The trailer that Lifetime ran for “Five,� the cabler's film anthology about the impact of breast cancer that premieres Oct. 10, was simply as intense as you’ll find.

“This may be the most important film we’ve ever done,� Lifetime and History topper Nancy Dubuc said in introducing the project, which features segments directed by Jennifer Aniston, Alicia Keys, Demi Moore, Patty Jenkins and Penelope Spheeris.

The ensemble includes Patricia Clarkson, Rosario Dawson, Ginnifer Goodwin, Josh Holloway, Jennifer Morrison, Kathy Najimy, Bob Newhart, Annie Potts, Tony Shalhoub, Jeffrey Tambor and Jeanne Tripplehorn, who plays the oncologist who ties all five parts together.

“I had the full experience,� Tripplehorn said at the Television Critics Assn. press tour.

The trailer was typical in its construction –- say about a couple dozen snippets packed into a couple of minutes or so -– but the power of one moment after another to hit that emotional part of you was almost shocking.

Aniston is exec producing with Marta Kauffman, Paula Wagner, Kristin Hahn, Kevin Chindy and Francesca Silvestri. Some wondered how Kauffman, most famous for long-running laffer “Friends,� ended up on such a serious project, but the point of “Five� isn’t to be funereal from start to finish.

“When we are in the most extraordinary circumstances, we react in one of two ways,� Kauffman said. “Either we completely freak out, or we go toward humor. I tend to go toward humor – it’s my upbringing, it’s what I know. This is not irreverent, it’s not nipple jokes, it’s about women and in some cases their family members and their partners in extraordinary circumstances, and when you raise the stakes enough, it can be funny. It can be funny when a woman who has been diagnosed with breast cancer still has to deal with her mother.

“The humor isn’t slapstick. … It’s character humor and humor out of this very intense time in one’s life.�

Chuck Wepner, the inspiration of the “Rocky� films and the focal point of Oct. 25 ESPN Films documentary “The Real Rocky� (one of eight new docs the cabler is premiering this fall) provided the early highlights on the opening day of the Television Critics Assn. press tour.

Just a couple of moments:

Wepner was asked if he ever fought any Russians, akin to the Soviet boxer Ivan Drago that Rocky Balboa took on in “Rocky IV.â€? Wepner’s reply: “I did fight a couple of Russians, as a fighter and a bouncer.â€? 

Wepner also recalled his confidence for his big heavyweight title bout against Muhammad Ali, the direct model for the plot of Sylvester Stallone’s “Rocky.� Wepner bought some negligees for his wife and told her, “Tonight, you’re gonna be sleeping with the heavyweight champion of the world.�

After his 15^th-round loss to Ali, the Bayonne Bleeder returned to his hotel room. “When I came back," he recalled, "she was in one of the negligees and said, ‘Am I going to Ali’s room?’ �

Past stars from "Survivor," "The Amazing Race" and "Big Brother" will join in a 5K mud run in Silverado, Calif. on Sept. 10 in support of Stand Up To Cancer.

CBS is sponsoring the "Reality Mud Run," in partnership with Around the World Prods., founded by "Survivor" alum Burton Roberts and "Amazing Race" grad Alex Boylan.

Other participants are scheduled to be Ethan Zohn, Jenna Morasca, Amanda Kimmel, Yau-Man Chan, Natalie Tenerelli, Phillip Sheppard, Chad Crittenden, Joel Klug, Uchenna Agu, Megan Rickey, Cheynne Whitney, Dennis Frentsos and Will Kirby.

"It's very rewarding to be able to use reality television as a platform to bring together my friends and raise money and awareness for cancer research.," said Zohn, winner of "Survivor: Africa" before overcoming Hodgkin's lymphoma.

As the News Corp phone hacking scandal broadens to include other Murdoch properties on Fleet Street, at least one newsman working stateside has been mentioned in connection with the privacy violations: CNN's Piers Morgan, who used to edit News Corp's Daily Mirror.

Forbes reported on Tuesday that a blogger had "a recording" that might constitute a smoking gun linking Morgan to the phone hacks, but now that the recording has surfaced - and it's a recording made by the BBC, not by a corporate espionage agent wearing a wire - has surfaced, that doesn't appear to be the case. If anything, Morgan simply seems a bit too candid.

