Both the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times are reporting about a supposed truce between Fox News Channel and MSNBC brokered by top News Corp. and General Electric executives.

Although I've long advocated that the two sides exercise some restraint in their increasingly heated war of rhetoric -- which has come to resemble the HBO movie "Weapons of Mass Distraction" -- let's just say I'll completely believe it when I see it. Hell, even corporate behemoths might discover that when it comes to star personalities, creating monsters is easier than controlling them.

At the source of the fracas are MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and FNC's Bill O'Reilly. Having been made the butt of Olbermann's barbs for the last several years, the thin-skinned O'Reilly has become increasingly venomous in leveling counter-attacks at NBC News and GE, clearly hoping to retaliate against those who employ his tormentor. (The odd part is that while Olbermann mentions O'Reilly almost nightly -- regularly naming him "The worst person in the world" -- O'Reilly will never stoop, in his view, to utter Olbermann's name.)

Olbermann has been off the last couple of weeks, but via email he told the New York Times' Brian Stelter that he was "party to no deal." Without Olbermann agreeing to dial back his invective toward O'Reilly, it's hard to imagine a unilateral cessation by Fox.

At least marginally toning down the vitriol would be a step in the right direction. It's gotten to the point where the opposing sides have come close to accusing the other of murder -- O'Reilly maintaining that GE is contributing to the death of Americans by doing business with Iran, Olbermann by alleging that O'Reilly's frequent reports about George Tiller, a doctor who performed abortions, helped lead to his killing. Urging them to play a little nicer hardly seems out of line.

Thanks in part to Lou Dobbs and his pigheaded insistence on flogging the "birther" movement questioning President Obama's origins, both networks seem to agree on at least one thing -- sharing a common contempt for CNN, albeit not for the same reasons.

Given the overheated, conflict-driven climate in the talk/opinion space from which these networks have handsomely profited, it's difficult to squeeze the genie back into the bottle. About the best the bosses can hope for, perhaps, is trading in one bogeyman for another.

Update: Salon's Glenn Greenwald zeroes in on the most disturbing aspect of the story: That GE would seek to muzzle Olbermann (and potentially other MSNBC hosts) in order to protect its corporate interests. By that measure, O'Reilly's retaliatory assault on GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt and NBC News -- one often characterized by distortions and unsubstantiated allegations -- will have paid off. Indeed, O'Reilly has transparently gone after GE specifically to bring about this sort of concession.

The real question, yet to be determined, is how the supposed "truce" will work in practice -- and whether Olbermann can abide by the restrictions. If it's strictly a matter of toning down or dialing back his commentary -- as opposed to eliminating criticism of FNC -- that falls under the heading of the network exercising editorial discretion over its talent. MSNBC brass has a right to ask that O'Reilly bashing no longer need be a nightly occurrence. The motives might be venal, but it's not unheard of, which is why CNN is receiving such well-deserved criticism for behaving as if it has no control over what comes tumbling out of Dobbs' mouth, just as Fox merits criticism for Glenn Beck's more unhinged statements.

On the flip side, it's hard to envision Olbermann (who is scheduled to return from his vacation next week) accepting an order to completely expunge references to O'Reilly or Fox News from his coverage simply to take the heat off of GE. If that's really what's happening here, this is a much more serious issue.

For years, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences has waged an internal battle to determine the direction of the Emmy Awards: Are they a showcase to honor excellence -- that is, the best in television -- or an annual TV special that will generate a big license fee and fund ambitious academy-sponsored activities?

The decision to "time-shift" eight of the 28 awards handed out on Emmy night -- prerecording those award presentations in order to squeeze an extra 15 minutes out of the broadcast and pay homage to more popular (if potentially less excellent) programs -- makes clear which side won.

To be fair, the academy, CBS and producer Don Mischer were seeking a compromise, and on paper it's a fairly artful solution. But like many compromises, while it was enough to pass muster with the organization's board, it's unlikely to please everyone.

Unlike the Oscars, the TV academy doesn't control the production of its own show. They have licensed the rights to the four major networks, who share the awards on a rotating basis and, frankly, have largely fallen out of Emmy contention for many of the highest-profile awards.

Said broadcast networks want to put on a show that will generate high ratings and make them some money. And they're convinced (self-servingly, but not necessarily inaccurately) that recognizing programs like AMC's "Mad Men," HBO's "John Adams" or Showtime's "Dexter" evokes a big "Huh?" response among too much of the audience to fulfill that objective.

The Oscars -- faced with a similar dilemma, as little-seen indie films piled up award bids -- announced that they would expand the best-picture roster to 10 nominees. The Emmys came pretty close to that, upping the best drama and comedy list, with seven contenders in each category based on the latest voting. But that still wasn't enough.

As the host network, CBS was all for cutting back on time allotted to categories that don't feature recognizable stars. After all, the Tonys and Grammys both performed better ratings-wise this year, and each of those academy-backed exercises have reduced the number of on-air award presentations. Why should the Emmys be immune?

Besides, the networks are tired of watching HBO talent keep parading up to the podium. Last year's Emmy ratings were a disappointment. What better excuse to give the heave-ho to some TV movie categories (where HBO -- yet again -- nabbed the lion's share of nods), outstanding miniseries, and maybe even writing for a drama, where "Mad Men" garnered four of the five nominations. (For the record, "Lost" rounded out the category.)

But the academy also knows that this policy shift will not sit well with prominent members of the TV community, which is why the organization has at best been coy about its plans since a preliminary vote to amend the awards in February.

Based on reaction to Thursday's announcement, the roster of aggrieved parties begins with writer-producers, who are television's top dogs. The Writers Guild of America West made clear that it's not happy about the move, saying, "Last year's Emmys suffered a tremendous decline in quality and ratings because of a lack of scripted material. That the Academy would then decide to devalue the primary and seminal role that writing plays in television is ridiculous and self-defeating."

Asked how writers would feel about the news, one showrunner -- alluding to some of the sensitivity that surfaced during last year's writers strike -- said wryly, "As you may have noticed, writers are a little touchy on this respect issue."

Altering the Emmy format might help improve ratings, which would make the networks happy -- and assist the academy in negotiating a more lucrative license fee after its current contract expires in 2010. But it is sure to alienate those who see the Emmys as a rare oasis devoted to lauding excellence, amid a TV landscape where commercial considerations can often be downright cruel to quality programming.

In this decades-old struggle, something eventually had to give -- a little like the psychological war between Norman Bates and his mother. Just don't expect the combatants on the short end of this existential struggle to sit there, quietly, like they wouldn't hurt a fly.

It's been a foregone conclusion since Variety broke the story in February that the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences would remove at least seven of the 28 awards from the live Emmy telecast by prerecording them and showing only the acceptance speeches. The board voted on the matter back then, with the only question being which awards were going to be shifted -- and which group of recipients disappointed.

The answer appears to be predominantly the longform community, with six of those categories -- outstanding movie, miniseries, writing and directing for a movie or miniseries, and supporting actor/actress -- to be time-shifted into (or depending on one's point of view, out of) the primary telecast.

Two additional categories for writing and directing will also be prerecorded.

So what's the big deal, and why is this happening? The goal is to give producer Don Mischer more time to put together an entertaining show, and remove categories that might not be as interesting to the audience. By cutting out the build-up, the "time-shifted" approach will probably give the producers another 15 minutes or so to play around with during the CBS broadcast.

It's a happy coincidence that most of those categories are likely to honor a cable network and have traditionally overlooked broadcasters in recent years. HBO has won best movie, for example, all but two times since 1993, and broadcasters have grown tired of seeing the awards become a three-hour commercial for the pay service, which set a record last year with 13 awards for the miniseries "John Adams."

Still, the TV academy knows that some people are not going to be happy about this. Longform producers and execs, led by Helen Verno at Sony Pictures Television, complained bitterly when the matter first arose.

The academy responded with this statement at the time:
"We have no intention to remove any of the TV movie, miniseries, variety/music/comedy specials and series categories from the Primetime Emmy Awards. There have been no such discussions with CBS."

Whoops.

One can sympathize with the academy about the pressure to remove (or at least diminish the exposure for) certain categories and streamline the awards. The Tonys and Grammys have employed a similar approach. Even the Oscars demonstrated a willingness to break with tradition by expanding best picture to 10 nominees.

The academy's leadership, however, should have been more honest with longform producers when the situation first became public, instead of (charitably) punting the problem down the road -- including the question of whether the talent guilds representing writers, directors and actors will withdraw waivers for the use of clips if they are unhappy about the new configuration.

Honorees will still get their moment in the sun, even if it's slightly different and somewhat cloudier than in the past. That said, there are going to be some hurt feelings, and I suspect there might be a little extra irritation about the simple fact that the academy didn't engage in some straight talk about its plans from the get-go.

