as early as today," according to their sources.

Okay, so the first time I saw Prince behind the sheet working his guitar, I didn't really notice anything out of line. Needless to say, what happened was enough to draw a phone call from my pal Cheryll to see if I had noticed anything particular about how he was doing that particular working of the guitar.

I mean, I'm sure he wasn't trying to be at all phallic with the axe or anything (well, it is Prince...), but I'll be surprised to not have something land in my inbox about this particular story. What do you think? Are we just looking for obnoxious things at this point?

The answer to that question, at least so far, is no.

Over the weekend, the first four episodes, plus about 15 minutes of the fifth episode, of the upcoming sixth season of FOX's hit show "24," were available for download, for free, on torrents. For those of you not in the know, essentially what that means is that by using a torrent client (click on the above link to "torrents" to learn more about the concept), anyone who came across the link to the show's files could download them in a few hours (if not much faster - your network may vary). Within a few hours, pretty much all of the top television blogs, among others, picked up on the story, and thousands of people were quickly involved.

But what I found most curious (other than the fact that there appears to be a DVD that was created, that will be made available the day after the two-part, four episode premiere hits televisions, that was used as the source for the torrents, which are DVD-quality video) was the fact that exactly zero "mainstream" outlets covered the story, at least as far as I can tell as of right now. When searching "24 torrent" in Google News, sans quotes in my search, I get two Web hits or searching "fox premiere 24," also sans quotes, I get three results.

I've asked a popular television columnist for her thoughts on the subject, and will update accordingly if she has a chance to respond, but in the meantime, I'd love to hear your thoughts on why this kind of thing wouldn't generate a bit more of a response, considering the potential downside. I mean, with more than a week to go before the show when the torrents hit the market, there was a huge chance for some loss of viewership, especially if people were to start making discs for their friends and family and passing them out, etc. Obviously this isn't the first time this has happened, and while I don't think that this was done on purpose at all, as it would be a huge risk for FOX and the studio, you'd have to think that something that was one of the big "buzzes" of the 'net over the weekend that had potential advertiser and viewership implications could maybe get a mention somewhere.

In Friday's Rocky Mountain News, Dusty Saunders writes about an amusing situation about to take place in the city of Denver next week. As it turns out, FOX News talk show host Bill O'Reilly's television show will be up against his radio show - "The Radio Factor" - which Clear Channel-owned KHOW is going to be running on an eight hour delay. Saunders' item is obviously focused on the news of the various movements going on at that particular station, but I've got to say that if this doesn't spell disaster for the "hardcore" fans of Bill O'Reilly then I'm not sure what does.

I know that the talk radio listener isn't necessarily the same as the person who would watch O'Reilly - whose television show probably catches a lot of casual fans or those who dislike him, too - but isn't it kind of a programming oddity to do something like this?

Chris Thilk pinged me to let me know about this article from ABC 7 (WLS in Chicago) about how it and the Daily Herald were joining forces on the news front, with the main focus being, obviously, the Internet. Here's the money graf:

The relationship with ABC 7 will focus heavily not only on sharing of resources between Daily Herald and ABC 7 in print and on-air, but also on the burgeoning internet presence of both dailyherald.com, beepcentral.com and abc7chicago.com.

It should be noted that the Herald, while having significant presence, is by no means the Chicago Tribune, but that isn't the point. The fact of the matter is that the broadcasters are going to look at newsgathering and reporting one way, and the print / online folks at the Herald are going to have slightly different perspectives and tactics in reporting, purely because of the medium. Sorta like watching television sports and listening to the same game on the radio - they can be very different experiences. This way, both players get the best of both worlds, theoretically improving both areas. But keep in mind that if ABC 7 is already garnering significant Web traffic in this marketplace, and that if dailyherald.com and the other sites owned by Paddock Publications are doing the same, then the mix-and-match deal going on here could make the television station that much better to its viewers, and its online presence along with that of the paper's a bit bigger, perhaps encroaching on what the bigger papers in that marketplace are currently seeing.

A lot of that is just theory on my part based on previous things such as this that have happened, and I'm obviously not living in the marketplace, but have enough knowledge of what goes on there as well as on the landscape as a whole to get a decent idea about it.

Word is from Reuters that two new NBC shows - "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" and "Twenty Good Years" - will be up on aol.com a week before their television debut. I'm sure that has nothing to do with quite a few reviews getting up online in advance of the airing on the medium screen, right?

[9/11/06 3:18pm] And, here you go - Studio 60.

For anyone who's been blogging for awhile, you're probably familiar with the volume of pitches and other materials that have begun landing in your inbox from public relations professionals (and some not-so-professionals), especially in the last year or so. As someone whose day job it is to work with clients and our own business on developing relationships with online outlets and writers, working with them in a manner that is good for everyone, I'm able to shed light on a daily basis on what works and what doesn't, based almost exclusively on the fact that I've been at this whole blogging thing for a few years now. Something that I'm a fan of explaining to my colleagues and anyone else who asks is that to get the attention of bloggers that you're trying to reach out to, you need to a) personalize what you send to them, no mass-mails will do, b) actually show that you've read what the writer(s) have written in the past, especially if they've covered your company / client, or competitors, and c) stand out from the rest of the pack.

What's this all about? Well, about a month ago, I was contacted by someone at Sony Pictures Television, who commented on this blog, and noted that the company was going to be sending out a mailer to some bloggers, and that they were interested in sending me something if I would like to receive it. I'd accepted, and was expecting to see perhaps a screener or some basic press materials, something that I do receive on a regular basis, most of which I either pass on to other bloggers who might cover those spaces, or I pick up over at TV Squad if someone else hasn't already. A short while later, during a week of business travel, I came home to a package that I wasn't expecting to receive, as I had blanked on the fact that I had corresponded with SPT on this issue when I arrived, so it was a pleasant surprise. Next up comes where the whole "stand out from the crowd" came from in this situation.

So, as I opened up the box, I found a letter describing what was in the box - which was bigger than those that usually contain screeners, mind you - which included a Sony PSP, but not just any PSP, one that contained high-res images and interviews from three of Sony Pictures Television's new shows for the fall season, including "'Til Death," which features Brad Garrett of "Everybody Loves Raymond" fame. All these materials were available to be used by those of us who received them, before FOX, NBC, or the CW, or anyone else, was able to publish them. Of course, my receipt of all of this coincided with a vacation, some quirky TMD blog software happenings, and a number of other things, so I missed the exclusivity window, but not everyone did.

So, aside from the fact that this might seem completely outrageous to some people, let's think about the fact that this move, unlike a lot of other "send people stuff and see what happens" campaigns work, makes logical sense. Sony isn't just sending a PSP to people and then giving them access online to screeners and images and whatnot, they're actually using the PSP to show how that device works with different things. Now, I don't have a PSP, or didn't until this point. I do have two console systems, a Sony PlayStation 2 and an XBOX, and a computer capable of gaming, but nothing to take with me. On planes, I usually bring my iPod along, but it's not a video version, and I think the screen's a little small for that considering what that device can do, so I'm not such a fan anyway. Let's just say that watching these interviews on the PSP - which has a nice widescreen view to it - was flat out amazing. The still images of the shows were just like looking at high-res graphics on any computer screen I have, and the UI of the device is astounding. Heck, even connecting to the airport WiFi at Newark Liberty was a snap. And for a product with no keyboard, that's saying a lot, IMHO. So not only has Sony been smart and gotten the shows in the hands of persons who review and write about such things, but they're provided a device that is part of the Sony family of products and services to view it on. So not only am I talking up the PSP, which I hadn't really played with outside of in a store before, but I'm in the cool kids group with my friends who think it's awesome that I've had access to these shows well before they're aired.

There are pro- and con- arguments to whether people who write online should be accepting products such as this, and it's definitely in my own hands whether or not I choose to send it back or not, and I'm sure that people will criticize one way or another. And, to get facts straight, this isn't the first item that's landed in my meatspace inbox, but it's one of only a few that I've actually written something about. Journalism aside for a moment, let's just look at how this was done, and what it gets for Sony's various companies. Sometimes it's all about getting something in the hands of people and just letting it ride. For instance, I was given the opportunity to test out a Sprint phone and all of its' network services earlier in the year, and as someone who was never a fan of the phones they offered or the ability to make calls on the network, I've got to say that I have probably raved to dozens of people about the quality of the Power Vision network that you can get from them, television and all. Same deal here. Attempt to influence people you consider as influential.

On to the television shows, though. I'm not one to usually hit the sitcom scene, especially in the last few years - I just don't find them funny. "'Til Death" does its part to not be yet another show about a married couple by adding the twist of a newlywed couple living nextdoor to Brad Garrett and Joely Fisher's characters, and taking a lot of what worked for Garrett's character on "Raymond," which should help attract the audience that really enjoyed him as a costar on that show. Just as TV Squad's Joel Keller suggests in his review of the premiere, it feels a little more realistic than the average sitcom (no ridiculously built apartments that would never possibly exist here, thankyouverymuch), and offers a little bit of obnoxious behavior that FOX's "War at Home" also prides itself on, though not so "Ferris Bueller-ish" with the cutaways and whatnot. I'd expect this show to stick around, even if people aren't used to going to FOX for this type of comedy.

As far as the other two included programs, I'd say I was much more intrigued by "Kidnapped" than "Runaway," by far. For those of you into the whole TV Squad spiel on shows, you can check out Joel's writeup here as well. What caught me here was almost exclusively the "tone" of the show. It moved along nicely, had a realistic premise, and the cast is flat out fantastic. I'll have to echo Joel's sentiments about the length of this show as far as a season - or multiple seasons - goes, though. How long can this go on? Then again, I totally thought the same thing about FOX's "Prison Break," which not only is still going and in a second season, but made what I thought was a grave error in taking months "off" mid season to allow for other programming to take hold. I'd have thought that would slaughter a show, especially one that was minute-by-minute such as this one. NBC has had a kinda iffy experience with shows that have a take-no-prisoners cast. I mean, "Las Vegas" is amusing to watch, with James Caan, Josh Duhamel, Nikki Cox, Vanessa Marcil, and a host of others (how DID they get them all stuffed in this show, anyway?), but it isn't exactly breaking down doors. Cast doesn't make a full season, but if it did, along with some solid acting, then "Kidnapped" could stick around for awhile as well. Seeing Delroy Lindo, Dana Delaney, Timothy Hutton, and more on the small screen - together - could prove that the big cast formula will work, or could at least become a trend.

Today's Press Kit?
So, does that make this kind of communication and outreach the new style of press kit? Public relations firms and clients themselves have been coming up with creative ways to market their clients to journalists for years, and it's all about getting that particular piece of mail or package opened from the inbox in a timely manner and spark interest. Obviously they're not usually contained in an electronic gaming device - most of the time - but it appears that we've reached a point where certain companies and individuals have chosen to take a big step - no baby steps here - in order to catch the attention of those that they feel can push the needle. With those individuals not bound by the tenets of journalism, for the most part, that leaves some grey area that can be worked around. I'm not expecting any big screen televisions to start showing up at the Best Week Ever blog anytime soon, but I guess you never know.

AdAge's Abbey Klaassen informs this morning about the announcement by Viacom that its CEO, Tom Freston, has resigned. He is set to be replaced by Philippe Dauman, currently sitting on the company's board.

Something I'm noticing this summer, about two years after getting a big big television and a year after getting high definition: I'm watching a lot less variety in channels and a lots less content that is standard definition. Additionally, this might be the slowest summer for television for me, ever. Now I'm a few years into my experience as a time-shifting television watcher, so perhaps that has a lot to do with it. I'm still convinced that you could get decent ratings for programs in the summertime if we counted DVR users overall, but whatever. That would require good television to be on regularly during the summer months.

So between summer, plus my absolute love for high definition programming, I'm in this wheelhouse of about 10-12 channels for the most part, and a whole lot of movies. Hell, I even have an upconverting DVD player so I can watch movies that way, too. It's hard to get away from it. Standard definition television looks fine on most TVs, including my own, but when you flip between the HD and the SD, you just want no part of the old way of doing things. Am I the only one having this problem?

Well, it was good that combining the coverage time of the four major networks regarding the space shuttle's latest launch totalled about eight minutes, and that if you subtracted the coverage time of three of those networks from the total still leaves you with eight minutes.

Sad, sad world we live in. I mean, I know those soap operas have their fans and all, but c'mon.

Something I haven't seen blogged or discussed that much but is very, very cool is that ESPN has allowed for free use of its ESPN 360 product for free at this address through July 19. You know you want it.

Okay, so I'm a pretty big fan of HBO's Sopranos, so much so that I've been lucky enough to have it as part of my beat at TV Squad. Last night's finale, which I didn't have too much of an issue with, isn't resonating so well with most of the commenters over there, and the morning watercooler talk echoes the same. The latest commenter at TV Squad even suggested that this would go down as "the worst of the series" so far. That might or might not be true. But what I do know is that HBO's Big Love is probably going to sell more DVDs this year, based on the buzz it is receiving. Just a thought.

If you've got show review comments, drop by TVSQ for those - leave your theories on Big Love and its future success here if you've got 'em.

Let's just take into considering that, in the last year or so, two of the more curious and yet strangely popular (or at least buzzing) programs on television have been Curling during the Winter Olympics - and the Scripps spelling bee. Sure, as John Eggerton at BCBeat sez, "you know it is summer when..." but you gotta admit it's amusing, for some reason, to tune in and watch kids spelling words on television. My favorite part of the promos was when watching ESPN in days prior, they were like "coming up Thursday on ESPNHD" - because you know, seeing inside the nostrils of some kid would really be necessary as s/he writhed over "onychophagia" sounds like a good idea, right?

Okay, so while I think I enjoyed most of the 2nd season finale for ABC's Lost, I've gotta say that I really wasn't very happy about the last few minutes, which while they do sort of leave things open, they do nothing except confuse you. And like, what did the key being turned and finishing off the magnetic field really do, that for some reason would have Desmond's girlfriend woken up by men at a random cold-weather station? It does look like, however, Pen did "wait" for him, if the photo by her bed was enough. So was she in on the whole situation to get Desmond sent to the brig and all that? I don't even know where to start.

Make sure you try and get a job at Hanso Careers all summer long, btw.

OMG.

In what has to be the funniest thing I've seen all year, the BBC apparently ran an interview with a man who was supposed to be Guy Kewney, a technology expert, but instead put a taxicab driver job applicant who was in the lobby of the network at the time on the air. (You can see the video at the link above)

Phil Gomes, who pinged me about this this morning, had some fun with the story, even getting a poke in at FairPlay. More details over at Guy Kewney's blog, where he is most certainly taking this well. Well, after he had this to say.

[update 12:29pm 5/15] As it turns out, he's NOT a taxicab driver after all, but an applicant for an IT job at the BBC who thought this was an "initiation prank," Kewney informs. That's okay, though, Phil's FairPlay joke still stands.

Damn. Only a few weeks after we learned that Rosie O'Donnell would be joining the cast of ABC's "The View," TV Squad's Chris Thilk writes about a note in today's Page Six about how Star Jones is getting the boot from the show. Ouch.

Looks like the move from the WBs and the UPNs to the CWs is moving right along. The Cincinnati Enquirer's Cliff Peale informs about that market's Channel 12, WKRC-TV, which will be taking on the affiliate programming from the CBS-Warner Bros. Entertainment creation.

Now I won't be the first person to comment on this whole Katie Couric-to-CBS News situation, nor will I be the last. I've been a bit crazed the last two weeks as this has finally taken a turn for the worse (yes, I said worse). Not that I didn't expect this to turn out to be the way things worked out, but I've got to say that I'm feeling worse about it now than I did before.

In any case, I can still appreciate the way that the AP's David Bauder describes the situation in an article this weekend. He states that the selection of Couric by CBS News for the evening anchor post will be a "jolt of energy" for all the networks involved. But if you ask me, I'm with the Don Imus camp, who asked last week "if it were possible that CBS could come in fourth" in the race for the top newscast - in a race that has three horses, ABC, NBC, and CBS. While Bauder is objective in his take on the situation, his seemingly positive attitude towards on how this will all turn out definitely ignores the following point he makes square in the middle:

"Morning news is considered the growth area in television, and Couric was its cover girl. The evening news has been slowly and steadily waning in influence and audience, the victim of cultural changes that make fewer people available to watch a half-hour news summary at the dinner hour."

So why is it, that with the whole problem of no one being around during dinnertime and the idea that the "growth area" was morning, that Couric's move to the evenings will swing what is described as "cultural changes" the other direction? Are we all going to start TiVo-ing the evening news just because the fresh happyfakeface from the morning has changed her schedule and isn't getting up at 3am or whatever anymore? Okay, I probably will the first week in the same way I watched the last week that Rather was in town. But not because I actually am interested in what she's going to bring to the table, it's that I just don't get it and need to try and clue myself in.

All the people talking about how Katie Couric's serious news background makes her a good choice, but I'm going to say that CBS News isn't choosing her because she's able to bring the news to a new light. It's like when a baseball team in the doldrums brings in a superstar hitter just for the ticket sales. Perhaps it works a little bit, but does it solve the problem that the team has no cash in the first place, is in a crappy market, and has no pitching. It's the same situation here. The evening news is hurting, and the only thing in the newsy space that's going to be gaining ground as far as viewership goes is Rocketboom.

Anyone want to take bets that the newscasts being downloaded on iTunes would supersede the viewership watching them at home within five years (I'm being generous)?

I'm not the only one strangely addicted to NBC's "Deal or No Deal," am I?