It's a 2009 interview with BBC 4's "Desert Island Discs," Morgan told interviewer Kirsty Young when she asked about "all that nasty, down-in-the-gutter stuff," including phone hacking, that "a lot of it was done by third parties, rather than by the staff themselves.

That admission (and Morgan's stated sympathy for phone hacking scapegoat Clive Goodman in 2007) would be less scandalous if Morgan didn't appear to contradict his own statements from July 19: "I've never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, or published any stories based on the hacking of a phone," Morgan tweeted.

Morgan added the crucial escape clause "to my knowledge" to the tweet in a statement issued Wednesday, along with saying that his answer to Young was "not specific," to which we say "fair enough," although the "We didn't really do it, and anyway, Billy cheated on his homework, too" defense is pretty weak. I guess by "down-in-the-gutter-stuff," Morgan assumed Young was referring to poor sportsmanship on the cricket pitch.

Young's full question, with Morgan's answer:

Young: And what about this nice middle-class boy who would essentially have to be dealing with people who rake through bins for a living? People who tap people's phones, people who take secret photographs, who do all that nasty, down-in-the-gutter stuff?

Morgan: To be honest, let’s put that in perspective as well. Not a lot of that went on. A lot of it was done by third parties rather than the staff themselves. That’s not to defend it, because obviously you were running the results of their work. I’m quite happy to be parked in the corner of tabloid beast and to have to sit here defending all these things I used to get up to, and I make no pretence about the stuff we used to do. I simply say the net of people doing it was very wide, and certainly encompassed the high and the low end of the supposed newspaper market.

Morgain's statement on the back-and-forth:

"There is no contradiction between my comments on Kirsty Young's 'Desert Island Discs' show and my unequivocal statements with regard to phone-hacking. Millions of people heard these comments when I first made them in 2009 on one of the BBC's longest -running radio shows, and none deduced that I was admitting to, or condoning illegal reporting activity. Kirsty asked me a fairly lengthy question about how I felt dealing with people operating at the sharp end of investigative journalism. My answer was not specific to any of the numerous examples she gave, but a general observation about tabloid newspaper reporters and private investigators. As I have said before, I have never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, nor to my knowledge published any story obtained from the hacking of a phone."

The 2009 interview is here, and it's very interesting, notably the part in which Morgan recalls telling Prince William and Diana that "your mother is one of the most famous people in the world, and you (Diana, presumptively) are public property, I'm afraid, to an extent" and that he's "just going to have to live with it."

Sony Electronics has come aboard upcoming Fox series "The X Factor" as its official consumer-electronics sponsor, meaning the brand should get some generous on-air plugs come September. Sony joins Pepsi and Chevrolet, which have already signed on with Fox, Fremantle and Syco TV, as the official beverage and automotive sponsors. Unspecified is which specific Sony products will get "Factor" love and how they will be integrated with the broadcasts, but you can bet it will be as subtle as those Coke cups that just happen to be on the judges' table during "American Idol." Another branch of the Sony empire, Sony Music Entertainment, is already part of "Factor" through the $5 million deal the winner of the show will get with the record label.

In Variety, check out the story of Noah Z. Jones, who was plucked from relative obscurity in Maine to create "Fish Hooks," a top-rated DIsney Channel series. Here's an excerpt:

Who better to create a crazy world of fish in water than a fish who is very much out of water?

Noah Z. Jones was in Camden, Maine, minding his own business -- business that consisted of working on children's books and freelance illustrating -- when Disney dropped in some bait.

"It was an out-of-the-blue e-mail," recalls Jones, who was sitting at home one day when he got an e-mail from an executive at Disney asking him to pitch some shows.

"Your brain doesn't know what to do with that information," Jones says.

That e-mail ultimately led to "Fish Hooks," Disney Channel's unusual but successful underwater high-school animated series, which Jones created and co-exec produces. "Fish Hooks" is the No. 2 animated series in TV in the 6-11 and 9-14 demos, trailing only channel-mate "Phineas and Ferb."

It wasn't as if Jones could never imagine being involved with television some day, but the key word there is "imagine."

"It was so far from what I considered a possibility," Jones says. "I always had ideas, but it's kind of like when you're a kid pretending to be an astronaut." ...

Read the rest here.