Update: Emmy producer Don Mischer confirmed that the changes are planned while stating that the actual configuration of the awards isn't officially locked. He also noted that the prerecorded awards will have to begin around 4:15 p.m. PT (45 minutes before the live telecast), so a long evening just got a bit longer.

Meanwhile, Academy Chairman John Shaffner has emailed members complaining about the information leaks out of the academy, which of course was promptly leaked. Fortunately, we're talking Emmy procedures here, not torture memos, but it's always nice to be talked (or emailed) about.

Mischer also noted one interesting point during the conference call: That with the increased commercial load in primetime, the Emmys have to present 28 awards in roughly 2 hours and 10 minutes, which left "very little time to do anything else." I doubt that will mollify those writers, producers, directors and actors who feel like they're being dissed, but when you ask "Why can't they hand out 28 awards in three hours?," it's a noteworthy statistic.

CNN President Jonathan Klein insisted that his network is the only cable news outlet that still does real straightforward reporting. But he then proceeded to parse his words about a recent controversy -- host Lou Dobbs' pursuit of the Barack Obama "Was he born here?" story -- in a manner that does little to buttress the network's credibility.

Addressing what's left of the TV Critics Assn. tour on Tuesday, Klein was asked about Dobbs' questioning of Obama's origins on both his radio program and CNN. According to Klein, there are "two strands" to this story: "Facts" -- which have been demonstrated to show that Obama was born in Hawaii, and thus was eligible to be elected president -- and "flaps," that is, the heat being generated by the conspiracy nuts who are convinced otherwise.

"The facts are a settled matter," Klein said. OK, then why legitimize the story simply because a few nutcases believe it? Because, he said, CNN wants to reflect "a range of points of view." Throwing his two cents in, anchor John King said that reporters can't ignore conversations and "don't get to decide" what's a legitimate topic and what's not.

Come again? So if there was a contingent out there arguing that the British won the Revolutionary War, would CNN be duty-bound to cover it because there's a "flap" about it? That's one of the most asinine statements I've ever heard.

Journalists decide what's relevant a hundred times a day. Not every "flap" deserves the imprimatur of coverage -- unless, of course, you're cynically piling on a fabricated "controversy" because you fear being left out, what with conservative talkradio hosts discussing it. I frequently hear from lunatics doing this job. That doesn't mean I write about them.

After the session, Klein told me that he relies on "the best judgments and instincts" of his talent and that the truth of the "birther" movement is "a dead issue at CNN." If it is, someone should tell Dobbs, who -- admittedly more on his radio show, which CNN doesn't control, than TV -- has insisted on flogging the "birther" question by saying that while he personally believes Obama is a U.S. citizen, the president hasn't released evidence to prove his Hawaiian origins. See the website mediamatters.org for a compilation of Dobbs' own coy, self-pitying, border-line unhinged pronouncements about the matter and those he perceives as unfairly attacking him. (The Los Angeles Times has a more detailed account of my exchange with Klein.) 

Dobbs can say what he likes, but if CNN truly thinks this is factually "a dead issue," then it has an obligation to say so when it's raised in no uncertain terms. Otherwise, it's helping propagate misinformation by an act of omission.

Such stories are "worth keeping an eye on," King told the room feebly in defense of his boss.

By that logic, keep an eye out for the British flag being raised over the Capitol. Sure, it might not be true that the British won the Revolutionary War, but if I say it enough times and pretend like I believe it, maybe I can turn it into a "flap."

"A History of Violence" screenwriter Josh Olson probably won't be collaborating with "Transformers" director Michael Bay anytime soon.

During a closing-day Comic-Con panel about the art of adapting comics to the screen, Olson asked who in the audience had seen "Transformers 2." When a few people applauded (and some actually whooped), Olson told the people sitting next to those making noise to smack them. "You guys are why movies are so hard to make," he said, adding, "There's an audience out there that is big, loud and dumb. ... The more you keep feeding these monstrosities, the harder it gets to do good work."

Olson was joined by David Hayter -- who tackled adapting "Watchmen," often called the Moby Dick of comics, as well as the X-Men features -- and DC Comics creative affairs exec Gregory Noveck, whose job it is to serve as the liaison between the comics publisher and Warner Bros. in adapting DC titles. As Noveck put it, while there are several valid versions of Batman that have been put on screen, "What you want to avoid is the Joel Schumacher interpretation of Batman," alluding to the director of the critically dismissed "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin."

Hayter (apparently still recovering from the previous night's "Watchmen" director's cut event) was slightly more diplomatic, saying that when pitching a movie to studio execs, "Really what they want to know is, 'How do we sell this film?'" He also noted that with strong material that's already bonded with a sizable audience such as "Watchmen," the primary goal should be "not to screw it up."

The art of adapting comics is far from a mere academic pursuit. Indeed, as the industry makes the transition from widely recognizable properties like Superman and Spider-Man to such lesser lights as Green Lantern and Thor -- as well as various projects being done for TV on a less ostentatious scale -- the question of how to deal with the source material respectfully while ensuring that projects remain broadly commercial is the 64-million-dollar (and then some) question.

Still, as Olson noted, not all adaptations -- or if you prefer, transformations -- are created equal.

Not to be a troublemaker (well, maybe a little), but I’m beginning to wonder if the relationship between the major studios/networks and Comic-Con Intl. is going to have to undergo some serious therapy in the not-too-distant future.

As this year’s convention has celebrated, Comic-Con began 40 years ago as a small, comics-based event. It has since blossomed into a gigantic clusterf—k with more than 120,000 people rolling into San Diego each year, and the nonprofit group that organizes it clearly appears to be over its head in terms of managing the convention and the teeming hordes of attendees.

Long lines are a part of the process, but studio publicists and other journalists have all griped about how woefully disorganized the convention seems to be. At times, it appears as if the fire marshals and concerns about crowd control run the whole event. Security personnel can be rude, bordering on downright nasty, in trying to keep the bodies flowing, never mind where they're headed.

Apparently, that included a snafu on Saturday where a number of people with VIP tickets for the "Iron Man 2" presentation were denied access to Hall H because of over-crowding.

The lines are so oppressive for the average convention-goer that he or she is lucky to make it into one or two panels a day, unless they plant themselves in one of the big halls and don't move. Some of the journalists I bumped into on Friday (some coming to Comic-Con because of its proximity this year to the TV Critics Assn. tour) sounded stunned by what a mess it all is.

Most accept these indignities with patience and grace, but the result is what amounts to a love-hate relationship: Studios have seized on Comic-Con as a valuable marketing platform, but many of them dread going.

The interesting part is that as studio dollars flood into the confab, one would think that their influence would increase as well. Thus far, though, it really hasn't. At this point, studio brass seem content to endure the disorganization as long as the event helps create buzz for upcoming projects, despite the fact that it's becoming something of a nightmare for their PR staffs.

Of course, as a longtime Comic-Con attendee, I’m as prone as anyone to complain about the convention, joke about its eccentricities and then forget about it until the following year. But if the chorus of groans grows much louder, studios might be inclined to test just how much Comic-Con has come to depend on them – and whether those tickets would sell out quite so quickly if “Twilight” or “Iron Man 2” decided to allocate their marketing dollars elsewhere. I suspect if studios collectively threw their weight around, convention organizers at this point would at least be obliged to listen.

Granted, there’s something wonderfully democratic about Comic-Con – one fan is as good as another, and everyone is treated shabbily as they're herded from one giant ballroom to the next. But while Hollywood is perceived to lean left politically, when it comes to living on the “C” list and having to wait in lines alongside the public, small-“D” democracy is generally considered overrated.

Some more random Comic-Con notes:

- That ka-ching sound you here is HBO's marketing machinery, with the pay service's announcement that it will be marketing a blood-orange soda drink tying in with vampire drama "True Blood," modeled after the synthetic blood served in the show.

Exec producer Alan Ball coyly described the concoction as a mixture of vodka, Viagra, Vicodin and the blood of European royalty. Actually, I'm pretty sure that's close to the age-defying stuff that Sumner Redstone drinks.

The other revelation out of the "True Blood" panel -- aside from the fact that a season three pickup of the sophomore hit is virtually assured but not final -- is that Alexander Skarsgard has a huge cult following out there, as women howled at every mention of his name. I know Skarsgard didn't land the lead role in Marvel's "Thor" movie, but the "Generation Kill" star's future seems extremely bright.

Also, one more vampire-themed note: Among the promotional materials being handed out near the convention was a flier for Vampire-con, a gathering devoted to vampires scheduled to take place in Los Angeles on Aug. 16, complete with a vampire movie festival Aug. 14-15 at the New Beverly Cinema. Mostly, it's another cynical ploy to separate the loopy vampire-obsessed demographic (and in some cases their parents) from their hard-earned money. Meanwhile, many of them might want to read an upcoming Scholastic book that speaks to their condition, titled, "The Vampire is Not That Into You."