The AP's Gary Gentile writes that Univision Communications Inc., a prominent (if not *the* prominent) Spanish-language broadcasting company, may put itself on the market. In the article, it's suggested that some media conglomerates - News Corp. and Time Warner, namely - might participate in the bidding. IMHO, they're off their rockers if they don't.

CNNMoney's Paul La Monica writes Thursday about a potential purchase of EchoStar, the company behind DISH Network, by AT&T, further solidifying the bond between television and telecom providers. For some time now, you've been able to purchase DISH Network programming through SBC (which purchased AT&T and recently changed its name to the old-school brand's) at a discount, and this would make the "one stop shopping" even more of an easy sell, in both directions.

The New York Observer's Rebecca Dana details the moves of some well-known Western television personalities who are joining Al-Jazeera, lured with promises of foreign bureaus and new opportunities. Specifically, she tells of how ex-CNNer Riz Khan described his move to former President Bush and Colin Powell, who apparently were concerned at first but appear to feel a bit better about the situation - once it was clear that this would ultimately allow more coverage of American politics to the Arab people.

The Boston Globe's Jenn Abelson writes Wednesday about Reebok's participation - as a producer - in the on-demand station that Comcast will be offering later on this week.

AP's David Bauder reports this afternoon that CNN's Aaron Brown is leaving the network just as Anderson Cooper's program was extended to a second hour - leaving Brown with nowhere to go, at least at the moment.

Check out the live-blogging of "Geraldo at Large" that was done over at the BCBeat blog. It's pretty high level, without the usual snarkavision that happens with this sort of thing, but pretty much gives the gist of what went on during the new program. Did anyone else watch?

Reuters reported this morning that Sean McManus, the head of CBS Sports, has been named the new CBS News boss, taking the role currently held by Andrew Heyward.

Over at HD Beat, Matt Burns writes about the promotion being run by New York City-area public radio station WNYC as part of its fund drive. If you make a donation to the station by 7pm tonight (that's Monday, October 24), and meet the various rules and regulations, you can enter to win a Sony Qualia 006 television (Engadget review here), which currently runs somewhere in the vicinity of $10,000 or so. Or, you could just enter the contest and try and win.

As another update to the ABC News coverage of U.S. nuclear facilities, I'd like to direct your attention to some of the great tracking and reporting that Eric McErlain is doing over at the NEI Nuclear Notes blog. On Monday, he posted about segments that were aired on various ABC programs that seem to completely miss facts that are proven out elsewhere, and Tuesday morning he posted about what was happening on the ABCNews.com message boards. Later that day, he asked why messages - that were not from "trolls," by most accounts - were being deleted from the forum pages, apparently by moderators. Most were critical of the piece, pointing out information spelled out elsewhere.

This afternoon, McErlain informed me that ABC News was set to run programming on this story later this week, probably during "Primetime" on Thursday night. Checking that show's site, it appears that the story will go live online today at 5pm Eastern, and be on-air Thursday night at 10pm.

If you've ever wondered what it was like to watch television with a bunch of chatty people in a chatroom and keep track of what was said, then you might want to drop over to TVSquad. Last night, we posted yet another "chatcast" between Ryan Budke, Jen Segrest, and myself while we watched CSI. It's totally goofy, but well worth the read, even if you didn't watch the show.

Check out the chatcast category on the site, too, as you'll see where it's going.

The AP's David Bauder covers the way that the television morning shows have gone all out when it comes to Katrina victims, specifically working with charities and other positive efforts towards the relief process. Like anything else they do, it's a competition of sorts.

About a month ago, TMD learned about a segment about U.S. nuclear facilities that was supposed to run earlier this month on ABC News' "20/20" program - part of a story that allegedly included interns from the network's news division who attended various tours at nuclear plants, without ever disclosing that they were there as members of the media. A few days ago, Eric McErlain (who originally picked up the story for the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) back on August 24) published an update, which pointed out that the show was being delayed because of Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, and that it was actually part of a longer series about nuclear energy and its potential for harm.

In McErlain's item, he cites Inside NRC, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission publication, which carried a story about one intern who was effectively "called out" by a researcher at Ohio State University, Earl Holland. Holland startled an intern who was trying to follow up on her original story - catching her off guard when Holland told her what she looked like, what she was wearing, and what her car's license plate number was during a phone conversation containing the same questions asked while on a tour. She obviously didn't think Holland would put two and two together. Oops.

Most staggering to me in the piece is what Inside NRC's Jenny Weil uncovered next about Holland's involvement. Apparently, when Holland would ultimately speak with ABC News directly, he found that the network "was ready to run with the story that the interns had been let inside the reactor building by a gardener." Tabloid journalism, indeed. Fortunately, it turned out that it wasn't your garden variety gardener (sorry, had to do it), but "the former director of the facility" - who happened to be outside, taking care some plants. That former director is retired, but Holland told Wiel that the man is "still an active licensed reactor operator."

Since the previous story here, ABC News has not responded for our request for information about the segments or made any comment about the interns' place in this project.

The Herald-Tribune's Lauren Mayk writes about an offer by Verizon of digital television service to the customers in an area of Texas where the telecom provider's new FiOS fiber optic services are available. Right now, Verizon and other telecoms face serious pressure from cable companies and other phone service providers, let alone mobile phone providers, for the voice minutes that used to be all theirs in the markets served by the company. The only way to get back in good light with customers in those markets is to bring them something they don't have - which an unprecedented (for most) level of speed on the Internet, reasonably priced phone services, perhaps in the VoIP manner, and television. Once again, this would all be on the same bill, but the provider would have total control over the various costs, unlike other Internet/phone/television combinations where partnerships are involved.

TVNewser is all over NBC News boss Neal Shapiro's announcement that he would leave his president's chair at the end of the week. In the meantime, NBCU honcho Jeff Zucker says that Steve Capus would take the job, a role he accidentally "had" once before for nine minutes, according to the Drudge Report back in May.

After the news came out that Diane Dimond was leaving Court TV, some were wondering why she wasn't staying around, at least through the end of the year, when she was expected to leave. The New York Times' Felicia Lee writes about the situation, wisely starting her piece by stating that Dimond was "just about the last person you would expect to go quietly." I can't help but agree.

Over at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) weblog, Eric McErlain published some information about an effort by ABC News to get access to various Test, Research & Training nuclear reactor locations in the United States this summer, apparently for an upcoming segment on "20/20" on September 9. Sounds innocent enough, right? Wrong. As it turns out, ABC News is believed to have sent multiple interns to go on public tours through the reactors, all the while never stating that they were there on behalf of - or as part of - ABC News.

If you access the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Adams Database, you are able to view the documents McErlain points out. Look for documents numbered ML052100432 (original letter to NRC) and ML052100387 (response from NRC). While the various documents state that those suspected of being ABC News interns "on the job" were given a similar tour to that which would have been offered to the press if they had been announced as such, it is only normal to think that the media would be "watched" while on the tour in a different manner than members of the general public who were cleared to tour the facilities. Additionally, the possibility that the interns took photographic, audio, or video records of their visit without the security personnel or reactor staff being aware of it, for use in a television program is a bit out of line, most would say.

More information may appear within this forum on Yahoo! Groups. Additionally, the NEI informs that they made an attempt to contact ABC News on Tuesday, and TMD has sent an e-mail request to a public relations contact for the "20/20" program this afternoon, with no response as of yet. More details as they become available.

Earlier this week, Mediaweek's John Consoli covered the announcement about College Sports Television (CSTV) placing a four-hour program on the new face of PAX television, to be called "i." This expands the reach of CSTV from viewers who might only see its shows by subscribing through a cable or satellite provider to a much wider audience - while perhaps promoting demand for CSTV to be picked up by more providers, or at least exposing potential customers to the programming they hadn't been privy to before.

On Sunday, there was a lot of speculation about ABC World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings being "close to death" - speculation that unfortunately came to fruition late last night when Jennings succumbed to lung cancer, which he announced that he had been stricken with last April. And the manner through which I found out about Jennings' passing was almost completely indicative of how today's new media has changed the way people get news and information, and how the ability of the anchor position to grab hold of monstrous parts of the country's television viewers is so different in today's world. I had returned home last night after spending the day at Monmouth Park at their annual million dollar meet, The Haskell, and promptly fired up my TiVo to catch Sunday's Allstate 400 at the Brickyard in Indianapolis, after spending time avoiding any and all NASCAR-related information on the way home. The race ran about three hours or so (sans most of the commercials), putting me somewhere in the 11 o'clock hour. At that point, I watched a bit of Sunday's X Games coverage from ESPN on the DVR, finally heading off to bed after midnight sometime. Flipping through the various ESPN channels to find something enlightening to watch before going to sleep, I caught an item on the bar on the bottom of the screen that looked curious, where it usually says things like "NL," "AL," "AUTO," and other sports-specific denotations - this one said "NEWS." Waiting about 10 seconds for it to reach that point, I was totally shocked to see that it held the details of Jennings' passing - and amazed that having not flipped open my laptop before going to bed or passing through a news network on my channel surfing had left me out of the loop for awhile - something I'm not so used to because of all the amazing technological toys I have. In a way, it kind of made me feel like most people would had they not been privy to the nightly news on a regular basis - out of touch.

What struck me most about Jennings' death was more that while he outlasted Brokaw and Rather on the airwaves, he was never given the opportunity to leave on his own terms. As I read many accounts of his life and people's experiences watching him do the news, I can't help but think that many people felt the same way. As I recount seeing that broadcast from April, I remember thinking that Jennings sounded pretty bad, but at least we finally learned why he had missed a few newsworthy events, such as the Pope's passing earlier in the year. As I re-viewed the footage a few times this morning, I can't say that the pain isn't clearly drawn on his face as he fought through the newscast. Sure, it's Monday-morning quarterbacking, but it is so amazing how things like this happen and it makes you feel a bit different about a situation, based on the facts you know now.

As a kid, I always seemed to have an affinity for ABC in general, with the local WABC channel spending a lot of time on the television in my house. In high school, I always had the ABC channel set to turn on as my alarm clock (neat TV feature, huh?), as their early morning news was full of factoids as the commercial breaks began and ended. In the evenings, I typically watched Jennings' newscast much more than the other two - something that at the time I probably couldn't have explained why, but it just worked out that way. As I begin to think about today's nightly newscasts, I realize that there are probably significant portions of Americans who have almost no "feelings" towards the anchors making their careers in the chair these days.

So while I can't say I've been tuned in every day to ABC's nightly newscast for the last few years, I'll definitely agree with many others that Jennings will be missed - and that a point in our relatively short history of television news has been reached, way too quickly for my own feelings - and we might not be able to ever go back.

Additionally, the BBC has published a bunch of comments and tributes to Jennings, in a way proving how today's world of media has gone from local to global, almost with the snap of fingers.

The Advocate, produced by Louisiana's WBRZ Channel 2, carries a story about an employee of that station, weatherman Pat Shingleton, was snagged earlier this year for participating in Nielsen ratings for the local market after putting in a diary of shows watched in his household.

On Wednesday, we should expect to see ABC, CBS and NBC all covering NASA's launch of the space shuttle Discovery live, with their anchors at their desks in New York. Hollywood Reporter's Paul Gough has much more detail on who will be on-air for each network, and for how long.

I have to note that I'm very impressed with ESPN's 6 p.m. "SportsCenter" tonight, which started off with a three minute report from ABC reporter Stephanie Sy from London, covering today's bombings. The show continued after that with further discussions about security, including that of sporting events in London later this week and American events going forward. All in all, the show went about 10 minutes before cutting to commercial and discussing any scores or other sports information.

I've been watching MSNBC all afternoon, and the moment when the news came down that the verdict in the Michael Jackson trial would be coming down shortly, the people running around the background and the confusion going on was almost hilarious. Then, just moments later, the report comes in to Lisa Daniels that "we're not sure that the verdict is coming in in 60 minutes now." That quickly reversed, and the verdict was ultimately confirmed to be coming in by 4:30 Eastern time.

[4:12] Michael Jackson's caravan is apparently running late, and one of the people on the air with MSNBC's Dan Abrams points out that "the highway patrol won't let the caravan get there by 4:30, because they'd have to go about 100 miles per hour to do so." So 4:30 might be a little bit of a early time for this to be live.

[4:13] More liveblogging going on over at TVSquad - go check out what's going on there.

[4:21] Dan Abrams says that in many cases, he has a very good idea of what is going to happen, but that isn't the case here.

[4:23] These people on the highway alongside the Jackson caravan are hopefully not having white Bronco feelings.

[4:36] Jackson's attorney walking out of the courthouse, apparently waiting for his client.

[4:39] Crappy video on the helicopter coverage of the caravan. Abrams makes a funny - "almost looks like a slow speed chase."

[4:45] I'll be posting here and in the comments at TVSquad, as the interaction over there should be ramping up now.

[4:46] Lisa Daniels had to be pissed to take the handoff from Abrams and then get pre-empted by NBC's Brian Williams.

[4:51] When the court officer wanded Janet Jackson's chest, I couldn't help but giggle.

[4:57] Williams informs that the courtroom doors have closed, and now Abrams is giving insight on what is happening inside the courtroom.

[5:01] When the OJ trial came down, I was working in a pretty large law firm in central New Jersey. Everyone was huddled around the various televisions we had in the office, as Internet wasn't exactly everywhere for companies at that time - that was pretty intense, and this seems like it's easily double that - and I'm sitting in the living room by myself.

[5:05] Williams reports that the jury has been seated. Is someone Blackberrying info out?

[5:07] Williams discussing the security situation about what would happen after the verdict is read, but ends up talking about what would happen to Jackson himself. Now he brings up the crowd issue - "are they concerned about this?" Gee, you think? It's going to be a calamity.

[5:10] I love how on-air talent sound freaked out when producers are heard on-air.

[5:11] Debbie Galant at Barista of Bloomfield Ave. tells her kids to look for their daddy, who's covering the event live. Hey Deb - get me some exclusive coverage, will ya?!

[5:13] Oooh, the BBC is covering the situation as well.

[5:14] Holy crap. Not guilty on conspiracy, lewd act, not guilty lewd act. I could go on, but it's pretty clear, right? Scot free it is!

Is it just me or is MSNBC's "The Situation," with Tucker Carlson going to be just like ESPN's "Pardon the Interruption" with Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser? Carlson (who will keep his bow tie, btw) was just introduced on MSNBC News Live, where Randy Meier stated that he would be doing his news show "in a unique way." Umm, yeah - if you never turned off news shows before.

The gist, if you're not familiar, is a quick run through of various topics, which MSNBC did a dry run of during the interview Meier did with Carlson - topics are kept on-screen so you can see what's to come and what is currently being discussed, and you can watch them progress as the show goes on. That's all well and good, as people like to know what they're going to hear about, but is it really that original of an idea?

According to a story in the San Antonio Business Journal on Thursday, Clear Channel Television has bumped the GM of San Antonio's WOAI-TV to EVP and COO of that part of the company. Don Perry, who is in his tenth year working for WOAI, will report in to President & CEO William Moll.

Jeff Jarvis comments on plans to potentially add similiar censorship rules to cable/satellite channels that exist on over-the-air broadcast networks, and how it's not a good thing. I couldn't agree more. Are we really reaching a point where either parents can't keep any tabs at all on what their kids are watching/doing so that we need the government to step in and shift/hide/push content that people want to see/hear/read to the netherregions of television or other distribution methods - or - are television producers completely off base with what "the people" want to see? Obviously the masses are divided on this issue, and both sides have to respect the others' thoughts on the subject - but since when is more censorship a good thing? I don't think that we need another handholding seminar, this time for television stations that we choose to get, even with things like the V-chip out there as a solution for these things. Oh, that's right, people aren't using the V-chip on the whole because it's a pain to do. My bad.

It's like anything else - technology always wins - and not necessarily the technology that the powers that be, or those who think they are in control, have. People can/will distribute and see/hear/read anything and everything that they want to. This isn't about being prudish or not, it's about reasonable man standard. If we're at a point where the reasonable person or household can't be left to its own to handle whatever television programming is coming into it, then we're going down a road that I want no part of, so hopefully there's a fork somewhere.

The Dallas Morning News has a story today about a television producer, KTVT's Frank Librio, taking on the role of chief of staff for Dallas Mayor Laura Miller.

Itar-Tass reports Tuesday that Russia Today, a new English-language television station, will hit the airwaves later on in 2005. At the network's start, it will have funding from the Russian government, although those dollars "will be gradually reduced," a spokesperson for RTTV stated.

CNN announced Monday that it would make a few changes to its programming schedule and staffing, adding Miles O'Brien to the "American Morning" program, replacing Bill Hemmer. Additionally, Jack Cafferty will move to the afternoon "The Situation Room" program, hosted by Wolf Blitzer.

More details available here.

The Chicago Sun-Times' Andrew Wallenstein details how CBS News has made an effort to put the focus of their nightly broadcast on the various correspondents, not the anchor chair.

The AP's David Bauder writes about NBC Nightly News' Brian Williams' thoughts on how the world of evening news has changed in the six months since he took over for Tom Brokaw.

The Arizona Republic's Bill Goodykoontz calls CNN "unmatched when it comes to covering breaking news on television," and gives a few words of advice to how they should plan the next 25 years of newsgathering and reporting. Goodykoontz also talks about how our lives, at least those touched with cable or satellite television, have changed so much since the advent of instantaneous, wall-to-wall, on the ground coverage of stories anywhere and everywhere - something that we didn't have, at least in this fashion, with the three networks.

