Monthly Archives: March 2002

Here's a one-line summary of last evening's Salute to Fred Allen at the Museum of Television and Radio.  Nine very witty men got together to watch clips and to discuss another very witty man named Fred Allen.  The nine gents were Stuart Canin, Dick Cavett, Norman Corwin, Larry Gelbart, Stuart Hample, Hal Kanter, Norman Lear, Dick Martin and Herman Wouk.  A few knew Fred and had the honor of working with him.  Others were just fans from afar.  All had good stories and insights and historical information and (especially) quotes of clever Allen remarks.  Wouk is, of course, best known as the author of serious, award-winning dramatic novels.  Hard to believe — but true — that he was once a comedy writer for Fred Allen.

Stuart Hample is an author-cartoonist who compiled All the Sincerity in Hollywood: Selections From The Writing of Fred Allen, a fine book you can purchase by clicking on its name here.  The other folks, you probably know of…though Canin's name may be unfamiliar.  As you may be aware, Fred Allen enjoyed a very famous fake feud with Jack Benny that commenced one evening in 1936 when Allen had a 10-year-old violinist on his program.  The young man played a stirring rendition of "The Bee," and then the host commented, "Jack Benny oughta be ashamed of himself."  Well, Stuart Canin — now an important concertmaster — was that 10-year-old boy.

He told of his experiences, Lear, Kanter and Gelbart talked about their encounters with Allen, Cavett spoke of listening to the shows in Nebraska and then, when he first came to New York, exchanging but a few words with the man outside a What's My Line? broadcast.  There were a lot of very funny Allen quotes, many of them almost poetic in their beauty, some so familiar to us from repetition that they seem like clichés until you realize that, when Fred first said them, they were fresh.  Here are a couple of my faves…

You can take all the sincerity in Hollywood, place it in the navel of a fruit fly and still have room enough for three caraway seeds and a producer's heart.

A molehill man is a pseudo-busy executive who comes to work at 9 AM and finds a molehill on his desk.  He has until 5 PM to make this molehill into a mountain.  An accomplished molehill man will often have his mountain finished before lunch.

Fred Allen was one of the cleverest men ever on radio but he never quite found a niche on television, which was a shame.  When he died, Groucho was quoted as saying there were only two wits on TV — Fred Allen and Steve Allen and now, with Fred gone, television was half-witted.  Steve's gone now, and the joke still applies.

I don't know how many of you noticed it but it was on the news that actress Shirley Jones has filed for divorce from her husband of 25 years, Marty Ingels.  Asked what had prompted the action, Ms. Jones replied, "I woke up one morning and realized that I was married to Marty Ingels."

Okay, we're plugging a friend's book here…a very lovely, wordless collection of sketches by my pal Michael Paraskevas.  Mickey (as we call him) is a brilliant cartoonist and illustrator whose work has been featured in dozens of fine books, most of them written by his mother Betty, ostensibly for children.  I'd recommend them all to you — especially Junior Kroll — but right now, I'm suggesting L.A. Times, a new paperback collection of doodles from his frequent trips to Los Angeles.  His style is unique and his "eye" for capturing the essence of all the purveys is uncanny.  Like many artists, he carried around one of the bound books of drawing paper and captures whatever catches his attention.  This self-published volume is a faithful reproduction of a sketchbook I saw him filling up on his visits out here, and it's great to have a copy of it I can call my own.  Click here to order a copy.

(If you're in L.A., you can see a lot of Mickey's work exhibited over at the Storyopolis Gallery over on Robertson Blvd.)  If you click on the picture, you and your credit card will be whisked over to Amazon where you can buy this splendid book — or anything else they have there — warmed by the knowledge that a teensy percentage of your purchase is going to this site. Bless you.

I know what you've been waiting for with baited breath.  And I'm pleased to announce that I've just noticed that www.irwincorey.com is open for business.  The World's Foremost Authority has a whole website full of photos and routines and silly stuff — and it's surprisingly coherent, even if he isn't.  It also tells us that he's appearing Sunday nights at a comedy club in New York and, if he's still doing that when next I go East, I intend to go see him.  I recall him being very funny on talk shows and even funny in movies where no one else was funny.  I suspect though he's way too spontaneous for what passes for a talk show these days.

What does your first name mean?  Find out here.

How we love a tale of apparent network screw-ups.  I always felt that too much was made of seeming incompetence in the Letterman/Leno nastiness that formed the basis of the book and movie, The Late Shift.  Soon after the latter came out, I was at a party where a network guy — someone who'd had zero to do with it — started in on how inept NBC had been in the handling of the changeover.  On and on he went until someone asked, "Okay, what would you have done?"

