The recent "mistakes" by Fox News Channel -- encapsulated in a Yahoo News article and at watchdog site Media Matters  -- would be a little more believable as inadvertent errors if they all didn't buttress a pro-GOP, anti-Obama ideological point of view.

The same goes for MSNBC, which was also forced to apologize after airing obviously photo-shopped pictures of Sarah Palin.

Hey, 24-hour news cycles are a bitch, and the gnomes working behind the scenes are running as fast as they can to keep feeding the demand. Understood.

But at Fox in particular, there's been a pattern of "mistakes" that all point in the same direction -- such as making GOP rallies look bigger, crowds for Palin book signings more jubilant and enormous, and running a six-month-old clip of Vice President Joe Biden that painted him in a negative light.

Fox host Sean Hannity summed up the misleading video that aired on his program -- after being called out and made an object of derision by "The Daily Show" -- by saying, "We screwed up." Maybe, but that assertion would carry considerably more weight if the network ever seemed to screw up in a way that "accidentally" favored Democrats -- or even labeled some disgraced Democrat as a Republican, as the channel did in reverse with South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. I mean, seriously, what are the odds that the screw-up knob only bends to the right?

Hell, in Monopoly even the bank occasionally makes an error in your favor. If Fox is truly fair and balanced, one would think its mistakes -- and by that I mean the ones that it actually feels obliged to apologize for -- would exhibit at least a shade of balance over the long run as well. Otherwise, the recent foul-ups at FNC and MSNBC say more about the atmosphere in those newsrooms than anything else.

And of course, if I'm wrong, I'll pretend I work for a cable network and apologize.

The second installment of MSNBC's environmentally minded documentary project "Future Earth," this one subtitled "100 Heartbeats," is certainly full of good intentions, exploring endangered species around the globe, from white rhinos to sea turtles, wolves to frogs.

It's just kind of a snooze -- as if the genre hasn't evolved at all since "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom" roamed the airwaves decades ago.

I used to love that show, but I suspect the original wouldn't hold up particularly well today. The bar for nature programming has simply been raised too high by endeavors like Discovery's "Planet Earth" that mix jaw-dropping imagery with a more visceral approach to documenting the wonders of the natural world.

Airing Nov. 22 in the midst of NBC Universal's Green initiative, "Future Earth" is hosted by Jeff Corwin, and he does the whole Marlin Perkins thing of participating in most of the activities he witnesses. It's just hard to imagine much of "100 Heartbeats" coming as a revelation to anybody interested in the environment or nature programming, and those to whom it would be new wouldn't watch in the first place -- unless perhaps they were being forced to for civics class.

"Future Earth" comes from NBC News' Peacock Prods., and a third installment is due later this year (the first aired in April, around Earth Day). I'm all for more programming highlighting the plight of endangered species, but the genre needs to be smarter -- and less preachy -- to really resonate. If this is as good as it gets, good intentions notwithstanding, the kind of commitment necessary to keep green programming alive might itself become endangered.

"Friday Night Lights" is in the midst of another staggeringly good season, which is something of a shame, inasmuch as it's only available to DirecTV subscribers and isn't expected to hit NBC until some time this summer.

Having lost several cast members, the show has reloaded spectacularly well, with special kudos to its casting people. The plot lines are also advancing along a number of terrific paths, as football coach Eric Taylor (Kyle Chandler, in the role of a lifetime) seeks to establish the football program at a new high school, while his wife (the marvelous Connie Britton) struggles with the boosters after enforcing rules that result in the departure of a key player at her school, West Dillon High.

In hindsight, the DirecTV deal has appeared to be liberating to the show creatively -- dealing with issues like race and what it's like to be gay in God- and gun-loving Texas. The show-sharing pact also marks one of the genuine highlights from Ben Silverman's short-lived tenure at NBC, inasmuch as the network found a way to keep one of the finest shows on television alive, despite low ratings.

The bottom line is if you're not a DirecTV subscriber, you're missing one hell of a good game -- albeit one being played outside the glare of the bright lights, on Wednesdays.

