Monthly Archives: January 2010

There's a special election in Massachusetts today to fill the vacant Senate seat formerly held forever by Ted Kennedy. The news seems to be that a Republican named Scott Brown is likely to defeat the Democrat, Martha Coakley. This would end the Democrats' shaky 60-seat majority, the one that passed Health Care Reform.

Obviously for Democrats, that's not great news. Then again, that seemed to be about the only thing they were able to pass with that 60-seat majority…and even that meant watering down the bill, compromising all over the place and practically begging Democratic Senators (and Joe Lieberman) to vote Democratic. The main damage might be the momentum that Republicans will get from this win, assuming they win.

So here's what I don't get…

All over cable news and web sites are Democrats saying, "Don't worry…this won't derail Health Care Reform. It will pass even if we don't have the big Six-Oh." And maybe that's true. But shouldn't they wait until after the polls close in Massachusetts to be saying that? Right now, shouldn't they be trying to stampede Democrats and others who care about Health Care to go out and, uh, maybe vote for Martha Coakley?

One of the intriguing things to me about the whole Jay/Conan/Dave/etc. squabble is how folks are reacting to it, generally taking the side of the guy they find funniest and working backwards from there to explain how he's the good guy in the war. I also have some friends who've never watched O'Brien and perhaps never will…but they're so thrilled to see someone big slap down their idiot boss that they've joined Team Conan.

On some levels, this is a pretty simple story. Jay has a show at 10. Conan has a show at 11:35. Neither one is getting the ratings. Networks cancel shows for that reason alone every week and I'd guess that in 90% of those cases, the folks behind the axed show think, "If we'd had more time [and/or more promotion and support], our show would have been a hit." Sometimes, they're right. Network execs have been known to admit — quietly, off the record — that they shouldn't have cancelled certain programs they cancelled. They've also, of course, stuck too long with some, though they usually err on the side of cancellation.

When they don't quickly cancel a show with low ratings, one (or more) of three reasons is usually in play…

Sometimes, they just plain don't have another show on tap to replace it…or at least, another show they think will do any better. I told a story here a week or so ago about how a network exec told me he was cancelling a program and then a few days later, renewed it. I think that's what happened there. He didn't like what he had on but didn't have a good alternative. To further point out how unscientific all this can be, sometimes a show stays on because they don't have a replacement…and then it catches on and becomes a hit.

Sometimes, the programming folks have a hunch about a show that isn't (yet) drawing an audience. It's tested well or gotten good critical response…or they just plain like it and think it will catch on. M*A*S*H would probably be the best example. This doesn't happen as often as it probably should because when something's failing in the ratings, it takes a lot of courage to stand up in the meetings and say, "That show deserves more time." More often, they say, "I never thought that crap would work." (There's an industry joke where someone asks a network exec, "Did you like my show last night?" And the network guy says, "I don't know. I haven't seen any numbers yet!")

And sometimes, someone with clout can keep a marginal or failing show alive. Years ago, CBS had a series called White Shadow that had recently debuted to the kind of ratings that usually mean a hasty removal from the schedule. I worked on a pilot which, we were told, would almost surely be getting its time slot. Then contrary to everything they'd been telling us, CBS renewed White Shadow. When we asked how come, we were told, "Mr. Paley's wife loves it. When she heard we were dropping it, she persuaded him to intervene." William S. Paley was the absolute head of the network — the guy who built it and owned much of it. He always got what he wanted…and as it turned out, White Shadow not only lasted the season but found enough of an audience to stay on for several more.

When Conan O'Brien first took over as host of Late Night, his ratings were disappointing. There were those there who wanted to cancel him…and his renewals were in such tiny increments that they didn't suggest a lot of network confidence. It was like he'd do a monologue and then they'd renew him through the desk bit…and then if that worked, they'd pick up his option to interview his first guest…

Well, it probably felt like that to him. Finally, he got a little better and audiences began to get his sense of humor and everything clicked. He went on to do a fine, successful series. Why didn't they cancel him before that happened? I'm guessing all three reasons were in play then. They didn't have another show, or at least another host in the on-deck circle. The show was also getting some good reviews, including a glowing recommendation from none other than Dave Letterman. But there are those who would argue that the main reason NBC didn't oust Conan after 13 or so weeks was Lorne Michaels.

Lorne Michaels is, of course, the man who gave the world Saturday Night Live, which is one of the five-or-so greatest success stories in the history of broadcast television. Carson aside, he was the person who most intimidated (i.e., frightened) the suits at that network. And he was the man who plucked Conan O'Brien out of utter obscurity to host that show and Michaels also served as its Executive Producer. I don't know how often, if at all, he had to fight to keep Conan on the air. But I'll bet you that now and then, when someone suggested dropping the new kid, one exec there turned to another and said, "Hey, if you want to cancel him, you call Lorne and tell him he had a lousy idea!"

