Oh sure, Eliza Dushku will turn up in something else relatively soon, but her men-in-prison fan base will be hard-pressed to find another series that goes so out of its way to accentuate her physical assets as "Dollhouse" conspicuously did.

If only the show was as consistently good as the pictures.

OK, so I was nakedly trying to boost my monthly traffic totals. Sue me.

Besides, Joss Whedon fans are still pissed off about this column -- I'm not sure why, frankly, except that I joked that they don't have much to do on Friday nights -- so what do I have to lose?

Although the second episode of "V" put up perfectly fine ratings -- 10.7 million viewers in the updated Nielsen nationals, and a 3.8 rating among adults 18-49 -- ABC ought to be somewhat concerned about the fairly sizable drop from the premiere.

As other networks were more than happy to point out, "V's" decline of more than 25% marked the steepest week-to-week falloff for any new scripted series this season -- trailing CBS' "NCIS" in demos as well as total viewers. And that was despite a premiere that generally drew strong reviews -- including from yours truly -- with a very respectable score of 67 on metacritic.com.

The second episode held up reasonably well creatively, though not surprisingly, it lacked the pace and urgency of the front-loaded pilot. Still, the show seems to have some a number of solid elements in place, though I could seriously do without the subplot involving the love-lorn teenager pining after the hot blonde Visitor (except for maybe the hot blonde part).

As scheduled by ABC, "V" will air for two more weeks in November, then take a break and return next year. The network has to hope now that the declines don't cut much deeper during this mini-run so that it can bring the series back with a degree of momentum.

"V" also might illustrate what ABC appears to be discovering with "FlashForward" -- namely, that viewers set the bar quite high for series they know are going to be heavily serialized and will bail out fairly soon if they're not pleased with how the shows are progressing. I'm sticking with "FlashForward," but I seem to spend more time reading the newspaper as I watch with each subsequent airing.

In both cases it's clearly too soon to press the panic button, but that thrill of victory that ABC doubtless felt after the premiere could be short-lived if much more of that first wave of valiant "V" viewers vanishes before Thanksgiving. Take it as a reminder that in primetime, there's a fine line between "victory" and "vacancy."

OK, so now we have a pretty good idea that the premiere of TBS' "Lopez Tonight" is the template that the show is going to follow: Open with a very long monologue that revels in the multiculturalism that his program represents, and then sit in the lap of his guests for the rest of the hour.

On Tuesday, that meant an extended bit allowing Jamie Foxx to sing and hanging out with Marc Anthony, referencing their various visits to the White House. I'm not sure who thought it was a good idea to do a bit where Lopez and Anthony burn money, but in the current economic climate, that seemed beyond tone-deaf. (The camera also continued to swivel throughout the Anthony interview, which was almost enough to make you sea-sick.)

Then again, Lopez's act does strive to have it both ways -- exalting his own success while simultaneously playing up his underdog status as the new (Hispanic) kid on the latenight block.

Lopez got off to a solid ratings start on Monday, but as I noted in my opening-night review, the host needs to get considerably more comfortable with what happens after his stand-up opening wraps up. And if he's going to sit around with other celebrities lighting up cigars with $20 bills and talking about what it's like to visit the White House, Lopez is going to do less to bond with his audience than chase those that might be on the fence about him screaming for the exits.

While the Parents Television Council was obsessing about the prospect of a sexual threesome on Monday's episode of the CW's "Gossip Girl," CBS snuck in its own threesome involving the two brothers and a drunken bar patron on "Two and a Half Men."

For those keeping score at home, here's the preliminary Nielsen tally: "Men," 14.1 million viewers, and a 4.4 rating among adults 18-49; "Gossip Girl," 2.3 million viewers, and a 1.2 rating in that demo.

Way to go after the big fish, PTC!

Now to be fair, the Parents Television Council was particularly concerned that younger viewers of the "teen-targeted" show might see "Gossip Girl" and, oh I don't know, go out and try to replicate a threesome? Actually, I spent most of high school watching sex in movies and couldn't find a single partner, much less two.

"Men" co-creator Chuck Lorre has had his share of run-ins with the PTC in the past, and there were some especially raunchy (and funny) lines in last night's episode. That said, it's difficult to believe at this point that anybody tunes into the show without having a pretty good idea of what to expect.

By contrast, "Gossip Girl" just went so far as to promote its smut, whereas the CBS sitcom doesn't need to.

While the Parents Television Council was obsessing about the prospect of a sexual threesome on Monday's episode of the CW's "Gossip Girl," CBS snuck in its own threesome involving the two brothers and a drunken bar patron on "Two and a Half Men."

For those keeping score at home, here's the preliminary Nielsen tally: "Men," 14.1 million viewers, and a 4.4 rating among adults 18-49; "Gossip Girl," 2.3 million viewers, and a 1.2 rating in that demo.

Way to go after the big fish, PTC!

Now to be fair, the Parents Television Council was particularly concerned that younger viewers of the "teen-targeted" show might see "Gossip Girl" and, oh I don't know, go out and try to replicate a threesome? Actually, I spent most of high school watching sex in movies and couldn't find a single partner, much less two.

"Men" co-creator Chuck Lorre has had his share of run-ins with the PTC in the past, and there were some especially raunchy (and funny) lines in last night's episode. That said, it's difficult to believe at this point that anybody tunes into the show without having a pretty good idea of what to expect.

By contrast, "Gossip Girl" just went so far as to promote its smut, whereas the CBS sitcom doesn't need to.