- It takes a lot to offend my delicate sensibilities, but former "Star Wars" star Mark Hamill charging $100 an autograph comes pretty close. OK, so people were still lined up at that price, but based on that math, what should a Harrison Ford autograph be worth?

By the way, the autograph pavilion was a veritable who's who of '60s, '70s and '80s stars, including Adam West, Gil Gerard, Richard Hatch and Margot Kidder.

- More bad news for nerds: Jimmy Fallon was at Comic-Con, doubtless preparing a taped piece spoofing the convention-goers. Of course, it’ll have to go a long way to approach the comic genius of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog ridiculing those waiting in line for the new “Star Wars” series, but it’s such a big fat ripe target it’s hard to fault the “Late Night” producers for diving in as well.

Among the pilots screened in their entirety (an increasingly common Comic-Con occurrence) was “V,” the re-imagining of the earlier 1980s miniseries/series that ABC has ordered for midseason -- although actually, the producers said that the program will beam down earlier than expected, in November.

The show looked extremely intriguing at ABC’s upfront presentation in May based on a short teaser – and particularly well-timed for today’s slightly crazy, conspiracy-prone environment. And as producer Scott Peters noted on Saturday, a lot has happened in the last 25 years that, indeed, feed the program's sense of post-Sept. 11, "who can you trust?" paranoia.

The pilot is certainly busy and has a couple of flat patches, but it has enough promising moments to hook an audience and played quite well with the (admittedly prone to like it) Comic-Con crowd. Although the hour features an overt reference to "Independence Day," the closer parallel is "The Twilight Zone" episode "To Serve Man," where seemingly benevolent aliens might have a more nefarious plan in mind for humanity.

Coupled with "Flash Forward," another serialized concept with an underlying sci-fi-style mystery, and the summer fill-in "Defying Gravity," ABC appears to determined to find its next "Lost" and might be the most sci-fi-iest broadcast network schedule-wise in awhile. Of course, ABC also produced the short-lived "Daybreak," so such endeavors are always a high-wire act, but "V" exhibits considerable commercial potential.

Meanwhile, Morena Baccarin -- who plays the model-pretty alien leader with the big brown eyes -- delivered what might have been the best line I've heard all weekend, and one that actresses might be tempted to quote in the future. Referring to the rodent-eating aliens in the original series and the prospect of having to do that herself, she said that she would rely on her producers to "not make me put furry things in my mouth."

Clearly, she must be new to Hollywood.

"Lost" producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse have managed to turn their Comic-Con sessions into a kind of elaborate stage show -- all the more remarkable considering that they never really give anything away about the direction of their impossibly dense series.

Saturday's Comic-Con event featured a "fan appreciation" theme, complete with appearances by a number of the cast members (Jorge Garcia, Josh Holloway, Nestor Carbonell, Michael Emerson and finally, Dominic Monaghan) and a visit the night before to the fans who camped out in order to ensure themselves a seat at the filled-to-capacity presentation.

The highlights included a "Brokeback Mountain" spoof featuring the characters of Jack and Sawyer put together by fans as well as Holloway referring to Lindelof as "J.J. Abrams." The producers noted that co-creator Abrams hadn't been involved with the show since the first season. They also read from a page of the final script that sounded a lot like "Heroes."

Mostly, the show runners promised that all questions will be answered in the final season, capitalizing on the fact that they have had three years to plan and build toward the finale. Lindelof noted that he's constantly out to prove that the producers weren't just "making it up as we go along."

ABC will surely miss the show, but it's no longer the breakaway hit it initially was, having settled into a more comfortable orbit for such a demanding sci-fi premise. As Cuse stated, the audience support has been ample enough to allow them to make a show that isn't "lowest common denominator" programming and doesn't have to compromise its storytelling.

True enough, and for that, the fans do deserve some appreciation.

Friday’s portion of the Comic-Con death march included sitting through an interesting demonstration of Marvel’s Motion Comics, a hybrid that falls somewhere between animation and comic books.

These short productions mix limited animation and effects with dramatic drawings, voiceover work and musical scoring, as if it were conventional animation -- minus the painstaking process of creating fluid motion. At times the rather ironic lack of motion, given the name, feels a trifle stilted, but the truth is the limited animation isn’t that much worse than a lot of what passes for cartoons on kids TV -- and some of the visuals can be quite striking, almost approximating the look of a movie like “Sin City.”

As Marvel editor Joe Quesada noted during the panel on Friday, “I can only imagine where we’re going to be three, four, five years from now.

He’s right, though the form certainly isn’t anywhere near maturity yet. Marvel showcased two of the Motion Comics, including “The Astonishing X-Men,” which if nothing else has intriguing auspices: Written by Joss Whedon and illustrated by John Cassady, it’s directed by Cassady along with comics artist legend Neal Adams, whose credits include groundbreaking work on Batman in the 1970s as well as the socially daring “Green Lantern/Green Arrow” comics. The second, “Spider-Woman,” was a little less animated but still reasonably effective.

Given the cost pressures that everyone producing content currently faces, the motion comic is a medium to watch – a way to convey serious themes with the look and feel of a graphic novel, albeit for what’s doubtless considerably less money than even a standard animation budget for a basic cable kids network. With that kind of model, such an art form won’t require a ton of fans to become economically viable – only a few committed ones, the likes of which Comic-Con offers in abundance.

At any rate, it’s something to keep an eye on – and a pretty savvy use of the content-hungry digital space.

Addendum: Marvel also previewed upcoming animated features that will go direct to DVD through its deal with Lionsgate, including a “Thor” movie, “Thor: Tales of Asgard,” for 2011 – a shrewd move with the Kenneth Branagh-directed feature in the pipeline.

Throw in “Planet Hulk” and the offerings DC Comics showcased here – “Green Lantern: First Flight” (reviewed in an earlier post) and the fall release “Superman/Batman: Public Enemies” – and there’s a genuine renaissance occurring in terms of adult-oriented animation (most carry PG-13 ratings) predicated on established comic-book characters.

The only real danger is if some of the live-action movies that are in the works -- fettered by budgetary concerns and watered down for mass consumption -- wind up paling in comparison.

Few series or for that matter movies are as perfectly calibrated to the Comic-Con sensibility as CBS' "The Big Bang Theory," which drew a huge and not surprisingly wildly enthusiastic crowd.

Where else would an audience howl at the mention of "Rock paper scissors lizard Spock," one of the show's gags, or would an attendee ask for star Jim Parsons' DNA in order to clone him? (The latter is another joke from the series -- Parsons' character gets Leonard Nimoy's DNA off a napkin -- and Parsons obliged by dabbing his forehead with a tissue and giving it to the appreciative fan.)

Exec producer Chuck Lorre said fans like those at Comic-Con are "part of our conversation every day," and co-creator Bill Prady noted that having been a fanboy himself, "It's amazing to be on the other side of that kind of relationship with fans." Lorre added that he doesn't expect the series to become bluer or more risque now that it will be airing at a later hour following his other CBS hit, "Two and a Half Men."

Several of the questions centered on Parsons' Emmy nomination for the program. Not surprisingly, some of the audience queries were so breathlessly giddy as to be a little uncomfortable -- to the cast, "How do you feel about seeing yourselves on screen?" (um, dude, they're actors) -- but the obvious affection in the room underscores why such a show loves coming to this venue, despite some of its stranger attributes. Of course, one suspects as the convention keeps growing that studio and network publicists feel a trifle differently, but that's a topic I'll tackle in another post.

Although I've talked in a recent column about Comic-Con yielding false positives from the adoring crowds, "Big Bang" (already renewed for two more years) does seem prepared to take a commercial leap forward with "Men" as its lead-in and NBC likely to be weaker on Mondays. So when one fan asked if being associated with the show has changed the cast and crew's perception of the word "nerd," an appropriate response could have been, "Nerd, geek, whatever. As long as they're the key to syndication money, we love 'em all."

Although I'm not getting down to Comic-Con until Friday, the preliminary coverage has provided another reminder to attendees that's sometimes easy to forget in the mainstreaming of the San Diego convention -- namely, that the broadcast media that show up are not your friends.

Sure, the convention has outgrown its roots and become a major marketing tool for movie studios and networks. The G4 channel will even televise the Lucasfilm session from the event -- a first for the gathering, reflecting its status as the center of the pop-culture universe.

But let's face it, interviewing grown men in a Harry Potter or Mr. Spock outfit is catnip for TV outlets -- a classic summer freak show, especially now that the Michael Jackson story is cooling off. Even a local radio reporter on KNX in Los Angeles could be heard suppressing chortles Thursday as he interviewed convention-goers involved in role-playing games. (Of course, there's also some visual attraction to presenting women in Princess Leia or green "Star Trek" slave girl garb, but the eye-candy aspect notwithstanding, they're going to be portrayed as weirdos, too.)

