Open Mic

Howard Stern's an A-Hole—and Why He's the Right Choice To Replace Simon Cowell on 'Idol'

2010-02-09T14:52:12Z

Howard Stern can be a mean-spirited a-hole. No doubt about it.

He is also one of the most brilliant, talented broadcasters I’ve ever heard. No doubt about it.

I don’t subscribe to Sirius Radio, so I have not heard Stern regularly in the past four years.

However, I was a regular listener when he was on free, over-the-air radio.

There were days when I was so upset with him for verbally abusing someone who I didn’t think deserved it that I swore I’d never listen to him again.

But a few days later there I was, again listening and laughing hysterically at something Stern said or at his antics or the antics of his gifted cohorts.

I don’t know Stern personally. Like you, I only know his public persona.

So here’s what I know. Stern is multi-dimensional. He’s colorful (duh) and smart as all get out. Yes, he can go on a rant and mercifully tear apart anyone at anytime. He can do it with some wit and biting humor or he can do it as an a-hole son of a bitch with nothing but verbal sludge and an oral sledgehammer. And while he thinks the latter might be funny and/or entertaining, it almost never comes across that way. At least it never did to me.

So what do I think about him taking over as a judge on “American Idol” when Simon Cowell leaves?

I think Stern would be a dazzling choice.

Before you decide that I’m crazy, go out and rent the movie “Private Parts.” Stern stars in it, based on his autobiography. The book came out in 1993, and the film was released in 1997.

It’s a fun, massively entertaining movie. Stern is terrific playing himself. And let’s credit Betty Thomas with a great job directing Stern and the film. If you only knew Stern from this movie, I don’t think any of you would question that he could take over for Cowell without being an inappropriate foul-mouthed scoundrel. A Simon-like scoundrel yes. And that’s that the show will need.

Stern is no stranger to TV. For many years he was on E!, but that was basically just a partly cleaned up version of his radio show, and still too raunchy for an audience with a lot of kids. And when I lived in New York in the 1990s, Stern had a comedy show on WWOR that I liked, but, again, probably not suitable for the young kid set.

But Stern could do this job, do it well, and be appropriate for kids. And it would pair Stern with a brilliant TV executive who has survived slings and arrows himself, and who I think Stern would respect and listen to: Fox’s Mike Darnell.

Ultimately, if Stern doesn’t take the job—or isn’t seriously offered it—here’s another choice I like:

Darnell himself.

Few may know this, but Mike is very musical. And I don’t know anyone with more smarts about what works on TV. Though he’s known for putting on daring and challenging programming, he may actually be too nice a man to replace Simon. Also, at this point in “Idol’s’ lifespan, it may be essential that Simon be replaced by someone who is more familiar to viewers than Darnell.

Which brings me back to Stern.

I’m a big fan of “Idol.” In our household it’s required viewing for me, my wife, our 14-year-old, our 11-year-old, and our six-year-old. If Stern took the gig I’d have no problem inviting him into our living room.

I can’t tell you the number of times, over the years, when Simon has spoken his mind and has gotten roundly booed—or attacked by the other judges for his opinion—that my wife and my kids have all looked at one another and then looked at me and we all nodded and have said, “Simon’s right.”

Next year I can easily see the new judge getting the same reaction on the show while my family and I all look at each other and say, “Stern’s right."#

Grammy Awards: Highs or Lows, a Tough Year to Top

2010-02-02T20:07:44Z

Where was Kanye West when you needed him? Perhaps he could have mitigated some of the Taylor-phoria at the 52nd annual Grammy Awards, which many people are complaining was more like the Country Music Awards, what with the Zac Brown Brand (who?) winning for best new artist.

And even though West is famous for complaining at award shows, he actually scored some hardware for producing one of my favorite songs of the year, "Run This Town.” Rihanna wasn't even listed as a nominee, but she bolted up on stage with Jay-Z. and his cute little kid to accept the Grammy. So Kanye, you were missed — and congrats on your Grammy.

Whatever was going on in front of the camera in the 3½-hour telecast, audiences were liking it, to the tune of almost 26 million viewers, up about 35% from last year.

It was a big night for pop’s favorite not-really-single lady, Beyonce, although most of her record six Grammys were scored in the non-televised pre-show.

Let's get right down to the best things about the program: the tribute to Michael Jackson, Pink’s Cirque du Soleil-esque performance and some of the duets that rocked the Staples Center stage and small screens everywhere.

The 3-D tribute to Jackson had been hyped before the show, but in order to see it properly, you had to have a pair of glasses from Target, or maybe some you nicked from "Avatar.”

Not living in the vicinity of a Target or willing to make a trip, we had to see it cold, in regular, boring old 2-D. No matter. The staging was beautiful, and the performers (Celine Dion, Carrie Underwood, Smokey Robinson, Jennifer Hudson and Usher) soared in concert with the enviro-lyrics from the late, great King of Pop.

And then came the most touching part of the tribute, Jackson’s kids Prince Michael and Paris taking the stage to accept their dad’s lifetime achievement award. The last time a TV audience saw these pre-teens was on the same stage, at Jackson’s memorial service — and you could feel the audience holding their collective breath, riveted by the sight of the poised brother and sister dressed in dark suits with red armbands. This time, Prince spoke — sounding uncannily like MJ in his delivery — and promised to continue to spread the message of love that was instrumental in his father’s songs.

Can we talk Pink? The pop singer pulled off a similar aerial performance at the recent VMAs, but this was truly spectacular. The nude bodysuit, the white bondage-y outfit — and being aerially dunked in water while spinning in a harness and still singing like an angel. Hard to top.

Another big moment, the inspired pairing of Andrea Bocelli and Mary J. Blige. Bocelli started off singing “Bridge Over Troubled Water” in Italian before Blige joined in and gave the classic Simon & Garfunkel song a sweet R&B twist.

A couple of the other duets weren’t so in sync. Take the show opener — Elton John and Lady Gaga, whose crazy costumes are getting a little tiresome. How long has Elton been pounding the ivories and singing his soul out — more than 35 years? Don’t think her music will have the shelf life of a “Candle in the Wind.” I was distracted by whether she painted her teeth translucent red as part of the apparent monster theme that was many months late for Halloween.

Stephen Colbert — man, you’re great but your monologue really blew. Asking your teenage daughter three times if you were cool was a bit much. (You kind of redeemed yourself when you did pick up the Grammy for best comedy album — and spoon-feeding it on “The Colbert Report” last night was pretty damn funny.)

Oops, the audience voting for what song Bon Jovi would sing was closed to West Coast viewers.

If you were paying close attention — and mine certainly drifted during the ubiquitous and overexposed Black Eyed Peas performance — you somehow realized the Recording Academy had handed out a number of lifetime achievement awards, to music legends like Leonard Cohen, Bobby Darin and Loretta Lynn, but these were mentioned quickly in passing, without even a clip of a song to recognize the artists.