WB just released this "trailer" for "The Flaming C," the ongoing build-up of Conan O'Brien's animated alter-ego.

This "iCarly" clip is from months ago, but to quote the most logical statement in TV history, "If you haven't seen it, it's new to you."

Just in time for next week's launch of the annual Television Critics Assn. summer press tour, I have completed my viewing of 34 broadcast network pilots for the 2011-12 season. While heeding the networks’ admonition not to review the pilots in their preseason condition (because they're subject to tweaking before their premieres), here are the shows that, in my view, have the least or most to work on.

Several of these were just not going to be my cup of tea no matter what, but they could still succeed with viewers overall. On the other hand, I'm already bracing myself for another painful cancellation of a Kyle Killen series: last season "Lone Star," this season "Awake." The dark NBC drama doesn't arrive until midseason, but it's not too early to start the "Save the Show" campaign for that one.

Cream of the early crop (5)
ABC: “Once Upon a Time�
Fox: “New Girl,� “Terra Nova�
NBC: “Awake,� “Smash�

Sticking with for now, but have more (maybe much more) to prove (12)
ABC: "Apt. 23,� “Man Up,� “Pan Am,� “Revenge,� “Suburgatory�
CBS: “2 Broke Girls,� “A Gifted Man�
CW: “Hart of Dixie,� “Ringer�
NBC: “Bent,� “Free Agents,� “Prime Suspect�

Not for me (12)
ABC: “The River,� “Scandal,� “Work It�
CBS: “Person of Interest,� “Unforgettable�
CW: “The Secret Circle�
Fox: “Alcatraz,� “The Finder� (backdoor pilot)
NBC: “Grimm,� “The Playboy Club,� “Up All Night,� “Whitney�

Really not for me (5)
ABC: “Charlie’s Angels,� “GCB,� “Last Man Standing�
CBS: “How To Be a Gentleman�
Fox: “I Hate My Teenage Daughter�

In the spirit of constructive criticism — since these are supposedly works in progress — here are three pieces of “who asked you?� advice (believe me, I have more):

“Revenge�: Drop the voiceover, which is adding a layer of cheese you don’t need. The soapy characters and stories speak for themselves, but you’ve got a chance to lure viewers who are more interested in straight drama if you can just let go of this one unnecessary level of melodrama. Watching those same scenes with the voiceover muted, they're actually more powerful.

“2 Broke Girls�: I know it’s anathema tell a comedy “don’t try so hard for the laughs,� but don’t try so hard for the laughs. Or at least don’t let us see the effort so clearly. The more natural this show gets, the better.

“Smash�: You’re absolutely one of my frosh favorites, but in the middle of the show there’s a number that the characters get really excited about, and it’s utterly unfathomable to this character, before, during and after that number, why that is.

MLB commissioner Bud Selig had an overflow of reasons for rejecting a proposed 17-year television rights extension between Fox and Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt, according to the 11-page June 20 letter Selig sent to McCourt. The letter was posted by the Los Angeles Times today.

"While any one of the factors identified below would alone give me serious pause," Selig wrote, "collectively ... they demonstrate overwhelmingly that the proposed transaction is neither in the long-term interests of the franchise nor consistent with the best interests of the game of baseball."

Selig noted that McCourt was rushing into the Fox deal because of his "desperate need for immediate cash" to address his and the Dodgers' financial problems, without waiting for the period starting on November 30, 2012 when he could solicit other, potentially more lucrative offers through competitive bidding. Selig notes the mega-deal that the Los Angeles Lakers struck for their TV rights through such a process.

"In fact, as your chief financial offcer told representatives of my office on April 5, 2011," Selig said, "you would not even be considering a media rights transaction at ths time were it not for the club's 'financial duress.' "

Selig also stated that the $385 million up-front payment that McCourt would receive upon signing the deal "far exceeds any up-front payment previously received by any other club," adding that "no other owner has sacrificed so much of his team's future for an immediate payoff."

"I am concerned that at some point," Selig wrote, "(the Dodgers) will be unable to adapt to unexpected circumstances because you have accelerated such a substantial amount of its media revenues."

Selig's letter also quotes 2009 testimony from McCourt's divorce proceeding against Jamie McCourt, when current Dodgers vice chairman Jeff Ingram said that McCourt "noted that Fox has very tough negotiators, they're very smart and he's not convinced we would get a very good deal from Fox at this time to do a capital raise, and that we'd hamstring the business in the future by getting them to do something now."