As if to prove this point, the Huffington Post has already posted a Comic-Con slide show on its site, and while some of the shots are of stars like Johnny Depp, the majority focus on people in outlandish costumes.

So please, for your own sake as well as that of friends and family, if someone cheerfully shoves a microphone in your face, remember that they do not have your best interests at heart. Don't engage them -- or if you do, at least try to sound like you can differentiate fantasy from reality and have more than a few friends who aren't imaginary. The image of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog interviewing "Star Wars" fans as they waited in line for the next movie remains a cautionary tale for everyone with the fan gene.

Folks pay big bucks for media training sessions, but as a sign of solidarity with fellow geeks, this first one is free.

Warner Bros. Animation is premiering the direct-to-DVD "Green Lantern: First Flight" at Comic-Con, and with the all-systems-go plan to produce a live-action film based on the galaxy-spanning character, one might assume that there will be additional interest in this animated movie.

Yet as with DC Comics' other animated features -- PG-13-rated and aimed directly at a committed, comics-savvy fan base -- this brisk, action-packed 77-minute movie takes full advantage of the animation medium's freedoms, and thus for obvious reasons figures to have relatively little in common with a big-budget theatrical tent pole.

Animation actually remains the best venue for adapting comics to the screen (which explains why Marvel is doing its own series of titles), in part because the flights of fancy feel less hokey, and budgetary constraints aren't really an issue. Indeed, animated series such as the 1990s "Batman: The Animated Series" and "X-Men" for Fox Children's Network and Cartoon Network's more recent "Justice League" remain some of the finest adaptations that have been done -- and, rather sneakily, were almost too good for kids.

As such, "First Flight" can plunge directly into the action, dispensing with the Green Lantern origin story in about six minutes before whisking him off to meet the Guardians of the Universe and into pitched battle in outer space with the rogue Sinestro.

Written by Alan Burnett and directed by Lauren Montgomery (with Bruce Timm and Bobbie Page as producers), the movie features the by-now obligatory recognizable voice cast ("Law & Order: Special Victims Unit's" Christopher Meloni as Green Lantern/Hal Jordan, Victor Garber as Sinestro), as well as blood, death and the occasional expletive. Nothing here is out of bounds for a kid 13 or so, but the more adult touches send a clear message to fans that this isn't the watered-down Saturday-morning fare that many abhor.

A live-action movie, by contrast, is going to have to finesse the origin in much the way that "Iron Man" deftly did. In that setting, the moment the uninitiated audience laughs in the wrong place the movie is temporarily crippled; here, even the more outlandish flourishes -- such as when Jordan has to win over the skeptical Green Lantern corps, consisting of a bunch of bizarre-looking aliens -- sail by without triggering such concerns.

This is actually a crucial window for bringing comics from the page to the screen, given that most of the top-tier characters -- Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, X-Men, the Hulk -- have already made the transition, with varying degrees of success. Less well-known characters such as Iron Man and Green Lantern require a more delicate touch -- but as this movie demonstrates, can be extremely entertaining when handled properly.

So for fans, I'd suggest savoring this direct-to-DVD production before Ryan Reynolds ever puts on a power ring and starts reciting the Green Lantern oath. Because as another big green hero has demonstrated (twice), comic-book based movies are invariably a crapshoot, whereas "Green Lantern: First Flight" is the character done right.

"American Idol" it's not, but the U.S. premiere of the five-part miniseries "Torchwood: Children of Earth" -- already a major hit in the U.K. -- produced record ratings for BBC America.

Starring John Barrowman as the ageless Captain Jack Harkness, the sci-fi epic tallied 1.4 million viewers in live-plus-same-day Nielsen ratings for July 20, eclipsing BBC Am's previous high with the opener of "Robin Hood." The channel is stripping the project through the week, in advance of what should be a healthy DVD release shortly thereafter.

It's been interesting, too, to see that die-hard "Torchwood" fans can be every bit as delusional as those for the most fervent core of U.S.-produced series, as evidenced by some of the "the fans hated it" comments registered in response to my rave review. Of course, I was hardly in the minority in terms of U.S. critics, as the program's Metacritic rating attests.

(A brief Update here about the use of the term "delusional" in this context, responding to the comment below: It has nothing to do with your opinion, which is just as valid as mine or anybody else's; it's rather the state of assuming that the world at large shares your views because you happen to have found a couple of other like-minded people in chat rooms. This is an increasingly common affliction, whether the topic is pop culture or politics.)

One more footnote: "Torchwood" creator Russell Davies, exec producer Julie Gardner, Barrowman and director Euros Lyn will be at the Comic-Con session for the series (paired with the BBC's new "Being Human") on Sunday, July 26.

Despite the belly-aching from the quirky fringes of fandom, one suspects they'll receive a richly deserved hero's welcome from most of those who have had a chance to see "Children of Earth" in its entirety.

Since Comic-Con blossomed into the mother of all pop-culture conventions with more than 100,000 attendees, getting around the San Diego event has been something of a nightmare. This year -- as my colleague Marc Graser documents in a nice scene-setter for the confab -- the clusterf**k could be even clusterf**kier than usual, thanks to an invasion by "Twilight" fans.

The initial implications of having a lot of teenage girls (and maybe their mothers) attend the convention is obvious: Thanks to the self-named "Twi-Hards," lines for the ladies room will, for once, be almost as long as lines for the men's room.

In the broader sense, Comic-Con is usually a big, sprawling, semi-organized mess, one where security's answer to almost every question is "Go stand in that line." Fortunately, as I've observed in the past, the geeks in attendance are well-schooled in two things as it pertains to their fan-based activities: Standing in line, and disappointment.

The weather ensures that it's going to be another sticky few days in San Diego, and the convention air-conditioning has in the past been defeated by the throng of people, many of them in costumes. A few years ago the AC broke down entirely, causing an odor to waft through the convention's exhibition space that seemed alien in origin and caused one producer to tell me that he nearly passed out when he walked through the collectibles pavilion.

The other not-to-be-missed, off-the-beaten-track feature of Comic-Con is the autograph pavilion, less for the big movies and TV shows that drop in (and create long lines) than the individual actors, models and other assorted near-luminaries that pay their own freight to get down there. Some do a brisk business selling photos and memorabilia, but there's always something a little sad about seeing actors scrounge in this manner off roles with which they were associated 20 or 30 years ago.

Anyway, the excitement associated with the convention and the chance to preview upcoming projects always dissipates after about 18 hours of the grueling march around the sprawling convention center. It will also be an enormous relief to stop receiving a deluge of emails from publicists wondering if I want to come to their booth and profile the video game/obscure independent movie that they're representing. (Here's a hint: If you haven't heard from me yet, the answer's a big fat no.)

So here's one valuable tip from a veteran for surviving the convention: If you really, really want to see a certain panel, get there early, and bring all the patience you can muster. If history is any indication, you're going to need it.

And make a little time to walk through the exhibition space and maybe even buy a comic book or two. After all, the poor bastards peddling comics and memorabilia built this convention into the studio-dominated monster that it has now become. In this economy, it'd be nice if they came away with something to show for it.

CNN isn't entirely wrong in promoting that the network attracts a bigger audience, overall, than Fox News Channel or MSNBC. But those claims also amount to a double-edged sword assuming that the Turner-owned channel actually wants to cash in on the data.

Understanding what CNN is talking about (there's another full-page ad in today's New York Times) is pretty arcane stuff, but the bottom line is that CNN attracts more unduplicated viewers than its competitors. The channel is using the same kind of measure known as "cume" (as in "cumulative audience") in radio.

In radio, news stations tend to have a larger cume than talk stations, because more people tune in to find out how traffic's moving or get news updates. By contrast, fewer people listen to talk, but if they like a host, they'll stay tuned for a considerably longer period of time.

The exact same dynamic is happening in TV. Viewers of Fox News and MSNBC -- many drawn to the channels' perceived ideology and opinionated, foaming-at-the-mouth hosts  -- plant themselves in front of the set for hours. So while fewer people watch, the number watching at any given moment -- which is what the rating reflects -- is higher than CNN (especially in FNC's case).

So what's the problem? Only that CNN's boast about reaching more people also exposes that people drop in and out of CNN -- and thus are less like to sit through a commercial pod. At Fox, a smaller number of people watch over the course of a day, but they watch for longer stretches -- indeed, one can picture many leaving the channel on almost as background noise -- and are less likely to flip away during the ads.

If CNN wanted to really be aggressive about it, the ads could say as follows: "CNN is the only true news channel. Fox and MSNBC give you more talk, less news." But the "So what?" and "Duh" factors for anybody paying attention are pretty high there, too.