And then it got a little messy because I knew the story pretty well and, every time the network guy said what he'd have done, I corrected the details.  He'd say, "Well, I would have told Dave this…" and I'd jump in and remind him, "But at that point, Johnny was saying this."  To which he'd respond, "Oh.  Well, then I would have had Jay do that" and I'd say, "But at that point, Jay's contract said this."  And on and on.  The gent couldn't come up with any concrete action he would have taken, other than what was actually done, without rearranging the reality of the situation.

After about 20 minutes, he finally said, "Well, I would have treated everyone better," which of course meant that he couldn't even quarterback on Monday morning.  Even with hindsight — knowing that which the players did not know at the time — he couldn't come up with a workable Plan B.

I dunno how the current Letterman/Koppel scuffle is going to play out.  My guess right this minute is that Dave stays at CBS, Koppel limps along at ABC for a time while they look for a replacement and a more graceful way to ease him out of the time slot, and Bill Maher goes elsewhere for a much better deal.  But regardless of the outcome, this dust-up strikes me as a clearer example of TV executives bungling negotiations.  It probably won't spawn a book or a movie with a guy in a bad wig playing Dave…but this one seems sillier because it was so unnecessary.  There had to be an eventual war over who'd replace Johnny because, sooner or later, Johnny had to leave.  But trying to bring in Letterman to replace Koppel now is just a matter of greed.  Nightline is, despite what some anonymous person claimed to The New York Times, profitable.  It's not as profitable as Letterman would probably be in that position but you can't lose money with a news show that comes in second in its time slot.

Someone oughta remind the boys at Disney that this mistake was made before in ABC late night.  Back when Dick Cavett was opposite Johnny Carson, he put on an award-winning, well-respected show that did a lot to counter the schlock image of so much else the company was then airing.  It also finished a respectable second to Johnny and made money.  Somehow, this was not enough for the folks then in charge of the alphabet network.  They reduced Cavett from every night to one week a month, folding him into a rotating format that included specials and the second coming of Jack Paar.  They called it ABC's Wide World of Entertainment but they might as well have named it The Golden Goose because they slaughtered a profitable enterprise and wound up with bupkis.  Paar bombed, Cavett was destroyed, the specials flopped.  Their whole late night franchise collapsed and for years they derived neither cash nor prestige after 11:30 until, at long last, they garnered some of each by handing the time slot over to — wait for it — Ted Koppel.

History will not repeat itself precisely, especially if Letterman does go to ABC.  He'd probably do as well there as he has on CBS, especially if CBS doesn't come up with a strong replacement.  (The primary benefit to his ratings would not come from demographics or lead-ins.  It would come from the elimination of Nightline.  I don't think Letterman would even be considering the move if he thought CBS had a promising option for his slot.)  But the more likely scenario is that he'll stay where he is and the whole negotiation will merely have forced ABC to frag Koppel and Maher before they were ready.  That strikes me as a lot dumber than anything surrounding the sturm und drang of who'd get to sit behind Johnny's desk.

As I write this, we are an hour or so from going over 100,000 distinct hits since this website went up.  I still don't know quite how this is tallied.  If you log in twice in the same day, you're still one hit.  And of course, if you stay here for hours reading things, you're one hit but if you surf through and leave in two seconds because there's no porn, you're one hit.  Whatever, it's nice that we have an audience and I thank those of you who've visited and helped publicize this silly, non-profitable concern.  I'll be putting up more content beyond this page in a week or three when I get past some flaming deadlines.  Bye now.

Two quickies, then I have to get back to the deadlines and social obligations I mentioned in the previous post…

My cousin David has an article in today's New York Times about his strange relationship with his psychiatrist.  Click here to read a nice piece by the other writing Evanier.

And thanks to all of you who sent birthday greetings and I'm sorry I haven't had time to respond.  Yes, yesterday I hit the big five-oh and, no, it didn't bother me one bit.  I long ago decided that it wasn't me; that the entire world is now going through a mid-life crisis.

Back to stuff.

Spoke today to a couple of folks who are in and around the Late Night Teevee Biz.  They reinforced a lot of what was said in the previous item, and the consensus seems to be that a Letterman move to ABC is a longshot.  This evening on The Newshour With Jim Lehrer, Bill Carter himself only pegged the likelihood at around 20% — which makes one wonder if the story even deserved the prominence it was given.  One person who seems to have inside info gave me a likely-sounding theory to answer my question, "Why is this in the paper?"  The theory is that Letterman's people were worried that it would leak in the form of, "Dave — who once tried his damnedest to get Jay Leno fired — is now going after Ted Koppel."

