Count veteran TV movie producer Michael Jaffe among the skeptics as to whether California's recently adopted tax-credit program -- designed to help thwart runaway production -- is going to yield any appreciable benefits.

Jaffe, a partner in Jaffe-Braunstein Films, recently wrote the following letter to the Santa Barbara News Press. (Click here for an earlier column of mine detailing some of the tax-incentive provisions, which commit up to $500 million to support local production over the next five years.)

Jaffe's take is that the program is too little, too late, and won't be enough to attract independent producers, thus becoming a corporate give-back to the major studios. He might well be right, but given the pleas from local below-the-line workers and supporting actors for something to keep production at home, it's difficult for me to damn the if nothing else well-intentioned effort before giving it a chance. As even Jaffe concedes, "only time will tell."

Anyway, here's his position:

I have produced over 120 movies for television and started service companies that produced another 30-40 in Canada. I am one of the first to "runaway" from Hollywood. The AP article about California Tax Incentives for film production is misleading.

First, it fails to mention that numerous other states (Michigan, Connecticut, Georgia, Louisiana, and Iowa, just to name a few) have incentives that are markedly larger than California’s. No contest there.

Secondly, it fails to mention that the innate cost of doing business in the United States for lower cost productions where every dollar counts is simply much greater than in Canada. A recent example from my own professional life. We budgeted a film in Michigan. $4.7 mil.  Michigan’s tax incentive was a bout $1.5 million. Net to our company, $3.2 mil. Cost of the same film in Canada? 2.7 mil., without taking advantage of another $400k in tax incentives in Canada! Bottom line: Same film costs $900k. less in Canada than in the United States!

Thirdly, given number two above, how would California ever compete? It is more innately expensive than anywhere except New York and it gives smaller tax breaks.

So, if the stated goal of the California incentives is to create jobs in California then it is hopelessly behind a giant 8 ball. Thus the question is: who will get these incentives? And the only producers left to apply for them are people who already shoot here anyway – largely the major studios. The Film Commission says they have placed controls in the system to prevent this, but only time will tell. If there are no legitimate applicants for the credit, what will they do with the 100’s of millions of dollars the legislature has allocated? At this point anyway, one thing I doubt they will do is create any NEW jobs.

The other day, I posted an item about the inability of some pundits to differentiate reality from fiction by repeatedly drawing the Fox series "24" into the "Is there any justification for torture?" debate. Today, an arm of the conservative Media Research Center weighs in with a column somehow equating real-life torture with the "torture porn" genre advanced by the "Saw" franchise and its ilk.

Outrage over the torture memos is "a hard sell," writes Colleen Raezler of the Culture and Media Institute (the MRC has no shortage of official-sounding subdivision names), "when Hollywood filmmakers continually unleash depraved violence labeled 'entertainment' on movie-goers."

Frankly, it's an understatement to say I'm no fan of those movies. But to make the absurd link between such dramatic excesses and the question of torture being used as a tactic by the U.S. government is so bone-headed it's difficult to decide where to begin.

For starters, the "Saw" movies are watched by a very specific demographic -- teenagers and young men -- who for the most part couldn't give a rat's ass about the political implications of torture. So trying to connect the grisly genre's popularity (albeit within a narrow, mostly non-voting demographic) with some kind of public endorsement is about as feeble an argument as one could make.

Second, the media -- that is, movie critics and entertainment reporters -- have for the most part repeatedly bashed "torture porn" for being vulgar and distasteful. The problem is that these movies are essentially critic-proof and -- because they're inexpensive to produce -- profitable. Inasmuch as the MRC umbrella also encompasses the Business & Media Institute, one would think the group could appreciate an example of the free market at work.

Finally, and I hate to repeat myself here, it's fictional. Just because people like watching James Bond brutalize villains doesn't mean we're all for the CIA adopting the same tactics. Raezler also conveniently ignores a number of dramas that have depicted torture in a more realistic manner, from "Marathon Man" to "Syriana." Again, the fact that I enjoy those movies doesn't mean that I think we should be performing dental surgery on suspects or extracting their fingernails. Indeed, merely thinking about either makes me cringe.

If Hollywood-bashing conservatives want to criticize the entertainment industry for cashing in on dreck, more power to them. Hell, regarding "Saw," give me a pitchfork and I'll join the parade. Still, anybody conflating that to actual torture might not qualify as an expert on water-boarding, but their reasoning is clearly all wet.

On Wednesday evening I moderated a Paley Center screening of "Wallander," the latest addition to the "Masterpiece Mystery!" franchise, starring Kenneth Branagh -- in his first recurring television role -- as the Swedish detective, derived from the novels by Henning Mankell.

During the Q&A that followed, I asked Branagh and "Masterpiece" executive producer Rebecca Eaton why it seemed that the Brits simply do a better job with two distinct genres: Detective mysteries, and costume dramas.

Branagh, for his part, disagreed with the question, diplomatically saying that U.S.-produced programming remained the envy of the world and enormously popular abroad. Perhaps so, but since BBC America has made British productions more readily available stateside than just the "Masterpiece" offerings, my perception is that the U.K. consistently eclipses the yanks in those two arenas. Certainly, there's nothing on American television quite like the grand "Masterpiece" Charles Dickens adaptations of "Bleak House" and "Little Dorrit," and some of the best crime dramas I've seen in recent years ("Messiah" comes to mind) have a U.K. pedigree.

Eaton did agree, citing the powerful influence that the movie business wields over American entertainment. By contrast, the U.K. cultivates a pool of performers that move easily among a variety of disciplines, from stage to television to radio plays, less tainted by the lure of gigantism (and I'm paraphrasing here) associated with success in the U.S. film industry.

A full review of "Wallander" will come later, but the first three movies (and Branagh, who's also preparing to direct the Marvel Comics adaptation "Thor," will be returning to Sweden to do more) will air on May 10, 17 and 31 -- conveniently, within this year's Emmy eligibility window.

As a closing thought, I wondered if Branagh was completely braced to enter the Marvel universe and endure the scrutiny that directing a project like "Thor" would bring his way. He said all the right things about wanting your audience to be passionate and engaged, comparing comic-book aficionados to Shakespeare fans.

See you at Comic-Con, KB!

So I popped in "Tattoo Highway," an upcoming A&E series billed as "a television road trip through the cross-country travels of master tattoo artist Thomas Pendelton," slated to premiere May 27. As happens  occasionally, the DVD malfunctioned, and I couldn't watch it.

At first, I was going to contact A&E and ask for another copy. Then I thought, "You know, why not leave well enough alone?" Look, I try never to prejudge things, but something tells me that I am not the intended audience for "Tattoo Highway." For starters, I think anyone that would cover himself with tattoos from shin to chin is a bleepin' moron, but maybe that's because I'm bitter about lacking the vertical leap to play in the NBA.

Moreover, A&E would have to go to the trouble and expense of sending me another copy, only to (probably) wind up taking the inevitably shellacking. Who needs that in this economy, right?

So let's just call this one a draw, OK? Although I'm not a religious person, take it as a sign that some higher power chose to intervene on both of our behalves. I get back roughly 43 minutes of my life that I can almost certainly put to better use, and you get a mention of the program on my blog without me pasting your show with words like "derivative" (Pendelton previously appeared in A&E's "Inked") or "tedious." Sounds like a win-win.