Bringing a dose of the real world to "The Real World," MTV's documentary "Return to Duty" chronicles the story of "The Real World: Brooklyn" cast member Ryan Conklin, who was recalled for a second tour of duty in Iraq.

Premiering on Nov. 11 (yes, Veteran's Day) at 9 p.m., "Return to Duty" is billed as "Ryan's gritty and very personal document." Actually, the project is more notable for the venue -- airing on MTV, and thus reaching a youth audience that generally doesn't tune into TV news -- than the particular merits of the production itself.

"Return to Duty" will be laudable in one respect if it inspires Conklin's contemporaries at home to contemplate the sacrifices being endured by their peers in the military. Beyond that, though, it's a very once-over-lightly look at one young man -- bringing home a dose of war-time reality only because his story had the temerity to come into contact with an MTV version of "reality."

To anyone who watches "Mad Men," I recommend reading my colleague Cynthia Littleton's interview with series creator Matthew Weiner. But to me, here was the key passage -- especially in regard to some of the criticism I've heard leveled at the show in its just-concluded season:

Does it bother you when the show is criticized for what some feel is the slow pace of storytelling?

Weiner: One thing I’ve been very happy about is that with my desire to tell a certain kind of story, the show will hold it up. The show has a way of telling stories that I can take something very small in the human experience and make an entire episode about it.

Weiner worked on "The Sopranos," a series that also told the stories it wanted to tell, often at its own confounding pace -- dropping plots, leaving wounded Russians in the woods, etc. But for those hooked on the show, the fun was in succumbing to series creator David Chase's storytelling and basically enjoying the stories he chose to present, on his own terms. (Except for the ending; I still can't stomach that.)

The same appears to be the case with "Mad Men," which has adopted some of the same idiosyncratic qualities. Intriguing plots flare -- and then disappear. Some return in a big way later. Others stay dormant for awhile.

It's easy to second-guess every beat of a show like this, especially for those completely engrossed by the series. But with "Mad Men" and a few other programs I tend to accept that the narrative isn't always going to be linear, which will inevitably yield some bumps along the way.

For my money, the AMC show's merits more than compensate for its occasional frustrations and shortcomings -- and I certainly felt satisfied by the season finale. But the "Mad Men" approach -- essentially "We serve you what we want on our timetable, take it or leave it" -- is one of the reasons these programs aren't for everybody and deliver the TV equivalent of an art-house audience.

Advertisers haven't taken much responsibility for the fact that people keep zapping away from their little 30-second gems, so let's give credit where it's due to a commercial that consistently has me going from "fast-forward" to "play" mode.

I have no intentions of rushing out to buy whatever Metro PCS is selling, but every time I see that spot in which a Jackalope and a Minotaur are having lunch together in a diner I have to stop and laugh.

The joke, of course, is that Metro's "talk as much as you want" plan is too good to be true -- sort of like, you know, Jackalopes and Minotaurs.

The other spot that I can't seem to stop watching is for Boost Mobile and features talking pigs sharing a ham dinner -- enjoying, as one says, "the flavors of a fallen friend." It's a little disturbing -- I had to watch it twice to double check what the pig was saying -- but so odd that it's hard to believe somebody approved this unless a considerable amount of pot smoking was involved.

For advertisers, getting noticed is only half the battle. As much as I love those "Real men of genius" radio ads that Budweiser runs, for example, I haven't actually bought or tried drinking a Bud since my sophomore year of college.

Still, these are clearly the kind of commercials that cut through the clutter and can even get time-shifting viewers to stop and take notice.

Then again, maybe as a journalist in today's day and age, I just can't resist the idea of luxuriating in the flavors of a fallen friend.

The "ick" factor is pretty well off the charts with "The Jacksons: A Family Dynasty," a reality show in which the surviving brothers and A&E will try to cash in (is there any other way to put it?) on Michael's death.

Scheduled to premiere Dec. 13 with back-to-back episodes, the show is billed as a "new real-life series that will chronicle the personal and professional lives of Jackie, Jermaine, Tito and Marlon as they prepare for a Jackson Five reunion, while also coming to terms with Michael’s tragic loss."

Who knew that there was a project out there that could actually make the Kardashians seem relatively pristine by comparison?

All four surviving brothers will hold executive producer titles on the new six-episode show. The scheduling is odd -- what with the first regular episode slated for Dec. 20, a relatively fallow stretch heading into the holidays.

Hey, getting noticed is tough these days, so it's hard to fault A&E for capitalizing on all that news coverage. Even so, if I was associated with this one, I'd have a hard time lookin' at the man in the mirror.

The latest "will she or won't she" speculation about whether Oprah Winfrey will leave her syndicated talkshow got me thinking about the one and only major scoop that KTLA entertainment reporter Sam Rubin (almost) recorded.

In 1997, Rubin reported on the Tribune-owned station that "sources close to Winfrey" had told him that the talk diva would retire. Twelve years later, she's still there -- and even if she jumps ship this time, will run until at least August 2011.

In the parlance of the trade, we call that "whoops." (It also served as fodder for a 1999 column about the general stupidity of most entertainment reporting on television that holds up pretty well, if I must say so myself.)

CBS CEO Leslie Moonves gave the standard "We fully hope she is coming back" response on CBS' earnings call, meaning, as usual, that nobody really knows what Oprah is going to do until Oprah firmly decides it -- including, perhaps, Oprah herself. Still, in the past Winfrey's recognition that her syndicated show is the mother ship from which the rest of her empire flows has ultimately prevailed. (The Washington Post's Lisa de Moraes has a pretty good take on the chain of events behind this latest flurry of Oprah-mania.) 