Instead of going to commercial after the “in memoriam” segment, as is traditional, the show went to “Crazy Heart” start Jeff Bridges, apparently now considered a musician. Tough segue.

More program notes:
Quentin Tarantino — you could get a job as a carnival barker. Maybe dial it down a few notches.
Ricky Martin — did you get the heat you asked for twice?
Kaley Cuoco — was your dress on backwards?
Bon Jovi — why did the fan-chosen “Living on a Prayer” only run about 1:30? Always leave them wanting more, I guess.
Beyonce — did you really grab your crotch?
Whichever Jonas brother — do glasses make you look more mature? It kinda worked.
Lionel Richie — can you read the teleprompter a little more smoothly or memorize your intro better? It distracted from the significance of what you were saying.
Kings of Leon — maybe not so many shots before the show next time. This isn’t the Golden Globes.

With all the high and low moments — as Robert Downey Jr. called them, the “gauche festivities” — this will be a tough Grammys to top.

The Case Against—and For—Jeff Zucker

2010-02-01T09:09:05Z

NBC Universal President and CEO Jeff Zucker was a guest on PBS’ “Charlie Rose” show a few weeks ago (Jan. 18th).

Charlie Rose, who has known Zucker for years and has had him on his show periodically since at least 2001, began the interview with this assessment:

“Here is the storyline. You took over as NBC entertainment head in 2000 after being very successful as the executive producer of ‘NBC News.’ Things have gone downhill for NBC, and it’s now in shambles. What is it you want to say about that experience?”

After protesting that Rose’s assessment was unfair to the employees of NBCU, Zucker confessed, “Having said that, we need to be straight that NBC Entertainment in primetime over the last five years has not done well enough. And we have to do better and we have to find bigger, broader, better shows.”

He added, “I always say that NBC Entertainment is responsible for five percent of our bottom line and 95 percent of our perception. And right now that’s about 105 percent of our perception.”

What is clear is that under the leadership of Zucker and Jeff Gaspin, the cable networks of NBCU—including USA, Syfy, Bravo and CNBC, among others—have been stellar contributors to the company’s bottom line.

Concurrently and conversely, by Zucker’s own admission, NBC Entertainment in primetime has been a laggard.

Jeff Zucker on "Charlie Rose" on Jan. 18, 2010

Later in the interview Rose said that some people “say the following things—Jeff [Zucker] is a brilliant tactician and not a great strategist. He came to the job without an understanding of Hollywood but [with] an understanding of news and ‘The Today Show.’ And therefore when you look at those mistakes and you look at this [Jay Leno at 10 p.m. and Conan O’Brien taking over the “Tonight Show” at 11:35 p.m.] mistake, accountability and responsibility might have suggested they needed a new man as head of NBC Universal.

Zucker: Well, look, I will tell you that, again, I think some context is important there. I’m very proud of the job that we’ve done at NBC Universal in the three years that I’ve been in the role [of President and CEO of the company].

And if you look at the scope of what we’re talking about here, again, NBC Entertainment is a tiny piece of the overall company. We’ve had great success in most parts of the company. I think we’ve—

Rose: Except network television.

Zucker: Except network entertainment television.

Rose: Right, which has often been the identifying—

Zucker: Agreed. And that’s why—and I understand that. And I understand that’s why there’s so much angst over this, and I get that. And, frankly, we need to do a better job. And I want to do a better job.

Rose: But at some point if you don’t do better then somebody ought to say "Well, I should turn this over to someone else and somebody else ought to have their hand at it."

Zucker: Well, look, that obviously is for others to decide. But I’m very comfortable with the job that my -- that I and my management team have done over the last three years.

Hmmm....In broad strokes, let's look at Zucker’s performance on the TV side of things with a clear head.

That’s not necessarily easy to do. Up to and including New York Times’ columnist Maureen Dowd’s recent attack on Zucker, more than any other top TV executive in recent years, he has been vilified by the nastiest of anonymous quotes from those in Hollywood. Yes, some of the vitriol has been stated by people in Hollywood on-the-record, but very little, with the excuse that the ones delivering the spiteful spittle have been granted anonymity because they all want to work at NBC Universal at some point.

As regular readers of this blog may recall, I’m a big believer in the KISS concept: Keep it simple and stupid, or, more commonly, Keep it simple, stupid. So let’s apply a KISS approach to this Zucker situation and see if we can come up with a simple solution that makes sense.

By Zucker’s own admission NBC primetime has under-performed for the past five years. The latest disappointment—Leno at 10 p.m.—was also a move destined to fail, as I wrote in my last blog entry.

Zucker is not popular in Hollywood. Most of the charges against him, as I noted, may have been made anonymously, and while that isn’t necessarily fair, it doesn’t make those comments any less heartfelt.

The cable networks, which figure mightily in NBCU’s cash flow and profits, have performed very well under Zucker and one of his top lieutenants, Jeff Gaspin.

Clearly, with Comcast’s approval, Zucker’s contract was renewed at the end of last year for another three years. Part of that, I’d imagine, was basically to keep Zucker—who’s been at NBC for 24 years—in place to shepherd through the regulatory process the sale of the company to Comcast. That is expected to take about a year.

What Comcast needs to do once they take control of the company is a management tweak—as opposed to a major reorg.

And what that tweak needs to be is to take one responsibility away from Zucker and Gaspin: their responsibility for NBC Entertainment. In this instance that means only the TV network and its associated properties. All the cable properties would stay under the purview of Zucker and Gaspin.

Next, appoint a president of NBC Entertainment who has great relationships with the Hollywood community. That person would report directly to Comcast’s Steve Burke, who at one time was president of ABC Broadcasting.

Another idea would be for this president of NBC Entertainment to report to Ron Meyer, the well-respected president and chief operating officer of Universal Studios. But that would be dicey, since Meyer reports to Zucker and the idea here is to take Zucker out of the loop with regard to NBC Entertainment.

Would Zucker go for this? Maybe. At one point in his career he was executive producing, simultaneously, the “Today" show and the “Nightly News” with Tom Brokaw. He later said it was foolhardy to have taken on both responsibilities at the same time, and attributed his attempt to do so as a mistake one makes when one is young. As someone who is older and wiser now, he certainly can see how the idea we propose here makes sense. And lord knows, he’d still be in charge of a ton of important properties that are the real financial drivers of NBCU.

Who should be hired as this new president of NBC Entertainment? Why not throw a lot of money at CBS’ Nina Tassler to do the job. It’s probably doubtful that the she’d jump over to NBC, given her strong ties to CBS chief Leslie Moonves, but I’d be surprised if she wouldn’t love the challenge.

Maybe some of you think Angela Bromstad, who’s currently charged with reviving NBC’s primetime, should be given a shot at the position.