As a sign of my diligence, however, this is a one-time-only pass. And if I find out that people start sending me damaged DVDs on purpose in the hopes of earning similar dispensation, the next round of critical tattoos will definitely leave a mark.

Attention, pundit and political classes: Can we please, please, declare a moratorium on filtering the torture debate (or if you prefer, "harsh interrogation techniques," or "enhanced interrogation methods") through the prism of the Fox series "24"?

 This is hardly a new issue, and one of the program's co-creators, Joel Surnow, probably contributed to perpetuating the discussion in a chest-puffing New Yorker interview in 2007. In the piece, Surnow jokingly proclaimed himself a "right-wing nut job" and boasted about his relationship with Rush Limbaugh.

Seriously, though, I'm beginning to wonder if the punditocracy A) thinks its audience is so stupid that they can't engage a policy discussion without dramatic visual aids; B) is so desperate to link news to pop culture that they're grasping at straws; C) somehow made it all the way to adulthood without ever watching a James Bond or "Dirty Harry" movie; or D) thinks "24" is actually a reasonable facsimile of reality -- you know, the kind of reality where African dictators can assault the White House by water with an elaborate Scuba attack. Sadly, it's probably all of the above.

Yes, "24" premiered shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which made all those spy shows introduced that fall (the others being "Alias" and "The Agency") seem oddly prescient, when it was mostly just one of those weird coincidences. As a consequence, the show's questions about how far America and its defenders would go in the name of thwarting terrorism got sucked into the national discourse. As he suffered to save us, Jack Bauer went beyond being just the unluckiest counter-terrorism agent on the planet to become a symbol, especially for those who feel the end justifies virtually any means.

The convenient amnesia here is that there have always been heroes that pushed into vigilante territory, without trying to extrapolate from that to yield a referendum on torture. Bond had a license to kill, and did so cold-bloodedly. Dirty Harry shot down a suspect and stepped on the bleeding wound to get information. Batman swooped in from rooftops to mete out justice.

These characters are entertaining on a number of levels, not the least being that violence and vengeance can be extremely cathartic when they're done well. But that doesn't mean the people tuning in or anteing up for tickets are gung-ho to see alleged real-life terrorists and criminals dangled off buildings or have electrodes attached to their vital areas.

Perhaps conservatives were so desperate for a Hollywood production that appeared to endorse one of their own that they got carried away and sought to conjoin this hyper-stylized thriller to current events. My guess is it's more a sign of the fact that news organizations see pop culture as the Holy Grail to lure younger viewers and women to newscasts they wouldn't otherwise be caught dead watching. So we get Paris Hilton's arrest being covered like a national emergency, and constant references to "24" in the context of how the public feels about torture and "ticking-bomb" scenarios.

Call me wacky, but I'd like to think that most people can tell the difference between fiction and reality. And if they can't, then they're such pathetic, hopelessly befuddled lost causes that they probably have a future in cable news.

Update: "The Daily Show" weighed in on torture in a big way on Tuesday, as Jon Stewart went back and forth with Cliff May, president of the impressive-sounding-but-I-have-no-idea-what-it-does Foundation for Defense of Democracies, one of those groups that seems to exist largely to have its founder/leader/front man booked on cable news.

Click here for the interview, which Comedy Central has broken into multiple parts.

Unlike most of its characters, "Harper's Island" -- a 13-part murder-mystery with a beginning, middle and end -- is going to experience a very, very slow death.

With viewership dropping over its first three episodes, CBS has announced plans to shift the limited series from Thursdays -- where it followed "CSI" -- to Saturdays at 9 p.m.

In TV terms, this is a bit like being forced to move from a Beverly Hills mansion to a studio apartment in Pacoima.

Perhaps the most interesting part of CBS' announcement, though, is the network's suggestion that the show -- a good idea, executed in mediocre fashion -- is basically thriving as an online/DVR commodity, meaning that it doesn't really matter if the remaining installments are dumped in a little-seen, low-impact timeslot.

Given the fact that CBS relies on scheduling savvy to prop up and launch shows more than any other network -- in part because its older audience is generally more responsive to lead-ins -- I'm afraid I'm going to have to call "bullshit" on this one. Still, the idea of a program being viable irrespective of how it's performing in its actual network time period is an interesting one -- even if we're not really there yet, and CBS' explanation is just a polite way of saying that they're burning off the already-ordered episodes of what appears to be a failed experiment.

So here's the key part of CBS' announcement, which probably isn't true, but some day will be. Think of it as the news before you can use it.

Oh, and if you were one of the dwindling masses watching "Harper's Island" on Thursdays at 10 p.m., please give NBC's "Southland" a try. It's gotten progressively better each week.

"The preliminary DVR and online streaming data suggest a passionate audience for HARPER'S outside its current Thursday time period borders," said Kelly Kahl, Senior Executive Vice President Prime Time, CBS Television.  "This move gives us an opportunity to improve the time period on Thursday while experimenting with more original programming on Saturday, and continuing to serve an audience that is clearly engaged in the ongoing HARPER'S ISLAND story."

  According to Nielsen live plus 7-day playback results versus live, the HARPER'S ISLAND premiere audience increased by +29% in adults 18-49 (3.1 from 2.4), +33% in adults 18-34 (2.0 from 1.5), +25% in adults 25-54 (4.0 from 3.2) and gained +1.64 million viewers (11.29m from 9.65m).

The premiere of HARPER’S ISLAND was also CBS.com’s biggest online premiere ever, delivering more video streams (combined clips and episodes) than any previous show launch for the CBS Audience Network, and continues to be the fastest growing series in CBS.com's history.

The New York Times didn't add much to the discussion with Bill Carter's piece on CNN's ratings struggles, leaving the Turner-owned network as the odd channel out with Fox News playing to conservatives and MSNBC courting liberals in primetime. (See, among countless other articles, my earlier post: "CNN: Victim of Ideology, or Its Own Shortcomings?", roughly a month ago.)

Still, there was one anonymous comment from a CNN correspondent that ought to send chills up your spine if you harbor any delusions about actual "news" -- as opposed to opinion-laced invective -- having a future on the cable-news channels. Although CNN President Jon Klein insisted that the channel would remain committed to its news brand, the unnamed correspondent "suggested that prime time might demand something more: 'It’s not sexy to be in the middle. Klein’s got to make it sexy.'"

Oy. So far, CNN has sought to achieve "sexy" with all kinds of gizmos and technological toys, as if holograms are the solution to its troubles. Based on that history, the thought of CNN actually pursuing "sexy" is as distasteful as the image of Lou Dobbs in a thong.

The truth is that CNN and the rest of the cable newsies enjoyed a ratings overdose during the campaign and have spent the months since trying to figure out how to keep that inflated high and the good times rolling. Yet with CNBC having already injected itself into the financial meltdown in an unseemly way and Fox News taking an active role in promoting the recent Tea Party protests, the last thing we need is more "sexy."

The problem is that CNN has always been a slave to news cycles -- a source people turn to when news is breaking -- whereas Fox has found a way to trump that dynamic with personalities, mirroring the schism between newsradio and talkradio. Klein sought to make this point in the Times article, but CNN has never fully articulated the fact that it's playing (or at least ought to be) a different game.