Sooner or later, of course, someone will say "Oprah's quitting" and be right. To quote the song, maybe this time, they'll get lucky -- unlike poor Sam.

OK, I swear, I'll stop ranting right after this about how that last Ken Burns "The National Parks" documentary didn't need to run for 12 hours, but watching "How the Beatles Rocked the Kremlin" on PBS provides a great reminder of crisp, economical documentary storytelling.

The one-hour special will air Nov. 9 and marks the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down. Yet producer-director-narrator Leslie Woodhead makes a stirring case about how the Beatles -- at least as much as all the spy-counterspy antics of the Cold War years -- befuddled and undermined Kremlin leaders, speaking to a generation of Soviet youths who were wildly enamored with the Fab Four's music.

Woodhead interviews a wide assortment of Russians who privately rocked to Beatles songs, interspersed with footage of the boring state-run entertainment that the kids there rejected. He also talks of the legend of an impromptu "secret concert" spurred by the group's "Back in the U.S.S.R.," and eventually illustrates the Beatles' triumph over the Soviet leadership when we see a Russian Perry Como type singing a very stiff version of "Hey Jude."

Russia's deputy premier, Sergei Ivanov, can't seem to suppress a big goofy grin as he talks about learning English in part by listening to smuggled Beatles records, and Woodhead speaks to Beatles cover bands that remain prevalent throughout the old Soviet bloc to this today. The spec culminates with Paul McCartney performing to what can only be described as rapturous fans.

All told, it's both an enlightening and inordinately fun look at how the Beatles' influence might actually have been more significant within the Soviet Union than the west. And did this WNET-backed production really do all that in an hour?

Yeah yeah yeah.

Well, at least there's nothing rogue about Sarah Palin's book-promoting machinery.

The former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate already has a much-anticipated Nov. 16 date with "The Oprah Winfrey Show" -- anticipated, mostly, because Winfrey publicly supported Barack Obama. Now Palin is set for a multipart interview with Barbara Walters starting Nov. 17 that will spill across "Good Morning America," "Nightline" and "20/20" through that week.

Given that Palin's pre-election interviews with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson were instrumental in painting her as being in over her head on the national political stage to much of America, it will be interesting to see how she fares in the softer focus of what amounts to the celebrity interview, all in the service of her book "Going Rogue: An American Life."

Walters probably won't elicit tears, but I suspect Palin will do much better in this format -- although whether that prepares the Wasila native more for life as a media darling than future political runs is anybody's guess. And while additional broadcast stops have yet to be announced on the book tour -- "The Jay Leno Show?" Maybe even (gasp) David Letterman? -- Palin is also set to visit with Fox News' Sean Hannity on Nov. 18, the host with whom the candidate spent many a softball-filled hour while on the campaign trail.

Even a Maverick-y rogue knows it's smart to play to the base.

The right-leaning Drudge Report of course linked to Miami Herald TV critic Glenn Garvin's review of the new ABC series "V," which ran in the Chicago Tribune under the headline "'V' aims at Obamamania." But I'm afraid the piece in question tells you a whole lot more about the politics of Garvin than the show's producers.

The subject, in fact, came up at the TV Critics Assn. tour over the summer. For all I know Garvin was the one who asked the question about whether the producers were skewering Obama by including references to "hope" and "universal healthcare" within the show about aliens coming to Earth, offering the lure of fabulous solutions to our problems.

According to a transcript, though, here's what executive producer Jeffrey Bell said at the time:

"Look, there are always going to be people who will look for agendas in everything. This show was conceived during the Bush administration. It got executed in an Obama administration. There are people on either sides of the aisle who can find things. You can say,'Yeah, look how stupid these people are for following blindly and believing everything the government is saying,' and you can have people who are upset about that. And you can have other people saying,'Look at these people who are promising everything at no cost, and look, they are leading them to their own doom.' And so, for us, both sides have strengths and weaknesses. ... But to try to tie it to the birthers or anything, I find, is kind of, you know, ridiculous."

And here's what exec producer Scott Peters said on the same topic:

"It's a subjective experience to watch a television show. I think that if you are bringing something to a show and watching it, looking for something in it, you can find it whether you are on one side of the political spectrum or the other. The main theme of the show is dealing with blind devotion, and I think that you can sort of look at that in two different ways. And, you know, people will bring to it what they bring to it, and I think it's our job as storytellers to put some provocative things out there and leave things open to interpretation to really bring an audience to it and really be compelled by it."

Peters, by the way, was just replaced by Scott Rosenbaum as the program's showrunner, which continues "V's" unusually tortured path to the screen -- especially given how positive many of the early reviews (mine included) have been. Still, in terms of the show being some kind of screed against the Obama administration, that appears to be far more about what Garvin perhaps wanted to see than what's actually there.

In other words, as Freud might say, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes a headline is more compelling than the insights that go with it.

Variety has already reviewed HBO's "By the People: The Election of Barack Obama," which premieres on the pay channel on Nov. 3. So rather than a full review, here's my two cents on a few specific aspects of the documentary.

Although the access to Obama, his family and key aides like David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs is a centerpiece of the project, the most emotional moments come from less-identifiable campaign staffers, such as Ronnie Cho, an Iowa organizer with his own remarkable story about how his parents immigrated to the U.S. from Korea. His tearful phone calls to his mother provide lump-in-the-throat moments.