What are some of your choices? How about an agent or former agent—yes Ben Silverman didn’t work out for NBC—but what about someone like his former boss, Sam Haskell, who ran William Morris’ TV department for many years?

Perhaps a showrunner. Or a former showrunner. Would any of the Stevens or Stephens fit the bill? Bochco or Cannell? Or perhaps a Howard Gordon or Damon Lindelof or Katie Jacobs. Robert Greenblatt would be a good choice; so would Chris Albrecht.

I can see you’re getting as excited about this idea as I am. It’s a win-win for NBCU and Comcast. They keep Zucker and Gaspin in the company doing what they do best , and bring a fresh face to NBC that Hollywood would welcome, let alone viewers and the media, all of whom will otherwise continue to deride NBC from now until they find some long-lasting hits—which have been hard to come by for the peacock network these last five years.

Is this the best idea since Johnny Carson was chosen to replace Jack Paar, or the worst one since, well, the Leno/Conan debacle?#

Jeff Gaspin’s Hollywood Blind Spot and Why the Leno/Conan Plan Was Destined to Fail

2010-01-27T22:50:10Z

Jeff Gaspin is a likable man.

Furthermore, Gaspin comes across as a particularly forthcoming high-ranking TV executive, not as ego-protective as many in similar positions.

As we’ve noted here before , at a recent gathering earlier this month of those of us who cover the TV beat, he gave us a pretty detailed chronological account of the Jay Leno/Conan O’Brien latenight situation.

At the gathering, known as the TCA tour, Gaspin said the reason for coming up with the plan for putting Leno at 11:30 p.m., followed by Conan just after midnight was based on the fact NBC was facing an affiliate revolt, and the desire to keep both Leno and Conan at NBC. That revolt had to do with the ratings for "The Jay Leno Show" at 10 p.m. being so low that it was hurting the ratings of local affiliates' late newscasts. Thus, Gaspin said, a significant number of TV stations were threatening to pre-empt the Leno program.

Now, with Conan out of the building , Gaspin's added that the other reason he wanted to shake-up latenight is that Conan’s ratings were nowhere near what Leno’s were for most of the years that Leno hosted “The Tonight Show.”

In fact, Gaspin told James Hibberd of The Hollywood Reporter’s Live Feed blog, in a separate interview the other day, that “I did want to keep both [Leno and O’Brien]. But if you look at the business of it as a practical matter, when I knew I was going to have to make a change at 10 p.m., I looked at the facts. "The Tonight Show With Conan O'Brien" was (anticipated) to lose many millions of dollars at 11:35 p.m. If you looked at the ratings, affiliates were down 14%, ‘The Tonight Show’ was down 49% -- this is year-to-year for full fourth quarter. As a practical matter, it made sense to try and come up with some other formula for late-night.”

Let’s leave aside the argument some have made that O’Brien needed more time to build a bigger audience, or that NBC ad sales needed more time to perhaps figure out a way to get more money from advertisers who targeted the younger audience that Conan was attracting. Or the argument that Conan's numbers suffered because of the low numbers Leno was getting leading into affiliates' local newscast, and the domino effect that was having.

In another interview, Tuesday, at the annual convention of the National Association of Television Program Executives in Las Vegas, during a session in which Gaspin was questioned by Ben Grossman, the editor-in chief of B&C, Gaspin added even more to his account of the Leno/Conan saga.

Most particularly he said, “I probably underestimated the emotion of everything that went on.” Gaspin said he went to all parties concerned with “a very logical, rational plan. I explained it to the press. I wasn’t trying to hide anything. And I think I underestimated the emotional impact it had on Conan, in particular.”

Earlier in the interview he spoke about how the incident had tarnished NBC’s image, and how that surprised him as well. Given how much more important, on a percentage basis, the cable networks are to NBC Universal’s bottom line, compared to the NBC TV network, he said he’s amazed at how much more ink the NBC network gets from the press compared to the cable properties, and how much more the Hollywood community cares about what the broadcast network is doing versus the cable networks.

Kudos to Gaspin for realizing what surprises him.

The problem for NBC is that these things did indeed surprise him.

Perhaps this will make the point more clear. During the TCA tour a few weeks ago, one of the TV reporters asked Gaspin a very key question. First, the reporter stated that a lot of the TV reporters and critics around the country had said and written that the Leno 10 o’clock show probably would not work, and that the late news at many NBC affiliates would suffer the consequences of lower ratings. So, this reporter wanted to know, if he and his fellow TV reporters had anticipated this result, why hadn’t the brain trust at NBC.

Again, I’m paraphrasing, but Gaspin said that NBC (and the affiliates) had done research that indicated they’d be OK.

You see the pattern here. “Research said.” “Business conditions dictated.” “Logic indicates.” “Rational plan.” "It's practical." “Bottom line.” It’s purely the business without the showmanship. It’s MBA-speak. It’s the quantification of TV, and it’s been the downfall of NBC.

All one has to do is look across the dial at CBS to see how to do it right. What makes Leslie Moonves the quintessential choice to run what is primarily a network TV company is that he’s got programming in his DNA. Yes, of course he needs to be—and is—mindful of the bottom line, but more importantly he gets the emotion of the medium—both the emotional attachment of audience to show and performer, and the emotional makeup of those who create and perform in the shows.

I say “more importantly” because TV really is more an art than a science, and if you understand what is important to and motivates the creative community, then you increase your chances of success exponentially, which, if you’re smart about it, can translate to a better bottom line.#

With Conan Soon to Go Off-Air, and Thus the End to Latenightgate, the Most Fun We've Had Watching TV in A Long Time Will Also End. But Don't Fret--Here's How to Continue Laffing

2010-01-21T08:46:57Z

The new golden age of latenight, which started a few weeks ago when we heard that Leno’s primetime show was going to be cancelled and that he was going back to a latenight slot, will likely end this week, and that’s a big problem for us viewers.

Ever since all hell broke loose a few weeks ago, the wisecracking done by Leno, Conan, Kimmel, Letterman and Ferguson has kept us in stitches. Even the Chinese have gotten involved.

It’s been latenight comic gold, and it’s us viewers that have struck it rich.

But tomorrow, Friday, Jan 22, will likely be Conan’s last time hosting “The Tonight Show,” and Leno won’t replace him for awhile. And with Conan likely paid-off and off-the-air until at least the fall, the jokes about this latest latenight fiasco will subside.

HOWEVER! Fear not, oh fellow couch potato breath. We know what ails you and have a cure that will hit your funny bone in just the right place.

You need to buy or rent two very funny DVD collections:

“The Larry Sanders Show,” with Garry Shandling, Jeffrey Tambor and Rip Torn, was a series that ran on HBO. It was the behind-the-scenes story of a latenight talk show that competed with Leno and Letterman. Though it first ran back in the 1990s, the episodes hold up fine and the series is funny as all get out.