A very reasonable Lou Dobbs engaged in a spirited but civil discussion with Jon Stewart on Wednesday's episode of "The Daily Show." Had that been the same guy who was anchoring a program on CNN and hosting a nationally syndicated radio show, Dobbs would probably still be at CNN today.

Dobbs painted himself as an even-handed centrist, someone who had disdain for extremes on both the left and the right. But Dobbs had frequently aligned himself with positions that even made some conservatives uncomfortable, particularly his stubborn refusal to let go of the "birther" question and whether President Obama had produced sufficient evidence to prove that he's a U.S. citizen and thus eligible to serve.

It's only too bad that the most interesting part of the lengthy discussion aired only online (the clip is below), where Stewart again demonstrates his savvy understanding of how the media operates -- namely, that people with signs saying "Be reasonable" are never going to take to the streets, which explains why the loudest voices garner the attention and are often the most shrill. He's also right that "People have lost their minds a little bit" in the over-the-top reaction to Obama's policies, seeing the loss of an election -- and thus being out of power -- as the imposition of tyranny.

As an aside, I still haven't quite recovered from Bill O'Reilly asking Dobbs earlier in the week, "Barack Obama: Is he the devil?" What sort of answer, exactly, did he expect to that -- and was saying "No" meant to make Dobbs look reasonable?

Dobbs did look reasonable on Wednesday. That just isn't the Lou we've come to know over the past 10 months.

Had to laugh at a comment posted on my review of "Merry Madagascar," the NBC animated special from DreamWorks that aired this week.

"You friggin scrooge," wrote "santa@thenorthpole.com." "It's a holiday special for kids not the next Mona Lisa! Geesh get with the season."

Sorry, Santa, but I grew up on a diet of great holiday kids shows: "A Charlie Brown Christmas." "How the Grinch Stole Christmas." "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" -- stuff that has withstood the test of time. And given all the advantages that are available today from a production/technology standpoint, there's no reason that the modern versions ought to be dreck -- or get a free pass for it.

In fact, there is a terrific animated holiday special coming up on ABC -- not surprisingly, one produced under the aegis of Pixar's John Lasseter, "Prep & Landing," about Christmas elves. (As opposed to, I guess, "Lord of the Rings" elves.) A more detailed review will come later (the show airs on Dec. 1), but it's precisely the kind of holiday offering I fondly remember -- one that both kids and adults can enjoy.

Children consume enough junk food as it is, and that includes a lot of the TV they watch. The holiday confections served to them ought to be held to a higher standard.

And if you don't like it, Santa, then at the risk of winding up with coal in my stocking, I suggest you stick it up the chimney with care.

"Should I be worried?" Oprah Winfrey asked coyly at the end of her interview with Sarah Palin, alluding to rumors that the former Alaska governor might be interested in doing a talkshow.

Winfrey was being polite, but she can rest easy.

There was nothing particularly surprising about the hour. Winfrey was gracious to a fault, and she's terrific at helping her guests sell a product -- in this case, two of them: Palin's new book, "Going Rogue: An American Life," and Palin herself.

The only flashes came from Palin, who in addition to being inarticulate -- at least, in the context of politics or, yes, a TV talkshow -- also contradicted herself in talking about "the critics," "haters" and the double standard toward women, then engaging in many of the same excesses.

Palin, for example, kept insisting that she'd been held to a different standard in TV interviews, and that CBS' Katie Couric was consciously looking to discredit her. Then Palin petulantly referred to Couric as "the perky one," about as dismissive a term as could be applied to an anchorwoman.

So what does that make Charles Gibson, who also exposed Palin's lack of preparedness on ABC? The Viagra-y one?

Palin also states that she had no idea the Couric interview would be a "seminal defining moment" for her role in the campaign, as Winfrey rightly characterized it, but then talked at length about how she knew the interview was going badly and that even she wouldn't be impressed with her based on what she saw. Well which is it?

Winfrey didn't press her on these matters -- that's not what she does, unless you get her to peddle a bogus memoir -- but she carefully led Palin through the highlights of her book, giving Palin plenty of rope. For all that, she still had trouble tying a knot.