As is, MSNBC and Fox have dismissed CNN for grasping at straws -- for attempting to change the rules, essentially, because it's losing on the scoreboard.

But the network isn't lying when it says that it's "#1 in total TV and web consumers vs. Fox News and MSNBC." Beyond feeling good about being able to say that it's winning at something, however, it's a milestone without any real payoff -- other than the fact that when viewers want to briefly check to make sure the world isn't falling apart, more of them tune to CNN ... and then just as quickly, leave.

If you can fit that on a billboard somehow, more power to you.

Walter Cronkite died Friday at the ripe old age of 92, but the kind of journalism that he represented -- tough, spare, serious -- has been dying for a long time, with the circus surrounding Michael Jackson making its lifeline that much fainter.

As anchor of "The CBS Evening News," Cronkite was often referred to as "the most trusted man in America." When he spoke out against the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson famously remarked, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America."

Today, the leading news anchors have been seriously diminished -- not just by the thudding drumbeat of "liberal bias" charges, though that's a factor, but by the excess in which they coexist. Sure, Brian Williams, Katie Couric and Charles Gibson still preside over nightly broadcasts that resemble the template that Cronkite used, but they are a shadow of what they once represented in terms of journalistic ambitions, and less important to their corporate hierarchies than soft morning programs that fill more hours of the day. Moreover, it's hard to imagine Cronkite jetting out to Los Angeles to preside over CBS' wall-to-wall Jackson memorial coverage, as Couric recently did.

Cronkite operated in a different era, but as Fox News' Brit Hume noted in the marathon of instant analysis that followed the announcement, his style reflected a certain modesty that appears to have been largely lost in television news. Instead, the most bombastic voices, not surprisingly, frequently garner the most attention.

"The seepage of opinion into journalism slowly broke his heart over the years," NBC anchor Brian Williams said on MSNBC.

Dan Rather -- who replaced Cronkite at CBS -- also popped up at MSNBC. Cronkite was "an extremely strong ad-libber," he said, and "had that ability to get through the glass ... to connect with people." Rather added that Cronkite was a reporter first and fiercely protective of correspondents and producers -- a mind-set that permeated the news division during his tenure.

Personally, Cronkite is indelibly connected to the major news events of my lifetime. I was too young to remember seeing his reporting on President Kennedy's death first-hand (though I've seen the video countless times since), but the other tragic assassinations of the 1960s, the moon landing, the 1968 Democratic National Convention, Nixon's resignation -- in every instance, he was there.

Cronkite "really became a model for what anchoring an evening newscast would be," Gibson said in an interview with CNN, adding that his wire-service background was invaluable in shaping the way Cronkite approached presenting the news. Gibson conceded that TV news is a balance between what people want to know and what they need to know, "because it's a business, and you need ratings."

Cronkite fell squarely into the "need to know" camp, and in terms of the ideals he embodied, we need those more than ever. He wasn't a robot -- I can still remember his almost giddy response to the moon missions -- but he exemplified an attitude that's become anachronistic in a world where even print journalism is driven by its own clicks-and-traffic version of instant ratings.

And that, indeed, is the way it is.

Update: CBS will air a one-hour tribute Cronkite on Sunday. Here are the details as well as a number of testimonials included in the press release:

CBS NEWS PAYS TRIBUTE TO WALTER CRONKITE IN THE PRIMETIME SPECIAL “THAT’S THE WAY IT WAS: REMEMBERING WALTER CRONKITE,”

ON SUNDAY, JULY 19 AT 7:00PM ET ON THE CBS TELEVISION NETWORK

“WALTER INVITED US TO BELIEVE IN HIM, AND HE NEVER LET US DOWN,” SAYS PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

Legendary Newsman Is Also Honored With Remembrances From Such Luminaries As, Mike Wallace, Morley Safer, Katie Couric,

Ted Koppel, Diane Sawyer, Brian Williams, George Clooney, Robin Williams, Spike Lee and Many More

CBS News will honor the legendary anchorman Walter Cronkite who passed away on Friday, July 17, 2009 at the age of 92 with the primetime special THAT’S THE WAY IT WAS: REMEMBERING WALTER CRONKITE to be broadcast on Sunday, July 19 at 7:00PM ET on the CBS Television Network.

Considered by so many in this country to be the “most trusted man in America ,” Cronkite was the biggest name in television news through whom generations of Americans witnessed history. This sentiment is echoed by some of the biggest names in politics, news and entertainment – including President Barack Obama, CBS News colleagues Mike Wallace, Morley Safer and Don Hewitt, Katie Couric, George Clooney, Robin Williams and Spike Lee - who each share their own memories of the industry’s elder statesman as part of THAT’S THE WAY IT WAS.

“Walter Cronkite represents the best of CBS News and the journalism profession as a whole,” says Sean McManus, President CBS News and Sports. “With a rare combination of confidence and familiarity, Walter left a personal mark on the most powerful stories of the 20^th century – from the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, to space launches and the Vietnam War. His presence on screen was incomparable.”

 The luminaries featured in THAT’S THE WAY IT WAS are a testament to Walter Cronkite’s personal and professional integrity. Among the sentiments shared are:

President Barack Obama:

“He brought us all those stories large and small which would come to define the 20th century. That's why we love Walter, because in an era before blogs and e/mail cell phones and cable, he was the news. Walter invited us to believe in him, and he never let us down.”

 Don Hewitt, Executive Producer of CBS News, Creator of 60 MINUTES:“

America had a love affair with Walter Cronkite.”

 Katie Couric, Anchor, THE CBS EVENING NEWS:

“There is something that is so quintessentially American about Walter Cronkite…his honesty and candor in difficult times…if someone has integrity, to me, that is the finest attribute they can have. That means honor at a time when so many people are dishonorable. I think Walter Cronkite was and will always be the personification of those qualities.”

 Mickey Hart, Drummer of the Grateful Dead:

“He was a freedom fighter and he was an honest, truthful guy that used his power while he was here on earth well, he was for the good… It just so happens that everybody’s trust was put in the right place.  That’s the lucky part of all this.”

 President Bill Clinton:

“The passing of the years did not diminish as nearly as I could tell, one iota, his interest in, and love for his country and his desire to see the world get better.”

 George Clooney, Actor/Director:

“His legacy will be one of the great legacies of great Americans. It sounds overstated, but it isn’t. He’s that important to us. Not just to generations before him but to generations coming up… That’s probably good that there will never be a most trusted man in America again because if we’re not lucky enough to get Walter Cronkite, then we might be in a lot of trouble.”

Brian Williams, Anchor and Managing Editor, “NBC Nightly News”:

“Walter got early on that this job is part hand holding, so that all of us in this line of work – who on days like 9/11 have been forced into any kind of explanatory role – Walter is with you whether you see him in the studio or not!”

Andy Rooney, Correspondent, 60 MINUTES:
“He was the best newsman, he was just dedicated to news, he really cared about what the news was and he thought it was important to tell it to the American people, it’s that simple.”

 Charlie Gibson, Anchor, ABC “World News”:

“Walter’s early lessons would be well kept in mind by all of us who have followed him. And that is to keep it on the news. Tell people what happened that day, keep it short, keep it direct, and keep it accurate.”

For the record, I think the whole "Let's announce the Emmys at 5:37 a.m. West Coast time in order to get two minutes on the network morning shows" is cruel and barbaric, so don't expect anything here to make a lick of sense. Besides, I'm still steamed about the two women who talked all the way through a screening of the new "Harry Potter" movie last night.

With that disclaimer -- and congratulations to all 509 nominees -- here are 10 rapid-fire thoughts about this year's Emmy nominations:

-- "Big Love" was very deserving of a best drama bid, but inasmuch as that was the only nomination for the third-year series, are we to assume that it wrote, directed and performed itself?

-- The longer it goes, the less likely "Friday Night Lights" will ever gain the recognition that it deserves at the Emmys, but take consolation in knowing that it hasn't gone unnoticed by bodies such as the AFI's annual TV honor roll.

-- Four writing nominations each for "Mad Men" and "30 Rock." I realize individual writers deserve credit, but inasmuch as programs are the product of writing staffs, I sort of wish that the wealth had been spread around better.

-- Everybody has a favorite category. Mine might be supporting actor in a drama series: Christian Clemenson, Michael Emerson, William Hurt, Aaron Paul, William Shatner, John Slattery. That said, I'm mystified that John Mahoney isn't on that list for his tremendous work on "In Treatment." (Dianne Wiest and Hope Davis were acknowledged on the supporting actress side.)

-- Yes, "Ugly Betty" had a subpar year, but no America Ferrera? And while we're at it, no Anna Paquin for "True Blood," which is taking off in season two?