Here’s how you’ll know if it’s your cup of tea. This is a clip we found on YouTube of the first 8 minutes of a “Larry Sanders” episode that featured Sarah Silverman as the guest star. Shandling plays forever insecure talk-show host Larry Sanders. Rip Torn plays the producer of the show. Silverman, as you’ll find out right away, is a writer looking to get hired by the Sanders show: Oh, one more thing--there are four-letter words used in the show, and it has adult content.

Reflections on the Golden Globes

2010-01-18T22:37:42Z

Move over “30 Rock.” Here comes “Glee.” Fox’s freshman comedy series about a high school glee club took critics and viewers by storm this season, and now it can add a Golden Globe award to its songbook. Two of its leads, Lea Michele and Matthew Morrison also scored nominations.

Tina Fey herself predicted that her reign as best comedy actress in "Rock" may be coming to an end — and she was right. That spot, in somewhat of an upset, went to Toni Collette for “United States of Tara.” But Fey's co-star Alec Baldwin is still getting the love with the trophy for best actor in a comedy or musical series.

Say what you will about the Globes, but the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. is often the first to spotlight new or underappreciated television shows and stars, paving the way for them to be recognized with other industry awards.

Take Juliana Margulies in "The Good Wife," who walked away with the Globe for top drama series actress. If you're like me and millions of others, you've heard about the show but never seen it. Now it's on the radar.

“Mad Men’s” seduction remains as strong as ever, much to creator Matthew Weiner's professed surprise — but no one else’s — as the foreign press awarded the noir-ish program its third consecutive statuette for top drama series on television.

But it was "Dexter's" lead and supporting actors that held the biggest sway over voters, with Michael C. Hall and John Lithgow both taking the top prizes. The black cap-clad Hall's acceptance speech was even more poignant with the unmentioned fact that he has been (successfully) battling cancer. Lithgow, previously best known on television for his multiple Emmy-winning role on "3rd Rock From the Sun,” is brand new to the "Dexter" cast, joining in September 2009 as a serial killer, but obviously no stranger to acting kudos.

HBO continued its award-winning ways by nabbing the remainder of the major television awards. The acclaimed "Grey Gardens" brought it home as best miniseries or motion picture made for television and Drew Barrymore took the top acting prize for her breakout dramatic role as Little Edie Bouvier Beale.

There was no six degrees of separation for Kevin Bacon at the ceremony. His role as Lt. Col. Michael Strobl in “Taking Chance” completely connected with Globes voters, although the film did not have nearly the degree of exposure as "Gardens." Its tough subject matter — the saga as the Lt. Col. personally takes home the body of a private killed in the Iraq war — is a must-see.

The multiple wives on "Big Love" will now have something else to bicker about. Only one of them, Chloe Sevigny, will be able to display a Golden Globe on her mantle.

Here's Proof of Jay's Hypocrisy

2010-01-18T14:01:58Z

It's been amusing to watch apologists for NBC and Jay Leno explain away Conan O'Brien's brilliant and shockingly candid "People of Earth" letter.

But lest anyone think that the Dick Ebersols of the world are anything less than lying, despicable jerks for stabbing Conan in the chest, let's go to the record.

[Directly below you'll see] the video of Jay Leno in 2004, explaining to his "Tonight Show" audience why he wanted to hand the reins over to Conan in 2009.

Listen carefully as Jay tells his (somewhat) disappointed fans, "I don't want to see Conan go anywhere else ... There's only one person who could do this into his 60s and that's Johnny Carson ..."

B.S. B.S. B.S. B.S. B.S. B.S.

(slap)

Sorry, that was my detector going off.

Now that Leno has betrayed all of that, can we be done with the "Jay is a nice guy" meme once and forevermore? And can we please stop thinking of Jeff Zucker and his pals as engaging in anything but the most desperate form of CYA — the kind that happens just before you get fired, or suddenly lose $200 million of the company's money, or both?

The only part of that whole talk I agreed with was when Leno said, "Conan is a gentleman, funny ..."

Yep, he's both and you're neither.

Kudos to the FunnyOrDie.com poster who saved the clip from the Tonight Show.

Jay's 2004 Announcement - watch more funny videos

Behind the Leno Move: Why NBC is Suddenly So Interested In the Brotherly Love of Its Affiliates

2010-01-11T11:27:42Z

Aaron Barnhart, the TV Critic at the Kansas City Star and our longtime colleague, raised the issue immediately in Sunday’s Q&A between TV critics and reporters and Jeff Gaspin, chairman of NBC Universal Television Entertainment: Since the reason NBC was giving for cancelling Leno’s primetime show was complaints from its affiliates, how much of the decision to listen to these affiliates was because of the pending deal for Comcast to take a majority share of NBCU, and NBCU’s desire to keep all of the players it's involved with enthusiastic about the deal?

Here’s what Gaspin said in response: “Absolutely zero. They [Comcast] have nothing to do with business decisions we make, and they won’t until there is regulatory approval. Right now all I’m doing is my job. All we’re doing is our jobs and not thinking what might be a year from now.”

When asked later by TVWeek if he wasn’t personally thinking about the Comcast deal at all when making this decision, Gaspin reiterated, “Honestly, not one bit. I’m making the decision that is best for NBC. My current bosses and my future bosses will judge me based on those decisions. I only know how to make decisions based on my own experience and the situation I have to work with.”

Interesting. Long ago I was taught that in most things business, follow the money. And I’m sure that Gaspin, an MBA who first joined NBC in its finance department, would also likely say that’s a smart way to look at most business decisions.

So let’s delve a little further into his explanation as to why NBC has canceled Jay Leno’s primetime show as of next month, and proposes that instead Leno do a half-hour show at 11:35 pm, followed by Conan O’Brien and an hour of “The Tonight Show,” which would in turn be followed by an hour of Jimmy Fallon.

The sole reason for NBC deciding to blow up its schedule almost immediately and rush other programming into 10 pm is because it was facing, basically, an affiliate revolt, Gaspin said.

Witness this exchange between a TV reporter and Gaspin on Sunday:

TV Reporter: “Jeff, couldn’t you have struck a deal with the affiliates? Sorta said guys, we don’t have anything else in the pipeline, let’s see how this plays out for the rest of the [TV] year and we’ve got all these dramas in development. Guys, Jay’s probably not going to be on at 10 in the fall, so let’s just show a little more patience, we’ll work with you guys, but let’s not blow it all up and go crazy.”

Gaspin: “I can promise you that all the options that I thought of we discussed and in the end I made this decision.”

TV Reporter: “What were some of your other options?”
Gaspin: “You can guess what some of them were. You’ve written about a lot of them.”

Similarly, there was this exchange:

Another TV Reporter: “You hinted that [Leno’s show] was acceptable for the network, you were making money, and it was really the affiliate issue. But was it really? Could have you lived through the rest of the season with a 1.5 rating at 10 o’clock had [some of the affiliates ] not had 30% dropoff for the local news?”