Selig then delved into McCourt's plan to put the 35% equity interest in Fox Sports Net West 2 that the Dodgers would receive into a holding company separate from the franchise, as well as his plan to take at least 45% from the $385 million up-front payment to settle personal debts.

And, Selig took pains to note that the McCourt's proposed divorce settlement with Jamie McCourt had the potential of a court-supervised sale of the team beginning in August — yet the next owner would be stuck with the Fox deal without a dime of the $385 million.

There's even more, but by now, you get the idea.

"Your (June 18 letter) asserts, without explanation or support, that I should not take into account the Dodgers' current financial condition and operational state," Selig wrote. "Apparently you believe that I should make these decisions in a vacuum, without the context of the relevant facts and circumstances related to the Dodgers. To me, that makes no sense. It is not the manner in which I have approached decisions concerning matters involving other clubs, each of which has turned on the unique circumstances of the particular club."

McCourt took the Dodgers into bankruptcy one week later.

The Paley Center for Media is launching a new PaleyFest Family series Aug. 13-14, with a day of Disney Channel show panels followed by a day devoted to Cartoon Network series.

The usual special screenings and appearances by cast members and creatives that accompany the main PaleyFest will be a part of PaleyFest Family, along with post-panel autograph sessions.

The schedule:

Aug. 13
12 noon         "Phineas and Ferb"
2:30 p.m.       "Fish Hooks"
5 p.m.            "Good Luck Charlie"

Aug. 14
12 noon         "Ben 10"
2:30 p.m.       "Dude, What Would Happen"
5 p.m.            "Adventure Time"

NFL owners have approved a 10-year labor deal with the league's players, bringing professional football to the brink of labor peace.

A vote from the players could come as soon as tonight, ending the lockout that began March 11.

The NFL's annual Hall of Fame exhibition game has been canceled, but it appears that the remainder of exhibition play and the entire regular season would run intact.

The deal would bring a sigh of relief to CBS, Fox, NBC, ESPN and the NFL Network, all of whom use the NFL as bellwether programming. By the end of the year, bidding is also expected to begin on a new eight-game package for Thursdays that will launch in 2012.

I spent a fascinating morning at the Social TV Summit, where an impressive gathering of digital-minded folks from networks and studios convened for panel discussions delving into the intricacies of this emerging category.

For those that don't know, "social TV" is a catch-all term for digital content experiences that supplement and drive greater engagement with the TV programs it was feared they would once cannibalize. Examples range from "second screen" applications that offer companion content to what's on air to social-media tools that harness the conversation about shows already going on via Facebook or Twitter.

There was a vaguely self-congratulatory tone to the whole day, and why not given the heady $40-50 billion one of the event's organizers, analyst Jack Myers, projected for social-marketing spending by 2020. As the myriad ways TV could be transformed were discussed, a recurring theme was how inherently social TV is.

But I'm not so sure about that.

Don't get me wrong. I've had some great social TV experiences, particularly on Twitter to partake in watercooler moments from the Super Bowl to the breaking news of Osama bin Laden's assassination. And I've also had some truly horrible social-TV experiences though I won't name names--names that were cited today as shining examples--only because to me essentially this entire category is in beta.

But even once social-TV has perfected its technology, I think there's one fundamental attribute to the medium standing in the way that was totally overlooked at the conference: TV isn't so much social as it is passive. And I can't help but wonder whether that will remain the dominant mode for TV consumption until the end of time.

Exciting as all the "lean-forward" opportunities are, I have the nagging suspicion that they will apply to only a sub-segment of the overall viewing population, as well as a sub-segment of the many different kinds of TV programming out there.

Television was more or less discussed at the Social TV Summit in monolithic terms that didn't distinguish between the very varied experiences the medium has to offer. Being engrossed in a character-driven drama series, for example, is entirely different than watching a sporting event, and my guess is the latter is far more conducive to at least synchronous social-TV applications. The conference smartly pointed out a number of times that there's going to be different kinds of social experiences when a program is on and off.