[ed: CNN's happy 25th is tomorrow, June 1. Congratulations and best wishes to any and all associated with the network.]

Poynter's Scott Libin writes about how television weather staffers should start taking their role seriously - as beat journalists.

The New York Times' Jacques Steinberg reports that NBC News boss Neil Shapiro appears to be on the way out - the only thing left to clear up, though, is whether it's on his own or not.

Lubbock, Texas NBC affiliate KCBD has a two part feature up on its website entitled "The Changing Face of Network News," focusing on the transition that NBC Nightly News has made from Tom Brokaw to Brian Williams.

Part I, Part II

An op-ed on the Investor's Business Daily calls PBS "TV's Amtrak." Ouch.

The Harvard Crimson's Daniel Hemel reports that on Saturday, a television crew from FOX News was stopped from filming an on-campus performance of "Abu Ghraib," a play written by a Harvard student, Currun Singh. The crew was on the job for the "O'Reilly Factor" program.

Cori Dauber writes about the report that CNN staffer Kelli Arena made today regarding the evacuation of some government buildings in Washington, D.C. after a plane made it inside the city's airspace. She gives kudos to Arena for not making wild speculation on the air, that the reporter "contributed what she knew and then stopped."

The AP's David Bauder writes about how FOX and CBS are continuing to fight it out over who will grab the largest share of young television viewers this season.

On Friday, Idaho Falls-based KIFI announced that its parent, The Post Company, had sold the television station to Missouri's News-Press & Gazette company.

The Dallas Morning News' Terry Maxon has details on the decision by Comcast to depart the Dallas market. Their current customers will be shifted over to Time Warner, who will take over the system in that area. This move is all a part of the two providers' decision to purchase the bankrupt Adelphia Communications.

Sue me, bash me, whatever me, but I officially believe that folks who vote for American Idol winners have exactly ZERO sense about music and what an artist should be like. The fact that Constantine Maroulis has just been voted off while Scott Savol and Anthony Fedorov continue to suck it up week after week is absolutely mind-boggling. No wonder today's radio is a horrid as it is.

Sorry, folks, but this is just ridiculous. If Constantine has a contract by tomorrow morning I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

Bob Sassone, who writes over at TV Squad, is expected to be on MSNBC at 5p.m. today to debate the folks pushing TV Turnoff week. Look for him in the second segment of the program.

The Philadelphila Inquirer's Gail Shister says that CBS has gotten some "credibility" from having Bob Schieffer around, but should keep in mind that he's only here until late February of 2007 - when he's set to retire.

Which begs us to ask the question: If Schieffer is named the "full time" anchor on the CBS Evening News, is it a good thing, since we all know he'll be walking a little less than two years from now?

The San Francisco Chronicle runs an interesting set of responses in "Two Cents" on Sunday, with folks answering the question: "Would you be sad if TV news disappeared?"

Brian Stelter has been saying since early this morning that NBC's Tom Touchet, executive producer of the "Today" show, would lose his job any time now. Tonight, the AP's David Bauder reports that Touchet has indeed been fired, with his replacement expected tomorrow.

The NFL made a splash today with the (not so unexpected) announcement that NBC would be running the Sunday Night Football programming, including a 7-8 p.m. Eastern pregame show, as of 2006. Sunday's football is currently shown on ESPN. But that's not the biggest news. ABC's "Monday Night Football" will be departing the over-the-airwaves for ESPN - also as of the 2006 season.

What will be curious to see is ABC's decision on what to put on during the 9 p.m. - midnight timeframe, so as to be careful about "competing" against their MNF package. Right now Disney runs programming not considered to be "first tier" on their ESPN channel while ABC has the game, but that probably won't be the case in 2006. Look for something that targets an audience who would probably never watch MNF in the first place.

During tonight's "Sunday Night Baseball" featuring the Atlanta Braves and Philadelphia Phillies, we were given the pleasure of hearing what alternative rockers Collective Soul had to say about baseball. Kind of makes me feel really bad that Sam Ryan is getting stuck with all the goofy jobs like reporting on Pat Burrell's ability to fling bottlecaps by snapping his fingers and introing musical groups during baseball broadcasts.

Seriously, has it gotten that bad that we need to fill space with random musical groups who may or may not resonate with viewers and who may or may not have anything to do with the teams involved? Who really cares? I'd rather see what the Cheesesteakians do during their 7th Inning Stretch, frankly.

The Seattle Times informs that the "Digital Duo" television program will be returning to the airwaves on April 26. The show went off the public television airwaves a few years ago, but has been reanimated with PC World's Stephen Manes and USAToday.com's Angela Gunn to discuss today's technological advances.

More here at KCTS.

Columbia Journalism Review's Bryan Keefer wonders if the vaunted Nielsen ratings system may have met its match in the way that people are getting their television viewing on in 2005 and beyond. People have argued for years that Nielsens had trouble keeping track of realistic viewership of certain programming, including sporting events that are heavily viewed outside of the home. Now, with mobile phones offering a glimpse into television news and other programming, and visitors to some websites screening news and sporting events, Nielsen may have begun to report a loss of viewership on traditional television while not being able to account for those who may be receiving their sports, music, or news via Internet-based services. Sure, Nielsen//NetRatings tracks visitors and web traffic, but it's not currently (as far as I know) geared up for the actual viewership of other online content, especially paid content.

South Carolina's Sun News runs an op-ed by former "Nightline" producer Leroy Sievers on Thursday which gives incoming Disney boss Bob Iger some suggestions on what to do with the (failing) television news division. His advice may be summed up best with this line:

Maybe it's time to just cover the news and hope for the best.

Indeed.

This morning, word got out that ABC News anchor Peter Jennings had been diagnosed with lung cancer. Romenesko has the memo sent to ABC News staffers today.

After this past weekend's story about how the our most recent "big three" anchors weren't around to cover the Pope's passing in Rome due to the recent departures of NBC's Tom Brokaw and CBS' Dan Rather from the airwaves, this gives some clarification as to why NBC's Brian Williams was the only anchor on the way to Rome. Unfortunately, at least one big-c conservative outlet took the chance to openly criticize ABC News for sending "B-listers George Stephanopoulos and Cokie Roberts" in Jennings' place, and made a point to note that Jennings had "rushed" to cover former President Bill Clinton's library opening in 2004.

We'll see if "news" organizations like NewsMax will be as apologetic to state how Jennings obviously couldn't have flown to Rome in this case, partially retracting their previous position about how the networks were treating this story. As for CBS, it's unclear as to why interim anchor Bob Schieffer was not present in Rome.

The Denver Post's Joanne Ostrow gives television news anything but glowing ratings when describing their coverage of the death (and points prior) of Pope John Paul II.

The more I hear people complain about how FOX News is biased and how the rest of the media is biased and how so and so talking head is a reason why the newschannels are biased and bias bias bias, the more things become increasingly clear. Bias sells.

Just run with me for argument's sake here - all things equal, let's just say that MSNBC / CNN / FOX News run completely on-the-level news updates when they're doing straight news, no commentary. There are arguments that all (or none) do / don't, but let's say they are on the up and up.

The rest of the programming - basically all of it - comes across with either a political or social slant. There's nothing "middle ground" about any of it. But that's the whole point - so this shouldn't be surprising to anyone. People want to see someone who they can agree - or disagree - with. Talk shows fuel talk radio callers, talk shows fuel public discussion at the watercooler, and talk shows fuel blog and forum discussion / banter.

So why even bother pointing this out? Well, after the recent addition of Nancy Grace to CNN's Headline News channel and her insane ratings figures since she's hit the airwaves, something just smacked me in the forehead. I began to think about what the Headline News franchise was, and why it existed outside of the realm of "regular" CNN. All this time I'd been thinking it was for folks who just wanted the quick hit of news / sports / business information - which it may have been. But no longer. It's absolutely clear that even that channel has the need for people who watch it to get a little bit of non-straight news delivered to them.

This isn't to say that Nancy Grace is the only person on the air who comes off with attitude, personal biases, etc. - it's just to say that she has now joined the club. Think about it. CNN/HN has a "legal analysis" show with someone who basically thinks most people are guilty, and tells you so. It's not straight analysis, either. It's almost comical at times - check out this clip that Trey Jackson has of an incident between Grace and Jesse Jackson last week if you want an example.

So this brings us to a new situation. Are we to expect nary an unbiased program to hit the airwaves anytime soon? Is there anywhere to go for just plain old news, with no commentary from anyone except guests or experts who might be interviewed by anchors or reporters? It sure doesn't look like it. Perhaps the title of this is a little overboard - maybe viewers do want the news...only they want it in bite-sized pieces every 15 or 30 minutes.

Titillation: It's not just for reality shows anymore.

Newsday TV critic Marvin Kitman is finally setting down the remote - well, at least for a paycheck - and he's got a few more things to say before he takes off. Most of them are "sorrys" for things he's written over the years, and there are lots that seem to have tongue firmly planted in cheek.

The Baltimore Sun's David Zurawik reported Thursday that Maryland Public Television has cancelled "Wall Street Week," the financial show that has run on public stations for decades. The show, previously hosted by Louis Rukeyser, has been unable to keep ratings and financing since he left the program in 2002.

CNN picks up the AP story about the retirement of Howard Reig, staff announcer for NBC. He's the man you've probably heard say "This is NBC Nightly News" if you've ever watched the program from its intro - and he's leaving the broadcasting company after 62 years.

The Associated Press reports Monday that the segment at the beginning of a "Monday Night Football" game in November that featured "Desperate Housewives" star Nicollette Sheridan and Philadelphia Eagles wideout Terrell Owens was "not indecent," according to the FCC.

As if things weren't bad enough for Jane Pauley's talker when she was randomly banished to all hours of the day and night, now it's over and done with. TV Squad informs that the show has kicked the bucket, not even making it a calendar year.

The Denver Post's Joanne Ostrow details the rise of Nancy Grace's star, most notably at CNN, where she is on the new "Headline Prime" show on their Headline News channel, as well as filling in for Larry King on occasion. Ostrow wonders whether Grace will effectively become the "face" for the network if and when King departs from "Larry King Live" at some point.

I'm still wondering when Grace will stop saying that things "taste bad going down," which she did in a quote in this piece plus on the air with Don Imus last month. Perhaps it's her catchphrase or something.

The AP's Lynn Elber writes about a change of script in this Sunday's "Boston Legal" on ABC. It seems that FOX News Channel was originally part of the story, but that the network "asked executive producer and writer David E. Kelley to remove references to Fox."

Amusingly, the show is about media bias.

Wednesday night signals the departure of Dan Rather from the anchor seat on the CBS Evening News - and the Arizona Republic's Bill Goodykoontz says that it is "the end of the "voice of God" era."

Peter Jennings, if he was reading this, might have his hand up in the air, waving furiously - to no avail, I suppose.

On MSNBC's "Connected," Media Bloggers Association members TVNewser Brian Stelter and RatherBiased's Matt Sheffield are skedded to appear this afternoon to talk about Dan Rather's departure from the anchor chair this week.

Monica Crowley just introduced the story at the top of the show, and is now tossing to Ron Reagan, discussing Dan Rather being "not boring" as a journalist.

The overall discussion seems to be around Rather "doing himself in."

Crowley starts off Sheffield really easy with a question about "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?" - nice.

Reagan kicks to Stelter about how the blogosphere is "split" over Rather overall.

I can't decide if it's strange (or not) that people I've chatted with on the telephone and IM are now getting interviewed, pundit-style, on television. Then again, I'll take Matt & Brian over Av Westin & William McGowan.

[17:20] Sheffield jumps in about Rather being a "transitionary" individual in television journalism today - Ron Reagan liked that, asking for an elaboration. Sheffield gets in the last word that "to deny that he doesn't have any liberal biases or opinions is just ludicrous."

The Detroit Free Press published an Associated Press article Tuesday afternoon about a Michigan television broadcaster who is actually asking its viewers if it should be broadcasting the "tribute" to Dan Rather on CBS stations on Wednesday evening.

Viewers can go to the 9&10 News website, click Yes or No, then enter an email address and zip code to verify your vote.

At this point, the tally has not been made public.

As Dan Rather is set to become, in a few days, the second network news anchor to depart the scene in recent months, the speculation continues to grow as to what will happen to the broadcasts in the near future. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Gail Pennington writes this weekend about the continuing decline in viewership for network television news, and what can (if anything) be done about it.

The St. Petersburg Times' Vladimir Kovalyev comments on the announcement that "independent" RTV International, a television news station currently available to Russians through satellite subscription service, will soon join the ranks of free television - through satellite - for citizens of the country. Kovalyev points out that their company line is "The Only News With No Censorship from the Kremlin," which should be a welcome relief, considering some other situations that have come up in recent times at Russian news outlets.

At the beginning of the year, word came out that Orbit, the satellite service in the Middle East, Northern Africa and parts of Europe, had dropped CBS News programming from its schedule in favor of shows from the FOX News channel. At the time, users on Orbitforum.net were up in arms at the displacement of the CBS News programs, and there was no real word from the company as to where things were going.

This week, I've been informed that the Orbit News channel has now removed FOX News from its schedule, and have replaced the bulk of the slots with MSNBC, NBC, and ABC programs. No further details are available at this time, although the 'TBA' slots on this weekend's planned programming should yield results soon.

The Vanderbilt Hustler has a story by Meredith Casey on Friday about a visit to the school by CNN political producer Sam Feist earlier this week. Feist was on hand to talk about media bias and how political media works. Casey reports that Feist "sees the media as a check or watchdog for the government as a whole," which is an interesting thought, and not one I'd disagree with - but as the "new" media evolves nowadays, we will begin to find patterns of coverage and behavior as administrations change - which probably explains the massive attention that media bias has garnered in recent years.

[ed: Oh, and the article's last sentence made me laugh, just a bit.]

Watching and blogging (when it's worth it) tonight's Grammy awards on CBS.

[20:00]Black Eyed Peas "get it started" along with Gwen Stefani and Eve. A little too much gold on this set for me, but they are lookin' great. Love the 'old English' "G&E" om the stage.

[20:04]BEP are back, and tip off to Los Lonely Boys, who are most exquisitely on a post in the middle of the audience.

[20:06]Maroon 5 wins for "band that you liked almost a year ago (yes, I still like them) but isn't that super popular anymore by the time the awards roll around."

[20:10]Franz Ferdinand begin the close with "Take Me Out" - twas good. Interesting medley with these groups together.

[20:18] Los Lonely Boys take the first award of the night, "Best Duo or Group with Vocals" - pretty cool that they beat out the rest of the crew, considering how "on fire" Maroon 5 was when they hit the mainstream scene.

[20:25] Alicia Keys is in dressed-up mode for this event. If there's any fashion enigma out there in the music world right now for me, it's her. [20:29] She brings up Jamie Foxx and Quincy Jones. Foxx promptly starts off with Ray Charles' "Georgia On My Mind." Nice shirt, Quincy!

[20:33] Best R&B - I'm going for Brian McKnight, but it's going to be Usher. Okay, not even close. it's Prince.

[20:45]U2 just not doing it for me tonight. Mark McGrath, Penelope Cruz and Pharrell Williams give Led Zep a Lifetime Achievement award, and the boys from the band get to wave from the audience. Right before Green Day gets the nod for "Best Rock Album," I swear Williams got "Star Trak" blurted out on the air.

[20:54]Wizbang is liveblogging as well. Check it.

[20:56]This J.Lo Marc Anthony A) better liven up a bit if we're going to be talking about it in the morning and B) is clearly TMI, as I don't want to see either of them in the bedroom, frankly.

[21:00]Matthew McConaghey is actually wearing clothes.

[21:02]Gretchen Wilson just doesn't do "Freebird" any justice, sorry. How many Keith Urban discs go off the shelves tomorrow to the teenage girls that haven't seen him yet?

[21:06]What's with the "announcer in the sky" bringing in Tim McGraw?

[21:29]That Quentin Tarantino sure is cool. Wow, Billy Joe apparently sings live - what a concept.

[21:31]Fire! Fire!

[21:33]This Ricky Martin -- he sings?

[21:34]Alicia Keys takes the Grammy for "Best R&B Female" - just noticed that her dress actually has no back - and is slit up the sides - and she doesn't look like she's all flaunt. Good choice, very classic.

[21:43]Kanye's "Jesus Walks" sounds just like my album version, but I'm not sayin' nothin. Interesting move with the white sheet.

[21:48]Looked like the Blind Boys of Alabama were singing off Kanye, but he appears to have returned. Alright, maybe he's on point with his rap. Let's see how much flak he catches for that ending.

[21:50]Well, that ever-difficult Ludacris-to-Kevin Bacon six degrees just got a lot easier.

[21:52]Kanye starts it all off after winning his Rap Album award by saying that the music should get all started, since he'd be awhile. They proceeded to not cut him off, and he didn't take that long, at all. Good to see Kanye take that one - you know the presenters would have been worried to have King Ad Rock, Mike D and MCA up there on stage.

[21:59]Kris Kristofferson robbed the "Blade 9" set while dressing for tonight's gig, I'm convinced.

[22:02]Not only is it absolutely effing brilliant to put the Janis Joplin tribute at the top of the hour, but Joss Stone and Melissa Etheridge absolutely rocked. It would appear that Etheridge is doing pretty well - this is the first time I've seen her in public in awhile. Contactmusic.com reports that this is her first appearance since she announced she was fighting cancer in 2004.

[22:11]Billy Bob Thornton's so...not cool tonight for some reason. What was Angelina seeing in him again?

[22:13]Tim McGraw's song, obviously about his father, Tug, is pretty darn good.