Winfrey also seems to understand what's unique about celebrity, saying that Palin could never again be an ordinary citizen. By contrast, Palin lauded Oprah for what she's accomplished despite being a "normal American woman."

Oprah is a lot of things, but I'm not sure "normal" is the first adjective I'd apply to her -- unless I was looking to "go rogue."

"Curb Your Enthusiasm's" non-reunion "Seinfeld" reunion must be an extremely odd and frustrating meta-moment for the folks over at NBC.

The latest "Curb" featured the "Seinfeld" cast playing out fictional scenes from the fictional special that could really help the not-so-fictional network on which it's fictionally supposed to air.

Nearly all of the "Seinfeld" zoo, including many supporting players, popped in during the extended episode, which also incorporated a riotous riff on Michael Richards' notorious outburst at African-American hecklers during a comedy club appearance a few years ago. That, and another subplot that played off a misunderstanding regarding pedophilia, should be a reminder to everyone (are you listening, Catholic League?) that "Curb" is a series that doesn't recognize the existence of sacred cows.

The really strange part, though, was that the bogus reunion special looked like it would potentially be a big ratings draw for NBC -- it's certainly a link to happy days at the network, back when "Seinfeld" reigned supreme in the 1990s -- given all the hoopla that would have surrounded such an event. Instead, a fictional network suit is watching the run-throughs rubbing his grubby little hands together.

The next episode marks "Curb's" season finale, and the teaser suggested more of the reunion -- including a lot of squabbling about whether this was a chance to do a proper finale after "Seinfeld" screwed up its farewell episode and left a lot of fans grumbling, a la "The Sopranos."

It's nice to see that David and company can still laugh at themselves. Yet if I was at NBC right now, seeing them trip down memory lane on HBO might be a little too painful to watch.

In case you'd like a demonstration of what qualifies as behaving like a douche, look no further than the New York Times' Page 1 story Saturday about the shifting conventions of language usage on television.

There are so many things wrong with this article it's difficult to know where to begin, but I think the placement pretty much trumps them all -- as if there's anything remotely new about language standards gradually shifting over time. The story also references "the family hour," acknowledges that the family hour hasn't existed since the mid-1970s, and then talks about the family hour some more.

It was 20 years ago, in fact, that CBS caused a stir by letting a child say "You suck" to her brother in a new sitcom, "Uncle Buck," adapted from the movie. The republic has survived, even if "Uncle Buck" didn't. But it's a pretty good case study in how these controversies have flared over the years, as standards and conventions change and evolve.

The main problem is that the Times still plays a strong agenda-setting role, so its dumb story will doubtless lead to dumb follow-ups elsewhere and even dumber cable TV news pieces about the language our kids are hearing -- even though most kids are watching Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network or the Disney Channel and not seeing any of this crap in the first place. My head hurts just thinking about it.

I could go on and on, but the piece finally explains why it's such a waste of time by closing with a Massachusetts College professor noting, "Vulgar slang has a way of waxing and waning, where we become desensitized to a word’s earlier meanings,” he said. “I would bet most kids today couldn’t tell you what a douche bag is.”

No, but make them read this story and they'll figure it out pretty quick.

Television has an odd preoccupation with commemorating anniversaries, so that horrific events are now revisited with the same annual frequency as holiday specials and parades.

Discovery, for example, has another pair of JFK assassination specs lined up for Nov. 22 -- the 46th anniversary -- just as each Sept. 11 brings a new wave of fresh and not-so-fresh memorials.

November also marks the one-year anniversary of the terror attacks in Mumbai, which has spawned a pair of specials this month: HBO's "Terror in Mumbai," which airs Nov. 19; and PBS's "Secrets of the Dead: Mumbai Massacre," on Nov. 25.

Both run an hour, but the HBO spec is by far the superior of the two. The pay channel's account is both harrowing and enlightening, using video and intercepted cellphone calls to recreate much of what transpired, and featuring an interview with the surviving gunman.