At one point early in the day there was a telling exchange between Somrat Niyogi, CEO of check-in app Miso, and Adam Cahan, VP of Yahoo Media products, in which Niyogi conceded, "I don't think people want to share every single thing that they want to watch," drawing laughs as he held out the hypothetical of a "Jersey Shore" fan who may not want the world to know he or she enjoys the show. But Cahan countered, "People are going to share a lot more than they do today," noting that a similar cultural shift has already been put into motion by Facebook, whose members share the minutiae of their lives in a way they would have thought twice about a few years ago.

The truth is they're both right. There's going to be people who don't want to make their TV consumption habits public and others who will do so without blinking. But the sensitivity here may not be so much around privacy as it is taking a pursuit that for most people is not about expending any effort. There's a reason kicking back in front of the boob tube is called "vegging out."

This isn't meant to dampen enthusiasm for social TV as much as it a call for some perspective. I'm rooting for this sector and excited to watch its progress. But I'm also leery that expectations are a wee out of whack with the realities of the TV audience.

John Skipper, ESPN’s exec VP of content, sat down with Variety recently to talk about all things ESPN, the TV sports landscape, the chances of the Super Bowl ending up on cable and what demographic the network sees as an untapped viewer base.

Q: In broad strokes, how do you see the TV sports landscape right now?
JS: I actually see sports as a very attractive segment in entertainment because it’s live. That’s why things are so active in sports right now, why ratings generally are up and why there’s generally more competition than ever for rights. Lots of companies — whether it be Turner, TruTV, FX, NBC Comcast with Versus — everyone wants in with sports because in a world where you have the ability to control when you watch something, live sports breaks through in a way that’s only going to continue to become more valuable. We’re very bullish, obviously, but our actions reflect our bullishness. We continue to buy rights, start new businesses and push into new platforms because we believe sports is a driver for all of that.

Q: Where do you see your future competition coming from?
JS: We see our competition in a number of places. I mean there is competition for eyeballs on television, for buying rights, on the Internet from social media companies and on videogames. We still think the way to break through all that competition is to own live rights and then build studio content around those live rights. That way you drive people to the network with live games and you keep them for “SportsCenter,� “SportsNation,� “PTI� and “E:60.�

Q: Do the sports leagues, such as the NFL, have you under the gun because they know how badly you want and need those rights to keep your dominance?
JS: The NFL is really good for us and we need to have it. On the other hand, we have a very broad portfolio across a lot of sports. We have significant agreements with about 30 big conferences, leagues, commissions and associations. We have a pretty good diversified portfolio, and that does help you a little bit, certainly in terms of your leverage with the leagues. We believe that the deals we have now work for us, even though some of them are expensive. We don’t do deals unless it works within our overall financial structure and offers returns we need to deliver to the Walt Disney Co. and its shareholders. While leagues have leverage and their content is exclusive, we also have leverage.

Q: With Turner quite possibly being a player for the next NFL package, do you expect prices to go up?
JS: I think there will always be competition for NFL packages. I only know what I read in the press. I actually have no inside knowledge other than it appears that the NFL has been offering other eight-game package. I think it’s highly logical that Turner would interested and NBC Comcast would be interested, as well as other parties.

Q: Years ago it was assumed a Super Bowl would never come to cable. Yet now, with ESPN holding the rights to the BCS Championship Game, could you see that happening?
JS: I could certainly envision it. It makes me happy, but I don’t see it happening in the near to medium term. The NFL has been very clear that they don’t see putting the Super Bowl in the perceivable future on cable.

Q: Did you find it surprising that NBC won the recent Olympics bid? And the timing was certainly interesting, with Dick Ebersol leaving the network right before the bidding began. It was clearly a big offer ($4.4 billion for the next four available Games, through 2020).
JS: I think whether he was there or not, it’s a very critical product for NBC Comcast. It’s core for the NBC sports brand. They’ve had it for a long time. I think with Dick Ebersol leaving, in some ways it had the opposite effect of what people thought. “Oh my gosh, Dick is gone,� and that mean the Olympics are at risk. It’s still a critical product for them whether he was there or not. I think they understood that, and that’s reflected in the price they paid. Was I surprised at the price they paid? Well, it’s clear from what we did that we believed the value was below where they paid. We couldn’t make the numbers work at anywhere near that level. Again, it might have value beyond a simple P&L for them. I believe they can use content on Versus, but we didn’t see the value they did. So yes, we were a little surprised at the price.