More than anything, though -- and I'm sure much of this will be lost on those who vigorously oppose Obama and his policies -- the take-away from "By the People" is the steadiness that Obama brought to the up-and-down campaign roller coaster by virtue of his personality. Through Amy Rice and Alicia Sams' ever-present cameras, we see him respond to the wins and losses, to the debate prep sessions and the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright, with the same calm demeanor. Only when he speaks after the death of his grandmother does the candidate betray much in the way of emotion, and that's captured in one almost too-perfect tear that rolls down his cheek as he addresses a crowd.

This personality represents a big reason why Obama's harshest critics often sound slightly unhinged. The image they portray of a "radical" simply doesn't dovetail with what the actual man projects in front of the camera -- which, of course, in today's day and age, is how we get to know our candidates. (For more on that, see Barry Levinson's "Poliwood," which I've reviewed here, premiering Nov. 2 on Showtime.)

In some respects, Obama's skills as a politician and coolness under fire have been as much of an irritant to supporters -- who would love to see more flashes of passion and anger from him -- as opponents. But unless his acting skills equal his oratorical ones, that's simply not who he is.

Conservatives will be quick to dismiss "By the People" as mere left-leaning propaganda, and it's clear the filmmakers were enamored with their subject. Nevertheless, the documentary not only captures a historic moment but actually proves educational -- exposing the key qualities that helped a first-term senator make the improbable leap to the Oval Office.

Out-frigging-standing: Harvard will add a course that uses HBO's "The Wire" to explore inner-city poverty and urban issues. Thanks to tvtattle.com for finding the Harvard Crimson link.

The David Simon-produced series has rightfully been referred to as the great American novel for television, and certainly one of the best TV programs ever made, exploring the vicious cycle of poverty and drugs through law enforcement, city hall, the declining middle class and the media.

Here's the money quote from the Crimson article:

 “‘The Wire’ has done more to enhance our understanding of the systemic urban inequality that constrains the lives of the poor than any published study,” Sociology Professor William J. Wilson said.

And just think, kids: You pay all that money to attend Harvard ... and get to watch TV.

The headline from the latest Pew Research Center poll was "Fox News Viewed as Most Ideological Network," which of course really shouldn't come as much news at all. The evidence was laid out -- again -- on Thursday's edition of "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart," and I look forward to seeing which Fox hosts -- unable to resist the lure of talking about themselves -- deliver ill-advised rejoinders to Stewart's dead-on analysis.

What was really most notable about the Pew results, though, was how many people provided a "don't know" response when asked whether they think a network is "mostly conservative" (Fox clocked in at 47% on that score), "mostly liberal" or "neither."

Notably, 15% came back with "don't know" for Fox -- and even that seems rather shockingly high. But that was the lowest "don't know" percentage recorded for any of the cable or broadcast networks:

• MSNBC -- 26%
• CNN -- 19%
• ABC -- 18%
• CBS -- 18%
• NBC -- 17%

Nearly a fifth of respondents, in other words, didn't feel informed enough to express an opinion -- which, given the preponderance of news out there, means that "don't know" is for many of these people a proxy for "don't care." And one of TV news' biggest problems is that too much of it is aimed at the "don't care" contingent, hoping they can be lured into watching with freak shows, salacious affairs, high-speed chases and balloon boys.

In light of its recent fourth-place finish in primetime, much has been written about what's ailing CNN. But in this context, CNN's main problem isn't that it doesn't offer enough opinion journalism to be competitive. It's that CNN churns out way too much stupid news aimed at people who don't give a damn, in a fruitless attempt to get them to care. In the process, the channel alienates those who would truly welcome a straight, non-ideological alternative to the primetime posturing on Fox and MSNBC.

And speaking of posturing, assuming you haven't seen it elsewhere already, here's that Stewart clip. Of course, the last time he ran something like this regarding Fox's sudden embrace of dissent in August, Bill O'Reilly couldn't resist taking the bait. It'll be interesting to see if any FNC hosts do so again.

Update: Although the first link above takes you to the full Pew breakdown, Fox argues that it would be fair to note the other networks were more likely to be perceived as "mostly liberal." That said, none of their liberal ratings approached Fox's level of conservative identification, and only MSNBC and CNN were labeled more "mostly liberal" than "neither" liberal or conservative.

I'd also love to meet the 14% of people who think FNC is "mostly conservative" or the 11% who deem MSNBC "mostly liberal." Or then again, maybe I wouldn't.

Daily high-definition television viewing has risen by nearly two-thirds in just the last two years -- from 26% to 43% -- based on a follow-up study by Knowledge Networks comparing a group polled in 2007 with their habits in 2009.

In that time ownership of HD sets nearly doubled -- climbing to 38% -- but another part of the growth has to do with more programming being available in HD.

Movies and sports, not surprisingly, remain the most-preferred genres for HD viewing, but people in the sample group (more than 500 of them age 13 to 54) also cited more frequent viewing of sitcoms, dramas, news and "how-to" shows in high-definition -- and just over two-thirds said they "always make the effort" to watch in HD when it's available.

There's no huge newsflash here, except that people with HD sets seem to like them and are eager to take advantage of the technology. There's also an interesting schism between males -- who are considerably more likely to seek out HD -- and females. For example, nearly half of males say that check HD channels when first turning on the TV, compared to 19% of women.