Gaspin: “Yes. I would have preferred it. As opposed to crashing a schedule? I have shows to launch out of the Olympics. I would have much preferred to concentrate on launching shows, and trying to create new hit shows than now trying to explain to people why we have a new schedule. So I would have much preferred to have waited to September. I would have preferred to have seen the summer ratings.”

The Reporter: “But was it a given that you were going to drop this experiment by August anyway?”

Gaspin: “I had to signal to affiliates that we were willing to make a change. You never know what would have happened between signaling them and actually [having] had to make the decision. Maybe something would have happened that would have allowed me to go back to them. But I’d have to make too many assumptions there. I just don’t think it’s useful.”

Then there were the following few Qs&As:

A Reporter’s Question: “Did you get a sense of how many affiliates were going to start preempting [the Leno show if it continued in primetime]?”

Gaspin: “There was about a third. There was about a third that were really hurt by [their local news ratings after Leno’s show] and were incredibly concerned.”

Question: “Contractually would they be able to preempt the show?”

Gaspin: “That’s a question more for the lawyers than for me. It becomes more of a public relations issue than a contractual issue. Do you want to have your affiliates, your partners, constantly saying ‘This is killing me’? It just was going to damage Jay, and it was going to damage NBC. So regardless of what legally the position was, this was going to continue to be a PR nightmare.”

A few moments later there was this question: “Could you have waited until [affiliates] started [preempting]?”

Gaspin: “Before they preempted I believe they would have been talking publicly, so that’s what I was trying to avoid, not so much the preemptions.”

OK, let’s review: Gaspin says the only reason he’s yanked the Leno show in primetime is because about a third of his affiliates may have started preempting the show. And that it wasn’t the actual preemptions that would have bothered him, but the bad publicity that would accompany just the threat of preemptions. Furthermore, this publicity would be a public relations nightmare and would damage NBC, Gaspin says.

Hmm. I’m neither an MBA nor a lawyer—though I haven’t spent a lifetime watching “The Defenders” and “Perry Mason” and “LA Law” and “Boson Legal” and “Judge Judy” and Ben Matlock for nothing.

Come on. NBC, the once proud peacock, has gotten so much bad publicity in the last few years as the architect of its own demise that it’s the Tiger Woods of media.

Still, it appears that this potential affiliate revolt over the Leno debacle was making NBC executives so nervous that their fingernails were starting to sweat, as Dan Rather used to say. But not about more bad publicity per se.

Yes, I think Gaspin has been very forthright in telling us the chronology of what’s gone on with the Leno situation, and his concerns as a good corporate citizen of NBCU.

But isn’t he kidding himself, ladies and gentlemen of the jury—and us as well—if he doesn’t think that an honest connecting of the dots inevitably and irrefutably leads to the conclusion that the reason NBC all of a sudden fears another “PR nightmare” right now is because they are indeed worried about the political fallout it could have on the Comcast deal.

Gaspin says he’s just doing his job and does not hear footsteps from Philadelphia. But clearly one of the jobs of a top executive at NBCU today is to ensure that the Comcast deal gets done, since management of NBCU and parent General Electric have said they believe that the consummation of the deal is in the best interests of the company.

As the saying goes, in life, timing is everything. And this is one of the few times in recent years that timing has given the advantage to the affiliates.

And for all of us who believe that the Leno primetime move was bad for TV, we’ll grab a break wherever we can get one. #

A Toast to the 20th Anniversary of 'The Simpsons'

2010-01-08T22:27:33Z

The record books are re-arranging the rankings, moving “Gunsmoke” down a notch and elevating “The Simpsons.”

Yes, Sunday night at 8 p.m. marks a special moment in television history: “The Simpsons” will officially celebrate its 20th anniversary, becoming the longest-running scripted primetime show ever.

Many people may not recall that the animated yellow family made its debut as interstitials on Fox's "The Tracey Ullman Show” in 1989. The series itself premiered on the fledgling Fox network in January 1990, thanks to Barry Diller’s foresight and green light.

Not only did the show become a runaway hit, but creator Matt Groening's crudely drawn Simpson family -- dad Homer, mom Marge, kids Bart and Lisa and baby Maggie -- almost instantly became pop culture icons.

In addition to the anniversary episode, viewers will get an extra treat Sunday night at 8:30 p.m.: an original hour-long documentary directed by Morgan Spurlock called "The Simpsons 20th Anniversary Special in 3-D on Ice.”

It's not in 3-D and it's not on ice, but Spurlock (of “Super Size Me” fame) and his crew traveled around the world to shoot it, exploring the international love affair with all things Simpson. “There’s a whole brand new audience,” the director told me. “It’s become multigenerational. We wouldn’t have had other animated shows on primetime if not for ‘The Simpsons.’ They’ve really changed the game.”

(You can check out a preview clip and hear the amusing “Homer Simpson Mr. Plow Theme Song” created by Moby here.)

Alongside the series, “The Simpsons” is an incredibly profitable business enterprise all to itself, raking in millions of dollars from licensing and merchandising.

If you didn’t ever have a Bart T-shirt or know someone who did, you must have been under a rock these past two decades.

And don’t forget the movie, the ride, the DVDs, the Stephen Hawking toy, the games, the U.S. postage stamps—and Marge’s Playboy cover last November to promote the cleverly-named episode "The Devil Wears Nada."

D’oh. Congratulations, Simpsons enterprise, and may you have many more seasons of bringing the funny.

Defining a Decade: How the Aughties Changed TV

2010-01-08T18:39:11Z

Think back to the year 2000. Ah, yes. Y2K, those innocent days before 9/11, when reality television was just making major inroads with the huge popularity of “Survivor,” before Jack Bauer became a ticking terrorist ass-kicker, before “American Idol” changed the pop culture landscape and when Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather reigned supreme over their respective network newscasts.

The dot-com 1.0 party was in its last euphoric throes on its way to crashing and burning, yet YouTube and Hulu were years away from changing the way people consume video. TiVo and DVRs were around, but hadn’t penetrated the marketplace. Most cell phones couldn’t access the Internet—they were text-capable but not many in the US actually texted anyone — and TV stations didn’t have their own Web sites streaming live video of breaking news, much less transmitting to then-nonexistent iPhones, Blackberries or other "smart" mobile devices.

It was a time when Tony Soprano was solidifying his power base in New Jersey as the corpses stacked up and Carrie Bradshaw and her fashionable entourage were becoming icons in living the fabulous single life in New York City.