Q: ESPN has made a big international push lately, especially with acquisition of the Premier League. How do you see that push going forward? Is that a major objective for the network?
JS: The world’s getting smaller, of course, and we’re finding that people here care about sports that have traditionally been international. First off there’s soccer — the World Cup and next summer we’re doing the European championships. We do some Mexican soccer on ESPN Deportes. Changing demographic patterns mean people care about other sports. We had a real big success with our news and information with the cricket World Cup; huge traffic on ESPN.com. We think people are increasingly caring about international sports and we like to do more on ESPN3.com. It’s the perfect platform to do Latin baseball or any number of sports. So, yes, we are going to continue to push international sports.

Q: With sporting events starting so late now and young fans not being able to watch the conclusion of nighttime game on TV, is it fair to blame the networks?
JS: Well the research is actually completely contradictory to what people always say about this. The research tells you to go late, and, of course, most of this comes from the East Coast guys. People forget that a lot of the population in this country is in other time zones, where it’s not too late. There is no research evidence to suggest that there’s any ratings lost and, in fact, the young audience tends to pick up later in the night. Maybe 11-year-old kids are up when they shouldn’t be. We have made the decision many times to go early because we think it feels like a good idea and it’s a good PR move. In last year’s NBA Final, we put a game on at 7 o’clock and it actually hurt ratings.

Q: It feels like you’re losing a generation of fans. A game ends at 12:30 a.m. in the East Coast and they miss a lot of that excitement.
JS: I hear you and it sounds logical. Every time I try to do it, my program the department goes, “You’re going to kill the rating.� We have done it a few times because it’s good PR.

Q: Do you see Versus as your main competition right now and in gathering more sports rights, such as Wimbledon, is that part of the objective in trying to keep your distance ahead of them?
JS: Anybody’s who’s bidding against us is a competitor. In terms of resources, Fox has enormous resources, NBC Comcast has big resources, Turner does. The thing about Versus is, right now, it’s the only other 24/7, 365, multisports network. So I think that’s why people sort of go, “They more look like you than anybody else.� But lots of people are competing. I think Versus has the interest but they’ve professed they’re not trying to compete with us. But they don’t deny that they are trying to be a 24/7, 356, multisport channel, so, yeah we consider that to be competitive. With Wimbledon, we wanted to do what we just did for a long time, way before NBC decided to merge with Comcast. Rhetorically, I often say we don’t recognize the distinction between cable and broadcast. For the deal we just made with the Pac-12, Fox agreed with us. There is no broadcast package and no cable package. We’re buying games, we have a bunch of assets and we’re going to put those games on whatever assets we want to put them on. For the Olympics, while we did have a significant component of events we were going to put on ABC, our agreement with the Olympics was that we could put content anywhere. We could put it all on cable if we wanted to. So to go back to your question about the Super Bowl, while it isn’t going on cable anytime soon, almost everything else is fair game.

Q: What else is on your mind these days?
JS: We’ve made a big commitment to the West Coast over the last 2-3 years. Moved the latenight “SportsCenter� here and doing some ESPN Deportes shows from here. We also launched (website) Grantland out of here. We moved about half of our content and development group out here.

Q: What do you think the reason is behind that?
JS: We want to feel even more national. We want a presence from the East Coast to the West Coast. We’re going to have a presence in Texas starting this fall (with the Longhorn Network). We’re starting a new show in Miami and we do “PTI� out of Washington, D.C.

Q: Has there been a feeling ESPN was too Northeast in its thinking?
JS: I think that we always battle a little perception that we’re Northeast-centric. We are located in the Northeast and a lot of our employees come from the Northeast, so it would be hard to simply dismiss it entirely, but we don’t think we have any significant East Coast bias. Nobody does more West Coast, Midwest games or Southern games than us.

Q: Have you seen any a “SportsCenter� ratings bump for the West Coast broadcast?
JS: Yes, the West Coast ratings are up. They’re doing a great broadcast. We want to have a presence here. We just did the ESPY’s, and we’re starting ESPN L.A. and ESPN Deportes L.A. Demographics matter. L.A. is one of the major Hispanic capitals of this country, so that’s why we’re doing some Deportes here. We feel like there is some growth there for us.