According to Knowledge Networks, the real lesson here might be for advertisers -- especially those targeting men, who say they are more likely to notice and pay attention to commercials if they're in the HD format.

In other words, the next time you see an ad that says this Bud's for you, it probably ought to be saying it with HD clarity.

As for genres, here's a breakdown (by percentage) of those watched "Very" or "Fairly" often in HD:

• Movies -- 59
• Sports (games) -- 47
• Sitcoms/comedy -- 42
• Action/adventure -- 40
• Local news/public affairs -- 38
• Drama -- 38
• Reality -- 28
• National evening news -- 28

Far be it from me to tell you how to parent your kids. But when you take them out in public -- to a movie screening, where some people are actually working -- they do become something of an issue for the rest of us.

I never actually saw you sitting behind me, but my guess is your daughter was around four or five. I know kids are weaned on DVDs these days, where they can talk and chatter while watching in the comfort of their homes. But there does need to be some acknowledgment that the rules are different in a theater.

Moreover, when your kid keeps saying "I'm scared" in a loud voice, you need to A) think harder about what movies you're going to take them to and B) maybe take them out of the theater if they're genuinely upset. Yes, I realize this means missing the movie yourself, but you're doing a service not only to the child but everyone in the vicinity.

Nielsen recently reported that children's TV viewing has reached an eight-year high (see my earlier post on that), and I applaud teaching kids to appreciate the movie-going experience. But let's face it, "A Christmas Carol" is pretty dark -- even using motion capture and featuring Jim Carrey -- until (spoiler alert) Scrooge has his big epiphany. It shouldn't be a complete surprise that some younger kids can't handle it.

The proliferation of kid-aimed movies has obviously been a boon to the entertainment industry. But the truth is a lot of these films -- such as the Pixar titles -- rely on the patronage of teens or adults as well who might not be bringing a child under 12 with them. If parents can't teach their kids how to behave -- or learn how to behave in these situations themselves -- you're going to lose people who have little incentive to pay $13 to sit through what amounts to an extended daycare session.

If this all sounds a bit cranky, 90 minutes of high-pitched squealing will do that to a fella. Indeed, I came to the screening with the spirit of Christmas in my heart, and left feeling a bit like Scrooge myself, thinking that certain parents ought to be boiled in their own pudding.

Well, that took longer than I expected.

Watching "Curb Your Enthusiasm" on Sunday -- in which Larry David inadvertently splashes urine onto a picture of Jesus, causing the house's owners to think they're experiencing a miracle -- I thought to myself, "The Catholic League is going to love that."

As if on cue (although the hubbub surfaced a day or two later than I envisioned), Fox News reports that the Catholic League and another website have taken umbrage over the gag, which was unfortunately the funniest bit in an otherwise decidedly subpar episode.

Given that "Curb" prides itself on irreverence -- and as an HBO series, doesn't have to worry about advertisers -- this is the proverbial tempest in a teapot. Nevertheless, I feel obligated to quibble with Fox's headline -- and the one above the Catholic League's statement about the scene -- that says David "urinates on Jesus painting" or was "urinating on Jesus." This implies that David's transgression was a conscious act, when he actually sprays a drip of urine onto the painting accidentally. Something about a new medication, tying in with David's ongoing obsessions about A) having to go to the bathroom outside his home and B) the indignities associated with aging.

However crude the joke might be, there is a legitimate distinction there -- and the satire is really at the expense of people who see "miracles" behind every dew-drop that appears on a rendering of Jesus. Not that it will mean much to the League's Bill Donohue and those in the full-time indignation business.

Variety's Rick Kissell includes this jaw-dropping statistic in his latest ratings recap regarding the relative competitive standing of "The Jay Leno Show:"

"In part because of baseball making for an additional strong competitor at 10, 'Leno' last week placed sixth in 18-49 on Monday and Wednesday, fifth on Tuesday and tied for fourth on Thursday. Among the Big Three, though, the NBC show is competitive with rookie ABC dramas on both Tuesday and Wednesday."

For relative old-timers -- i.e. anyone who remembers when there were actually two guys named "Brandon" simultaneously running broadcast networks -- it's easy to still think of a four-network playing field and a separate (considerably smaller) cable universe. Yet the reality is that on any given night one cable network or another can surpass a broadcast network, and two or three in tandem can do so easily.

What "Leno" has done is hasten this process and level the playing field, making it more possible for a series like USA's "White Collar" to rival broadcast numbers -- both because USA is up and NBC is down.

So while it's tempting to look at those network rating grids and draw snap conclusions about who's "winning," the process -- and the competitive playing field -- has become far more complicated than that.

Although I bow to almost no one in my appreciation of "Extras" and the original U.K. version of "The Office," some of the response to Ricky Gervais being tapped to host the Golden Globes has left me scratching my head.

First, the Los Angeles Times' Patrick Goldstein acted as if some massive gantlet has been tossed down to the Oscars because of the Gervais choice, stating that his presence gave the show "instant event status" while simultaneously acknowledging that Gervais is "by no means a movie star" and "won't necessarily make the Globes an instantly credible show."

So a not-necessarily-credible instant event hosted by a not-quite star who even NBC's Paul Telegdy said (in a related Times story) probably won't bring a lot of extra viewers to the table. Gotcha.

Gervais has a well-deserved following, but it's difficult to sell the argument that his presence alone will get "a host of people to tune in," as Goldstein suggests.