So what adjective is most sorely lacking in the cable space? For starters, "smarter" would be nice, inasmuch as there's a decided shortage of it -- and perhaps more so now with David Gregory having failed to distinguish himself since supplanting Tim Russert at the helm of NBC's "Meet the Press," which no longer sets the qualitative standard for political talk.

Still, given CNN's track record -- where the thinking has been that "giving dimension" to its news means taking that phrase literally by resorting to holograms -- that's almost certainly too much to ask for.

The Las Vegas Sun recently claimed a prestigious Pulitzer Prize for public service, which is quite a feat for a relatively small newspaper in this strained and stressed journalistic environment. (Los Angeles Times media columnist James Rainey niftily chronicled the Sun's improbable accomplishment in a recent column.)

Against that backdrop, there's a rather timely new look at newspapers -- and particularly the Sun -- in their fatter and sassier days. Writer-producer-director Scott Goldstein has produced a documentary about the Sun's colorful founder and former editor, "Where I Stand: The Hank Greenspun Story," which will be playing this weekend at the Los Angeles Jewish Film Festival. (Check here for festival scheduling and details.)

Greenspun's path crossed a remarkable array of historical figures, from gangster Bugsy Siegel to anti-communist crusader Joseph McCarthy to Howard Hughes, who Greenspun helped lure to Las Vegas. As opposed to straight narration, Anthony Hopkins vocally portrays Greenspun by reading passages from his autobiography.

Foremost, Greenspun represents a rough-edged throwback to the days of crusty old newsmen in rolled-up shirt sleeves, at a time when newsmen seem decidedly less crusty, and the old ones are being laid off at an alarming rate. So while I agreed to watch the film because I've known Goldstein for years (his credits include Steven Bochco's "L.A. Law" and "Doogie Howser, M.D."), I couldn't honor his entreaties to write something about it for the paper. Print space, after all, is precious these days.

As such, "Where I Stand" provides a rather bittersweet look at what feels like a bygone era.

Without spoiling anything, having seen the April 27 "Heroes" season finale, the show has come up short in its efforts to reboot and reload for the coming season.

To its credit, the NBC sci-fi hour did get back to basics somewhat this year, focusing more on its core characters after messily introducing new ones at a dizzying rate. At one point, you began to wonder if people with "abilities" were more the norm than the exception.

Still, this season's "X-Men"-style plot -- with a government cabal labeling people with powers threats, seeking to round them up and in some instances eliminate them -- never fully congealed. At times the show became far too Sylar-centric (villains and gooey personal back stories are an awkward mix), and I have a suspicion that some of the contrivances in the season finale will leave the core fan base more irritated than elated at the prospect of what comes next.

From a more pragmatic perspective, the declining ratings over the course of the year suggest the show's best days are behind it. Given the series' expense, it might even be time to start contemplating a graceful exit after one and at most two more seasons. (In terms of the lessons that "Heroes" can derive from "Lost," see my recent column on the parallels, though the "Lost" creative team has always exhibited more narrative discipline.)

Advertising Age has reported NBC's plans to tinker with the program's broadcast pattern, shifting from dividing the season into two chapters to one, while producing fewer episodes -- something like 18 hours, which would then run seamlessly without audience-deflating reruns. Again, that's taking a page from the "Lost" playbook, but that seems unlikely to win back more casual viewers that have drifted away.

Last summer, I sat through a "Heroes" screening with nearly 7,000 screaming fans at Comic-Con in San Diego, where they showered the cast and crew with a standing ovation. When I reviewed the premiere a few months later, I cautioned that such enthusiasm could represent something of a false positive, in the same way that "Watchmen" couldn't get beyond its graphic-novel base.

"In terms of balancing storylines for its sprawling cast (and keeping them within the same century), this season feels as if its back on track, but the path ahead remains perilous," I wrote. "The most ardent fans probably wouldn't have it any other way, but given that success hinges in part on retaining those who didn't camp out at Comic-Con, staying in contact with the rails seems highly advisable.

"Such an approach might not save the cheerleader, but it could just save the show."

At this point, the task at hand is less a matter of saving the show than how long NBC and the producers can prolong it. "Heroes" still boasts a fine cast that makes the program watchable, despite its flaws. Yet if the goal is to restore "Heroes" back to its cultural-sensation status, well, that looks like a job for Superman.

Just got through reading Bill O'Reilly's latest column, in which he quotes questionable poll data and insists that the New York Times is experiencing financial troubles because of its diabolical left-wing bias.

This has become a favorite canard for O'Reilly, whose antipathy toward MSNBC for employing Keith Olbermann has led him to make some remarkably specious and unsubstantiated statements of late, like his assertion that there's a secret quid pro quo between NBC News and the Obama administration. A presidential appointment for GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt to join the president's team of economic advisers was thus "payback for Immelt allowing NBC News to openly support Obama for president," O'Reilly flatly said on his Fox News Channel program, without a shred of proof.

The line that really stuck out in a column full of howlers, though, was this one: "In this very intense marketplace, insulting half the country on a daily basis may not be a great business plan."

Hate to rain on your parade, Bill, but it seems to be working out pretty well for FNC's Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, doesn't it? In fact, playing to half the country -- or the slightly less than half that voted Republican in the last election -- is of course precisely Fox's business plan, and it's a brilliant one. If you only need 2-3 million viewers to be an unqualified hit in the cable space, catering directly to them -- as Fox did in actively championing the Tea Party protests -- is a shrewd marketing maneuver. And fortunately, Nielsen meters aren't equipped to discern how many of those viewers are living in armed bunkers or wearing tin-foil hats.

Newspapers have plenty of problems with their financial model these days, and the Times (or for that matter, Variety) is hardly immune to these forces. But BO's assessment of the source of those woes is just plain BS.

To everyone who wrote me saying what a great, selfless humanitarian Dr. Drew Pinsky is when I gave a negative review to the exploitation level in "Celebrity Rehab With Dr. Drew" -- and his fans were both passionate and many -- let me simply respond with the following announcement from VH1:

VH1 has also greenlit a spin-off of “Celebrity Rehab” that will venture into the rarely talked about world of sexual addiction in “Sex Rehab with Dr. Drew.”

Now to be fair, I would never second-guess Pinsky's commitment to treating addiction. Still, showing Jeff Conaway vomiting on himself was by any measure exploiting the former "Taxi" co-star's plight in order to make train-wreck TV, just as the subject matter of his spin-off was obviously chosen for maximum promotional value -- assuming, of course, that there are other, more pressing and widespread addictions out there worthy of attention that happen to be less conceptually titillating.

Ultimately, I believe this gives new meaning to the expression "media whore." In the spirit of open-mindedness, "Sex Rehab" might be the first VH1 show to which I actually apply to participate -- not because I suffer from the affliction in question, but because it would be so, er, interesting to meet some of those that do. And hey, can't wait to see how they document things when somebody falls off the wagon.

The Hollywood Radio and Television Society hosted a forum of top reality-TV producers on Wednesday, and beyond talk about product integration, a key point emerged: A decade into the genre's relatively short life span on U.S. television, it feels like it's hit a creatively bankrupt patch.