The Aughties saw the end of beloved, groundbreaking shows like “The Sopranos” and “Sex and the City,” but spawned new ideas and entertainment that shaped our lives and drove the conversation. These are some of the decade’s game-changers across the cable and broadcast spectrum:

Fox’s “24” and Real-World Terrorism: Against the backdrop of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the cathartic experience of watching the time-pressured Jack Bauer brutally wring whatever he wanted from evildoers intent on killing thousands of innocents—along with the Abu Ghraib torture photos scandal—kick-started a national conversation about how enemy combatants are treated. The fictional character became representational on both sides of the fence — as hero or villain — and the controversy over the show’s depiction of Islamic terrorists led to Kiefer Sutherland doing a public service campaign to mitigate some of the accusations of racial profiling. In light of recent events, and with the upcoming season set in New York, “24” will remain a lens through which many people view the war on terror.

The Daily Show’s Huge Impact: just when you thought Jon Stewart couldn't get any hotter, or overexposed — remember all those mid-decade magazine cover stories? — he and his “Daily Show” team of fake reporters proved they hadn't peaked with their 2004 and 2008 “Indecision” election coverage. The show’s guest slot became and remains a coveted go-to spot for politicians, world leaders and authors — with an occasional movie star thrown in for good measure. "TDS’s" spawn went on to great good fortune, most notably Stephen Colbert and Steve Carell, whose Stephen and Steven segments are still fondly remembered.

The Juggernaut that is 'American Idol': Paula, we miss you already. Ten years ago, who could have possibly predicted the massive phenomenon that became “Idol?” (Or Ryan Seacrest becoming a near industry unto himself?) Fan or no — and those who weren't were definitely in the minority – “AI” brought major talent to the world stage. Jennifer Hudson, Kelly Clarkson, Adam Lambert, Carrie Underwood and Jordin Sparks can all tip their hats to “Idol,” as do the accountants at Fox Broadcasting Co. With Ellen DeGeneres taking the Paula judging spot, Simon Cowell nearly ready to take a final bow and ratings somewhat on the decline, the peak glory days may be in the past, but the program’s power and progeny (“Dancing With the Stars,” “America’s Got Talent,” etc.) live on.

New Faces of News: The evening news anchor desks had historically been held by older white men, but by the end of the decade, two of the three were occupied by women who made their names on the softer side of news, in the morning. Did the format change? Not so much. When you’ve only got 22 minutes of news, there’s not much time or space for major formula revisions. And the audience — whose size has deteriorated even as the median age increased — really wasn’t up for ch-ch-changes. Still, network news is far from dead — as some pundits have pronounced it for years. And 24-hour cable news, which drives a large swath of political debate from both sides and down the middle in filling its bottomless news hole, isn’t expected to retrench. Even these days, it’s still cost-effective programming.

Food as Entertainment: The Aughties brought foodies another venue outside of the kitchen, the bookstore or the restaurant to indulge their passion and learn some new cooking tricks. Whether your favorite flavor was “Top Chef,” “Iron Chef” or “Kitchen Nightmares,” or your TV was permanently tuned to the Food Network, television catered to the concept of cooking as sport. A far cry from the days when “The French Chef With Julia Child" on PBS was the only game in town. Hungry for more? No shortage of food shows is on the horizon.

Reality as Reality TV: These days, having your own reality show is a career move for untold thousands, who will go to any lengths to attain it. (Example A: the heinous Heene media hos.) The pay might be low, but the perks can be great — extending far beyond the old-school 15 minutes of fame. Whether it’s being a contestant on “The Bachelor,” sewing your way to stardom on “Project Runway,” being a “Real Housewife” (Salahis, anyone?) or becoming a “Biggest Loser,” the tabloid shelf life can be lucrative. Reality television decimated the ranks of scripted television shows and their writers, producers and actors — and sadly, there’s no going back.

Why You Should Attend This Month's CES and NATPE Conventions

2010-01-05T14:44:40Z

With the New Year’s holiday now over, it’s time to get back to business for those of us who work in the TV industry.

And that means right away. There are two major conventions in January, both in Las Vegas: CES, the Consumer Electronic Show that begins later this week, and NATPE, the annual gathering of the National Association of Television Program Executives, that takes place the last week of the month.

CES used to be just a showcase for the latest TV sets and other electronic products and gadgets coming out. NATPE used to be a place that local TV station executives went to fill out their schedules with non-network programming.

Both conventions have evolved and offer much more; and much more specifically for those in the TV business.

So to get us up to speed with what each convention offers, we’re presenting two guest blogs by our longtime friends Gary Arlen and Rick Feldman. We thank both of them for enlightening us as each explains why we should attend their respective conventions.

Arlen is President of Arlen Communications Inc., a research and business development firm specializing in media and communications convergence. He’ll tell us about UP NEXT, the new TV-related event at CES.

Feldman is the President and CEO of NATPE, and he’ll tell us what’s new and exciting about NATPE this year.

Since CES starts later this week, first up is Arlen’s piece:

UP NEXT, a new event at CES in Las Vegas, puts two worlds of television under the same roof. CES (once known as the Consumer Electronics Show) is famed for its biggest-in-the-world exhibits of TV sets and home video gear. Now it is also a venue for television creative and distribution expertise.

UP NEXT, on Jan 7 and Jan 8, is a first-of-its-kind event during CES evaluating the factors that affect traditional TV and new media, which are increasingly intertwined and competing for consumers’ attention.

It specifically focuses on how and where viewers get their entertainment and information, and how much audiences and advertisers are willing to pay for it.

For program creators, packagers and distributors, it’s a place to see what’s coming up next. The event pinpoints the creative and business developments that are shaping the profitable coexistence of traditional and new media.

The UP NEXT agenda starts with hard-to-find financial data about media economics from Stephen Chao, the former Fox TV executive. It continues the next morning with the first details from Ben Silverman, a former NBC TV vice chairman, about his new venture called “Electus,” in collaboration with Barry Diller’s InterActive Corporation.

One question you might have is why we're doing this event at all. Here's how the idea for UP NEXT evolved: For the past five years, I’ve noticed the growing presence of video producers and distributors coming to CES for glimpses into the shifting video landscape and how it affects the way they operate. So when, in response to industry demand, CES’s organizers began exploring a TV programming-oriented event, we were ready to create a timely and valuable agenda with top-notch speakers and panelists.

The result is UP NEXT, a free event designed for the media content community to plunge into current developments and get a deep peek into what’s coming up next. As my co-producer Arthur Greenwald intones, “What sets UP NEXT apart is our emphasis on real world numbers, avoiding glib pessimism or ridiculously simple-minded optimism. Our ambitious goal: to help participants identify lucrative business models faster than they would through trial and error.”

We’ve built UP NEXT using experts with solid research, economic, technical and creative experience. The subtitle “Content, Creativity, Cash” bluntly describes our focus, but our mantra has become “avoid exaggerated pessimism about traditional and reject irrational exuberance about new media.”

As a result, three dozen creative talents and business wizards, thinkers and doers from Hollywood, Wall Street, Madison Avenue, Silicon Valley and beyond, will bring unprecedented perspective to CES. UP NEXT deals with real-world concerns about how to monetize content in today’s transitional environment. We’re looking at specific issues such as video search: How will viewers find programs in the mega-channel, on-demand landscape, and what will they pay for the shows they want to see?