Equally bizarre, though, was a Vanity Fair post by Julian Sanction contending that with Gervais emceeing "whatever scrap of legitimacy the awards have left will be eviscerated."

Why? Because Gervais will poke fun at celebrities. Oh, the horror.

Look, I get that everybody needs to be provocative to gain attention (and traffic) in this day and age, but somewhere between each of these hysterical, hyperventilating responses resides the truth -- that Gervais will almost inevitably make the Globes more entertaining and less stuffy, but his rapier wit might also produce some uncomfortable moments.

As for ratings, if he does produce big, memorable flourishes, like most everything else these days, those will likely be watched and passed around by people on Hulu or YouTube in the show's aftermath.

Somehow, when the smoke clears I suspect the republic -- and even the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. -- will survive.

Babysitter? We don't need no stinkin' babysitter -- not while we still have a TV!

Nielsen just issued a release stating that children's TV viewing is an eight-year high, with kids age 2-5 now spending "more than 32 hours a week on average in front of a TV screen. The older segment of that group (ages 6-11) spend a little less time, about 28 hours per week watching TV, due in part that they are more likely to be attending school for longer hours."

Frankly, this probably isn't as alarming as it sounds. Most of us baby boomers watched way too much TV as kids, too, and it's not like we turned out to be a bunch of overweight couch potatoes with health problems and a slightly jaundiced view of the world.

Oh, whoops.

The interesting factoid here is that kids are still watching so much TV despite the influx of video games, DVDs and space-age toys at their disposal. Given that I know parents who won't let their kids watch anything but DVDs -- the best way to exercise complete control over the content they see, short of forcing them to go outside and play -- it's surprising that viewing has actually continued to rise.

Then again, TV has a wider variety of channels now aimed at kids -- at younger ages -- than ever before, despite some medical studies suggesting that children's screen exposure ought to be limited until they're old enough to fully process what they're seeing.

On the plus side, Nielsen's latest data should offer hope and consolation to many parents who doubtless feel guilty about parking their tots in front of the tube for extended stretches.

Think you're doing a bad job? Hey, guess what: Other people are doing even worse.

New executives always get a chance to put their imprint on a network, and it looks like Jeff Gaspin -- newly in charge of NBC -- has his own template in mind.

 Namely, be more like USA, the cable network with which NBC Universal is enjoying so much success.

In an interview with The Wrap, Gaspin said of his vision for NBC in regard to the decision to drop "Southland," "The way we need to rebuild NBC is with broad, somewhat blue-sky, somewhat more optimistic programming. And unfortunately a show like 'Southland' didn't fit that bill."

That sounds a whole lot like the "blue-sky" attitude that USA has adopted with series like "Burn Notice" and "Royal Pains," along with the recently well-reviewed "White Collar."

The only problem with this strategy is that NBC has conspicuously tried "blue-sky" itself, without much to show for it. Indeed, the pile-up of failures under the old blue-sky approach include "Crusoe," the "Knight Rider" reboot and, if you're willing to go back that far, something called "Hawaii."

Of course, it all boils down to execution -- and timing -- as to whether shows work or not. But my experience has been that series tend to dictate a struggling network's direction rather than the other way around -- that is, when something surprisingly succeeds, that breakthrough often leads a network down a path that it hadn't necessarily intended to follow. (In recent TV history, see "Housewives, Desperate.")

My sense of the "Southland" decision, by the way, is a whole lot simpler than what's been discussed. As a new set of eyes in the process, Gaspin looked at an expensive series that the network was throwing into a dead-end timeslot on Friday night and probably asked, "Why are we doing this again?" My only quibble with the move is that NBC should have delayed the show, waited for an inevitable opening earlier in the week -- say, in place of "Trauma" -- and given it a second shot there. Even if the cop drama had failed, it wouldn't have sent a "Quality doesn't live here anymore" message to the creative community as well as the show's admirers.

Gaspin is a very savvy executive and might very well be right with his "blue-sky" analysis. For now, though, such a forecast is going to have to wait until a lot of clouds clear over NBC.

Honest, it was just a joke at first, but I'm beginning to suspect that many of Jeff Dunham fans really aren't very bright.

For starters, I was pretty benign in my review of his new Comedy Central program, "The Jeff Dunham Show," basically saying that while it wasn't my cup of tea, I understood the ventriloquist had his fans, and they needed to laugh too. The real mystery to me was how many fervent admirers Dunham has given the slimness of his act, based on the impressive audience of 6.6 million he attracted for his earlier Christmas special.

So I actually felt like a bit of a wimp, frankly, after reading other reviews of the program on Metacritic.com, which were flat-out brutal by comparison. (Note to TV Guide's Matt Roush: Have I told you lately that I love you? Great stuff.)

Anyway, then I started seeing the comments on my review and some of the emails that I received directly, many of which fixated on my use of the expression "sawdust-filled heads." This was, I thought pretty obviously, a pun on the fact that Dunham is a ventriloquist and uses, you know, dummies -- with sawdust-filled heads -- as part of his act.

But some of the messages took this as an attack by the commie-loving, God-hating liberal media saying that anybody who likes Dunham must have a sawdust-filled head -- which only feeds the impression, unfortunately, that this isn't just comedy with dummies, but comedy for dummies.

The program's debut on Oct. 22 averaged 5.3 million viewers, based on Nielsen results, the highest-rated series premiere in Comedy Central's history, so the network can laugh all the way to the bank. With those kind of numbers or anywhere close to them, in fact, Dunham's show will be around as long as he can still fit his arm up any one of those puppets. 