By releasing the story as they did, they made certain it included the spin that ABC is considering the dumping of Koppel anyway…which is "sorta" true but is apparently far from a done deal.  My source says ABC would be a lot happier if Mr. Koppel took fewer evenings off and if Nightline did more to woo younger viewers. If he won't do either, and if a real good alternative presents itself, Nightline would probably be history, at least in its present form and time slot.

But it's not a goner because, among other reasons, that real good alternative ain't there.  Nightline has been getting around the same ratings as Letterman, though with a less desirable demographic.  That's not great for ABC but the show is by no means a disaster, and claims that it and Politically Incorrect are losing millions are probably grossly exaggerated.  Both would have been axed long ago if that were literally true, as their ratings have not notably declined the last few years, nor have they become markedly more expensive.  (P.I. has a separate, unrelated set of problems.  Some affiliates don't like its contents or feel it belongs on their network.)

Today, some message boards are erupting with suggestions that Jon Stewart* or some other prominent comedian will get the 11:35 slot on ABC or CBS — wherever Letterman doesn't wind up.  In truth, it's not that simple.  You don't cancel a show like Nightline — with 4.5 million viewers — until you've got a replacement that you're reasonably confident will draw at least that many.  At the moment, of all the conceivable contenders, Letterman is the only one with any track record in that time slot.  Jon Stewart might do as well…but I doubt anyone in the TV biz, including Mr. Stewart, would bet their condos on that if they could avoid it.  For the same reason, CBS will probably settle with Dave…who can't be all that eager to uproot a secure show that has been slowly gaining in the ratings and move it to alien turf and its inevitable uncertainties.

To answer a couple of questions…

One correspondent wrote to ask, "If Letterman does wind up at ABC, wouldn't Koppel just take Nightline to CBS?"  Nope.  First off, Koppel might go elsewhere but he doesn't own the show.  Secondly, CBS has launched its first-ever successful entertainment franchise in that slot and isn't about to abandon that.  Thirdly, if they did want a news show in that position, it would be a major slap in the face of the CBS News Division to fish one out of a competitor's wastebasket.

Another asked if being on ABC at 11:35 was that much of a ratings benefit over being on CBS?  Answer: No, not all that much.  Yes, ABC currently has stronger lead-ins but that could change rapidly…and anyway, during part of the year, Monday Night Football bumps the 11:35 show into a non-competitive position in many markets, one night a week.  Letterman would have to come up with a new studio from which to broadcast (he'd almost certainly stay in New York) and move his offices and figure out what he wants to have follow him at 12:35, et cetera, et cetera.  It's a helluva lot of work and risk for what might be a slight advantage…and might not.

I've gotta run but first, this footnote:

* I think Jon Stewart is one of the most brilliant host-type comedians working today.  I'm off now to attend a tribute to The Daily Show at the Museum of Television and Radio.  If I get a chance, I'll post a report here later about the event and what, if anything, is said about the above.  Bye!

And a lovely, laugh-filled evening it was tonight as the Museum of Television and Radio saluted The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.  Present were Mr. Stewart, writer Ben Karlin, producer Madeleine Smithberg and correspondents Steve Carrell and Stephen Colbert.  A very funny reel of clips was shown and then the panel took questions…although Jon Stewart seemed intent on responding to each one without actually addressing it.  Among the few things of substance he said were that he thought the controversial comments that got Bill Maher in trouble were "asinine" and that he [Stewart] thought it was ridiculous for anyone in America to claim that their viewpoints were being suppressed.  Later, asked if he might someday run for public office, Stewart replied, "Hey, there are photos out there of me with my dick in bean dip."  (Dr. Robert Batscha, the somewhat serious President of the M.T.&R. who moderated the event, promptly informed the audience, "We have them at the museum.")

My guess is that most of those in attendance came away impressed at the lightning-cleverness of Stewart — and everyone on the dais, for that matter — but with next-to-no insight on how The Daily Show gets done.

On the subject of Letterman and Koppel, Stewart would only say that he doubted ABC would let Koppel get away, and that he found it ridiculous that such a trivial story was on Page One of The New York Times.  Asked by an audience member if he'd jump back into late night if a network backed up a Brinks Truck of cash, Stewart shrugged and said, "I'm only human," but didn't seem particularly interested in changing jobs.  Granted, a tribute to the show you're doing is hardly the place to indicate a desire to move up to ostensibly better things, but Stewart sure didn't act like he expects that to happen.

Unless something big happens, we probably won't be updating this website for a few days.  I have a long list of deadlines and social obligations that need to be met.  And if I owe you an e-mail — and I probably do — please be patient.