Discussions at UP NEXT will range from the vital labor concerns of Screen Actors Guild President Ken Howard to creative opportunities from actor-producers Illeana Douglas and Bradley Whitford and director-producer Thomas Schlamme. Networks’ top digital executives, including Vivi Zigler from NBCU, Albert Cheng from Disney/ABC and Lois Choi Owens from Scripps Networks, will offer their perspectives on the interplay between established networks and digital distributors.

In addition to the celebrity hyphenates and financial gurus, there are production and distribution veterans. The UP NEXT speaker line-up features research and advertising geniuses who perceive the shifting tastes of media consumers. CBS’s legendary ratings whiz David Poltrack is bringing new viewer research findings, gathered during the current holiday season, and will match numbers with Scott Brown from Nielsen, David Bloxham from the Media Design Center at Ball State University and Artie Bulgrin of ESPN.

The presidents of the 4As (the group formerly known as the American Association of Advertising Agencies), CTAM (the cable TV marketing society) and Sony Pictures Technology will add perspectives about the marketing and technology developments.

UP NEXT’s free sessions will take place in room N250 of the Las Vegas Convention center starting at 1 pm on January 7 and continuing at 8:30 am on January 8. Details are available here. There’s a link to the CES registration site.#

Now here’s the piece about NATPE:

Hey, Rick Feldman here—President and CEO, of NATPE—with a few words previewing the attractions being put into place at our annual Market and Conference in Las Vegas.

Our overall theme remains CONTENT—COMMERCE—CONNECTIONS.

Content, because our business ultimately succeeds or fails via the products we deliver to our viewers. Commerce, because NATPE is still a place where distribution and co-production deals are initiated, refined and often closed. Connections because NATPE reigns as THE premiere TV business facilitator, bringing content creators, rights holders and ad agencies together to identify business opportunities in the global, multiplatform video industry.

Who can you connect with at NATPE 10? How about David Zaslav, president and CEO of Discovery Communications, Elisabeth Murdoch, chairman & CEO of Shine Group,
Esther Lee, senior vice president at AT&T, Michael Eisner, CEO of the Tornante Company and Dana Walden, chairman, 20th Century Fox Television.

We’ll illuminate the changing role of the showrunner and creative opportunities inherent in multiplatform video delivery from Neal Baer M.D., Wolf Films; Philip Gurin, The Gurin Company; Hugh Laurie, David Shore and Katie Jacobs from “House”; Bravo’s Andy Cohen, who will feature Donald Trump, Jillian Michaels and Curtis Stone as his guests; Steve Levitan and the cast of the hit comedy “Modern Family”; and Bill Lawrence, creator and executive producer of “Scrubs” and “Cougar Town.”

Insightful innovators in the digital world from companies including NBC Universal International; Google; LucasFilm Ltd.; Twitter; Microsoft Xbox; and YouTube will host exciting demonstrations and discussions about the collaboration of technology and production.

More than 250 industry innovators and drivers will offer lucrative ways to utilize all content delivery. NATPE is showcasing senior executives from CAA (Creative Artists Agency); Lionsgate; Levity Entertainment; Fox Television Studios; Telemundo Network Group; Hearst Television; Endemol USA; NBC Universal; Bravo; CABLEready Corporation; Walt Disney Studios; Disney Channel; USA Networks; CBS Entertainment; MarVista Entertainment; and TNT (Turner Network Television).

From content creation to distribution and consumption, video business models are being disrupted and transformed. But the consumer’s appetite for quality content has never been stronger, and smart companies are taking advantage of an opportunity to define what’s next. Leading the discussion will be Michael Kassan of MediaLink, along with Drew Buckley, Electus; Jordan Levin, Generate; and Michael Kelley, PricewaterhouseCoopers, among others.

NATPE has also gathered a who’s who from Madison Ave., including senior executives from Crispin Porter + Bogusky; the Third Act, a unit of Digitas; GroupM Interaction Worldwide; Ogilvy Entertainment; and Canoe Ventures.

I don’t think I’m boasting when I say there is no where else where you can have access to a line-up of such depth and pedigree. All together we have gathered more than 250 industry leaders and influencers to offer leading edge perspectives on the current and future state of the media content market.

NATPE ‘10 continues its connection-friendly environment, from the exhibition floor and hospitality suites to the conference discussions and social events. This January, we're leveraging our relationships to offer you a one-of-a-kind, customized networking service.

Participants eligible for our new pilot business concierge program, NATPE Navigator, receive a tailored agenda specific to their business goals; personally arranged, structured introductions and admission to premium sessions which will facilitate relationships and help get deals done.

It is our hope that these new opportunities, as well as the changes to the familiar layout of past NATPE Market & Conferences, will make the 2010 event easily managed and highly productive for you. I encourage you to delve into the discussions, engage with as many participants as possible and thoroughly explore all that the 2010 NATPE Market & Conference has to offer. To entice you further, I would like to extend a special registration rate of $650 to you. Just use promo code NATPETVW when registering here.

Have a great market and I look forward to seeing all of you at the Fountainbleu in Miami Beach next January.#

Why Charlie Sheen Will Basically Get a Pass While Tiger Gets Crucified

2009-12-29T15:02:01Z

Actor Charlie Sheen's latest run-in with the law sounds very serious. According to initial reports, he allegedly brandished a knife and threatened to kill his wife when she said she might divorce him. He denies it.

Can you imagine the uproar, even now, if Tiger Woods was accused of doing something like that if his wife said she might divorce him?

It may surprise some to realize that Sheen's alleged behavior won't even come close to the negative fall-out Woods has already received in the past month. "How can that be?" they'll exclaim.

It's got to do with expectations. Sheen is a notorious bad-boy who's been in lots of trouble before. That means in the eyes of the media--and yes, much of the public--he's much more comparable to Bobby Brown than Chris Brown. That's also why if Bobby Brown got in more trouble tomorrow the public would basically shrug, and why we were so shocked when Chris Brown--who, like Woods, had a clean image--hit Rhianna.

Furthermore, I'd be surprised if Hanes drops Sheen as an endorser. It was only about 18 months ago that they hired him to wear their underwear, and his reputation as a bad boy was already well established. In other words, if anyone at Hanes is surprised by this latest trouble that Sheen's gotten into, THEY should be fired.

Nor do I think CBS will sanction Sheen, who TVGuide says is the highest paid actor on TV making about $20 million a year. No, these charges against Sheen are not funny, but he does play a cad in his hit sitcom "Two and a Half Men." And did I mention the show's a big hit?

Finally, I saw one blog post that said Sheen will be treated differently than Woods because Sheen is white. In fact, Sheen's real name is Carlos Irwin Estévez, and his grandfather on his dad's side is from Spain.