"Creatively, where do we go from here?" asked Michael Davies, who -- in a sign of how challenged for fresh ideas the business is -- will bring "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?," which helped launch the trend along with "Survivor," back to ABC's primetime lineup this summer.

Mike Fleiss, the overseer of "The Bachelor" franchise, agreed. "I haven't seen anything original in a long time," he said, having personally contributed to the sameness quotient by essentially cloning his own formula with another dating show, "The Cougar" (pictured), for TV Land.

Producers also discussed the danger of excessive manipulation of unscripted storylines ("If stuff feels overly manipulated, [viewers] run away," said "Hell's Kitchen" producer Arthur Smith), even though the level of manipulation also seems to be growing by leaps and bounds.

As for product integration, I tend to agree with the general consensus that such deals have to be incorporated organically to prevent the "ick" factor from overcoming more sophisticated viewers. That said, unscripted TV does appear to be "better positioned to take advantage of the changes in this business," as Davies put it, citing the ability to weave sponsors into the actual program more seamlessly than scripted fare can. The question, he said, is how to get from promoting a product to "directly selling specific services," which sounds a bit creepy in theory but is probably where we're heading.

Then again, "Survivor's" Mark Burnett gave a pretty good idea of what an "organic" integration looks like, even if it might not have meshed particularly well with a lunchtime forum. "Who wouldn't like to wip their ass with Charmin after six weeks on an island?" he said regarding a tie-in on his longrunning CBS hit.

True enough. But the real squeeze right now is on producers to come up with another reality concept that's fresh, not merely reheated.

Earlier this week I schlepped down to Cal State Fullerton as a speaker for its annual Comm Week, where I counseled students interested in careers in journalism to stay in school at least until I am ready to retire. (Yes, I'm all in favor of "giving back," but these days I try to make sure there's something in it for me, too.)

Anyway, the kids asked all the right questions, including several I couldn't answer -- like why websites charge so much less for advertising and how television can survive as an ad-supported medium if everyone just zaps through the commercials.

The most interesting moment for me, though, was when I asked about whether the audience (about 100 to 120, mostly students) would be willing to pay for access to their favorite websites and portals. Would you pay $10 a month, I wondered, seeking a show of hands, for Google? Not a single one went up.

Now maybe Fullerton students still do their searching and surfing out of books, but my guess is they're all Googling like crazy. The problem is that everyone is so programmed now to expect the easy availability of online content for "free" (that is, the cost of being exposed to some ads) that they're reluctant to part with cash, even if the cost is relatively small for something they use all the time.

The observation's strictly anecdotal, of course, but if it's correct, there are pretty significant implications for television, newspapers, and any other media dinosaur that's hoping to stave off extinction by charging for its content.

In the meantime, don't listen to what anybody tells you, kids. Your parents have plenty of money, and they're just dying to send you to grad school while we old farts try to figure all this stuff out.

Having covered assorted television award shows over the years, it's very difficult to get me out to one on a voluntary basis. That's because they are invariably too long, too boring during the commercial breaks if they're live, and drag on interminably if they're taped.

Still, good word of mouth convinced me to attend Sunday night's taping of the 7th annual TV Land Awards, and while the evening was far from perfect -- beginning with the fact that the two-hour taping for the April 26 telecast ran close to three hours -- I'm still glad I squeezed into the old tuxedo.

On the down side, the show was looooooooooong. An elaborate musical tribute to Sid and Marty Krofft -- which, for all I know, is still going on -- became its very own "Land of the Lost." There were too many honorees, and the producers should have asked each one of the program's featured to elect a spokesperson, as opposed to allowing however many people who wanted to say something to take their turn at the mic.

There was also gratuitous TV Land product placement, including models from the next edition of the channel's "She's Got the Look." Next time, maybe they'll have the star of "The Cougar" choose a mate between awards. And strictly from a logistical standpoint, on a 90-plus degree day in the valley, some genius cut off supplying water to the upper sections of the audience when the show began, nearly turning the event into a hostage situation.

For all that, though, the evening exhibited a real appreciation of vintage TV, and those in attendance clearly basked not only in the adulation from the crowd at Universal's Gibson Amphitheatre but each other's company. Stars of programs like "Home Improvement," "MASH," "Knots Landing" and "Magnum P.I." genuinely seemed to relish the chance to get reacquainted. And as "Married's" Katey Sagal noted, hers was not a show that won awards, so this sort of belated recognition generated what felt like real gratitude, which is not always the case with one of these manufactured-for-TV spectacles.

The undeniable highlight, however, was an honor presented to Don Rickles, who -- as he demonstrated in a recent HBO special -- has still got it. "I'm so excited to get this cockamamie award," he deadpanned. Shortly after, he looked at the oddly shaped trophy and said, "Whoever designed it is a moron."

I'm not sure I'll be back for the eighth edition of the TV Land Awards, but at least going didn't make me feel like a moron. Now if I could just get the damn "H.R. Pufnstuf" theme out of my head.

There are plenty of reasons why Rupert Murdoch's journalistic enterprises are viewed with a jaundiced eye, and the recent announcement that former Fox News Channel exec John Moody has taken an uber-position at News Corp. should raise additional red flags at rival studios.

That's because Murdoch has never been shy about using his far-flung assets -- foremost among them the New York Post -- to jab at competitors. And if that happens to destabilize other media conglomerates -- or have reporters yapping at their heels at inopportune times, like leading up to primetime's upfront sales period -- so much the better.

Because of this history, the timing and tone of reports in the Post are often suspect, even when there's a rational basis for them. The paper's most recent salvos against NBC Universal and Disney, helpfully for the purposes of this demonstration, appeared simultaneously. One report last week stated that CNBC is in a supposed panic over its anti-Obama image, while another the same day placed ABC Entertainment chief Stephen McPherson in the Post's gun sights, with anonymous sources (and one ad buyer) saying the ABC exec desperately needs to find a new hit because of this spring's poor performance with a crop of new series.

Page Six used "an insider" to report about a "top-secret" dinner in which top GE and NBC brass held a "powwow" to discuss "whether CNBC has become too conservative and is beating up on Obama too much." CNBC denied that was the point of the meeting, but this alleged cabal has already provided ripe fodder for Bill O'Reilly on Murdoch's Fox News Channel, who has been in a blind rage against NBC ever since Keith Olbermann began regularly mocking him on-air.

As for McPherson, there's no question that ABC has struggled of late, though I'm not clear as to how that distinguishes the Disney-owned network from any broadcaster except CBS and, to a far lesser degree, the CW. Even the Post conceded, "To be sure, McPherson's job isn't in jeopardy ... but his reputation as a talented script doctor and series shaper is indeed on the line." And as we all know, there's nothing more painful for a TV honcho than a tarnished rep as a "series shaper."

Again, these articles wouldn't particularly stand out until you consider the source -- which is why Moody's News Corp.-level gig bears watching. Obviously, there are cost-cutting advantages and synergies to be found in allowing "worldwide editorial properties to share content and resources across the entire company." With one person coordinating all that coverage, however, the question is whose ox will News Corp. gore? Already, a Post-Wall Street Journal-Fox News echo chamber exists, with the first paper's conservative tilt and the latter's editorial pages feeding and legitimizing items for use by FNC's right-wing talent.