[22:17]"Best Country Album" - I'm voting Loretta Lynn. Yes, she wins! Good joke about Tim McGraw....she's telling Jack White what to do - good to see, although he looks a bit uncomfortable.

[22:26]Rob Thomas is still alive?

[22:27]John Mayer's lyrics always kill me in this song "girls become lovers who then become mothers." Probably up there in that thought process of why guys get super protective when they finally have daughters. Did I just say that out loud?

[22:30]Lisa Marie Presley may have actually tripped on the stairs on the way up, right? WTF happened to her? Oh, and U2 wins for "Vertigo."

[22:32]Does Adam Clayton ever get to speak?

[22:38]Anthony LaPaglia from CBS' "Without a Trace" introduces "Across the Universe" by the Beatles, being performed by Velvet Revolver, Stevie Wonder, Bono, Norah Jones, Steven Tyler, Brian Wilson, Alicia Keys (and more, still going), Billy Joe, Tim McGraw (who'd I miss?). Gotta love Scott Weiland's purple/red/pink mixture hair. Yeah, yeah, you can get it on iTunes.

[22:45]"Song of the Year" - Stevie Wonder's checking the braille on the award envelope. John Mayer wins. Wow, surprised am I.

[22:49]As cool as some of the other spots are, this Saab campaign is pretty good.

[22:53]Queen Latifah has gone with the purple digs to introduce Usher, who I actually can't see in the smoke. He's definitely got the MJ moves going on tonight.

[22:57]Wow, James freaking Brown! Latifah was wrong - this is the performance we'll be talking about in the morning. And the one that's going to hurt the most in the morning - at least for James Brown, that is.

[23:01]The music kicks in as a producer on the Ray Charles and Norah Jones track is speaking, and before Ray Charles' manager got to speak. Thankfully, they let him say a few words.

[23:06]Remember when Sheryl Crow hadn't had her plastic surgery yet? Naw, me either.

[23:09]The recording academy guy gets up and makes a plea for tsunami relief, also mentioning 'owning' and purchasing music. Now if only the "equal treatment" he mentioned about longtime stars and up and comers was true. Again, it comes up - again, I ask that artists actually get paid for music that they've signed on to perform.

[23:13]Yeah, they recognized ODB!

[23:15]Bonnie Raitt is absolutely made of wax, she must be. Hasn't she looked like this for a decade?

[23:16]I still think adding Lil' Jon to the Brown/Usher duo would have been fantastic. YEAHHHH!

[23:24]Gary Sinise and Bonnie Raitt are up to announce the "Album of the Year" - I say it's either Usher or Alicia Keys. Okay, I'm totally wrong. I understand there's sentimentality here, but was it the best album of the year? Oh well, I'll give. Ray Charles definitely took the cake tonight, with Usher rolling up second and Kanye doing his thing. I hope we don't start tossing out lifetime achievement awards like they're pennies at Halloween, though - it'll look like an NFL Hall of Fame induction ceremony.

Reuters' Jeremy Pelofsky writes about the FCC's vote on Thursday not to force cable operators to "make space" for more than one of the channels that broadcasters will have the ability to populate as digital television becomes the norm.

The Rocky Mountain News' Dusty Sanders details the move on Denver's Channel 7 for Jane Pauley's talker, "The Jane Pauley Show," from 10 a.m. local time to 2:05 a.m. local time. We'll see if changes start to occur in the other affiliates the show is featured on.

On Tuesday evening, USA Today's Peter Johnson reported that CBS News correspondent and "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer is "all but certain" to fill the anchor role at CBS after Dan Rather's departure - at least temporarily. While the multi-anchor format still appears to be in play, it's curious that they wouldn't just stick with Schieffer long term, solo.

[update] RatherBiased has the story, including the press release from CBS News. It's official.

In early January, KTAL-TV told Texarkana cable provider CableOne that it would have to pay $.30/subscriber per month in order to offer its channel to its customer base, which CableOne balked at. On Tuesday, the Shreveport Times' Andre Salvail reported that KTAL has put the screws to Cox Communications, who offers the station in a few Texas and Arkansas markets. Nexstar-owned KTAL is continuing to stick to their guns, claiming that they should not have to provide their content for free to the cableco - Cox is making sure that set-top antennas will be available to its customers.

Across the globe, there is a constant feeding frenzy for news and information - something the Internet has played a major part in creating and growing. In addition to online content, satellite television's boom has made it easy for people outside of "target" markets for broadcasts to be reached - which is where companies like Orbit come in. As their company profile states, the Orbit Satellite Television and Radio Network provides digital broadcasts to viewers in the Middle East, Northern Africa, and most recently, Europe.

Much like the American military's Armed Forces Network, Orbit has a few "mishmosh" channels that combine some of the top programming from a variety of stations, from entertainment to news to family shows. The Orbit News channel is of particular favor with subscribers, as it is a combination of American over-the-air news programming combined with some cable news shows.

A few weeks ago, shortly after the new year began, Stefan Pitschner, the webmaster of Orbitforum.net, noticed something different in the Orbit News channel - it no longer carried any CBS News programming. Removed from the schedule was "60 Minutes," "Up to the Minute," "Early Show Live," "48 Hours," "CBS Evening News" and "Face the Nation," with no prior notice to subscribers as to what had happened. FOX News was now on the docket, a network that had never previously been part of the programming package - and viewers were upset, voicing their displeasure on the Orbitforum.net message boards.

Pitschner relates that FOX News has a "really bad reputation" in Europe and that even with the problems at CBS in recent months, their programming is still viewed much more positively than that of FOX.

While no public statement has yet to be made about this change, a spokesperson from Orbit responded to TMD's request for information in this matter. Based on the company's statement, it appears that there is a contractual issue between Orbit and CBS. Orbit spokersperson Alia Shaikho informed TMD that "Fox News Live programming has been added to our ongoing news programs on a temporary basis and mainly airs at off-peak hours." It does not appear that the "60 Minutes Wednesday" problems had any bearing in this decision, however. In addition, Orbit is "currently in discussions" with news networks from countries including the U.S. to obtain news programming to add to their schedule. A representative from CBS Broadcast International was has not responded to multiple inquiries regarding the removal of their network's broadcasts from the Orbit News service.

It is most curious that the liberal / conservative media angle has stepped out of the American boundaries and into the Middle East and Europe - some of which could be described as "left of center" when it comes to politics. Inasmuch as possible, it also appears that Europeans have knowledge of the public perceptions of American media outlets, even though they didn't previously have access to all of them on a regular basis. Is this more of a statement of American "push" on the worldwide media, or are viewers in other countries just more in tune with what is going on outside of their own nation?

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's Tim Cuprisin informs that while less than one-third of the population has high-definition televisions or programming, more than that amount of men say having HD "is a critical element in the Super Bowl experience," according to cable operator Comcast.

USA Today's Gary Levin wrote this week about how CBS News was proceeding in their search to replace Dan Rather as nightly news anchor for the network. In the article, Levin includes comments by CBS boss Les Moonves, who discussed the possibility of a multi-anchor format.

"People 30 years old (are) not watching the evening news," Moonves says. "How do we make it younger, more relevant ... as opposed to that guy preaching from the mountaintop about what we should and should not watch." He says he can do this without alienating core older news viewers.

As an under-30 (but just barely) television owner and news viewer, I'd ask Mr. Moonves and others if it really matters, to be honest. I've been saying for years that the nightly news is outdated by the time you see it on the air, and it's live. Anyone who's ever asked for a transcript will find that you can actually get it before the show goes on the air in a lot of cases. I had a habit, when I was living with my family, of telling them about news things I'd read on the Internet and then they would see it 1+ days later on the evening news, national or local. This got kind of comical at one point, which is when I realized how semi-irrelevant the TV news could actually be.

I'm also one to agree with the 6:30 timeframe being too early, if you are looking to grab more (or different) viewers. As Joe Territo stated earlier this week, the timeslot is an issue.

If nightly network news is going to survive, it needs to draw more non-retiree viewers. That can't be done if it continues to air while those viewers are still working, commuting home, or eating dinner.

I still think the news viewing audience today is comprised of the "haves" and "have nots" - in that the latter are the group of people who don't get news alerts in their mailbox, check the news on the Internet during the day, etc. We already know the 'net is a force for change, but there's a continental shelf that viewership will reach in the next few years, and it is seemingly getting closer and closer through no extra effort of the viewing / reading public.

If you sit back and think about this for a second, it's possible that a Headline News-ish channel run in tandem with a primarily commentary-filled channel might be the right combination. The utterly amazing viewership for commentary shows might also be representative of the shift of newsreading/viewing from television to the Internet, or a combination of both. If I can read about an event in Afghanistan on my laptop through the WiFi in my house while I'm parked on the couch, and watch so-and-so deliberate the ins and outs of it just moments later on television, why wouldn't I go for that? Maybe multitasking isn't such a great thing and is a cause for the short attention spans that many Americans have, but it might be the heir apparent to the way things used to be.

The Age's Christian Catalano writes in Friday's paper that the hit show Desperate Housewives will most likely debut on Australia's Seven Network sometime in the next few weeks. Catalano states that it is possible that Lost will be shown on the network instead, but if ratings indicators in the U.S. and U.K. are taken into consideration, Housewives would have to be the running favorite.

Hollywood Reporter's Cynthia Littleton has the story on MTV Networks' decision to hold off on the February launch of LOGO, the new network with a gay and lesbian focus that the company announced in May of 2004. The channel is now tentatively scheduled to arrive in June.

Rafat Ali points out a Multichannel News story about a management shift at Time Warner Cable, where three high level execs will depart in the coming months.

The Associated Press reports on the revival of "A Current Affair" as a television "news magazine" show in early 2005. The show will be hosted by Tim Green, former NFL player and FOX Sports commentator.

USA Today founder Al Neuharth has some things to say about the lack of apology or any other statement of fault by CBS News anchor Dan Rather this week is a "low point" in a long career.

Does CNN's move to become more trendalicious with younger viewers jive with their overall audience's likes and dislikes? WaPo's Lisa de Moraes details the changes, including the grab of Court TV's Nancy Grace, who'll be doing a show called...."Nancy Grace"....wouldn't you know. Phillip at DCeit sez that de Moraes "certainly ha[s] Nancy Grace (a personal favorite of mine) pegged!", referring to the "kind-of-scary, cliche-spewing former violent-crimes prosecutor" description offered up in the article.

TVNewser offers up some Variety comments about how CNN's moves will "reduce competition" between the the three letter channel and the Headline News brands.

Over at Slowplay, Nathan Novak posted a few words about Zell Miller's time on FOX News earlier today, which I believe is his first commentary since being added as a talker. He was on the air to discuss President Bush's nomination of Michael Chertoff to take the role as Department of Homeland Security chief.

Some of Miller's comments are available online, about halfway through this Liza Porteus article.

The Toledo Blade's Russ Lemmon informs about the plan by WTOL-TV to start up their own 24-hour all weather channel, which will be available to customers of the Buckeye CableSystem next month. And this is just the beginning for the channel's owner, Liberty Corp. - who have their eyes on 14 more stations of this type to colocate in their current markets. Outside of Ohio's WTOL, Liberty owns stations in Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Indiana, Alabama, Texas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Arkansas.

Do localized all-weather channels have the potential for putting a dent in the nationwide grasp of The Weather Channel?

The fine folks at RatherBiased are all over the breaking news coming out of CBS this morning:

Asked to resign were Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard; and Howard's deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy. The producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, was terminated.

Mapes' firing is not unexpected in most circles. She has been heavily criticized all along for being "behind" the Memogate fiasco at "60 Minutes Wednesday," and bears the brunt of responsibility here. RatherBiased's Matthew Sheffield told TMD that "The firings are a good start. We'll see if the report was as forthcoming as it needs to be."

The report Sheffield refers to is the expected result of an independent panel that CBS News announced on September 22, 2004. On Sunday, RatherBiased pointed out that it had been 110 days since the panel was put forth - Monday brings day 111, and the complete report [pdf], via Instapundit.

Scylla & Charybdis lead us to CBS CEO and Viacom Co-President and Co-Chief Operating Officer Les Moonves' response [pdf] to the panel's report. Moonves does not appear to hold back any contempt for the actions of the former CBS staffers.

There was, in short, no effective vetting of these critical documents by those at CBS News required to do so, or of many other statements in the September 8th report, or of the reports that followed on the CBS Evening News. Once again, the system broke down, relying on trust rather than the implementation of existing standards.

That, alone, is pretty damning for a news organization to have to admit.

After the jump: Recommendations from Moonves' response.

Acting on the Panel's recommendations, I would like to announce the following further steps that will be implemented immediately, not just for 60 Minutes Wednesday, but for all of CBS News.

Responding to perhaps the most important recommendation of the Panel, we will immediately create a position of Senior Vice President of Standards and Special Projects, reporting to the President of CBS News. This executive will be assigned expanded new duties as part of upholding and enforcing CBS News Standards. Before an investigative report proceeds, the Standards Executive will review the use of confidential sources; will determine the completeness of the authentication and/or chain of custody of materials received from outside sources, ranging from documents to video to photos; and will approve all hidden-camera investigations.

The Standards Executive will be identified throughout CBS News as someone with whom employees can communicate on a confidential basis, without fear of retaliation, if they have concerns that a planned segment may not meet CBS News standards of accuracy and fairness. This executive will also undertake a comprehensive review of the CBS News Standards Manual and will institute a program for regular review of the standards.

Assuming this important new role will be Linda Mason, who has been named Senior Vice President, Standards and Special Projects, reporting directly to the President of CBS News.

Linda has a long and distinguished career at CBS News, which she joined in 1966. She was the first woman in many of the positions she has filled at CBS News: from desk assistant in radio to writer in Newsfilm syndication, to writer/associate producer at WCBS-TV News to writer then producer at the CBS Morning News, to producer, investigative producer, senior producer at the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite and then Dan Rather, to executive producer of The CBS Weekend News and then executive producer of CBS News Sunday Morning as well, to vice president of Public Affairs and executive producer of CBS Reports. She has won 13 Emmys, two 2 Peabodies, a Dupont and various other awards.

Linda has acted as the liaison between CBS NEWS and the Independent Panel during the preparation of the Panel's report. She has been a calm, steadying influence within CBS News throughout that difficult process, and she was recognized for her contributions by the Panel. I know she will be invaluable in this new and crucial role, and I consider her appointment to be an integral part of the re-vitalization of CBS News after this difficult time.

Further, in the midst of this ordeal, the original 60 Minutes has continued to shine as a beacon of light. The broadcast has continued to blaze a trail of outstanding journalism and competitive success as the #1 news magazine program under the leadership of Executive Producer Jeff Fager, who launched 60 Minutes Wednesday in 1999. We have therefore asked Jeff to oversee both 60 Minutes broadcasts - 60 Minutes Wednesday as well as 60 Minutes - at least until the end of the season.

Other steps that will be implemented immediately include, but will not be limited to, the following:

1. If the validity of information presented in a segment comes under a significant challenge, such as occurred with the 60 Minutes Wednesday segment, reporting on the challenge will not be left entirely in the hands of those who created the segment at issue. Instead, an additional team, led by someone not involved in the original segment, will be assigned to take the lead in the coverage.

2. In sensitive stories relying on sources who cannot be identified on the air, senior management must, when appropriate, know not just the name of the source, but all relevant background that would assist in editorial news decisions. Difficulties in this regard should be reviewed with the Standards Executive.

3. CBS News management must make it clear to all personnel that competitive pressure alone cannot be allowed to prompt the airing of a story. As the Panel points out, it would have been better to "lose" the story on the disputed memos to a competitor than to air it short of vetting to the highest standards of fairness and accuracy.

4. Correspondents, producers and associate producers must disclose to the executive producer and senior producers all relevant information unearthed in reporting the story, both supporting and challenging the segment's findings.

5. On primetime broadcasts, all on-camera interviews done for a segment, whether or not aired, should be reviewed by the person assigned script review responsibility to ensure that the segment presents fairly and accurately what was said in the interviews and is not contradicted by interviews which do not appear in the finished segment.

6. CBS NEWS producers and management will work closely with the CBS Communications area to ensure that all information provided to the department and then disseminated to the public is fair and accurate.

7. CBS NEWS management should require correspondents to regularly and fully participate to the maximum extent possible in the preparation, vetting and pre-broadcast screening of stories. Management should review instances where the press of other responsibilities does not permit this and make any appropriate changes to the production and vetting structure to take account of reality.

In addition to these steps, in the future we will pursue any other reforms we feel are needed to help CBS News uphold its decades-long tradition of reporting with integrity and without fear or favor.

Chicago Sun-Times TV critic Phil Rosenthal gives the latest iteration of ABC's "The Bachelorette" a Bronx Cheer on Monday, going as far as calling the show's 'star,' Jen Schefft, a "reality retread."

ABC has put some big hits on the air in the last year, with "Extreme Home Makeover" and Lost - this one has ratings flop written all over it.

Should cable companies be required - or at least comply when asked - to pay a per-subscriber fee for broadcast channels in their distribution area? That seems to be the latest question in the Texarkana market where Nexstar-owned KTAL and CableOne are both in play, the Texarkana Gazette's Aaron Brand reports.

KTAL is asking for about $.30/subscriber to let the cableco offer the station, and CableOne is sticking to the "free product" scenario, as Channel 6 can be receieved over the air - so why pay? Nexstar is arguing that satellite distributors have to pay to offer the broadcast stations, so the cable companies should have to do the same.