There's nothing more pointless than debating with somebody over what they find to be funny, other than perhaps insulting people for what kind of entertainment they like (OK, except for die-hard [or if I must, "Twi-Hard"] "Twilight" fans; I'll make an exception in that case).

Still, based on the dubious quality of the show and the chips they apparently carry around on their shoulders, the Dunham contingent sort of makes you root for his most ardent fans to come down with a bad case of termites.

UPDATE: Apparently Dunham fans spend a lot of time online looking to be outraged -- and defend him. An  MSN review of the program and his recent appearance on "The Jay Leno Show" also yielded a torrent of responses, most of it in support of Dunham.

Random thoughts from a full evening of Thursday TV viewing:

-- "FlashForward" does a nice job with its end-of-show cliffhangers/teasers. It's everything leading up to those moments that has significantly dragged the last two weeks. The ratings continue to hold up reasonably well, but the series had better pick up the pace or the audience is going to start getting antsy -- in the same way that critics at Slate and Salon took recent potshots.  

-- Best "Grey's Anatomy" of the year. Taut, smart and compelling, pulling the viewer along through the mystery of what happened to a patient. The merging of the two hospitals has brought a welcome burst of energy and drama to the show -- centering around (gasp) concerns about medical costs instead of the staff's personal lives -- after last season's often absurd bouts of melodrama.

-- Worst "The Office" of the season so far. Listening to Michael and Pam shriek at each other got boring pretty fast. (In the "different strokes" dept., critic Alan Sepinwall disagrees.)

That said, the series remains terrific overall -- and deserves credit for doing as well as it is (8.7 million viewers on Thursday, with a 4.4 rating among adults age 18-49) given the relative weakness of the NBC comedies surrounding it.

-- Watching the dude faint on "Survivor" wasn't as harrowing as I was lead to believe it was going to be. But I did enjoy the part where Jeff Probst acted like he was making all the decisions for the show on his own, without consulting the producers.

At first I was slightly taken aback by Fox's announcement that "Glee" would be out on DVD with its first 13 episodes in December. But the more I think about it, the more it seems that this is a series bending TV's financial model -- placing an extreme emphasis on cashing in right now, whether that be on the downloaded music or selling the episodes halfway through season one.

Given the flimsiness of the construct and the expense of the show, it's a good idea.

"Glee" has won its share of fans -- especially within the media -- mostly by being different. After a steady diet of crime procedurals, a musical soap -- featuring an immensely talented cast with Broadway credentials -- certainly qualifies as a breath of fresh air.

The series itself, however, remains a bit of a conundrum -- easy to watch, perhaps, but difficult to always like. The comedic tone is wildly uneven. The characters consistently behave stupidly, so much so that it's tough to consistently care about them. And even the musical numbers -- at their best buoyant and exuberant -- exhibit wide swings.

An episode a few weeks ago with Kristin Chenoweth as a guest soared to creative highs; the next week, however, proved something of a letdown, and the ongoing "Crazy wife faking pregnancy" subplot increasingly looks like the show is writing itself into an unfortunate corner.

For all that, "Glee" continues to perform well among younger demos, and the show's songs have become hugely popular commodities. Entertainment Weekly will feature the show on its next cover, prompting Fox to boast with its customary restraint that "Everyone is falling in LOVE with 'Glee.'"

Fans appear willing to overlook the flaws and merely embrace the good points -- a sense of generosity that I don't entirely share. That said, when the series lets Lea Michele unleash those golden pipes, the program hits highs that little else on television can rival. (TV doesn't get much better than her sort-of duet with Chenoweth on "Maybe This Time" from "Cabaret.")

Fox's philosophy is pretty clear: Wring every penny out of the show as fast as possible, simultaneously seeking to promote "Glee" by every available means -- from music to mall tours to DVDs. What can often look like overkill in this case is the wise move, with the hope that "Glee" might find an additional gust of wind beneath its wings once "American Idol" returns in January.

Although I originally questioned the show's spring-preview strategy, the honchos at Fox look determined to give "Glee" every chance to succeed. And at times in spite of itself, the show just might.

Even for those who aren't unabashedly "Glee"-ful, amid TV's preponderance of chalk outlines, that would be a welcome development.

Well, critics had better get used to squinting into their computer screens instead of plopping on the couch to watch network screeners.

NBC has joined ABC by announcing that it will make its screeners available online, touting that as a "more 'green' way to review NBC Universal shows." It's also a "more green" way, presumably, for the networks, in that posting programs online is cheaper than having to mail them out to critics and reporters. Plus it blunts piracy concerns about people selling DVDs.

Of course, critics don't love this, and producers have reason not to be thrilled either. Although I previewed ABC's "V" at Comic-Con with an audience, I just went back and re-viewed the pilot online. Those shots of people staring up in awe as great big spaceships hover over cities don't look quite as imposing on my 15-inch monitor as they would on my 46-inch TV.

Personally, I don't mind watching a pilot online, provided it's a half-hour or an hour (really only about 43 minutes). But watching anything longer than that is (literally) kind of a pain in the ass -- and sort of like consuming a 15-page New Yorker article online, when printing it out and reading it is much more convenient.

Although I sympathize with the networks about mail being slightly passe and even appreciate their environmental good citizenship, in some respects, "Godzilla" had it right: Size really does matter.

Correspondent Soledad O'Brien continues her disappointingly shallow travels in diversity this week with CNN's "Latino in America," a follow-up to "Black in America" that proves even more arbitrary and paper-thin than its predecessor.