Moody was famous (or notorious) for circulating "the memo" to Fox News staff, which directed them on how to approach that day's coverage. It will be interesting to see what kind of marching orders emerge from his new role, but don't be surprised if well-timed barbs at other studios just keep on coming.

The priorities of the major talent guilds are not and have never been in perfect alignment, but they need to find some kind of unity and common ground before going back to the bargaining table with the major studios a few years from now.

Say what you want about the Alliance for Motion Picture & Television Producers -- and let's face it, big conglomerates are easy to paint as Snidely Whiplash -- but they at least created the illusion of a unified front as a negotiations dragged on. The guilds, by contrast, went in every which direction -- low-lighted by the internal discord within the Screen Actors Guild, which made the actors look irrational, driving questions about the reasonableness of their contract aims into the background.

Before this process began, I joked that the problem with the guilds is that the directors don't care about anyone but themselves, the writers are pissed off because they're not directors, and the actors are just plain nuts. That's obviously an exaggeration, but it pretty well sums up the way that the various negotiations unfolded -- the DGA doing what's best for the DGA, the WGA using its strike in part to express long-simmering anger over being screwed in past contracts, and SAG orchestrating its protracted talks as if the Marx brothers were in charge.

To be fair, SAG was in trouble from the get-go, mostly because the writers strike proved so emotionally and economically draining. Yet whatever hope of leverage the guild might have enjoyed evaporated with the economic meltdown, which made those traditional studio pleas of poverty suddenly possess a rare ring of truth. One need only look at the cutbacks and widespread layoffs that have battered the community and Southern California's burgeoning unemployment rate overall to realize that the actors weren't going to win major concessions that weren't offered back when their pact expired in June.

The question now is whether sobriety has set in, or if actors who feel as if they have nothing to lose will oppose the deal. Of course, that sort of depends on where you are on Hollywood's food chain -- particularly with restaurants and retail chains cutting back, delivering a second gut-punch to those for whom acting isn't a full-time gig.

Assuming cooler heads prevail, that still leaves talent facing the same conundrum that other poor bastards (like, say, newspaper columnists) do -- staring into an uncertain future regarding new media, and being told in this environment to feel grateful for whatever scraps come their way.

Studios are never going to give up concessions willingly, and guild officials are in the unenviable position of chasing an increasingly unpredictable, fast-moving target. Still, if the guilds covet any chance of improving their lot, they're going to have to zero in on what's important to all of them, even if that means sacrificing some of their provincial concerns.

Without making too much of a relatively small thing, a couple of letters in the latest issue of Emmy magazine underscore the ongoing problem that the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences faces if it intends to expand reality TV's presence in the primetime Emmy Awards.

Bottom line: While the academy wants to invite reality to its party, a lot of people within its most influential branches -- especially performers and writers -- have a genuine distaste for the genre.

The trigger, in this case, was an Emmy issue that featured Bravo's "The Real Housewives" franchise on its cover.

"I'm still in shock," wrote actor Eric McCormack, the former "Will & Grace" star. "On Emmy magazine? Really?

"Usually when I pass my Emmy on the mantle, it gives me a warm feeling, makes me think about what I've achieved in this business. But today? It just ... kinda looks like a joke."

"I realize that reality shows are a fact of life for the present, but please think about the actor who has worked all his life in little theater, off-Broadway ... et cetera. Reality show participants are not professional actors and should not be treated as such," added Marcia Ann Burrs.

To be fair, a couple of unscripted TV producers wrote letters praising the magazine's acknowledgment of their field, but I suspect as a percentage of academy membership, they remain in the minority.

The cover flap might seem like much ado about nothing, but it reflects a larger tension within the academy over what some see as the pressing need to recognize reality, which boasts several of TV's most-watched franchises and thus could potentially boost Emmy ratings. Moreover, the major networks that share the Emmy broadcast on a rotating basis have a better chance of winning an award in reality now than the scripted (especially drama) competition, given the many prestige cable hours vying for attention and the recent increase in top-notch candidates on basic cable.

That said, there's a vocal contingent that thinks the Emmys should be reserved for recognizing excellence, not rewarding commercial success, and who wince at seeing reality elevated to the same level as scripted programming.

I'd be interested in hearing feedback from those on either side of this debate, because frankly, I don't have a simple answer. But as the letters cited above indicate, the discussion isn't going away any time soon.

It was pretty clear from the get-go that Sam Zell had no idea what he was getting into when he bought the Tribune Co. -- other than the fact that he saw an opportunity to gain control of a distressed asset, in keeping with the real-estate philosophy that made him a billionaire and earned him the nickname "the grave dancer."

Now, however, Zell has publicly admitted as much, telling Bloomberg TV that the Tribune acquisition was in hindsight "a mistake." This brings to mind the comment that the proudly profane Zell once muttered under his breath to a reporter who, in a public forum, had the temerity to ask him a question about his commitment to journalism -- namely, "F--k you."

 "By definition, if you bought something and it's now worth a great deal less, you made a mistake and I'm more than willing to say I made a mistake," Zell said. "I was too optimistic in terms of the newspaper's ability to preserve its position." Phil Rosenthal has a fuller recap in the Chicago Tribune, or what's left of it.

The question is, now what? Zell and his band of former radio folk clearly have no feel for the TV and newspaper industries, and certainly no regard for the latter's larger mission that goes beyond just trying to make a profit. Yet as he stated, there's limited opportunity for him to shed these assets in the current climate. This raises the rather unappetizing prospect of Zell trying to "fix" his mistake -- and possibly throwing out the baby with the bath water. That should also send a shudder up the spines of the major studios that Tribune -- which declared bankruptcy -- still owes money from various programming deals.

Everyone in print journalism is hurting right now, but Zell's approach to Tribune staffers has been especially ruthless. Unfortunately, Zell has resisted selling off Tribune properties piecemeal -- among other things, the dude appears to hate any deal unless it can be structured to avoid taxes -- which would be the best hope for salvaging something from the mess he and his crew have made of things.

At this point, a breakup remains the least-miserable alternative in terms of allowing the Los Angeles Times and other properties to find a sense of equilibrium in the hands of a different owner. Then again, while Zell admitted to a mistake, he didn't go that extra mile and say he intended to rectify it, only that "all options" would have to be considered.

Based on past performance, that's hardly reassuring.

An ad for the new "Star Trek" movie appropriately ran in the middle of CBS' "The Big Bang Theory" this week, but who would have guessed that the week's biggest geekfest (other than perhaps Glenn Beck's show) would come on ... "CSI?"

The forensic crime show's latest stab at a very special episode, the April 16 installment subtitled "A Space Oddity," centers on a murder at a sci-fi convention, and provides a pretty dead-on spoof of "Trek" fans. Perhaps that's because it was written by "Battlestar Galactica" alums David Weddle and Bradley Thompson, who manage to make the send-up affectionate and still reasonably biting -- not that Trekkies (OK, Trekkers) are known for their collective sense of humor.

 Mostly, the hour plays like an excuse to showcase Liz Vassey and Wallace Langham in a whole lot of cool Trek-like costumes as he fantasizes about their otherworldly life together,  though she's the one likely to garner most of the attention in several shiny form-fitting outfits and boots. As pastimes go, it beats the hell out of looking at a CGI shot that zooms up the nose and down into the small intestine.