The truth of the matter is that not all of our celebrities are treated equally. And if one is known for behaving badly and once again behaves badly, he or she gets a pass.

To be crude about it, it's the new, fresh meat that we like to grind up. Leftovers have always been of less interest.#

Bah, Humbug! Twas the Night Before Christmas and Santa's Unhappy About TV (and Other Transgressions)

2009-12-23T15:12:32Z

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the House,
Not a doctor was stirring, not even Hugh Laurie, that louse.
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there.

But Santa wasn’t coming, as sad as he was.
Dollhouse had been canceled and Hank had no buzz.
The Beautiful Life turned ugly and Russell’s win did not arrive,
Even worse this year the print edition of TVWeek didn’t survive.

And even the problem Accenture had with Tiger Woods libido,
Santa could have taken, if only Pepperidge Farm hadn’t killed the Lido.
Of this transgression you may not yet have heard,
It actually happened a few years ago, quietly, and it’s so patently absurd.

The Lido so proud, so substantive to bite,
Far better than the Milano, a lightweight, a fright.
And “Pshaw” to the Oreo, America’s favorite,
It’s not special enough for Santa, he doesn’t savor it.

Yes, the now discarded Lido can be found in a more expensive box collection,
But that’s not the right place for this terrific confection.
So, depressed, Santa could barely say, “Now Rachel! Now Jamie! Now Mindy and Blitzen!
On Cori! On Holly! On, on the rest of you Vixen!

Alas, Santa was cheered when the first place he arrived
Had no milk nor cookies, but nonetheless had a good vibe.
Left out for him was a picture of Oprah, his dear,
With the great news that yes, she’d still be on TV another year.

Santa sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,
And away they all flew listening to Leno and the late John Entwistle.
Then Santa stood and shouted, “Though I don’t know if Comcast and NBC will be right,
Happy Christmas to all and to all a good-night!”

(with apologies to Henry Livingston Jr, Clement Clarke Moore and Kris Kringle)

Paley Awards a Good Idea as Emmy Competition

2009-12-23T14:45:14Z

Still pondering the surprising news that the Emmys could be in for some competition—and after the initial knee-jerk reaction of “Oh, great, another awards show,” coming around to the notion that it’s probably a good idea.

The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences is one of the few award-granting entities that have an open field with no other awards competition anywhere near its time slot. The show has been airing in recent years anywhere from late August to late September, making it the first major kudo-fest of the season—by a long shot—and the only one to occur in summer.

It’s invariably 90+ degrees at Emmy time, and the red carpet is full of cocktail-length dresses—and sweat stains.

But the hottest accessory is taking home a golden statuette, and without a doubt, the Emmys are definitely the king of the castle in TV-land. There can be no other true contender, just as Oscar has no peer, only prestigious friends like the various guilds and critics’ circles awards—and its rowdy cousin, the Golden Globes, with its mix of television and film prizes, part of what makes it so much fun.

Word is the Paley Center, formerly the Museum of Television and Radio, is thinking about handing out its own awards in what a spokesperson said would be a more fun environment, like the Globes, which has been known for some boozy unscripted moments that have gone down in television lore.

Sony Pictures Television president Steve Mosko, who formerly ran the ATAS Foundation, is leading the charge.

"We're in very exploratory stages of setting up awards for excellence on TV, called The Paley Awards," a Paley Center spokeswoman told The New York Post. "We're not envisioning it as competition for any other existing awards. That's not part of our agenda."

Notwithstanding the prestige level of the Paley Center, which puts on various television festivals and events featuring top shows and broadcast and cable movers and shakers at locations in New York and Los Angeles, there’s an indication that there would be a bit of a People’s Choice element to the awards show, along with an industry insider component.

Any one of a number of hosting candidates—Jon Stewart, Ellen DeGeneres, Steven Colbert and, gulp, David Letterman, could be a fit. And if Ricky Gervais knocks it out of the park when he hosts the upcoming Globes, he could soon have another gig lined up. 

We Wuz Robbed! Russell Hantz Was Not the Only One Blown Away that He Didn't Win 'Survivor:Samoa,' and This Viewer Thinks The Producers are Playing with Fire

2009-12-21T09:18:06Z

We wuz robbed, plain and simple.

If you're not a fan of 'Survivor,' here's what it's like that Russell Hantz didn't win the $1million on the latest edition of the show, which concluded Sunday night, Dec. 20th: It would be as if the great football linebacker, Lawrence Taylor, who was named the NFL's Most Valuable Player in 1986 based on an incredible season he had, was denied the honor because certain of his peers on opposing teams thought he wasn't nice enough, and that he played too intensely to win. That he was too enthusiastic when he clobbered an opposing player or broke up an offensive play.

If Taylor had not gotten the award because of that criteria, you'd say that was crazy. In fact, it was just the attributes that those on the opposing teams objected to, you'd say, that were exactly WHY Taylor was so great and why he did indeed deserve that Most Valuable Player Award in 1986.

It's analagous to what happened to Russell on "Survivor." He was never nice, and it was never pretty, but he was absolutely brilliant and he deserved to win.

If you didn't watch "Survivor:Samoa" this season, buy the DVD when it comes out. You may very well dislike him intensely, but it's also clear that Russell is likely the most cunning strategist yet to have played the game.

But, alas, he didn't win. Here's what both he and winner Natalie White said to E! Online after the vote: " 'It's amazing to me how people play the game," Russell told us, still visibly shocked by his loss. 'You want to be honest, have integrity, in the game? You ever play Monopoly, where you take people's houses and kick 'em out in the street? That's a game. But,' he added ruefully, 'it's part of it, I guess.' Natalie explained how that 'part' figured in her own strategy: 'There's different criteria to play the game. The majority of the people on the jury are not deceitful people, they just don't play that way in real life or in a game. I made it my mission to get to know them and try to figure out what that voting criteria was going to be. I think because of the genuine relationships that I built, they wanted to give it to someone they truly know and will do well with the money.'

Actually, they probably gave it to her because they felt she was the lesser of the three evils, the three evils being Russell, Nick and Natalie.

The problem, however, is that she was the wrong choice.

"Survivor" also arranges through a sponsor to give $100,000 to the person viewers vote as the one they think is the best player on the show. Russell did win that.

Here's my suggestion: CBS and Mark Burnett, the producer of the show, should switch who decides will win the $1 million and who wins the $100,000.

So when it comes down to the three finalists, America votes for the player who has best outwitted, outplayed and outlasted the field and who will win the $1 million first-place money. And the "jury" of nine players on the show can decide who wins $100,000 as their top choice.

Yes, one of the elements that has set "Survivor" apart from the "American Idol"-type of reality show is that viewers do NOT vote for the winner.

But there's an argument to be made that given how upset I would guess the majority of this season's viewers are with the results, "Survivor" is seriously in danger of losing a lot of loyal fans if this change isn't made and we feel betrayed by the results again come spring after the next arc of the show.#