Jen Chung at Gothamist points out a huge deal in TV news, at least if you live in the New York area. NBC 4's Sue Simmons and Chuck Scarborough have been working together for 25 years on the 5pm newscast. You can see some video of the newscast and a slideshow of images at WNBC.com, on the right hand side under "Check It Out."

As a lifetime New Jersey resident, I'd have to say they are the most prominent pair that I can remember in all my years of watching the local news. Congrats, Chuck and Sue!

In the "master of the obvious" article of the day, The Independent's Louise Jury writes about the ratings grab by Desperate Housewives on U.K. televisions this week, which shouldn't surprise anyone. But nothing compares to the quote from a spokesman from Channel 4, the network broadcasting the show, who said that the viewership "confirms our reputation for continuing to bring the best of US drama and comedy to UK audiences."

I suppose we'll see how happy they are if the show becomes a hit with 9-12 year olds, as it is here. Hopefully, they are able to change the channel (on their own) over there if they don't like it, unlike some people here.

It was good to see that FOX decided to put Who's Your Daddy on the air the same night that That 70's Show character 'Kelso' meets his real father for the first time.

No issue with "themes" throughout programming on a channel, but isn't it a little bit cheesy to do it and not say anything about it? Is this the same as when a "made for TV" fictional movie about weather disasters is put on the air and then the local news broadcasts do a segment about weather disasters in real life?

Related: Will CBS re-run its "Crime Wave" ep of CSI:Miami again this year?

The Orlando Sentinel's Hal Boedeker set off a good one in his column on Tuesday, calling NBC's "Today" show host Katie Couric "the logical choice" to replace Dan Rather in the anchor chair for CBS Evening News. I can't help but believe that this column is fueled more because of the fact that Couric is A) female and B) because people are fixated by bringing someone in who isn't really in the hard news business, for some reason.

But herein lies the rub - as a late 20-something male, am I totally out of the demos that CBS News is looking for, or will be looking for down the road that it doesn't matter what my opinion is? I just don't see how Couric, whose "Today" show just has to have an overwhelmingly female audience (I'm making an educated guess, here), and is not filled with people looking for hard news for an hour, half-hour, whatever. It's fluffy, morning show amusement. Obviously the news needs to gain ground with female viewers - few would argue that - but I'm not sure if getting others to change the channel at the same time helps at all. If those viewers (watching "Today" wanted hard news, they'd be watching a cabler or something else, anyway. So does Couric's "best in the first half-hour" skill that Boedeker refers to translate to a solid half-hour in the evening?

At the same time, is CBS looking to take its current viewers, (whomever they are), and have them looking at whole new type of program - instead of finding someone who is in the "hard news" business to take the role? Maybe John Roberts and Scott Pelley aren't compelling enough for CBS to bank on right now - I really don't know if they would do a worse job than what is currently happening in the ratings - but I'm beginning to feel like people are just throwing names out just for the sake of doing so. Surely there are a solid list of candidates - women and men - for this job, that don't have to be "prime time" celebrities that aren't viewed as non-newsy by many in the public.

There have been tons of suggestions for this, including RatherBiased.com's Matthew Sheffield suggesting in a recent New York Observer column by Joe Hagan that ABC News' Elizabeth Vargas get a shot at it, for instance.

To attempt to gauge at least a small population of news viewers, TMD is offering an informal survey asking readers who they believe would make the best new anchor at CBS News - you can take the survey once, and it can be found here.

The Green Bay Press-Gazette's Warren Gerds covers the story about Olga Halaburda, a television reporter for WFRV-TV, who will be present in the Ukraine to cover the country's controversial elections.

The Daily Herald's Victor Balta compiled his list of "10 moments and shows that shaped the year in television."

Making up a bunch of the list, interestingly enough, are a few programs and individuals that left the airwaves in 2004 - but Balta is right in choosing them, as they will have a lasting impact on television's ratings.

Over at OlbermannWatch, Robert Cox has posted an email exchange where MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is given some "advice" on how he has been handling his stories on the "Countdown" program, specifically regarding voter fraud in this year's Presidential election. On the other end of the emails is Tom Sileo, a Tribune broadcast news producer (he was not working for Tribune at the time of the correspondence), who takes Olbermann and some of his colleagues to task for shoddy - and biased - reporting and discussion on the network.

Sileo: I don't agree with the approach your taking to this 'story', plain and simple. I feel that you, David Shuster, and Chris Matthews have a documented bias against President Bush that compromises your work. The poor ratings for MSNBC may prove that millions of others share my assessment. If the three of you approached your work more like Tim Russert, who knows how far MSNBC could climb.

To which Olbermann replies:

The poor ratings of MSNBC owe to incredibly unstable scheduling. For three years we did not have the same nightly line-up for more than six weeks successively. We've now gone over a year since the last change. The 6-9 PM ratings have doubled. I'm afraid tv success is much more of a function of constancy and style than it is of political tone.

While Olbermann is right that being on television in one slot for a little while helps in the ratings, it isn't the only thing. Many of the MSNBC nighttime programming has been laughed off for some time now, irrelevant of what time things were on. It's not so much a function of moving existing shows around because you feel like it, but more of having shows literally fail in their slot - or overall. Sure, the ratings have "doubled," but what does that really mean in the grand scheme? That in another year, they'll "double" again? Figuring out what viewers are moving to MSNBC is a question to ask as well. Are they taking newswatchers away from the competition (namely FOX News and CNN) or from regular television broadcasts, or are these "new" viewers who weren't previously watching shows at that time? What are FOX's latest ratings vs. MSNBC, anyway, like 4-6 times the number of viewers in the 8-10 timeframe? TVNewser reported on December 1 that while November was huge for MSNBC with regard to growth, they're "gaining" on CNN but still lagging well behind FOX's increases. It's not just continuity, frankly - it's content.

Some people argue that content isn't king anymore - I'm not one of them.

Kerry Spot's Jim Geraghty reports that his sources "familiar with discussions at CBS News" are saying that the news division will make a joint announcement regarding their internal investigation and new anchor. Still no timeline on this statement, though.

[via Political Wire]

At Daily Kos, one diarist posts a critical item about incoming MSNBC host Monica Crowley, who is set to do a show on the cabler with Ron Reagan in early '05. In the piece, we're led to a 1999 article by Slate's Timothy Noah, "Nixon's Monica Stonewalls About Plagiarism!"

Noah details an item Crowley had written for the Wall Street Journal in 1999 "commemorating" the 25th anniversary of Richard Nixon's resignation from the presidency. Shortly after the piece ran, the WSJ printed this editor's note:

"There are striking similarities in phraseology between "The Day Richard Nixon Said Goodbye," an editorial feature Monday by Monica Crowley, and a 1988 article by Paul Johnson in Commentary magazine ... Had we known of the parallels, we would not have published the article."

Noah says, "Pretty interesting, no?" Yes, it most certainly is. Here's one bit of the evidence that was put forth -

From Johnson's "In Praise of Richard Nixon," Commentary, October 1988:

"There was none of the personal corruption which had marked the rule of Lyndon Johnson, let alone the gross immoralities and security risks of John F. Kennedy's White House."

From Crowley's "The Day Nixon Said Goodbye," Wall Street Journal, August 9, 1999:

"There was none of the personal corruption that had marked the rule of Lyndon Johnson or the base immoralities and outrageous security risks of the Kennedy and Clinton White Houses."

Read the whole thing.

[ed: Crowley's email box is full this morning, and MSNBC has not yet responded to a request for comment. Via Atrios.]

TVNewser reports that CNN's Tucker Carlson might be the replacement for Deborah Norville in the 9pm timeslot on MSNBC.

On Friday, Robert Cox wondered about what would have to happen "before GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt shuts the entire mess down" at the cable net. Looks like MSNBC boss Rick Kaplan is doing his best to avoid something of that sort.

Bunny McIntosh writes about her experience of being part of MTV's "Room Raiders" show. She gives some really great insights on what actually goes on between camera shots - not that we're surprised. (Okay, at least I'm not surprised.)

[Hat tip: Shabe]

On Thursday, Fox Networks Group announced that David Lyle, formerly president of FremantleMedia, will lead the soon-to-be-launched Fox Reality Channel, set to hit televisions in 2005. FremantleMedia is the group behind "American Idol," and Lyle was an integral part of that show's success in the United States.

In a company press release, Fox Networks Group president/CEO Tony Vinciquerra stated that "Fox Reality Channel is a natural complement to the studios, networks, program libraries and international operations we have around the globe," and "David's skills will prove a tremendous benefit to Fox Reality Channel as it establishes itself as a key destination within the unscripted world." (BW)

Tuesday brought the announcement that Zell Miller, who was an entertaining guest on MSNBC's "Hardball" on September 1, will become a contributor to the FOX News Channel after his retirement from the U.S. Senate. Brian Stelter has a good idea about where to put Miller in the lineup.

No word on an epee or handgun sponsorship for Mr. Miller, though.

[Hat tip: Brad]

TVNewser informs that CNNfn will vanish from television at 2pm on Wednesday. Which brings to mind a question.....well, nevermind.

RatherBiased has a writeup about what's going on behind the scenes at CBS News, specifically related to producer Mary Mapes. Mapes worked on the "60 Minutes Wednesday" story earlier this year that was based on memos about President Bush's National Guard service - memos that were unable to be proven to be authentic. According to their report, Mapes "has been struggling mightily to save her job and her professional reputation." I, too, expect that there will definitely be some personnel changes when the official report comes down from the independent investigators into the "memogate" situation.

On Monday, Jeff Jarvis wrote about statistics used by the Republican party in their marketing efforts, including television habits and entertainment choices, as reported by the New York Times - this seems like a good spot to publish the results from the informal survey I offered a few weeks ago on TMD.

The Times item talks about Democrats watching more television that Republicans - that may be true, but it doesn't look like many Democrats are watching the same thing as their fellow party supporters. According to my informal TMD survey, those who stated they were Democrats were split across the board with regard to their television news preference - no one network received more than 25% of the votes - spread over five news outlets. On the contrary, those who declared they were Republicans preferred FOX News by almost 2-1 (64% to 36%) - with CNN and ABC being the only other outlets Republicans chose.

Also, those who declared they were Independent, Green, or Libertarian placed most of their votes - 43% - for CNN, with no other news channel receiving more than 14% of the votes. This included one vote for "none."

Another reason I chose to offer this survey was to see what people's preferences were with regard to spelling "O/Usama bin Laden." I had been discussing it with a few people offline, and had seen a bit of varied usage online, so I was curious if anything could be derived from this survey. Interestingly enough, the more commonly seen usage, "Osama," was the overwhelming winner, taking more than 99% of votes.

Talk CSI writes that "CSI: New York" is doing a lot better in the ratings compared to "Law & Order" than originally expected by many media critics. Stats from MediaWeek even show that "CSI" won out last week in the 18-49 demographic, 5.4 to 4.8.

But, as this item points out, there is no opportunity for a trend, as "CSI" will be a rerun this week, up against a new "L&O."

The Boston Globe's Eileen McNamara suggests that due to the recent tentative behavior of broadcasters, that perhaps "the head of the FCC is less of a threat to free speech in this country than the heads of CBS and NBC." McNamara is referring, in this case, to those networks' decisions to decline advertising from the United Church of Christ because of the "controversy" it might cause.

Jeff Jarvis sums up that situation very well.

BusinessWeek's Olga Kharif has an article up Tuesday about mobile television, and how it is not only feasible - given certain conditions - but has the potential of quickly becoming the 'next big thing' for technophiles. From streaming content to mobile devices to news clips being delivered on a regular basis, mobile content has grown from textual, to somewhat graphical, all the way to moving images in just a few years. Now if only I could broadcast from my TiVo to a handheld. Oh, they're working on that?!

[ed: Now if only I actually had a handheld]

The 'net is abuzz with the discussion about what might happen to "Jeopardy" contestant Ken Jennings' on tonight's episode, and for good reason. Let alone the fact that rumors have been abound (thanks, Kottke!) for months, but Jennings is scheduled to appear on Dave Letterman's show this evening, and A&E is featuring a piece on the show's champions on Wednesday, according to the Toronto Star's Vinay Menon.

But more importantly (of course) is the fact that not one, but two bloggers are quoted in the article. Both Damian Penny of Daimnation! and Marc Weisblott of Better Living Centre and Radio Weisblogg get their say in.

Woo hoo! Go bloggers! (Sorry, Ken!)

A few months ago, word had leaked out on the web, specifically on Jason Kottke's blog (though other 'mainstream' pubs claim credit) that "Jeopardy" super-winner Ken Jennings would be defeated after winning 74 episodes. It was projected that this would happen sometime in November, based on the number of days the show was to run in the Fall season.

As it turns out, this was right on, Kottke reports Sunday morning. Tuesday, November 30 looks to be the date, and he's got the audio to "prove" it.

Even with people knowing what's going to happen, I'm still gunning for a ratings bonanza and a ton of TiVos being set for this. How long before we'll get statistics over how this was "highest number of pre-set recordings" or something, at least for a non-sporting event or movie?

TIME magazine's Richard Zoglin asks "10 Questions" to NBC's Tom Brokaw about a few things, including Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.

Alex Massie writes in today's Scotland on Sunday that ABC's Diane Sawyer "has emerged as the dark horse" candidate to replace the departing Dan Rather in CBS News' top anchor slot. TVNewser's Brian Stelter pointed out on Friday that Sawyer has said this wasn't the case - at least according to the New York Post - but would bringing a 'familiar face' to the newscast be enough to attract viewers normally in tune to seeing Sawyer on "Good Morning America" or other fluffy interview shows on ABC? Personal feelings aside, I can't say for sure that this wouldn't be a "smart" decision on the part of CBS, if they were trying to grab a batch of viewers that their ratings show they are obviously lacking. But does Sawyer make an improvement to the struggling network newscast, or would it merely serve as a slight ratings grab?

[ed: I especially like the Post's speculation that Sawyer "might prefer a more cushy and equally high-profile job like anchoring a network evening newscast." You know, instead of hardcore work like interviewing guests about their new dog medication or discussing the latest shopping tips for this holiday season. And don't lecture me on getting up early in the morning, blah blah blah. If you paid me like $5 million I'd get up whenever you asked.]

In the United States - and most of the West - the media is outwardly criticized for being unfair in some cases, especially in their political coverage. While this may be true, they're not usually described as being untruthful in their broadcasts and printed pages. This isn't the case everywhere on the planet, unfortunately.

For those who might be considered as leading "sheltered" lives when considering press freedoms, this is a historic week when it comes to mass media. For in the Ukraine, a huge change is afoot, as some television media outlets have decided to become more honest with the public, and not let the current government hold its power over them any longer.

On Thursday, Roman Olearchyk wrote in the Kyiv Post about public statements made by television stations 1+1 and UT-1 - the latter being a state-owned entity. 1+1 replaced its news program editor, Vyacheslav Pikhovshek, as part of their transition, and UT-1 took a decidely different tact towards its reporting.

A recent survey of journalists funded by Democratic Initiatives Foundation, a western-funded NGO, singled out Pikhovshek as the “least trusted” journalist in Ukraine.

Much like our news media moves out the old guard in order to change their tune as far as ratings go, 1+1 is 'listening' to the people - journalists are citizens, too. Olearchyk also reports on strikes by staffers at UT-1, purely looking for "fair coverage" by the stations.

To understand how such a thing as a lack of "true" press freedom could exist is kind of a fascinating thing for most, including myself. With the advent of the Internet and other broadcast methods, one might think that eluding an intrusive government wouldn't be too difficult. But when the mass media is literally controlled by the state, the inundation of propaganda and the like is probably overwhelming to the point of effectiveness. Passive society means limited opposition. That's where the journalists come in. By effectively refusing to cover stories in a certain manner, they take away the "bread and butter" of the government, as it is not able to spew its directives and belief system to the public-at-large.

The CIA provides some statistics on the Ukraine, which has approximately 47 million persons on a land mass a little smaller than the state of Texas. While the country is considered "independent," as it seems what might be considered the "old guard" still has its claws in the government, media, and economic resources - hence the media's bias towards what the state wants to be said. And unlike the current situation in Russia, which has shifted towards the state-run media outlets repeating the party line for the most part, the Ukraine's rank and file seem to be taking a stand. And it's working. On Saturday, the country's Parliament effectively (but not truly) overturned recent elections, reports the New York Times's Steven Lee Myers. The media had been acting in lock-step with the state's push for current Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich to continue on as president, replacing Leonid Kuchma, who had led the country for a decade. But no longer. As Australia's The Age prints in this item, "Media comes clean," the world - or at least the Ukraine, is a better place for it.

Said 1+1's Lyudmila Dobrovolska on Friday [via the Telegraph]:

"We take full responsibility for the distorted information aired on our channel under the direction of various political forces," it read.

"From now on we will give only objective and truthful information, and the opinions of all the political parties in the country."

Every once in a while the media does something commendable to make people realize that it's not just all about ratings, personal biases, and "bad news" - this is one of those times.

At Ecademy, Joanne Mallon offers tips on how to make yourself presentable when appearing on television. Heck, even if you suffer from stagefright, at least you'll look good doing it.

Ron Orol writes in today's Daily Deal that the FCC seems to be moving towards denying a push for 'a la carte' cable television pricing.

[ed: previously discussed here and here. Originally posted here]

RatherBiased is compiling a great roundup of Dan Rather-retirement related coverage. They're definitely the one-stop shop for news on this topic.