"Big Bang," meanwhile, continues to speak geek with a kind of fluency that's seldom seen in mainstream TV or movies, though the latest episode inadvertently mirrored an earlier gag in "Heroes," where the pathetic male patrons at a comic-book store are stunned speechless by the  presence of an attractive blond (Hayden Panettiere in the first case, Kaley Cuoco in the second). Notably, "Heroes" has to veer outside of its lane, as it were, to keep incorporating such inside gags, whereas "BBT" is able to do so completely organically.

As a recovering comic-book collector, I should probably defend my peeps and note that it's not like comic-book types have never seen or been exposed to attractive women before. It's just that as a group, we generally have no idea how to approach or speak to them.

Given that, it's amazing the "Trek" base managed to produce a "next generation," but here they are, ready to take (or drag) their kids and even grandkids to the new movie. Kinda puts a smile on your face.

Memo to: Patrick Goldstein

From: Brian Lowry

Dear Patrick:

I know our paths seldom crossed during my days at the Los Angeles Times, but then again, whose path have you crossed over there? As I recall, from the moment former managing editor John Lindsay hired you, you couldn't be bothered to produce more than one feature-like column a week and made a point of never coming into the office. Now you have this blog, "The Big Picture," so I'm thrilled to see a newspaper that has laid off more than half its staff since I left in 2003 has finally dictated that you squeeze out more than 800 words a week.

Anyway, I hope this new workload isn't over-taxing you, but it does seem to have made you increasingly petulant. Hell, you actually had to watch the Oscars this year, as opposed to sitting at home TiVo-ing through it, as you boasted about doing in 2008. Oh, the humanity.

By the way, I'm not bitter about the fact that my Tribune stock shriveled from a nest egg to a bite of omelet by the time I had to cash it in, when Sam Zell and his merry band took over. OK, maybe I'm a little bitter, but that's not why I'm writing this, so I'll get to the point.

After 20 years overseeing Variety, Peter Bart surely requires no defense from me, although I've never seen a guy juggle more jobs and still possess the energy to have read every major newspaper by the time you first see him in the morning. But I do resent your constant lament that Variety is full of nothing but flattering blather, never biting the entertainment industry hands that feed us (not as well as they once did, but that crumb of bad news is hardly unique among newspapers, I'm sorry to say).

Hey, I understand the whole joke about the trades "Taking three minutes to read, and three hours to recover from," as a writer once said. But speaking for myself, I have never been forced to soft-peddle anything in a column or review in the time I've been here. Moreover, I suspect if you spoke with anybody associated with movies or TV programs that our criticism and analysis is considered as tough and fair as any out there. It should also be noted that Variety breaks plenty of news and identifies trends that your paper and others seem to have no qualms about following.

For all that, I have no problem with criticism. In fact, I'm a big believer in being able to take it as well as you dish it out. In this case, what really irks me is the source. So let me ask: Exactly what hard-hitting, Woodward-and-Bernstein-style exposes have you produced lately? Let's see, there was that valentine to "Fast & Furious" producer Neal Moritz a few weeks ago; and this week's column was devoted to a soft feature about the casting process for a key role in director John Lee Hancock's latest movie, which has yet to begin production.

Somehow, I suspect these efforts won't compel the Pulitzer committee to work overtime.

Anyway, good luck with the whole blogging thing. Feeding that beast is exhausting, as I've learned in just the short time I've been doing this; still, as long as you keep trying to establish feuds with people who generate more traffic than you do, maybe one day "The Big Picture" will actually live up to its billing.

Not to sound inordinately cranky (nah, actually, I'm fine with that), but here's a plea to all the publicists inundating us with "Earth Day" programming-related releases: Bully for you, but I really, really don't care.

To be clear, I'm all for saving the planet, and I'm not one of those wild-eyed "Global warming is a lie" types. I'm not even opposed to designating a day to get people to think about the environment.

What I don't really buy into is the idea that this arbitrary date must be marked by scores of TV specials and programming devoted to the "Earth Day" theme, a bit like producing "very special" Christmas or Halloween-themed episodes. At least with those you'd occasionally get to see one of your favorite sitcom stars dressed up like a slutty nurse or something.

PBS and National Geographic are both weighing in with Earth Day fare. As for educating the next generation that will be left cleaning up our messes, Disney Channel and Nickelodeon are also all over related tie-ins. Nickelodeon alone has sent along a parade of "Earth Day" missives (via email, so at least they're not paper-wasting hypocrites) in the last few days. Just to prove I have a heart, they include:

-- "Nickelodeon celebrates Earth Day, Wednesday, April 22, with new green-themed premieres of hit series iCarly, True Jackson, VP, The Wonder Pets!, OLIVIA, and Wow! Wow! Wubbzy. NOGGIN, Nick’s 24 hour, commercial-free, educational network for preschoolers, will also premiere new eco-friendly episodes of preschool favorites Yo Gabba Gabba! Toot & Puddle, and Pinky Dinky Doo!"

-- "Nickelodeon celebrates Earth Day with a new installment of Nick News with Linda Ellerbee: A Kid Off The Grid premiering Sunday, April 19."

OK, we get the picture. Despite being big profit-driven corporations, you love the planet, and want your viewers -- including those obese, screen-hypnotized kids that already watch too much TV -- to love it, too. Just wondering, though: Wouldn't one way to commemorate Earth Day be to encourage people to turn off the tube for a few hours and stop using all that damn electricity?

Considering that the Los Angeles Times subjected itself to another public-relations snafu over the NBC drama "Southland" -- a new series about the LAPD -- I wondered how the show performed locally, and whether the payoff was worth all the mess.

Just to recap, the Times aired an L-shaped front-page ad for the program with a mock "news" story in it, causing another mini-revolt in the newsroom, where a petition of complaint was circulated. Other news outlets -- including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, along with Variety and TV Week -- weighed in with stories about the ad's propriety, and rest assured, there's nothing Times staffers love more than being called on the carpet by media ethicists in the New York Times.

So how did this L.A.-centric show -- about a police force whose image has gone through some very non-"Dragnet"-like ups and downs through the years -- fare in the L.A. market? Quite well. The premiere delivered a 5.3 rating -- meaning that percentage of homes in the viewing area tuned in -- and a 10 share (or the percentage of TV sets in use), beating CBS' launch of the horror serial "Harper's Island" (a 4.4 rating). By way of comparison, that surpasses the three episodes of "ER" leading up to its highly rated finale, with those hours (which included a ratings-boosting guest shot by George Clooney) averaging a 4.3 rating.

"Southland" also performed well nationally, attracting 9.9 million viewers and winning its hour among the key demo of adults age 18-49, based on Nielsen estimates [ note: these figures are updated to reflect final national data ]. "Harper's Island" (10.2 million) ranked first in overall viewing, but it had the benefit of a "CSI" lead-in, and unlike "Southland" -- which gained viewers as it went on -- dropped from its first to its second half-hour.

Those results put "Southland" comfortably in the high range of "ER's" ratings chart toward the end of its run. Of course, ABC's "Private Practice" was a rerun, as was "Grey's Anatomy," so the competitive landscape will become more challenging going forward. Even so, the opening-night returns are pretty good for NBC, which can certainly use a ray of sunshine. As for the Times' contribution to the show's marketing, probably not so much.