-- With only two nominees and seven submissions, the argument for keeping "outstanding miniseries" as a separate category has gotten considerably weaker. On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to the assertion that letting something like "Little Dorrit" or "John Adams" compete with a regular old movie is apples and oranges.

-- It's not quite the Oscars' expansion to 10 best picture nominees, but with ties, there will be seven bids for both comedy and drama series. Theoretically that will help expand the rooting-interest factor, but the competition from NBC's "Sunday Night Football" is still a major challenge in terms of jump-starting the ratings.

-- Not sure what to make of "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" being left out of variety series, but I suspect some will attribute that to hostility from the creative community toward Leno's move to 10 p.m., eating up slots for scripted programming.

-- Small comeback for multicamera comedies, but not a full-fledged one. Fortunately, "Two and a Half Men"/"The Big Bang Theory" producer Chuck Lorre can take some comfort (not that he will) in how well those programs are doing this summer paired in the 9 o'clock hour. In the meantime, I look forward to next year's vanity card where he shares his thoughts with the academy.

-- Should be in the back of everyone at the academy's mind that 2010 marks the final year of the eight-year "wheel" deal in which the show rotates among the four major networks. So the Emmycast needs to put its best foot forward these next two years as organizers prep to negotiate a new deal.

Cable networks are going mildly mad in their search for original programming, with Food Network announcing what in essence turns a joke from the "South Park" movie into the title for a series -- "What Would Brian Boitano Make?" -- while ReelzChannel is devoting a weekly program to all the hype surrounding the "Twilight" series.

Lest anyone forget (and if you saw the movie, who could?), the gang in "South Park" is oddly obsessed with former Olympic skating champion Boitano, singing a song called "What Would Brian Boitano Do?" Here's the chorus:
So what would Brian Boitano do
If he were here today
I'm sure he'd kick as ass or two
That's what Brian Boitano'd do

Apparently, someone at Food Network thinks that's more than enough foundation for a series. The real chutzpah in the release is that it doesn't acknowledge the debt to the animated show:

NEW YORK – July 15^th, 2009 – Olympic figure skater Brian Boitano is more than just a champion on the ice; he also gives a winning performance in the kitchen! In the new daytime series, What Would Brian Boitano Make?, premiering Sunday, August 23^rd at 1PM ET/PT, Brian demonstrates his culinary skills and talent for one-of-a-kind entertaining.

“Brian's combination of off-the-wall humor and culinary inventiveness will be a revelation to viewers," said Bob Tuschman, Senior Vice President, Programming and Production for Food Network. “His clever recipes, infectious enthusiasm and stylish ideas will inspire and entertain."

With a lifelong passion for food and cooking, Brian hosts unpredictable get-togethers at his San Francisco home and creates amazing menus focusing on innovative but accessible dishes. He feeds an all-girl roller derby squad, plays matchmaker for a friend, wins over his handyman’s supper club, and plans a surprise party celebrating new motherhood. With a humorous and knowledgeable approach to cooking, Brian puts his unique spin on irresistible dishes like Chicken Paella Burgers, Pear and Almond Crostata, Crab and Avocado Crostini, and Bourbon Bacon Apple Tarts. 

As for "Twilight," I understand that teenage girls are a difficult audience to reach and that the project has become a sensation within that coveted demographic, but a weekly series? Really? The next movie doesn't even open until November, for crissakes.

Nevertheless, ReelzChannel execs sound giddy about the prospect of pandering to "Twi-hards," a group that is beginning to make Trekkers look well-adjusted. Think of it as a way to take a little piece of Comic-Con home with you every Monday.

Reading these releases, I suddenly need something to drink that's a lot stronger than blood:

REELZCHANNEL® - TV About Movies(TM) announced today the launch of a new weekly series, "Twilight Weekly: Spotlight," as a cornerstone of the network's extensive on-air and online coverage of the hugely popular Twilight movie saga. Hosted by REELZCHANNEL's resident Twilight expert and correspondent Naibe Reynoso, the new series is sure to galvanize the legions of diehard movie fans by giving TV viewers and web users the inside track on all of the latest news and info leading up to the highly anticipated fall movie sequel, New Moon. "Twilight Weekly: Spotlight" premieres in its Monday primetime slot beginning August 10, 2009 at 10:00 pm ET featuring cast interviews and special coverage from TwiCon.

On "Twilight Weekly: Spotlight," an expansion of ReelzChannel's popular movie documentary series "Spotlight," viewers can tune in to see the most buzzed-about news, behind-the-scenes coverage and footage of The Twilight Saga: New Moon and Eclipse, interviews with key cast members and fan-favorite characters, not to mention a series of special events that could land some lucky fans on the show. In addition, the series will feature reports from this summer's upcoming TwiCon convention by Reynoso and a specially-selected fan contributor who will help cover the convention for the network. The winner will be chosen from a group of six hopeful on-air personalities narrowed down from a large field of finalists, all of whom auditioned at a special talent search and open casting event held recently in New York.

The Creative Arts Emmys have always been a long (OK, make that looooooooooooooong) sit with so many categories to recognize. And unless you're a big fan of Kathy Griffin, they just got a whole lot longer, with the announcement that the star of Bravo's "Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List" will be hosting the Sept. 12 event.

Griffin made news two years ago when she won an award at the Creative Emmys and riffed on people thanking Jesus when they win awards, championships, etc. “Can you believe this shit?" she said in her acceptance speech. "I guess hell froze over. … A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. So, all I can say is, ‘Suck it, Jesus.’ This award is my god now.”

Shockingly, not everyone was amused, though it did give those who see Hollywood as a haven for godless anti-Americans a big fat hanging curve ball to swing at. The academy responded by censoring the line out of the E! channel's delayed telecast of the ceremony.

Still, producer Spike Jones Jr. was bursting with enthusiasm about his host, saying in a statement issued by the academy, "We're thrilled as Kathy's the first Emmy winner to host the Creative Arts show. She stole the show the last two years, so now, we're giving her the opportunity to officially hijack it. We're all very, very excited. And just a little bit scared."

Yep, be afraid. Be very afraid.

On the plus side, Neil Patrick Harris is a great choice as host for the main Emmycast, so depending on your point of view, the academy is batting at least .500. In baseball terms, that's terrific.

Of course, damn the luck, I just noticed I have a UCLA football game to attend the night of the Creative Arts Awards. Shoot. Oh wait, the game's being played in Tennessee? Ah, well, what I really meant is that I have Hollywood Bowl tickets. That's right, I'll be at the Hollywood Bowl. Otherwise I'd be there with bells on, I swear.

The average wealth of ombudsmen just took a dramatic leap forward with word that former NBC West Coast President Don Ohlmeyer will become ESPN's new ombudsman, succeeding Le Anne Schreiber.

ESPN announced Tuesday that Ohlmeyer will begin an 18-month term in August, offering "independent examination, critique and analysis" of the cable sports network.

In the decade since he left NBC, Ohlmeyer went back to his sports roots by producing "Monday Night Football." Less well known is that he has taken up painting seriously as well as teaching at Pepperdine University, including the establishment of a mentoring program.

His ESPN history, however, is even more interesting, inasmuch as he owned a piece of the channel early in its lifespan and cashed out pretty fabulously when he moved on, meaning that he was already independently wealthy when he went to NBC in 1993 -- a situation that helps explain his take-no-prisoners attitude in running and helping revive the network.

Here's the passage in the release detailing that background:

In 1982, Ohlmeyer formed Ohlmeyer Communications Company (OCC), a full-service advertising agency and marketing firm, as well as a television consulting operation for clients such as the NFL, NHL and Major League Baseball.  In the 1980s, he also oversaw partner Nabisco's 20 percent interest in ESPN, serving as a member of ESPN’s board of directors.

At OCC, he served as executive producer for a variety of creative projects, ranging from sports events to dramatic motion pictures for television.  These included Crazy in Love, Cold Sassy Tree, Right to Die, Under Siege and Crimes of Innocence.  In addition, he has produced the Emmy Awards show and, in conjunction with Bob Pittman, created and produced the MTV Awards Show.  He also was the creator and producer of a magazine format series titled Fast Copy; a series of reality specials for ABC, Crimes of the Century; the critically acclaimed prime-time series Lifestories for NBC; and The Skins Game, the most successful made-for-television golf franchise ever.

OCC was sold to ESPN in 1993 and was merged with Creative Sports (purchased by ESPN in 1994) to form Charlotte-based ESPN Regional Television.

Tough-minded and never one to balk when it comes to expressing an opinion, Ohlmeyer will certainly bring a strong outside voice to the ombudsman role, and kudos to ESPN for tapping into his experience. If he pursues this new task as vigorously as he has everything else in his career, though, I suspect ESPN might have just signed up for more "independent examination" than they bargained for. And given some of the excesses of ESPN's coverage, that's probably a good thing.

Updated below.