[ed: originally posted here]

TVNewser is all over the naming of Jonathan Klein as president of president of CNN/U.S. Meanwhile, RatherBiased.com points out the Post's Cindy Adams saying "CNN rumors up the kazoo. One concerns Dan Rather signing for their 8 o'clock news."

When it comes to television preferences, there really isn't a "red" or "blue" - or so says an article from Monday's New York Times. Bill Carter offers some details about how ratings for some television shows don't change much from market to market across the U.S., and in some cases might be surprising, considering the belief that "morality" was a major defining character in our country's culture. A good example is ABC's "Desperate Housewives" being the fourth most watched show in Salt Lake City, Utah, according to Nielsen Media.

This all begs the question: If people want to watch a certain kind of programming, why should it be considered off-limits? If the 'majority' rules in these kinds of things, then I think the people have spoken.

From the Center for Creative Voices in Media blog, we find an item in Broadcasting & Cable about censorship, specifically surrounding the pre-emption of "Saving Private Ryan" on some ABC affiliates on Veterans' Day. Jonathan Rintels and Peggy Charren point out that there are probably a ton of people who filed complaints with the FCC even though they didn't view the film - is this the way we want our country to work?

Related: NPR's Scott Simon "reflects on the slippery slope of censorship in the media."

North Carolina's Free Press has an item by Drew Loftis on Sunday that supports the "change the channel" line of thinking.

In the Black Hills Pioneer, Dan Carlson discusses the fate of local television broadcasting, and what needs to be done for it to survive in the long term.

The Globe and Mail's James Adams writes that the FOX News network, which had been kept off of Canadian airwaves for the last few years by the Canadian Radio-television and Television Commission (CRTC), will most likely be approved for inclusion on Canadian television for 2005.

TVNewser reports that FOX News contributor Monica Crowley has hopped over to MSNBC, where she will work two shows - noon and 5pm. Crowley might be familiar from her radio show, on WABC 770 out of New York.

Over at Outside the Beltway, Steve Verdon wonders if it's "Time to Kill the FCC?" He does, of course, want to start over with something else, but a total do-over is requested. On the wishlist:

Also, there should be a complaint process where a broadcasting company accused of violating the standards can have a fair hearing. No more strong arm tactics of holding up license renewals, granting sales/purchases of other stations, etc.

I like this thought a lot. While I do believe that the FCC takes in all information available when it imposes its fines or other judgements on media outlets, I think that if 3 persons are going to be in a position to create a million dollar fine, then a company should have "its day in court," so to say, in response.

Verdon talks about tv shows having a 'ratings' system, which they do - the FCC and other groups pushed hard to have the V-chip put into all new 13" and up televisions since 2000, which allows a parent or guardian to put settings on a television so that potentially offensive or indecent (which everyone has a different feeling on) could be filtered out and unwatchable. Do you know anyone who uses the V-chip? I certainly don't. I know plenty of people who have young kids, and their method of keeping things hidden from their children isn't so advanced. It's called changing the channel. That said, it's one thing to come down on something unexpected or truly offensive, but it's a very different thing when people ask for a solution and fail to use it, then go hunting for someone else to do the dirty work.

The Kansas City Star's Aaron Barnhart writes about the "joint sales agreement" that has been executed between CBS affiliate KCTV and KSMO, a WB affiliate. In a move similar to joint operating agreements (JOAs) for newspapers, KCTV would "own" the ability to sell advertising on both stations and utilize common resources for daily operations - including office space, equipment, and more. However, this "arrangement" may have some difficulties, as formal ownership of two television stations in any one market is not legal - the JSO looks to get around that in a creative manner.

This story is probably a good one to follow, as it could offer direction on where the world of media consolidation is going in the television arena.

Jeff Jarvis provides a great roundup of the Chicago-to-New York-to-Los Angeles newspaper op-eds regarding the ABC affiliate hoedown last Thursday over "Saving Private Ryan."

But while Jarvis is right for calling out the FCC for not firming up when the "f word" is okay to air and when it isn't, I think he's wrong when he says:

"The fault lies strictly with the FCC, which made it clear that "fuck" is illegal on TV, even though it refused to advise these stations that in this case it would not be -- in other words, it refused to make its rules clear."

This was the one thing I believe I actually got out of the FCC when I spoke with them on Frday. They don't want to be "pre-screening" content for television stations on a regular basis, and this was no exception. I'll give them that, because do we really want to have people thinking they have to run programming past a government agency on a regular basis? We as Americans would end up no better than nations that we criticize for over-censoring themselves. Now let me reiterate - I still firmly believe the FCC is off base in this whole situation, because as has been written here many times before, they have created such a grey area when it comes to obscenity and context that individual broadcast personalities - let alone television networks - don't know what is okay and what isn't, because it changes on a regular basis. They are at fault for this whole situation in the first place, but I don't want them pre-screening anything. It seems that their policy and procedure sticks to only investigating when they receive a specific complaint that warrants deeper discussion or has a direct relationship to their "current case law."

Which brings us to the tough question - do we all want to see absolutely completely specific terms that are off limits all the time, regardless of usage? Do we want to have a list of terms or potentially graphic content that is forced outside of certain timeslots? What's the solution? Perhaps if we, the people, demand something in a direct manner, we can get what we've all been looking for all this time. Because we certainly can't continue living in a world that acts up on us sometimes when the phone wires get crossed somewhere and we can't find the problem, no matter how many times we climb the telephone pole.

Looks like bloggers aren't the only ones wondering about the facts (or lack of them) behind Keith Olbermann's current crusade on voter fraud. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's Bill Steigerwald shows his interest in his Sunday column, where he calls Olbermann's efforts "jayvee journalism."

On Wednesday, details arose about ABC television affiliates choosing not to run an uncut version of "Saving Private Ryan" on Thursday evening. As it turned out, 66 affiliates chose to pre-empt the broadcast, and 159 stations ran it - 10 of those being wholly owned by ABC. It wasn't exactly a ratings boon for the network, but the ratings are slightly skewed based on the 66 stations it didn't run on. These affiliates have mostly come out and stated that they were unsure about the FCC's reaction to the broadcast - not necessarily that they disagreed with the content, especially considering that none opposed running it the last time it was shown in 2002. In an effort to staunch the flow of affiliates choosing to drop the program, ABC even offered to pay any fines levied on the stations, but it does not appear that it helped.

For the last two days, I had been trying to reach someone at the Federal Communications Commission to see if they would make a statement on this issue, and was finally able to do so on Friday afternoon. I had received a response from someone in the Enforcement Bureau, who offered to provide me with a little bit of background on the situation. Unfortunately, I was unable to get a statement specific to this airing. I was informed that in a situation such as this one with ABC, the FCC relies on its most recent case law when reviewing any complaints that might arise, which may or may not warrant an investigation. This isn't surprising.

The FCC does, however, clarify that the requests that were widely reported as being made by various ABC affiliates to "pre-allow" the film's airing are not considered. The reason? Purely because of censorship concerns. If you think about it, the FCC coming out and saying "Sure, run with it" to any broadcast opens a door that shouldn't be unlocked - because any "yea" or "nay" creates a situation where the FCC is now stuck with having to pre-judge any given broadcast. They are not a screener for what broadcasters can and cannot do. That being said, my questions about the stations having legitimate concerns because of the "grey" rulings that have been made in the past went unanswered. Literally. I suggested that due to recent announcements, that companies weren't sure what was or was not decent, as many companies seem to be "guessing" incorrectly, if the fines are any indication. Broadcasters feel there are double standards, a solid example being things that Howard Stern has said being comparable to statements made on the "Oprah" show. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

If we are sitting here waiting to see which shoe falls next, a good bellwhether might be statements made by FCC Chairman Michael Powell - who commented on the film, curiously enough, a few months back while speaking with PBS. Aaron Barnhart at the Kansas City Star has details:

FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who led the action to fine Viacom over the Super Bowl incident, did not comment on the affiliates' decision Thursday. However, he mentioned the movie in April in a PBS interview on indecency issues.

“I have a difficult time distinguishing whether ‘Schindler's List' or ‘Saving Private Ryan' is an acceptable form of violence or whether Bugs Bunny and the Road Runner are not,” Powell said on the program “Now with Bill Moyers.” But the chairman, who was appointed by President Bush, added that “I don't know that three of five unelected regulators ought to be the ones making that decision for the public.”

Well, if "recent case law" is used to make a decision here, I would expect the FCC to have to fine ABC and the affiliates. Jeff Jarvis, who is all about the FCC needing a laissez faire attitude, took an interesting tact today in filing a complaint against ABC today, for one reason, and one reason only - to make the FCC have to do things consistently. I'm just bummed that he only dropped two f-bombs in the complaint, frankly.

Love it or hate it, there's one thing that must happen here - the FCC needs to be clear and consistent. Of course I don't want them infringing on my ability to change the channel, but what can you do.

On Friday, Barrington Broadcasting Company announced the acquisition of KRCG-TV out of Missouri. The station, a CBS affiliate, was previously run by Mel Wheeler, Inc. and was the recipient of the 2003 Media Award by the Missouri Community Service Commission. KRCG has also been a CBS affiliate since its inception in 1955. (BW)

Last night I found out about this post at Johnny Dollar's Place regarding Keith Olbermann's coverage of potential election fraud and error on MSNBC's "Countdown" in the last week. Also at the Dollar blog is a post pointing out what appears to be inaccurate information used by Olbermann pertaining to ratings for his show and FOX News' "The O'Reilly Factor." Olbermann quotes an item that was, as far as I can tell, only seen on TVNewser. In it, Bill O'Reilly is quoted as saying that FOX had "9 times" the ratings on Election Day for the 8pm hour, when O'Reilly was actually referring to Wednesday, November 3's ratings. Here is the quote from the Thursday, November 4 episode when O'Reilly was interviewing Bernard Goldberg:

Last night, on the Fox News Channel, at 8 o'clock, the "Factor" time, nine times as many Americans watched us as MSNBC.

Dollar has also posted a QuickTime video and MP3 of the segment.

Does this spell a big problem for Olbermann and MSNBC?

In Boston University's B. U. Bridge, Tim Stoddard writes about the announcement that ABC newsman Ted Koppel, host of "Nightline," will be awarded the school's first ever Hugo Shong Lifetime Journalism Achievement Award on Friday, November 19.

Lost Remote's Steve Safran informs about some ABC affiliates in the U.S. choosing to pre-empt Thursday night's showing of Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" in its entirety. WOI-TV out of Des Moines president Raymond H. Cole said in a statement that "The inconsistent manner in which the FCC is choosing to apply these rules puts TV stations like ours in a most difficult position...We regret that we are not able to broadcast a patriotic, artistic tribute to our fighting forces like Saving Private Ryan."

And WOI isn't the only station declining to broadcast the film. WSB-TV out of Atlanta announced this evening that they would not offer the program "because of ambiguity over the FCCs view of graphic language," choosing to show "encore performances of recent and highly viewed local programs starting at 8 p.m." A few other broadcast companies are still mulling over whether to show the film or not.

Tonight, I have sent emails to the FCC and McGraw-Hill, one of the owners of ABC-affiliated networks. No official statement has been made by the ABC Network at this time, but I would assume there would be some concern if a large percentage of their affiliates did not show the film -- not because they thought it was offensive, but because they were unsure of how the FCC would react.

[Hoover's reports ABC having 225 affiliates and 10 company-owned television stations]

Al Tompkins at Poynter has much more, including additional stations offering "alternative programs." Some stations, such as KRDO-TV out of Colorado Springs firmly state that they will offer the film in its entirety. MSNBC picks up an Associated Press article on the subject, and the poll the site is currently running has 72% of the 394 responses saying "No, it's a great tribute to our veterans" and 22% stating "They shouldn't have to, but with the Janet Jackson incident, they need to be careful."

USA Today's Peter Johnson shares details about Brian Williams, the man who will take hold of the nightly news anchor role on NBC in December. Johnson states that Williams' "plebian interests" such as stock car racing could offer an "everyday person" kind of perception of the newsman. Some might say this could allow him to not only slide right into the highly rated newscast but add some viewers currently looking for a place to stay tuned.

Variety's Pamela McClintock writes about which over-the-air newscast had the best coverage of the election last week.

The futon critic posts about an upcoming interview on ABC's "Primetime" program, where anchorman Peter Jennings interviews former President Bill Clinton "on the eve of the dedication of the William J. Clinton Presidential Center."

WCCO-TV out of Minneapolis, Minnesota, reports on the announcement that Randi Kaye, anchor of the 5pm newscast, has decided to leave the station to pursue an anchor and consumer correspondent role at CNN. Kaye had worked at WCCO, a CBS affiliate, since 1998 - and will stay on board through December 1.

As Charles McCord is doing the 9am newscast on MSNBC right now, I'm assuming that MSNBC is going to stick with Imus for the duration of his show, taking place at Rockefeller Center's Democracy Plaza. Excellent choice, rather than moving on to other programming.

If you're not sure whose coverage to watch on Election Day, this Associated Press item explains what CNN is doing in order to swing interested viewers in their direction.

Big Easy TV is looking for reader suggestions of television folks who might be "on thin ice" at their station as November Sweeps time rolls up.

Baltimore Sun television critic David Zurawick offers details on how the news networks will change how they normally do business in presidential elections for this year's coverage in order to.....get it right.

Tuesday night, viewers will witness what amounts to a philosophical about-face: For the first time in the 56-year history of TV election coverage, the major networks and cable channels covering the presidential vote will aim not to be first.

Kudos to all of them - they should be commended. No need to go back and forth on who they think "may have" won. Get it right, or don't get it at all. I've heard criticism of the plans CBS put forth, but I think they aren't making that bad of a decision - if they don't know by 3am on Wednesday morning who the President is, then it probably isn't going to "break" before the morning news hits.

Jacques Steinberg writes in the New York Times that while the last month of NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw's career might be a celebration and a big moment for the incoming Brian Williams, it's a chance for the other network news shows to grab some viewers.

That transition is expected to touch off a period of anchor shopping among some of the nearly 25 million viewers who still watch the evening news on the broadcast networks each night.

But will it really? Dan Rather and CBS News are having their troubles, and may not be the first choice for viewers who are "shifting" - but can Peter Jennings and ABC Nightly News make some waves? Or will viewers stand pat and stick with Williams?

Friday's New York Daily News has an article by Richard Huff about a recent "slip up" by New York's Channel 4 NBC affiliate. According to the story, NBC featured a corporate sponsor of their Democracy Plaza exhibition, currently inhabiting a good portion of Rockefeller Center, on-screen during a newscast. Of course, showing "sponsors" of the news really isn't legit - NBC states that it was an accident. But it brings about an interesting question - transparency. Obviously there are commercials during television newscasts, and those are generally accepted. But with increased focus on "time shifting" via DVR/PVR technology with regard to other programming, the world of :30 spots is going to change eventually. And unless the news is the only place we're going to see that style of advertising, newscasts will most likely have to accept some sort of change in order to keep their broadcast on the air.

The Associated Press reports Thursday that CNN's "struggling" financial news station, CNNfn, will cease to exist after mid-December. At Lost Remote, Cory Bergman points out that CNNMoney will stay afloat, however.

Today, a friend of mine let me know about an email conversation he had with PBS regarding their political coverage this election season. I've included, with his permission, the details below. Personally, I'm not one who thinks that PBS has that much of a slant to it when it comes to political coverage, but I don't watch much more than "NewsHour" here and there. However, this is the second such suggestion I've been given this week that the station might not be offering such a fair share to both "sides of the story." I'll let you judge for yourself, but please comment (or email) away if you feel the need.

-----Original Message-----
From: Allen, Terry
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:07 PM
To: XXXXXXX
Cc: Zhou, Lina
Subject: programming

Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:

Thank you for writing to Thirteen/WNET New York. We sincerely appreciate comments from our viewers, as we are

committed to presenting a diversity of voices and a wide array of viewpoints through our public affairs programming.

Although I do not find STOLEN HONOR or CELCIUS 41.11 on our list of upcoming programs, I hope you'll agree that all perspectives of election choices are represented in Thirteen's variety of programs such as TUCKER CARLSON: UNFILTERED, JOURNAL EDITORIAL REPORT, THE NEWSHOUR, WASHINGTON WEEK, FRONTLINE, TAVIS SMILEY, CHARLIE ROSE, WALL STREET WEEK and NOW WITH BILL MOYERS-not to mention such notables as INDEPENDENT LENS, P.O.V., and FRONTLINE/WORLD.

We understand that not all viewers will agree with any single program's point of view, which is one reason why Thirteen provides hundreds of hours of public affairs programming each year. Our schedule offers a diverse variety of perspectives; we do hope that you will continue to watch Thirteen/WNET, and find programs that you enjoy.

Again, we appreciate your interest, and look forward to your ongoing support.

Sincerely,

Terry Allen

Manager, Member & Viewer Relations

-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXXXXX
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:27 AM
To: EdOnline Account
Cc: XXXXXXXXX
Subject: Donation question re: programming
Importance: High

I see you ran and are about to run several anti-Bush programs, including last night's "Rumsfeld's War". Are there any plans to run programs showing the other perspective, say "Stolen Honor" or "Celsius 41.11"?

Just want to know before making my next donation.