Front-page ads are an increasingly common fact of life as the embattled newspaper industry grasps for lifelines, but the main problem with the Los Angeles Times' ad for the new NBC drama "Southland" (as documented by my colleague Michael Schneider) is that the faux news story execution looks so absurdly cheesy and amateurish.

Why splash an ad on the front page for a classy, high-quality drama that half looks like one of those cut-rate products offering a cure for erectile dysfunction?

It's also interesting that the Times appears more willing to push the ad-editorial envelope than my old alma mater, UCLA, where students at the Daily Bruin publicly lamented their need to slap advertising on the front page. And that's a place where (assuming things haven't changed much since I was there) they barely pay most of the staff. If this keeps up, don't be surprised if USC breaks down and strikes the inevitable product-placement deal with a certain brand of condom.

Set in Los Angeles and focusing on the LAPD, "Southland" has an inordinately strong connection to L.A., so it might qualify as a kind of exception for the Times. Still, the Daily Bruin editorial summed up the discomfort that journalists tend to feel as such barriers keep falling amid our employers' increasingly desperate attempts to generate revenue, saying, "Our hope is that our readers will not dismiss us as the sell-outs we feel like."

Out of the mouths of (relative) babes.

Amid today's summer scheduling announcement ABC unveiled the following airdates for several canceled series. From the network's release:

Airdates for the remaining episodes of “Pushing Daisies,” “Eli Stone” and “Dirty Sexy Money” were also announced, with “Pushing Daisies” returning to the schedule as of Saturday, May 30 through Saturday, June 13 at 10:00 p.m.; Eli Stone” on Saturday, June 20 through Saturday, July 11 at 10:00 p.m.; and “Dirty Sexy Money” on Saturday, July 18 through August 8 at 10:00 p.m.

Saturday -- the night with traditionally the lowest HUT (or homes using TV) levels -- thus becomes "Night of the Living Dead" Theater, burning off remaining episodes of programs that have already been canceled.

This announcement follows my latest column about DirecTV striking a deal with Warner Bros. to air the unseen episodes of several canceled series, including ABC's "The Nine" and "Eyes" and CBS' "Smith" (which co-starred Simon Baker before he broke through -- in an "If at first you don't succeed" way -- with "The Mentalist").

Nobody should expect big ratings from any of these deceased series, but it's nice to see ABC finish out the runs, even if it's in the scheduling equivalent of the dark side of the moon. Networks have a habit of wanting to hide from their failures, but the truth is each of these shows possessed some kind of following (in the case of "Daisies," an especially loyal one), and there's an element of wisdom in not sending them away grumbling, if only from a customer-service standpoint.

Meanwhile, for those who can't wait for ABC, series creator Bryan Fuller will present the final episodes at the upcoming Los Angeles Paley Festival. The details are here.

It should be a festive occasion, but I'd still suggest being tasteful and wearing black.

Cartoon Network held its Los Angeles upfront presentation on Tuesday, and the kid-oriented cable channel has embraced a strange if perhaps appropriate analogy for a network that predominantly caters to young boys.

Puberty.

"Our voice is changing," said Stuart Snyder, president of Turner Broadcasting's Animation, Young Adults and Kids Media division, which is one of those titles that must require a business card the size of a poster. The channel then proceeded to present an assortment of programs -- including several live-action productions and reality series -- that will expand the scope of its "brand" and depart from its apparently-too-constricting name, in the same way AMC and TLC abandoned their past designations. That means being less a mere cable network, as Snyder put it, than a "dominant youth culture brand." Sounds great, until somebody has to sit the channel down and have a long talk with it explaining why it's sprouting hair in new places.

  So despite the logo, Cartoon Network will be less about cartoons and more about live-action fare, such as another "Ben 10" movie (pictured) and even hour-long dramas. There's also a joint venture with the NBA for a series titled "My Dad's a Pro," a reality show about the children of pro basketball players. At the risk of sounding sexist, I can't help but think that title wouldn't have made the cut if mom was involved.

Listening to Snyder lay out the strategy, it sounded like the whole puberty thing is actually good news for young actors seeking job opportunities and maybe not so great for animators or fans of animation. Although I've seen this happen several times before, it's always a trifle strange when a channel conspicuously backs away from a name that so clearly defines it -- though AMC (notably, Cartoon Network chief content officer Rob Sorcher's last port) has certainly done well enough with its expansion into series, shedding those "American Movie Classics" handcuffs.

Then again, Cartoon Network still boasts the top-rated series on all of television among boys age 6-11 in "Star Wars: Clone Wars," which is animated, but still features more life-like performances than the past three George Lucas-directed movies did.

And in the "Thank God for small favors" dept., at least the channel hasn't changed its moniker to Syfy.

During his days as strictly a talkradio host, Ed Schultz has often boasted about being able to out-drink and out-shoot conservatives -- a big, boisterous lug of a guy who likes hunting and fishing and, oh, happens to be a liberal. Yet in the premiere of his new nightly (or on the West Coast, afternoon) program "The Ed Show," Schultz also seemed determine to prove that he could out-populist, out-loud and out-stupid them.

Schultz opened his show with an eight-minute "op-ed," during which the camera swooped and swirled promiscuously. It was difficult to tell if this was supposed to approximate the feel of a fun-house ride and create a false sense of excitement or if I was simply stroking out.

Actually, the answer is more basic than that: MSNBC clearly wants Schultz to be its Glenn Beck, countering the tearful Fox News Channel host, who's getting so much attention (and impressive ratings) for his lunatic antics. Schultz fits the bill in some respects, being a plainspoken type representing the heartland who talks relentlessly about jobs and the middle class. What he hasn't mastered yet -- and presumably might with time -- are the conventions of hosting a TV talk program, as opposed to a radio one.

Some of the opening-night glitches weren't Schultz's fault, like cutting to guest Larry Elder -- the former L.A. radio host -- getting his mic set up while Schultz conducted another interview. But everything else about the show screamed stupid (or perhaps more accurately, stoopid), including the relentlessly upbeat, hyper-caffeinated tone; the unchallenged pronouncements by the guests (radio host Lars Larson, for example, objected to President Obama suggesting that the United States isn't a Christian nation); and the blunt, ham-fisted nature of the regular segments. One of them, dubbed "Psycho Talk," allows Schultz to deride some comment by a well-known conservative (on Monday's hour, Newt Gingrich), but Schultz never really articulated an argument, so it came across as little more than juvenile name-calling. Like there's not enough of that in cable news.

Rachel Maddow has made the jump from radio to TV with a certain snarkiness, but her common attribute with lead-in Keith Olbermann is that both attempt to engage in policy discussions with a slightly elevated air. Whether or not one agrees with them (or appreciates Olbermann's jabs at his time-period rival Bill O'Reilly), these are serious conversations with real journalists and decision-makers about genuine issues. (For the purposes of this discussion let's ignore MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who is more than anything in love with the sound of his own voice.)

By contrast, Schultz seems content to mention issues -- the economy, health care, North Korea's missile test -- while barely scratching the skin, talking to people coached to speak with the kind of speed and urgency normally reserved for the gameshow "$100,000 Pyramid." "The Ed Show" might gradually right itself, but based on a first glance it looks like MSNBC has conspicuously stooped in its efforts to conquer.