Not all radio personalities translate well to TV -- just ask Howard Stern -- and Wendy Williams charitably got off to a rocky start with her new syndicated daytime series.

Bringing "The Wendy Williams Show" to TV as inexpensively as possible, the series featured Williams discussing "hot topics," which actually made "The View" look intellectually demanding; interviewing one guest (well, not really interviewing; more like kibbitzing with), Vanessa Williams; and bantering with her studio audience, including an "Ask Wendy" segment.

To say the show was poorly produced would be the height of understatement. Williams seldom seemed to know what segment they were doing next or how long it was running. She rushed through some things and lingered on others. She read notes off the table next to her -- fine on radio, perhaps, but awkward on television. And she kept repeating her catch phrase, "How you doin'?," until you wondered what Dr. Phil was up to.

One can see how all this would play significantly better on radio for an audience clued in to Williams' shtick, making catty comments about celebrities and dispensing advice like a motherly gal pal. As is, though, it's a pretty narrow property that will have to get by entirely on Williams' larger-than-life personality. By that measure Williams has some potential as a host, but she's a long way from being a TV-ready talent -- and her producers didn't help her much with the transition on Monday.

So in response to the whole "How you doin?" thing, actually, I was doin' considerably better once the hour was over. Now could you please stop asking?

 "Wendy Williams Show," Day 2 Update: OK, watched the second episode, and the first-day jitters excuse won't fly. Tuesday's hour was markedly worse, with a deadly dull "Hot Topics," one guest (Brooke Burke), and nearly the entire second half-hour devoted to "Ask Wendy" banter with the audience. WIlliams still can't find the camera half the time, and she's not much of an interviewer. The producers had better come up with some other regular bits for Williams quick, because at this point, the personal-injury attorney commercials are more entertaining. Then again, after the front-loaded opening, ads account for about half of the show. Now if they could just think of something to do with the other half.

In the wake of "Entourage" producer Doug Ellin's recent interview with the Hollywood Reporter -- in which he refers to his "very contentious relationship with (Variety TV critic) Brian Lowry" and admits to having become "a little psychotically obsessed" with the paper, I thought it might actually be illustrative to recap my critical history with the series.

As Ellin states, I wasn't particularly kind to "Entourage" when the show made its debut, thinking the inch-deep premise was a missed opportunity. (My former colleague Phil Gallo actually coined a line that I really liked, saying the show's formula was "No sleepovers, no hangovers," meaning there were no real complications as these guys sauntered through life.)

Clearly irritated by the lack of adulation from an industry paper about his industry-centric show, Ellin wrote an episode where the Johnny Drama character (played by Kevin Dillon) bursts into the Variety office and tells the TV critic to screw off. As I recall, the script described "Brian Lowry" as a squirrelly little man in his 40s, though Ellin subsequently changed the name to "Paul Schneider," after a friend of his.

They shot the sequence in the old Variety office, and I remember thinking (and writing) at the time that fake Variety was younger, more ethnically diverse, better dressed, and much, much better looking than real Variety. I liked fake Variety, though I'm not sure I'd have gotten much work done there.

My view of the show, meanwhile, evolved as the series got better, richer, more intricate. There were suddenly serialized arcs to the season -- such as Vince doing the "Aquaman" movie -- that raised the stakes beyond just who he was going to sleep with that week. In my third season review, I noted, "Our little 'Entourage' has grown up." Last September, I was even more effusive, saying the show had found its "A" game as the Vince character (Adrian Grenier) dealt with the fallout from his disastrous star turn in "Medellin." Moreover, some of the art-imitates-life flourishes surrounding the series -- like the Variety ad touting the record-breaking boxoffice performance by the fictional James Cameron-directed "Aquaman" -- have been sheer genius.

To me, though, the most interesting aspect of all this is that Ellin himself -- during interviews, as well as a panel that I moderated at the TV academy -- acknowledged that he felt his grasp of the show had improved considerably after the initial year or two. "The first season I had really no idea what I was doing," he told the crowd at a Paley Center event, adding that the more elaborate arcs only came together as he gained a better handle on the show.

Which, if you think about it, sounds a whole lot like what I was saying.

Now, I point this out not to pat myself on the back, but to demonstrate that producers often lack (and perhaps shouldn't be expected to have) much perspective about their own work. This isn't the first time I've had producers who were pissed about a negative review say later -- with the benefit of hindsight -- that they weren't satisfied with the show themselves when the review ran. They just didn't like seeing it in print, especially in what they consider a home-town paper.

Some of the responses, by the way, can be quite funny, and the web has given producers a way to jab back -- frequently through private emails, but occasionally with public rejoinders. Take "Sons of Anarchy" creator Kurt Sutter, who used his blog to critique the critics, saying that my appraisal of his leading man sounded like I was working out "'pudgy yearbook committee nerd hates the good-looking quarterback' shit through a review." That would be "pudgy high school newspaper critic," actually, but let's not split hairs.

In other words, it's not particularly unusual for creative talent or executives to take criticism personally and become a little "psychotically obsessed." Ellin, for example, refers to a "contentious relationship," when in fact there's really no relationship to speak of, other than saying hello at a few HBO parties. For the record, he's always seemed like a perfectly nice guy. I just happened not to like his show much initially, and then started to enjoy it more. The same dynamic -- never personal -- would apply to any number of executives who have at various times accused me of vendettas, only to be surprised (pleasantly, I assume) when I raved about one of their projects -- responding, as any critic should, to the specific merits of the material, not those responsible for it. Bad reviews are fun to write, but watch enough TV and trust me, you're rooting for programs to be good, not bad.

So where does this "relationship" stand? After an advanced viewing of this season's first two episodes starting with Sunday's debut, I was disappointed with the latest direction of "Entourage," which doesn't seem to possess the heft that the show has delivered in recent years to augment its always impeccable inside-Hollywood touches. Still, I'll continue watching -- and not just because you can find Ellin pictured with Variety's Peter Bart on Cynthia Littleton's blog -- since the show goes down pretty easy even when it's not at its best.

So in a way, the arc here has been as follows: Show and TV critic don't get along; show bashes critic; critic falls for show; show loses critic again.

If you've seen enough romantic comedies, it's pretty clear that this would be heading toward a big mushy reunion. Let's just hope the rest of the season brings about that happy ending.

There are two relatively pleasant surprises in the documentary space next week, which both do creditable jobs of exploring their topics despite the salacious titles.

CNBC's "Porn: Business of Pleasure," airing July 15, is a reasonable smart look at the porn industry and the challenges that the business faces in the digital age. Granted, the producers couldn't resist a few juvenile double entendres -- "Coming up next: Women on top," the narrator says, referring to women in executive positions in the industry (groan) -- but correspondent Melissa Lee approaches porn as the multi-billion-dollar industry that it is, one at a technological crossroads.

On the opposite end of the spectrum there's "Are We Alone?," a July 16 Discovery Channel special about the possible existence of life elsewhere in the universe. Instead of another "The X-Files"-style bug hunt, though -- with grainy images of flying saucers -- this two-hour doc explores the issue from a scientific perspective, diving elbow deep into the factors that would be necessary to produce life elsewhere in the galaxy by experimenting with various environments on Earth.

The narrator is Gentry Lee, chief engineer for Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Solar System Exploration Directorate, and he approaches the topic with bubbling enthusiasm that's virtually contagious. Along the way, Lee and other scientists explain nuts-and-bolts stuff, like how "Only planets at least the size of Earth have the internal heat necessary to ... support life," whereas a "giant gas ball" like Jupiter would be too big.

No one will confuse the Lees -- Gentry and Melissa -- but these two docs offer a reminder of the rich assortment of life that's out there and easily taken for granted in the over-populated cable universe. And oddly enough, when you think about the primary consumers for science and porn, I suspect there's room for considerable overlap between the two audiences.

This is my second tour at Variety, and when I started here in 1987 the newsroom was filled with a bunch of crusty old characters, including TV editor Dave Kaufman, film reporter Will Tusher and editor Tom Pryor. Each taught me plenty, from Pryor conveying the importance of getting facts straight -- and promptly correcting our screw-ups -- to Kaufman counseling me about which sources to trust (and proving that it's possible to write a banner story after five or six cocktails) to Tusher demonstrating that it's important to know when to cut a speech short.

No one was more courtly or consistently pleasant, though, than Tony Scott, the paper's television critic, who died Tuesday at the age of 85. Here's his full obituary.

 Tony wrote under the abbreviation "Tone.," back when all Variety reviewers used those sigs as opposed to full bylines. My understanding of the history was that reviews had originally run without bylines -- it was supposed to be the paper speaking -- but after a few reporters had run-ins with sources who were miffed about reviews, it was decided that some way of identifying the culprit was necessary. (I went by "Bril.," by the way, since "Blow." or "Lowr." seemed fraught with peril.)