In the calls, you hear the terror plotters coaxing their flunkies to murder innocents, even as the young men carrying out these violent acts marvel at the opulence of the hotels they're occupying. As Newsweek columnist and CNN host Fareed Zakaria notes in narrating the program, the ruthlessness that's displayed can easily obscure the complexity of the problem, beginning with what motivates an enemy to execute suicide missions in the name of their "cause."

That sense of alienation -- and the exploitation of it in an effort to justify mass murder -- seems especially timely as pundits sift through the evidence in the military base killings in Fort Hood, Tex., ascertaining to what extent religious extremism motivated accused killer Nidal Malik Hasan.

Directed by Dan Reed (who also did the earlier "Terror in Moscow"), HBO's "Mumbai" doc is an unflinching and depressing look at what transpired. Nevertheless, "Terror in Mumbai" largely achieves its objective -- putting a face on the perpetrators as well as their victims. Neither of these projects is a picnic to watch, but if you only have the stomach for one hour devoted to these grisly events, HBO's is definitely the one.

Nickelodeon presented its latest research study about the shifting nature of the U.S. family on Thursday morning, and there were no major newsflashes to come out of the data.

There were, however, some interesting tidbits, beginning with this rather unsettling statistic: Most grandparents achieve that status for the first time at age 48. And several other findings in the survey -- which polled kids age 8-21, as well as the parents and grandparents of kids age 2-21 -- fell into line with the notion that our image of grandparents today -- many of them online, youthful and active -- is a far cry from what they were in the old days.

I think the point of this is that grandparents have more money to buy stuff for kids, but I could be mistaken.

Some other noteworthy statistics from the Nickelodeon-Harris Interactive "The Family GPS" survey:

Finally, the presentation was followed by a panel moderated by Dr. Drew Pinsky, the host of VH1's "Celebrity Rehab" and "Sex Rehab" series. That seemed like a really good time to leave, but not before research exec Ron Geraci introduced the ubiquitous "Loveline" host with this amusing one-liner: "Dr. Drew's on VH1 more than SpongeBob's on Nickelodeon."

According to my unofficial polling, 100% of BLTV bloggers agree with that.

Lou Dobbs' exit from CNN only demonstrated the anchor's remarkable mix of stubbornness and cluelessness.

In his farewell to remarks on air Wednesday, Dobbs spoke of a debased political debate on key issues "defined in the public arena by partisanship and ideology rather than by rigorous empirical thought and forthright analysis and discussion. I will be working diligently to change that as best I can."

Yet Dobbs has almost certainly been a source of partisan rancor, despite his protestations that he's merely "asking questions." And like many other pundits on the right and the left, he unconvincingly played the victim once his own criticism came under criticism itself.

A few hours later and a couple of channels over, Fox News' Sean Hannity handled his latest snafu with considerably more grace on his program, admitting that he and his staff had made an "inadvertent mistake" by misleadingly juxtaposing video from two different events into one story -- a moment caught by "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" and his crack research team.

Still, Hannity's "we screwed up" admission would be more convincing if there wasn't ample evidence of incidents (here's one in which "Hannity" misleadingly edited comments by President Obama) where the conservative host has done the same in the past, without any such mea culpa. (Fox hates Media Matters for America, which provided that clip, but they do have a fairly detailed roster of instances where Fox has edited or cherry-picked video available on their site.)

Hannity is certainly entitled to his opinions, but he's not entitled to mangling facts or rewriting history in order to support them. Faced with what appears to be a pattern of that, the "inadvertent mistake" excuse is harder to swallow as having been inadvertent or a mistake.

Update: Stewart followed up on Hannity's "apology" with another dead-on segment, one in which he niftily redefined the Fox "We report. You decide" slogan as "We alter reality. You are sold a preconceived narrative."

Fox's heavyweight hosts usually can't resist any opportunity to talk about themselves, but I credit the management over there with being smarter than this. I mean, didn't anybody learn anything from watching CNBC's Jim Cramer make a complete ass out of himself in slow motion?

inasmuch as the initial piece was actually a pretty pointed indictment of Hannity's program, maybe it's time to just pretend that "The Daily Show" doesn't exist.

Here's the clip:

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.