XXXXXXXX

Well, seems like Ashlee Simpson is the talk of the town on Sunday, and I expect Monday will bring even more discussion on the topic once the folks who manage to leave the Internet alone on the weekend get back in the saddle. Found a good posting on AngryCountry.com, where Michael Allison made a fascinating suggestion:

My solution is a simple one... but it will not be popular with the untalented artists and unscrupulous promoters of the world: Concerts and television broadcasts should be required to specify when a performance is not LIVE both vocally and visually. I've been sitting here for twenty minutes trying to figure out a politically correct and kind phrase to serve as the disclaimer for this new rule, but so far I've come up empty. No one is going to warn viewers or concert attendees that their performance is going to be lip-synched. Perhaps they could label it a "dramatic performance" which would at least admit that they are 'acting' like singers, without actually singing.

Not a bad idea, although I assume we'd have problems in that all artists would clearly state that they do sing, live, when the show is recorded. Unfortunately, we all know that what we hear isn't necessarily just their "live" voices.

Lots more here in the original post.

Oh, and remember - it's not lip synching - it's a "vocal guide."

Spin, spin I tell you!

You know you've made it when your name, Ashlee Simpson, becomes a Google Bomb just waiting to happen.

If you haven't already heard, pop singer Ashlee Simpson had a bit of difficulty last night during her performance on Saturday Night Live. You've got to watch the video for yourself, but the gist is that she is up on stage with her band, and the music starts playing in the background - with her voice included - before she or her band are ready to go... Leaving her to do only one thing, of course - walk off stage as the show goes to commercial.

Check it out here for .avi format or here for .wmv format.

[via MetaFilter]

[update] Drudge leads us to this article by Greg Wilson at the New York Daily News. My favorite part of this whole thing is the end, when Simpson "blamed her band for playing the wrong song" - yeah, the wrong song that the band was standing their listening to without playing their instruments. Talk about horrorshow.

Over at Blogcritics, Eric Olsen makes some great points and wonders why Simpson didn't just take better control of the situation.

Defamer has more, including this remix a la "Benny Hill" and Robert Stribley asking "if that'll be a career ender?"

[update 5:30pm] The Ashlee Simpson official site has some interesting discussion going on in the forums.

On MeFi, Trik just posted a link to a site where the videos can now be seen, as they original .avi and .wmv files seem to be down. Check them out here at Contemporary Insanity. Hell, the whole MeFi thread is worth reading at least once, so go do it.

Rumors are abound about Ashlee Simpson's scheduled performance tomorrow at the Radio Music Awards in Las Vegas. And considering she's considered in the top acts being promoted in this press release, that's a big deal. I'm actually more curious to see if NBC would have her on air again just two days later after this SNL situation.

The f.u.b.a.r. forums have an amusing tidbit of information. Simpson isn't a big fan of lip synching, just so you know. "I'm totally against it and offended by it. I'm going out to let my real talent show, not to just stand there and dance around. Personally, I'd never lip-synch. It's just not me." This is a quote she apparently shared with Lucky magazine, though I haven't been able to find it online yet.

[update 6:49pm] Let the capitalism begin!

The unofficial SNL forums are still rocking.

CNN/Money has an article Thursday by Krysten Crawford, who reports that while some advertisers on ABC's hit "Desperate Housewives" have either jumped ship or are thinking about it due to pressure from family groups, the show isn't going anywhere. Keep this in mind - according to Crawford, "there's even a waiting list for show sponsors."

Philly.com's Oliver Prichard has details on comments made last night by Arizona Senator John McCain about media consolidation, specifically relating to Sinclair Broadcast Group.

agencyfaqs! has a story about the success of television's Cartoon Network in India, and how this has led to the network changing how it sells ads. Now, rather than just offering "bulk" advertising rates across the board, they will sell ads based on the ratings of individual blocks of programming, having created four breakdowns of their shows - Blockbuster Toons, Super Toon, Prime Toons and Wonder Toons.

For the last day I've been hearing that FOX News was not reporting on the lawsuit against "O'Reilly Factor" host Bill O'Reilly. I know that O'Reilly himself addressed the situation on his own program, but as far as I can tell, it has yet to enter the on-air news broadcasts on the network.

The Foxnews.com website does have stories posted, including this one from the Associated Press and a copy of O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" from Wednesday, October 13 here.

Thursday night, "60 Minutes" creator Don Hewitt spent some time on FOX News will Bill O'Reilly to discuss the "memogate" situation and how he would have handled things had he still been working on the program for CBS. Hewitt confirms that he was never asked what he thought about the memos before they ran on "60 Minutes Wednesday," and that the story never would have ran on his watch.

More importantly, he asks "Do you put [CBS anchor Dan Rather] on the air election night with this cloud hanging over him?"

The RatherBiased guys have the whole story, transcript and all, here.

[update] You can also see the video of the interview here, also courtesy of RatherBiased.com.

The Media Research Center reports Tuesday that a story that ran on NBC Nightly News last night featured Tom Brokaw speaking in front of an image of President Bush on a stage with the letters "ILIE" behind him. The letters were part of the word "FAMILIES," but the rest of the word was cropped out of the image for space and/or covered by the president. At the moment, the MRC's website is bogged down from a deluge of visitors (most likely from the Drudge Report), but you can view the image here at Free Republic.

Ordinarily this would probably get blown off, but since there are an extra million eyeballs (or so) focused on the news media this election season, someone snagged it and pointed it out. And it probably still wouldn't be such a huge story, had NBC not been so behind an investigation into a similar situation in 2000, when an advertisement run by the Bush campaign had the letters "RATS" on the screen as part of the word "BUREAUCRATS" when referring to Al Gore's campaign.

In a BusinessWire press release Tuesday, it was announced that WTVO out of Rockford, Illinois, was sold by Young Broadcasting Inc. to Scranton, Pennsylvania-based Mission Broadcasting, Inc. for just under $21 million. According to comments made by Mission's President, David Smith, it appears that the station will continue operating as is, although there is no word on whether it will stay as an affiliate of ABC.

On Monday, Steven Clemons at The Washington Note posted about a firsthand account of a statement made by Michael Moore about his experience with the National Guard memos that have been a big headache for CBS News. In front of a crowd this weekend at the University of Central Arkansas, Moore explained that the documents were offered to him while he was working on "Fahrenheit 9/11," he chose not to use them. RatherBiased.com spoke with a member of the staff at the university, who confirmed the original report and reiterated that Moore had turned down the documents after using a "three-tiered-system of fact checking."

I would expect Moore to be questioned further by the press this week on this subject. Plus, I'm getting a big kick out of Little Green Footballs taking Moore's word for it.

The American Journalism Review's Carl Sessions Stepp writes an excellent piece describing the ins and outs of not-for-profit newsgathering and reporting groups, including PBS' "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," NPR and the St. Petersburg Times. The major theme I got out of it was that staffers don't seem to be worried about covering certain stories, companies, or individuals because of corporate interests or beliefs. While these organizations may not be breaking story after story, they appeal to a segment of the population that is looking for solid reporting and quality journalism. And from the reactions of various members of the "NewsHour" program, they feel that the manner in which they are able to gather information and present a story is much more real than what they had done while working at their for-profit previous employers. For instance:

Terence Smith, "The NewsHour's" media correspondent, joined the show after 13 years at CBS. He says ratings and resource issues dominated meetings at his former network. "The editorial meetings weren't editorial at all. They never had time to talk about how to cover the news. From the day I came here, the talk was about the news, what's in the news, what ought to be on the show."

Obviously using CBS as an example is probably not so keen these days, but it was the best quote in the article - when editorial meetings have nothing to do with the content to be covered, there's a problem. This reiterates a point I made on Sunday, that "it's better to get the news right the first time rather than concentrate only on being first."

Deepikaglobal.com features an article entitled "Broadcast media needs to dwell on falling standards, sensationalism" on Sunday. By the looks of it, it seems like the media halfway around the globe is having the same issues the news media has in the United States - competition has led to lackluster reporting and newsworthiness. The words used in the article sum it up perfectly - "trivialisation and sensationalism" - it's better to get the news right the first time rather than concentrate only on being first, right?

Rathergate.com posts about a request made to CBS brass by the station manager of WBTV, a CBS affiliate in Charlotte, North Carolina. According to a story on Charlotte.com, the manager asked that Dan Rather be suspended until the investigation is completed into the "memogate" situation at CBS News.

[via Little Green Footballs]

On Monday, NBC announced that Conan O'Brien would be taking the helm of the "Tonight Show" in 2009 when current host Jay Leno is set to leave. I had originally wondered if O'Brien would be asked to go to Burbank to host the show there. Ask, and ye shall receive - the Observer's Joe Hagan writes that this will be the case.

[via Jossip]

Amid reports that longtime New York-area news anchor Ernie Anastos has signed (or will sign) a big deal to move from CBS2 to FOX 5 to work alongside Rosanna Scotto, current co-anchor Len Cannon has left the building, Big Easy TV writes. According to the New York Post, Cannon left the station in a not-so-smooth transition, especially since Anastos is not yet on-air - or even employed by the station.

Over at Rathergate.com and Little Green Footballs there is speculation that CBS is attempting to "cover up" their mis- or non-identification of an interviewee in a segment about the draft potentially coming back in play if President Bush is re-elected. The evidence being used is this article on the CBS News website that "accompanies" the television story. The item, however, is not a transcript at all, and is merely a story about the topic in print form. Whether or not it has been edited I cannot prove or disprove at this time, but the following is the transcript of the story, obtained directly from CBS News this evening.

Schlesinger/Karas/ CSM MCENENY Eve News

Nat sot: Beverly At The Crossing

Beverly Cocco has spent most of her life protecting children in
Philadelphia.

More nat sot:

She spends most of her time worrying about other people's kids... but as
Election Day approaches, it's her own two grown sons who Beverly is most
worried about.

4918 I GO TO BED EVERY NIGHT AND I PRAY AND I ACTUALLY GET SICK TO MY
STOMACH.. I'M VERY WORRIED 4922 I'M SCARED. I'M ABSOLUTELY SCARED, I'M
PETRIFIED 4926

Beverly is petrified about a military draft...and she's not alone. There's
an undercurrent of anxiety...mass e-mails are circulating among parents
worried their kids could be called up.

But neither President Bush, nor John Kerry has said he will re-institute the
draft. In fact they both say...they won't.

SOT: Kerry3402 I WILL GIVE US A FOREIGN POLICY THAT ABSOLUTELY MAKES IT
UNNECESSARY TO HAVE A DRAFT FOR THIS COUNTRY 3407

(graphix)
Kerry says he'll try to get allies of the U.S. to send troops that could
relieve AMERICAN soldiers IN iRAQ.

(graphix)
The administration says THAT is pure fantasy. The president wants to train
more IRAQI troops to take over for the Americans. And he says despite the
war on terror there will be no draft.

Bush 1304 THE WAR ON TERROR WILL CONTINUE, IT'S GONNA TAKE A WHILE AND NO,
WE DON'T NEED A DRAFT 1308

But Beverly's not buying it. She's a republican, but also a single issue
voter.

4430 (rj) WOULD YOU VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT? (bev) ABSOLUTELY 4432 I WOULD VOTE
FOR HOWDIE DOODY IF I THOUGHT IT WOULD KEEP MY BOYS HOME AND SAFE 4436

In fact there are at least 3 votes in this house riding on the draft.
Beverly's and her sons' Carmen and Nick.

5855 (rj) ARE YOU GUYS WORRIED ABOUT BEING DRAFTED? (both nod--nick says)
YEAH 5859
(close up nick)
5920 IT'S THE TALK. THE TALK'S THERE. 5922 THOUGH PEOPLE AREN'T ACTUALLY
COMING OUT AND SAYING IT, IT'S THERE 5927

What worries the Coccos is the continuing need for more troops in dangerous
places. And the machinery for a draft is already in place. All men have to
register when they turn 18. The Director of Selective Service...believes he
could start drafting people quickly.

SOT: JacK MARTIN.Selective Service: I THINK WE COULD DO IT IN LESS THAN SIX
MONTHS IF WE GOT THE CALL.

On Camera: THIS TIME THERE WOULD BE NO LONG DEFERMENTS FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS.
AND A LOT MORE PEOPLE COULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE DRAFT THAN BEFORE. MEN AND
WOMEN AGE 18 TO 26 COULD BE CALLED UP. THERE HASN'T BEEN A DRAFT SINCE 1973
BUT THAT'S MUCH COMFORT TO BEVERLY COCO.

So she is keeping a sharp eye on the political traffic...She's a Bush
supporter today...but if she doesn't like what she hears between now and
November...she could easily cross over.

At no point does it say anything about the "People Against the Draft" organization, and is the official transcript of the program. The article is not.

[update: 9/30 6:57am] Daily Dose of Mayo posts a link to the it seems that the original article (not transcript), which did not originally have the "People Against the Draft" - you can see the cache here. Changing news stories is something that happens all the time - though some outlets post when they last updated. (via a comment on Rathergate)

[update: 9/30 1:39pm] Bill at INDC Journal posts interviews he did with members of the CBS News staff on the subject. Misleading doesn't begin to describe how these stories are beginning to appear. [Via Outside the Beltway]

RatherBiased.com, plagued with server troubles yet again, doesn't fail to bring yet another scoop to the 'net. Last night (and updated this morning) they reported that an item on CBS News about suspicions that Selective Service will reinstitute a military draft if President Bush was re-elected was based on....more "sources" that aren't exactly clean.

Thanks to Rathergate.com for helping out with hosting RBDC's postings - they're also responsible for setting up a way to support RatherBiased's needs, which have increased based on the interest these latest CBS News stories have garnered. They've stepped up big here, so if you would like to help out, drop by their site and donate some funds.

Power Line has more, including a statement from Selective Service that says it is "not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces."

CNN reports Tuesday afternoon that producer Riad Ali was released after being held for almost 24 hours by a group who appear to oppose Israeli rule, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Ali had been kidnapped at gunpoint on Monday in Gaza City.

Steve Hall at Adrants leads us to a story about Nielsen Media Research making a new level of detail available in its ratings - minute by minute stats. This, of course, makes figuring out commercial viewership a little bit easier - but not perfect - because, as Hall points out, it's still "minute by minute" - and most commercials still fall into the 30 second timeframe.

The Wichita Eagle's Alan Bjerga informs about a bill currently making its rounds through Washington's lawmakers that would significantly increase single station indecency fines - by ten times. Bjerga writes that the bill, sponsored by Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, is "poised to become law" and is just one of multiple efforts currently being raised in order to combat indecency on television broadcasts. But the most interesting thing I found was another technological advance that goes beyond the "V-Chip" - but could have bigger implications.

Companies are working on technology that would code scenes from programs for content. If a parent programmed a television to delete certain content, the screen would go blank during that scene.

I would question whether this is any better than the "V-Chip" technology currently being underutilized by parents - if that is too much of a hassle to use, then why would a parent start using something that chopped up programming?

Rory O'Connor asks Don Hewitt, the creator of CBS News' "60 Minutes" program, what he thought about the show going forward with the memos at the center of the latest media controversy before they could be independently confirmed. While Hewitt isn't saying much about what he would have done and hasn't shared his opinion about the validity of the memos themselves, there is something curious about it - it seems that no one at CBS News even asked him a thing about the story. And why is it that O'Connor was told that Hewitt "wasn't around much" and that there was no direct extension for him - just minutes before he got a direct line and reached the former executive producer on the telephone? Surely they're not trying to hide Hewitt from talking to the press about this situation, are they?

And yes, I know he isn't the producer of the show any longer - but he still works at CBS, and could still be used "behind the scenes" as another person to bounce ideas off of, right?

Yesterday, the Center for Creative Voices in Media announced that the FCC will be directed form new guidelines regarding the broadcast of independently produced and locally-focused programming, which many groups feel is lacking. In August, an op-ed ran in the Seattle Times that asked the FCC for more programming to be broadcast that fit the public interest as a whole. The FCC seems to agree with the op-ed's sentiments, taking the stance that the ability to broadcast is a right granted by the public (the government, in this case), and that broadcasters should have to serve the public interest as part of their "fee" for their licenses.

The hits just keep on coming...

The New York Observer's Joe Hagan has details on another situation that will surely not make CBS News look good in the public eye. This time around, Hagan reports, the network was found to have been using a "rogue soldier," Jonathan Idema, to provide them with stories from deep inside Afghanistan. But that's not the problem - it seems that Idema was arrested last July for operating a private jail - which CBS employees reportedly knew about but continued to use him as an "on the ground" operative for some time before his arrest. The network claims that they had no prior knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Idema's actions, however.

Even if CBS employees weren't involved in the videotaping or situation in Afghanistan, this story does one important thing - adds to a particular pattern of behavior. Since we live in a time when the term "vetted" is now part of the public's lexicon, and not just that of speechwriters and journalist-types, I suppose it would be fair to point out that this just adds to the criticism of the network overall. They are either doing a very poor job of checking backgrounds on their sources, or they are running with material they know might be sketchy, in order to keep up with the Joneses - i.e. the rest of the news organizations. And while the latter is probably not the case, it shouldn't be left out of the realm of possibilities - the network's ratings haven't exactly been stellar over the last few years, including a 10% drop since this time in 2003, the Chicago Tribune's John Cook writes.

And to continue the thread, check out this item at RatherBiased.com, with more details about the goings on at CBS and parent company Viacom.

Over at Adrants, Steve Hall points out that at least one media consultant suspects that advertisers may take some of their spending away from CBS in the wake of "memogate," according to this article by Paul Tharp at the New York Post.

Straight from CBS' press release, here are the details on the independent panel chosen to investigate the "60 Minutes Wednesday" situation.