Now, I don't have any inside info on this but it is a fact that Mr. Michaels is uninvolved with The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien. Last evening when I was on Dawna Kaufmann's radio show, Dawna (who once worked for SNL) was saying that he could have advised Conan how to perhaps broaden the appeal of his Tonight Show and maybe get the numbers up a little. I have no opinion about that but I wonder if NBC would have been so quick to give up on the tall red-headed fellow if someone had to go call Lorne. Now that Johnny's gone, he's the guy they least want to upset…

I've been paying some attention (not a lot) to the trial currently underway which will determine if California's Proposition 8 — the one that banned Gay Marriage — is Constitutional. Apparently, most of Friday's testimony was spent with the defense — the pro-8 side — trying to establish that children stand a better chance of being raised well in a household with a heterosexual mother and father. There are plenty of studies that suggest there's no valid proof of that.

But even if there is, isn't that an argument against letting gays adopt? That doesn't sound to me like an argument against letting them marry. Letting two guys or two gals get hitched is not going to produce a lot of children. Or am I missing something here?

It's also an argument against letting single parents raise kids…which happens a lot in a country with such a high divorce rate. It's not, by the way, 50% as some sources claim…but it's pretty high. Oddly enough, I've never heard anyone ever suggest that when a marriage that has yielded children is going to break up, the government should step in and stop that for the sake of the kids. Or force a widow or widower to quickly find another partner.

As you know, I think gays oughta be able to marry. I also think that if they want to adopt, the process should be exactly the same as it is for straight couples. And I don't understand what one thing has to do with the other.

According to this poll, 71% of Americans do not want Sarah Palin to run for president. 56% of Republicans say that, 88% of Democrats say that and 65% of Independents say that.

It doesn't say what percentage of Democrats do want her to run but presumably some do. So my question is what percentage of those folks who do want her to run think she'd make a good president and what percentage think her candidacy would destroy the Republican party? And I'm also curious about how many of those 56% of Republicans think she'd be good in the job but think the campaign would just be too divisive and painful.

Sez here that The New York Times is about to go "pay," forcing those of us who want to read it to cough up some sort of fee. There's no word yet on how much that might be and exactly what you'll get for it so I don't know if I'll be paying. But I do know I won't be linking. The Times has one of the busiest websites on the 'net and reportedly makes some serious money on the advertising it sells because of that. It's because they're The New York Bloody Times and because so many other sites link to pieces there.

But even if I'm a subscriber, you all won't be…so there's no point in me linking you to a great piece on their site. I know sometimes on some webpage, I'll see a link to what looks like a piece I'd like to read and I'll click and discover the article in question is behind a subscription firewall and is therefore inaccesible to me. That's annoying. I'm not going to join any site, no matter how low the fee, to read one article. And I know readers of this site feel the same way because when I've accidentally linked to a piece behind a firewall, I hear from you.

The Times obviously knows that their traffic will drop when they start charging. Presumably, they've estimated that the revenue they'll lose from what it does to their ad rates will be more than offset by the loot they'll make from subscriptions…and maybe it will. But I'll bet they've underestimated how much traffic they'll lose.

I should also note that for a time, they tried charging for access to their opinion section and columnists. I subscribed to that for, as I recall, a year. During that time, I don't think there was a single article that I read there via my subscription that I couldn't find for free on some blog. If I wanted to read Frank Rich's column, I sometimes didn't even bother to hit the N.Y. Times site. I'd just Google "Frank Rich" and easily find five other places it had been re-posted in full. They dropped the subscription deal before it became time for me to renew. In fact, I think I even got some sort of partial, pro-rated rebate on the fee I'd paid. But the point is that if I'd had to renew, I probably wouldn't have. I absolutely believe that content providers have a right to charge if it's what they want to do, and I pay for many sites I enjoy. In this case though, I just felt kinda dumb that I paid for something that was so readily available for free.

My friend Dawna Kaufmann, who's been mentioned here in the past, is a triple-threat. She's a comedy writer. She's an investigative reporter. And she's a radio talk show host. Any one of those three makes her a force to be reckoned with. Taken together…well, I'm scared of her so you probably should be, too.

Tonight, she's hosting the call-in show on KABC Talk Radio, which is at 790 AM here in the soggy city of Los Angeles. She's on from 6:30 PM until 10 PM and around the 7:00 hour, she'll be having an in-depth discussion of the whole Conan/Jay roller derby. Her main guest for that discussion will be me.

If you aren't in or around L.A., you can listen online at www.kabc.com. They don't seem to archive these shows so you've gotta listen live. (Well actually, you don't have to listen at all. But if you want to hear it, you have to listen live.)