So already I'm getting e-mail asking what I think is up with the news that ABC is (a) ready to dump Nightline and maybe Politically Incorrect and (b) offering David Letterman a rajah's ransom to make the leap.  The story was broken this morn in The New York Times by Bill Carter and if you didn't read it, here's a link to the piece.  I haven't spoken yet to anyone with inside info but I think we can deduce a few things by asking the simple question, "Why is this in the paper?"  The fact that Mr. Carter got a lot more than denials and "No comment" means that the story was leaked — presumably by Letterman's people.  The obvious motive would be to put pressure on CBS, where negotiations for his contract renewal are probably not giving him what he wants…yet.

To me, the most interesting question is what could be a deal point that would drive Dave to ABC?  Could it be money?  Probably not.  There's no reason CBS couldn't match whatever ABC would pay.  Could it be less network interference?  Again, probably not.  The Carter article notes that Letterman has had his differences with Les Moonves at CBS…but Dave's been in the biz long enough to know that network vice-presidents have short life-spans, and that you don't sign a long-term contract because you like this week's execs at one company more than this week's execs at another.  Besides, Letterman already has almost total control of his show, and CBS wouldn't lose a major profit center over the few matters that may be at issue.

Could it be, as Carter seems to suggest, that Letterman thinks the ABC demographics and lead-ins would make him more competitive?  The difference isn't all that enormous; not enough to warrant all the tumult that a switch would involve, including some inevitable staff shake-ups, probable loss of the Ed Sullivan Theater and cutting Craig Kilborn's show adrift…to say nothing of the sheer uncertainty of beating whoever his successor on CBS turned out to be.  Besides, if we wind up with three entertainment-oriented talk shows in that slot, carving the audience three ways instead of two, someone is liable to get hurt and that someone could be Letterman.  It could be real embarrassing to make the switch and not get higher numbers, either because of increased competition or because the network itself didn't matter all that much.  One might also recall that right after Dave migrated to CBS, its demographics and lead-ins changed dramatically.  No one can say it won't happen again.

No, my guess is that CBS and Letterman were simply at an impasse over all the usual issues (money, control, promotion) and that the network wasn't taking seriously the fact that Dave had an allegedly-solid offer from ABC.  Releasing this story, as they have, makes the threat more real and turns up the heat on CBS to cave…as they probably will.  Carter's article would read a lot different if Letterman really wanted to go or CBS didn't want to keep him, and both have plenty to lose in a divorce and not all that much to gain.  It might happen but it would have to be over something petty and personal, as opposed to something that made sense for either side.  On the other hand, a lot of what went on the last time Letterman switched networks was petty and personal…from all sides.

So where does that leave Ted Koppel?  Carter's sources at ABC probably said what they said because that network's cooling to the whole idea of Nightline.  With the rise of Fox News, MSNBC, CNN (et al), that show doesn't make as much sense as it once did.  It was created, let's remember, during the 70's hostage crisis and when it's dipped in ratings since then, folks at ABC have usually figured that it would rise and fall as major news stories dominated the news.  That hasn't happened.  The 9/11 terrorism was as big a story as anyone could imagine and it only bolstered Nightline's numbers for a little while, and not by all that much.  Its survival may have a lot to do with whether Koppel, who's been absent a lot lately, makes a renewed commitment to it.  If they snare Letterman, it'll probably be axed or moved to another time slot where it can quietly fade from view.  If they don't snare Letterman, then it'll probably endure until a terrific candidate emerges who can go head-to-head with Dave and Jay.  No names stick out at the moment but eventually, one will.

And where does this leave Bill Maher?  The replacement of Nightline would probably mean his exit from ABC, if only because whatever went there would almost certainly be an hour and Maher wouldn't (or shouldn't) stand for being bumped to 12:35.  If Dave's the replacement, he'll want his own, hand-picked, owned-by-Worldwide-Pants lead-out, anyway.  Still, in spite of what's implied in the Carter piece, Politically Incorrect is probably quite profitable, at least when advertisers aren't defecting.  It wouldn't surprise me if Maher turned into the big winner in all this, with Fox and various cable channels climbing over one another to lock him up.  The show doesn't cost a lot to produce and some of those other venues are a lot more comfy with controversy than the Disney-owned ABC.

In any case, it's nice to have a new Late Night War in the news.  But remember this about Late Night Wars:  They make great copy and a lot of feelings get hurt…but in the long run, most of the key players survive and everyone involved goes home with a lot more money than when they started.  It's just like Wrestlemania except that nobody gets hit over the head with a folding chair.  Or, at least, they haven't yet.