THE HON. DICK THORNBURGH AND LOUIS D. BOCCARDI TO COMPRISE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL EXAMINING CBS NEWS "60 MINUTES" WEDNESDAY REPORT

The Honorable Dick Thornburgh, former governor of Pennsylvania and United States attorney general under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and Louis D. Boccardi, retired president and chief executive officer of the Associated Press, will comprise the independent review panel that will examine the process by which a recent 60 MINUTES Wednesday report was prepared and broadcast.

The Sept. 8 broadcast reported that President George W. Bush had received favorable treatment to enter the Texas Air National Guard and had not fulfilled all of the Guard's requirements. CBS News acknowledged this week that it cannot prove the authenticity of disputed memos featured in the report and that, therefore, it was a mistake to use them.

Two days ago, CBS News and CBS announced the commissioning of an independent review to help determine what errors occurred in the preparation of the report and what actions need to be taken. The two-person review panel will commence its work this week and will have full access and complete cooperation from CBS News and CBS, as well as all of the resources necessary to complete the task. The panel will report its findings to CBS News and CBS. The findings also will be made public.

Thornburgh was elected governor of Pennsylvania in 1978 and served two successive terms in that office. He was attorney general of the United States for three years in the cabinets of Presidents Reagan and Bush (1988-1991). All told, Thornburgh served in the Justice Department under five presidents, including as U.S. Attorney in Pittsburgh (1969-75) and Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division (1975-77). Under his direction, the Department of Justice obtained a record number of convictions of savings and loan and securities officials, defense contractors and corrupt public officials. In August 2002, Thornburgh was appointed Examiner in the WorldCom bankruptcy proceedings, the largest ever filed, to report on wrongdoing and malfeasance that led to the company's downfall. He also served as Under-Secretary-General at the United Nations (1992-93) and as a consultant to the U.N. and the World Bank on efforts to battle fraud and corruption. Thornburgh is counsel to Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP, which will assist in the independent investigation.

Boccardi retired from the Associated Press in 2003 as president and chief executive officer after a 36-year career there, including the last 18 years in that position and 10 years as executive editor. He oversaw the launching of APTN, the world's largest video news service, and the creation of The WIRE, AP's multimedia internet site. Boccardi has also taken a leading role within the news industry on critical First Amendment and freedom of the press issues, as well as challenges to credibility and readership. In 1990, he was elected a fellow of the Society of Professional Journalists, the highest honor awarded by the organization to journalists, and a Distinguished Service Member of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Boccardi is also the recipient of the William Allen White Foundation Award for Journalistic Merit and the Overseas Press Club Lifetime Achievement Award. He is a retired member and former chairman of the Pulitzer Prize board.

While I expect most of the criticism to be surrounding the fact that there are two people appointed, it's not necessarily such a bad thing. You have one person who has government and legal experience, and another who has an excellent background in the media. A solid combination, in my estimation. Now, let's see what they come up with.

[update 5:51pm] Well, resumes might be one thing, but Kevin at Wizbang! has some details that might detract from the value that these investigators might bring to the table...

Below you will find the transcript from Monday's CBS Evening News segment where anchor Dan Rather discussed today's announcement about the "disputed documents" the network aired almost two weeks ago on the "60 Minutes Wednesday" program.

DAN RATHER: Now, news about CBS News and the questions surrounding documents we aired on this broadcast and on the Wednesday edition of "60 Minutes" on September 8th. The documents purported to show that George W. Bush received preferential treatment during his years in the Texas Air National Guard.

At the time, CBS News and this reporter fully believed the documents were genuine. Tonight, after further investigation, we can no longer say that.

The documents were provided to CBS News by a former commander in the Texas National Guard, Bill Burkett. He did not come to us. We went to him -- and asked him for the documents. Burkett is well known in National Guard circles for a long battle over his medical benefits and for trying -- for several years now -- to discredit President Bush's military service record.

Burkett initially told CBS News he got the documents from a fellow GUARDSMAN. But, when we interviewed Burkett this past weekend, he changed his story and told us he got the documents from a different source one we cannot verify.

WHY did Burkett tell CBS News something he now says is not true? We put the question to him.

(TRACK UP)

RATHER: "WHY DID YOU MISLEAD US?"

BILL BURKETT: "WELL, I DIDN'T TOTALLY MISLEAD YOU. I MISLED YOU ON THE ONE INDIVIDUAL. YOU KNOW YOUR STAFF PRESSURED ME TO A POINT TO REVEAL THAT SOURCE."

RATHER: "WELL, WE WERE TRYING TO GET THE CHAIN OF POSSESSION."

BURKETT: "I UNDERSTAND THAT."

RATHER: "AND YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED THEM FROM SOMEONE."

BURKETT: "I UNDERSTAND THAT."
(More...)

CBS News...2

RATHER : "WE DID PRESSURE YOU TO SAY WELL, YOU RECEIVED THEM FROM SOMEONE..."

BURKETT: "YES."

RATHER: "AND IT'S TRUE. WE PRESSURED YOU BECAUSE IT WAS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT."

BURKETT: "YES...."

RATHER: "FOR US."

BURKETT: "AND I SIMPLY THREW OUT A NAME THAT WAS BASICALLY I GUESS TO TAKE A LITTLE PRESSURE OFF FOR A MOMENT."

RATHER: "HAVE YOU FORGED ANYTHING?"

BURKETT: "NO SIR."

RATHER: "HAVE YOU FAKED ANYTHING?"

BURKETT: "NO SIR."

RATHER: "BUT YOU DID MISLEAD US."

BURKETT: "YES, I MISLED."

RATHER: "YOU-- YOU LIE-YOU"

BURKETT: "YES, I DID."

RATHER: "YOU LIED TO US. NOW, IF YOU WOULD MISLEAD US ABOUT THAT, WHICH IS CRITICAL, RIGHT, A NEXUS OF THIS, WHY WOULD I OR ANYONE BELIEVE THAT YOU WOULDN'T MISLEAD US ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE?"

BURKETT: "I COULD UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION. I CAN'T-- THAT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE YOUR JUDGMENT AND ANYBODY ELSE'S."

(VOICE OVER)

BURKETT STILL INSISTS THE DOCUMENTS ARE REAL, BUT NOW SAYS HE WAS IN NO POSITION TO VERIFY THEM.

BURKETT: "I ALSO INSISTED WHEN I SAT DOWN WITH YOUR STAFF IN THE FIRST FACE TO FACE SESSION, BEFORE I GAVE UP ANY DOCUMENTS, I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT YOU WERE GONNA SO WITH THEM. AND I INSISTED THAT THEY BE AUTHENTICATED."

RATHER: The failure of CBS News to do just that -- to properly, fully scrutinize the documents AND their source -- led to our airing the documents when we should not have done so. It was a mistake CBS News deeply regrets. Also, personally and directly, I am sorry. CBS News President Andrew Heyward has ordered an independent investigation to examine the process by which the report was prepared. The results of that investigation WILL be made public. This was an error made in good faith as we tried to carry on the CBS News tradition of asking tough questions and investigative reporting. But, it was a mistake.

Over at the Mudville Gazette, commenter "mcg" has a good point - Burkett was not a member of the Texas Air National Guard, but the Army Guard.

Jeff Jarvis is expected to be on Deborah Norville's MSNBC show tonight.

From the world of people who start blogging well before I've even woken up comes this post from Michele at A Small Victory. She has a couple good points in a roundup of a few bloggers' takes on today's Jim Rutenberg article in the New York Times, "CBS News Concludes It Was Misled on National Guard Memos, Network Officials Say."

In Michele's post, she blockquotes Allahpundit, who asks if there is a way "a single known crackpot like [Bill] Burkett could have perpetrated a giant hoax upon the entire CBS News division using ridiculously amateurish forgeries?" Allah also says that "the RatherBiased guys will disagree with me and say that yes, Dan Rather really is that stupid and blind with Bush-hatred." While I understand that Allah might feel that the RBDC folks might believe it's a one-man job, I don't think they're one to miss facts. If the "sinister cabal" concept comes up here, it won't be ignored. But to be honest, haven't stranger things happened? Could an entire news division be duped by a bunch of forged documents given to them by one person? I don't see why not. Plus, you wouldn't have to dupe the whole organization, only the people in decision making positions. Hell, we still have news outlets picking up stories that originated in The Onion to this day!

I will say, however, that it is probably unlikely that one person is involved here on the documents front. That's my belief, and probably one that is shared by a lot of people familiar with the situation.

The Arizona Republic's Max Jarman covers the ways in which Cox Communications - the big cable television provider in the Phoenix area - is trying to "stop the bleeding" with relation to the loss of customers to satellite providers over the last few years.

Conservative columnist Doug Schmitz asks whether CBS News anchor Dan Rather's current situation was only caused because the newsman thought that he should make "one last smear against President Bush before the 2004 election."

James Joyner posts the item first seen on Drudge. Referring to the Air National Guard memos that have been talk of the town for the last few days, CBS News boss Andrew Heyward says "given all the questions about them, we believe we should redouble our efforts to answer those questions, so that's what we are doing."

RatherBiased has more, posted at 6:16 - Dan Rather interview with WCBS reporter offered to affiliates.

Jeff Quinton is providing color - and play-by-play for those of us not in front of a television.

Still no statement via email from CBS media relations.

After watching an episode of NBC's "Fear Factor," Cobb wonders "how this qualifies as entertainment?"

Well, that all depends on what your definition of "entertainment" is, now doesn't it? I think shows like this are absolute scientific proof that the days of the lions eating men in the Colosseum are not so far gone.

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent free item up today by Alan Murray, in which Murray details the manner in which newspapers showed their partisan flags over one hundred years ago -- but began to change their tune. Quoting economic historian Claudia Goldin, Murray states that the papers began to drop their flags as the early 1900's came about, mostly "in order to expand their readership."

Even without reading the article, you're probably asking "Well, why does it seem that the media has reverted?" -- which is definitely the $10,000 question. Murray comments that it is "consumers who are choosing news sources that support their own biases," and he's right - but this still doesn't answer the question - why have the outlets begun to lean one way or another? Even if it's minimal, a news outlet can begin to have a tone towards one political attribute by covering a story in a certain way or by not covering a story in its daily newscast or in print. So is it possible that the reader- / viewer- / listenership of various media can grab hold of an outlet as a collective and "mold" it, in effect, so it resonates more with the group?

Interested in seeing how a regional area's television news is covered all in one place, then be sure and check out Big Easy TV, whose header says it all: "COVERING TV NEWS IN NEW ORLEANS, BATON ROUGE, JACKSON, HATTIESBURG, BILOXI, MOBILE, MONTGOMERY AND BIRMINGHAM"

That's a pretty big swath to cover, but the site seems to have a decent mix of sports, news and station information posted on a regular basis. And if Hurricane Ivan comes storming towards New Orleans as it looks to be doing right now, look for this site to have a wealth of information and resources - if the writer(s) aren't forced to leave town!

Thanks to Max Black for the link.

The Brownsville Herald has an article by Monica Wolfson about the television viewing habits of Texans on Saturday. Wolfson immediately points out a huge number of viewers who state that what is typically considered "somewhat objectionable content" is on way too much for their tastes. Also indicated is a shift in viewership, with almost half of respondents to a poll done by Scripps Howard stating that they watch less television than they did just five years ago. But do the actual television ratings agree with these assessments? The article seems to say they might not.

Dawn Chmielewski writes in a piece Thursday in the San Jose Mercury News that both ReplayTV and TiVo will meet "restrictions" requested by movie studios and television broadcasters as to how long pay-per-view programming can be kept on DVRs. Chmielewski provides the following information from TiVo's associate general counsel, Max Ochoa.

Their television screen will display warnings that a pay-per-view movie a viewer is about to rent comes with certain restrictions. The limitations are the trade-off for advanced services, such as video-on-demand, he said.

While there are definitely concerns when it comes to piracy, I think there will definitely be some sort of backlash by way of consumer purchases of PPV events and movies. It might be minor, but I believe it will cause people to record certain things less than they may right now. Then again, I am a big fan of laughing about the fact that Interpol is noted in the pre-DVD countdown right now, so perhaps warnings won't scare anyone off.

Still following the possibly false documents thread...

EconoPundit Steve Antler compares the memo's letters to some IBM Selectric information, and comes out with an answer.

Also - Power Line discusses Dan Rather's pronouncement earlier today that the documents are the real deal.

Lastly, RatherBiased posts details from an email exchange with ex-CBS guy Bernard Goldberg.

Matt Drudge posted Thursday night that an internal investigation is on within CBS News as to whether memos used on-air this week regarding President Bush's attendance at Air National Guard meetings & training were fraudulent.

[update: 4:06pm] RatherBiased.com just reported that CBS has formally announced that no internal investigation is taking place.

RatherBiased.com has an item up about Wednesday night's "60 Minutes" program where Dan Rather discussed the time that President Bush was allegedly not present for his Air National Guard training and meetings. According to the piece, documents that are used as the basis for discussing Bush's whereabouts may be forgeries. The culprit? Superscript text that wasn't the norm at the time - not impossible - but not typically used.

And if it comes off as peculiar to you, then check out this report at CNSNews.com and this one at Powerline. Matt Drudge has them up at the top of his site right now. All three seem to have been done independently.

[update] Charles Johnson at LGF has some good stuff, too - I wasn't able to access his site for most of the afternoon, post-Drudge linkage spillover I'm guessing

[update: 5:55pm] Kevin Drum comments on the memos, stating that a contact of his at CBS said that the network is "very, very sure of itself on this."

If you're interested to see what happens this season on "Jeopardy," where current champ Ken Jennings continues his reign of terror over the A&Q show, then check out this post by Jason Kottke. I won't say any more.

[via Defamer]

(more in the extended entry if you've already read Kottke's post)

I'm curious to see what this does to the ratings for the show over the next month or so. I remember reading that the last batch of episodes from last season had garnered big numbers, somewhere around 50% higher than normal. If this news were to get bigger than just the blogosphere in the next day, will the ratings plummet since people know that he's going to lose in a few weeks? Or, is it possible that the 75th episode he takes part in grab a big number, even though people know he's going to lose - the "car crash" mentality? In any case, "Jeopardy" has surely scored when it comes to advertising on the program, and I expect that at least the next couple weeks are sold off as well. So maybe the dollars are already in the networks' pockets.

PressThink's Jay Rosen speculates Thursday evening about the concept that networks could make "exclusive" deals with the political parties to televise the National Conventions every four years.

My response: Why would they do such a thing - and who does it benefit, other than the "exclusive" network?

Rosen compares the situation with the conventions to the Academy Awards and the Olympics - backing it up by bringing up the "long transformation of the conventions into message festivals that are also entertainment events." Entertainment? Perhaps the "talking head" fests that go on pre/post actual speech coverage would be considered entertainment, but the rest of it certainly isn't. If it were "entertainment," why would ABC, CBS, NBC lessen their overall coverage due to "declining news value and interest?" Hell, the nets need "entertainment" in the worst way. But yes, I understand - they feel that just covering speeches, etc., doesn't gain them any share from the cable/satellite news stations that have tons of coverage all day long, talk shows surrounding it, etc.

But placing FOX with the Republicans and CNN with the Democrats is on one hand kind of funny, and another hand kind of unfortunate. For one, you'll have much more accusation of bias in the coverage of the events. People will be claiming "home" coverage left and right, as the "between speech" commentary would only be coming from one station. What's that you say? That the other networks not broadcasting the whole convention could have their talkers there too? Well of course they could. But let's be honest. If you're stacking your coverage on one station, do you REALLY think people are going to flip to Channel X for the commentary and then flip back in order to watch the actual coverage? That's like if Comedy Central ran a show at the same time as the Academy Awards where some folks sat there and waited for awards, and then comedians sat there and ranked on what people were wearing, etc. - but only between award presentations. Ain't gonna happen. CNN may have "led" the ratings for the convention as a whole, but I can't see people sitting on their network the whole time and liking it.

"Ratings would be far higher for a single network." Does that mean if you added up all the shares of the current nets and compared them to what one network would pull in? I'm not so sure about that. As for "ratings," yeah, that works for the Olympics, too. I mean, it's not like there are complaints about how NBC covers the Games every other year, right? The ratings are high in a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of way, and that's all - no merit involved. Wouldn't you rather choose to watch the network that you believe does the best job?

So how would this work, anyway - do the networks "bid" to get the event? Do they pay for it? How do they decide who gets to "win?" Bias lawsuit in a box, if you ask me. What's to stop the network who owns the broadcast rights from stopping bloggers, for instance, from streaming their own video camera of the event over the Internet from the convention floor? It's "televised," isn't it?

Rosen continues to go against the "right to televise" comments that would be expected, still comparing to entertainment events. The Super Bowl and aforementioned Academy Awards are fun. They aren't politically charged (you know what I mean) and important to our overall existence as a nation. If the Super Bowl didn't happen next season, would the world end? (Well, maybe.) If we didn't elect a president this year, would people start flipping out? You bet.

Let's make this go wider, I say. Big hurricane making its way to Florida this week. I kind of like Miami's local NBC affiliate the best, so the other networks can't get footage of press conferences or visits by officials to the area. I'm also announcing that, since they were the first organization to do this properly, WeatherBug has official online rights to publish firsthand data to readers. Sure, other people can write about it later, but WeatherBug gets to do it first.

"Turn to Fox News for Exclusive Coverage of the Republican National Convention." Now doesn't that make more sense?

No.

RatherBiased.com has a story Tuesday about the protestors in New York City for the Republican National Convention - specifically, whether the individuals, signs and gatherings that have been shown on television truly represent what is going on across the city.

Brian Stelter at TVNewser has the video of Chris Matthews being attacked on-air by a protestor tonight on MSNBC.