MSNBC Postscript: Olbermann's show closed on a poignant note, with a lovely tribute regarding the death of his mother. It's always difficult for talent to address such deeply personal matters without sounding self-indulgent, but he managed to do so in an especially admirable and touching manner, and I send my condolences.

Perhaps it's because I write about pop culture and throw in lots of gratuitous references to politics, but I can't help but marvel at the way that New York Times columnists Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich veer out of their lanes to incorporate references to pop culture.

Rich generally does a pretty good job of weaving these thoughts into his general thesis, as he did in Sunday's column, which included this brief explanation about differences in how the public views the Big Three auto makers and Wall Street: "Perhaps we’re tempted to give Detroit a pass because it still summons nostalgic memories of 'American Graffiti,' 'Little Deuce Coupe' and certain things we used to do in the back seat of a Chevy. Wall Street and bankers are the un-aphrodisiac: 'Bonfire of the Vanities,' Old Man Potter of 'It’s a Wonderful Life' and, of course, Gordon Gekko of Oliver Stone’s 'Wall Street.'"

For her part, Dowd's TV and movie asides increasingly seem to come out of left field, as if she feels strangely compelled to remind us that she consumes a lot of both. So in the midst of a column about Barack Obama's trip to Europe and the deft way in which he managed world leaders, we get this doozy: "Gabriel Byrne’s brooding psychoanalyst on 'In Treatment' might envy Barack Obama’s calming psychoanalysis in Europe." (Then again, the attention showered on "In Treatment's" season premiere relative to its audience size -- with sizable spreads in both the L.A. and New York Times in addition to lengthy reviews -- suggests that coastal journalists spend more time on the couch than the average reader does, in addition to spending a disproportionate amount of time with HBO.)

Actually, I think both columnists aren't just showing off but probably reflect a pretty accurate perception of the way that their readers -- even the affluent and educated ones that subscribe to the Times -- filter their view of the world. Sure, you can cite some book or essay, but odds are they're more familiar with "The Real Housewives of New York."

In other words, even with the Times audience, people might have heard of the book, but there's a better chance that they saw the movie.

"ER" signed off on Thursday night with a preliminary audience estimate of 16.2 million viewers, giving NBC the best shot it's going to have for quite awhile to promote a salvo of spring series -- specifically, "Southland," a cop drama from "ER" producer John Wells; and "Parks and Recreation," the Amy Poehler comedy from the producers of "The Office."

Not surprisingly, NBC featured multiple promos for both shows within the "ER" send-off, which brought to mind the baton pass from "L.A. Law" to "ER" 15 years ago, when the Peacock network was again sucking wind and being written off for dead in some quarters. (For his part, Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert alluded to the "ER" finale by saying, "That's what you get with Obama's socialized medicine.")

So what are the chances that this will yield similar benefits? To quote Yoda, difficult to say. The DVD for "Parks" finally showed up on Friday, which isn't automatically a bad sign, but the ads thus far haven't done much to provide a clear sense of what the show will be. As for "Southland," the series boasts a crackerjack pilot, though its premiere will be tested by CBS' launch of the serialized murder mystery "Harper's Island," which isn't particularly good but could skew younger than the average CBS drama. (NBC also promoted Thursday that viewers could go watch "Southland" online, which is one of those stunts that I'm not sure really buys you anything -- joining a long list of "We can do it, but should we?" web tie-ins.)

What's clear is that NBC could certainly use some good news, especially with the threat that affiliates might start pushing back against the proposed Jay Leno to primetime move. On the down side, nobody seems to be gaining much traction with their mid-season launches yet, which has been especially rough on ABC, which went light with new programs in the fall before a flurry in March, with two more ("The Unusuals," "Surviving Suburbia") due next week.

For NBC, though, the situation appears more immediate and dire. And if next week's premieres don't generate some tune-in, I suspect network execs are going to need more than a couple of aspirin.

It was hardly a perfect ending, but at least the producers of ABC's "Life on Mars" were able to give the show's puny audience some closure with Wednesday's reasonably clever (if -- SPOILER ALERT -- a trifle literal) series finale.

In hindsight, the same mix of ingredients that had the original program huffing and puffing just to get through two eight-episode cycles on BBC America upended the U.S. version, but the stellar cast made the show watchable, even when it's primary mystery regarding the fate of the time-traveling detective ground to a frustrating halt.

Bottom line: Score this as another one of those instances where a promising pilot doesn't really have anywhere to go. The problem is that ABC has indulged in one such laudable dice roll every season over the past few years -- "Pushing Daisies" comes to mind -- and come away with very little to show for it. Meanwhile, CBS continues to plod ahead with one procedural after another, which doesn't bode well for a lot of risk-taking by the networks as they harvest their 2009-10 development crop.

Strictly from a customer-service standpoint, though, there's much to be said for crafting a legitimate ending on a serialized show whose cancellation seems preordained early enough to do so. Fans have griped for years about such series disappearing without so much as a fare-thee-well or a wrap-up episode on a DVD boxed set, which hasn't done much to sway studios that are understandably reluctant to throw good money after bad once it's clear a show has failed.

So for once, ABC in essence did everything right and still walks away on the short end, gazing into another post-"Lost" hole to fill as a less interesting hour, "The Unusuals," prepares to beam down in "Mars'" place.

Welcome to the TV biz.

After Rosie O'Donnell's dreadful one-and-out variety show for NBC and Fox's critically lambasted introduction of "Osbournes Reloaded" on Tuesday, one has to wonder if the networks' plans to revive old-time variety shows aren't being quickly dispatched back to the drawing board.

Even jaded reality producers were full of "holy crap" reactions (safely anonymous, of course) to the 35-minute "Osbournes" premiere, which I foolishly took a whack at in a hastily written review without help from a single hallucinogenic substance. At the risk of redundancy, the best email that I received came from a producer who said, "Bernie Madoff should have to watch that show over and over again until he dies."

Apparently, even in liberal Hollywood, Dick Cheney isn't alone in advocating torture.

"Osbournes" averaged 8.4 million viewers overall and a 3.7 rating among adults age 18-49, but a closer inspection of the numbers is considerably less respectable than that. For starters, "American Idol" averaged 24.8 million viewers in its last quarter-hour, and despite a seamless handoff "Osbournes" drifted downward to 7.3 million people for its last 15 minutes. When that many viewers simultaneously lunge for their remote controls, it's a wonder somebody didn't hurt.

The special also irritated a handful of Fox affiliates that opted not to broadcast it, yielding the requisite gloating from the Parents Television Council. Yet even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile, and there is some truth in the criticism that Fox went straight from "Idol" into a program whose main purpose seemed to be testing how many times it could bleep its foul-mouthed hosts.

Although I'm all for playing around with kinder and gentler (or at least different) forms of reality, the cynicism inherent in "Osbournes Reloaded" was a throwback to Fox's bad old days. The network has yet to schedule any additional telecasts of the program, and I wouldn't suggest holding your breath waiting for another anytime soon. And while it's always dicey to read too much into one specific failure, my guess is a few of the variety shows in development are currently being reconsidered faster than you can bite the head off a bat out of you know where.