The idea of exploring entire ethnic and racial groups through various individuals is admittedly a daunting task and perhaps a flawed construct, but it's difficult to grasp for whom these productions are intended -- except, perhaps, space aliens who might intercept the signal.

Part One of the four-hour project, which airs Oct. 21-22, is subtitled "The Garcias." Deriving its theme from the fact that "Garcia" has become the eighth most common surname in the U.S., the producers travel the country chronicling the stories of different people named "Garcia" -- seriously, that's the connective tissue -- to seek to demonstrate the depth and breadth of the Latino experience. It's a peculiar point of entry, but O'Brien manages to incorporate a lot of people not named Garcia into the mix -- including Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, actor/director Edward James Olmos (above) and comic George Lopez.

The second night -- focusing on the immigrant experience, acts of racism and adjustment to the growing Latino population  -- is on slightly surer footing, but even there, "Latino in America" falls short, including O'Brien's extended look at the L.A. suburb of Pico Rivera, which she repeatedly refers to as a "Latino Mayberry." Que paso, Opie!

There's a thudding simplicity to O'Brien's reporting -- there are all kinds of Latinos, there's debate about rates of assimilation, etc. -- that feels as if these documentaries are being done for junior-high school civics classes. That "Black in America" performed reasonably well in the ratings is more a tribute to the subject matter -- and curiosity about the title -- than a testimonial to any insights that O'Brien and her crew delivered.

There's no pleasure in criticizing CNN for these attempts to undertake serious looks at segments of society, since you'd like to see the cable news networks put more resources into such projects. Certainly, Christiane Amanpour has come through time and again with her international documentaries. Yet ultimately, for the domestic alternative to thrive, they need to be smarter -- or at least more watchable -- than this.

The History channel no longer just does history, AMC gave up being "American Movie Classics" a long time ago and there's very little art -- if some entertainment -- on A&E. Still, there's something odd about the Weather Channel announcing plans to run weather-related (sort of) movies on Friday nights -- with constant local weather updates in the corner of the screen.

“From the Nor’easter in 'The Perfect Storm' to the tornado that takes Dorothy to Oz, weather has a long history as a film star,” said Geoffrey Darby, executive vice president of programming for The Weather Channel, trying to explain -- or rationalize -- the decision. “Adding films to our Friday night lineup is a great way for us to further demonstrate how weather is an all-encompassing part of our lives that entertains and inspires us."

Frankly, I can't imagine most talent being thrilled about their work playing with "localized weather forecasts throughout the film, where it can be seen on the lower portion of the screen in addition to any severe weather alerts or warnings." But chalk that up as another of life's little indignities.

The weekly movie lineup kicks off Oct. 30 with "The Perfect Storm," naturally, but the relationship between the movies and weather grows a bit more tenuous after that. I'll give them "March of the Penguins," perhaps, but "Misery" and "Deep Blue Sea" are a bit of a stretch.

Off the top of my head, here's a list of suggestions that might pass muster in terms of movies where weather plays a significant role. Or if I'm missing any obvious favorites that actually fit the bill, let me know:

"Hurricane" (just about any version except the one with Denzel Washington, which is about a boxer, not a blow).

"Sahara" (1943)

"The African Queen" (1951)

"The Mountain" (1956)

"Alive" (1993)

"Titanic" (1997)

"The Day After Tomorrow" (2004)

"The Rainmaker" (1956)

"When the Levees Broke" (2006)

Jacob Weisberg has written an interesting piece in Newsweek regarding Fox News Channel's legitimacy (or lack thereof) as a news organization and suggesting that reputable journalists choose not to appear on the network.

Weisberg closes by saying, "By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations. Respectable journalists—I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson—should stop appearing on its programs."

As we say in the trade, "Good luck with that."

Print organizations -- struggling as they are -- are too enamored with opportunities to generate publicity to freeze out the most-watched cable news network. And there's considerable irony in leveling that call from the pages of Newsweek, whose correspondents -- primarily through a relationship with MSNBC -- spend an enormous amount of time pontificating on television.

Weisberg is absolutely right that journalists ought to be more selective about where they appear, but Fox is hardly alone among the transgressors. Indeed, even some of the most widely respected news outlets can become a hornets nest when they venture into unfamiliar territory -- pop culture being a prime example -- or in the thrill of the hunt, from Michael Jackson mania to the recent "Balloon Boy" story.

One recent personal anecdote on this score: An NPR program recently asked me to tape an interview analyzing the significance of this year's Emmy Awards. The only problem was that they wanted to pre-tape the segment on Wednesday and then air it the day after the event, on Monday. As this timeline made absolutely no sense to me, I politely (OK, actually, not that politely) declined.

The bottom line is that cable news has a desperate need for official-sounding talking heads, and somebody is going to fill it -- even if much of that comes in the form of "strategists" with dubious credentials, academics eager to plug a book or telegenic prosecutors with dreams of parlaying the next salacious true-crime story into becoming the next Nancy Grace.

Weisberg is accurate when he says that journalists help legitimize Fox when, say, George Stephanopoulos goes on "Hannity," but the larger point is that news organizations don't exercise enough discretion in general when it comes to sending reporters marching off to do TV appearances.

So will "respectable journalists" bypass Fox? Undoubtedly some will (and do). But in a broader sense, knowing when to "Just say 'no'" to the siren song of television goes well beyond Fox for those who yearn to be "respectable."