Everyone pitched in on reviewing television, but Tony was the principal TV critic, and a wonderfully breezy and economical writer. He could also be delightfully sharp in his critiques, which was always slightly surprising given how genial he was in person.

Tony retired in 1997, a year after I left Variety for the Los Angeles Times, so I wasn't here for his farewell then. Consider this small tribute my attempt to give him the proper sendoff now.

Columnists love being the first with a thought, but in the aftermath of something like Tuesday's mind-numbing Michael Jackson media frenzy, there's also some comfort in consensus -- a bit to be said for safety in numbers.

So in addition to my column about the tortured logic and alibis that the media used to conflate its wall-to-wall Jackson coverage from "interesting" to "important," I recommend Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez's take on the proceedings. As Lopez noted, amid the crush of memorials, "You had to wade through acres of shallow water to find media references to Jackson's reported $20-million settlement of a case involving a boy he was accused of molesting," adding, "News organizations that have pulled out of Iraq arrived by the convoy to pay homage to the King of Pop."

The Wrap's Sharon Waxman came to a similar conclusion. In a column headlined "Jackson's Final Act: Sainthood," she wrote, "While still alive, Michael Jackson was widely considered a weirdo. A presumed child molester. A pills-and-plastic surgery addict. For more than a decade, he’d been relentlessly mocked by the tabloids. He was Wacko Jacko. ... Now that he's gone, he's become someone who was 'persecuted,' as Bernice King said."

Obviously, there's a strong impulse not to speak ill of the dead. Yet the blanket coverage of the Jackson event does cry out for perspective about the totality of his life, beyond just celebrating his talent. Perhaps inevitably, that lens narrowed on Tuesday, other than fleeting mentions of Jackson's later years as being "complicated."

The "complicated" side of Jackson needn't eradicate the good that he did, or the bond he shared with fans. Nor, however, should those elements of his biography be swept under the rug.

As Lopez's Times colleague Tim Rutten put it, "Look, the fact of the matter is that whatever the attractions of this guy's music or the generosity of his philanthropy ... no responsible parent would have left their child alone with him."

Still, there was "Nightline" on Tuesday, breathlessly covering the memorial and devoting a full segment to the art of moonwalking. Then again, that's unintentionally appropriate, since if anything has characterized the last few days, it's been a lack of gravity.

A real-time review of Tuesday's festivities:

Michael Jackson mania began early for me this morning, when I could hear the buzz of media helicopters zooming above the 101 freeway around 8 a.m. as they followed the funeral motorcade from Encino to Forest Lawn and eventually Staples Center. Either that, or the West Valley just declared war on the East Valley, in which case I will be retreating into my critic's bunker and updating these posts only sporadically.

"It will be a celebration," "Good Morning America's" Robin Roberts said from outside Staples. Or some sort of melee, but let's go with celebration for now.

At Fox News Channel, Greta Van Susteren took a break from shilling for Sarah Palin to cover the funeral, which seemed oddly appropriate. I've never seen someone so excited by a sound check before.

While CNN's Don Lemon giddily clutched a souvenir program from the memorial as if he'd just won the lottery, Anderson Cooper interviewed "Jackson's former publicist," Stuart Backerman, and actually asked a decent question -- namely, what happened to that cute little boy who fronted the Jackson 5?

Backerman did provide some insight, saying of the Martin Bashir interview with Jackson on ABC, "He died that night. ... He knew he shot himself in the foot ... and he never recovered." Indeed, MSNBC repeated the Bashir interview on Monday night, and as train wrecks go, it remains utterly riveting -- as well as a testimonial to what at best can be called Jackson's eccentricities that makes the worshipful tone characterizing much of this coverage even more questionable.

But enough of that. Around 9 a.m. PT, the obsession of the moment has become whether Jackson's casket will indeed be at the memorial service. More aerial shots of lots and lots of black cars. Newscasters are reporting that plans for the Staples event are now about an hour behind schedule, suggesting this ordeal might not actually end until Wednesday or Thursday.

KABC-TV has "entertainment guru" George Pennacchio with anchor Marc Brown outside Staples, and Brown just compared the atmosphere to the Oscars, adding that there were some people there "who I will describe charitably as odd." I assume he was talking about the fans, not the media.

OK, here we go: The motorcade is on the move! They're passing the Los Angeles Zoo. Wonder who's directing traffic for all those helicopters. As for traffic on the freeway, yikes, it looks even worse than usual.

Fox News is interviewing Brian Oxman, whose credentials as a "former Jackson family attorney" have been pretty well skewered by Los Angeles Times columnist Jim Rainey in a recent column, but hey, I suppose you have to kill time somehow. Jumping ahead, Oxman also turned up later during the service on CBS. (Full disclosure: This seemed like a good time to take a shower. If I missed anything important -- and seriously, what are the odds of that? -- my apologies.)

9:50 a.m.: Wow, the motorcade made fabulous time. It's amazing how well traffic can move in L.A. when you have a few thousand cops directing it. Some idiot on KTLA just said how this is all completely justified and nobody would question the resources being committed to it. Please don't speak for the rest of us, Barbie.

Fox's Shepard Smith is reading a list of the luminaries scheduled to attend and perhaps participate. Smith has the right attitude, wondering just how long this event might drag on. "What sort of crazy somethin' or other is going to happen," he just muttered, in a stream-of-consciousness rant, saying the coverage would continue "for the foreseeable future." God, let's hope not.

10:05 a.m.: The big-name network anchors are on the job. CBS is interviewing fans behind the barricades. ABC's Cynthia McFadden is sending grainy video out of the lobby to Charles Gibson. CBS' Katie Couric is interviewing Kenny "Babyface" Edmonds outside of Staples. NBC's Lester Holt compared this moment to the arrival of a new Pope, which, given the Catholic Church and Jackson's shared history, is perhaps a particularly unfortunate analogy.

10:14 a.m.: Showtime. Or nope, actually, a false alarm: Smokey Robinson reads some opening messages, and then disappears. Camera flashes everywhere, even though nothing much appears to be happening. Back in the studio ABC has, perhaps inevitably, trotted out Bashir, who built his U.S. career on the Jackson interview, to discuss "the complex parts" of Jackson's life, and how the focus has shifted back to his music.

The networks have a lot of time to fill here waiting for the actual ceremony to begin, and I think if you listen closely to his voice, a little part of Brian Williams is dying inside him right now.

10:32 a.m.: Showtime, Part II. A choir sings and people are cheering the arrival of the casket, which, again, seems like a bit of a mixed message, folks. This is supposed to be a memorial service, not a Kid Rock concert.

Queen Latifah reads a poem by Maya Angelou, in between songs by Mariah Carey and Lionel Richie. Motown founder Berry Gordy eulogizes Jackson, acknowledging that Jackson had made some "questionable decisions" while lauding him as "the greatest entertainer that ever lived." Perhaps so, but even the video tribute to Jackson is filled with bizarre images, such as Jackson kissing a chimp.

11:09 a.m.: Stevie Wonder sings. Magic Johnson and Kobe Bryant speak. Jennifer Hudson sings. And now Al Sharpton is thundering away about how Jackson brought the world -- black and white -- together, paving the way for "a person of color to be the president of the United States of America."

And presto, I can already see what part of this thing is going to lead on "Hannity" tonight.

11:45 a.m.: Hopefully, the end is in sight. Brooke Shields is reading from "The Little Prince," a book I really loved until, well, right about now.

11:55 a.m.: Martin Luther King Jr.'s children praise Jackson and speak of the persecution he faced. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas felt compelled to point out that in America, those accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty. Lee brandishes a resolution from the House of Representatives proclaiming Jackson a legend and a musical icon. One suspects "Hannity's" gonna have a field day with that as well.

12:14 p.m.: Robinson returns with his own reminiscence about Jackson as a young boy. Unlike many of the speakers, he's funny, warm, speaking strictly from the heart. "I love you my brother. I celebrate your life," Robinson says. This would be a perfect place to end things. Fingers crossed, but no, here comes a little boy who was a finalist from "Britain's Got Talent," and we've officially crossed the threshold from "Televised memorial tribute" into "hostage situation."

12:25 p.m.: Inevitable performance of "We Are the World," as a horde of performers fill the stage. This is crass, I realize, but I can't help but wonder if the Jackson brothers are thinking that this is the last time this many people will ever see them on a stage together.

I think that's it. Total running time: Just under 2 hours. "I can't think of a more appropriate way to end the service," Couric says.

But no, it's not over. They're doing a kind of encore of "Heal the World." If this keeps up this thing might be longer than the "Transformers" sequel.

12:35 p.m.: Jermaine Jackson dismisses the crowd (and more significantly, the assembled networks). But no, the other siblings are going to speak as well. Marlon tells a weird story about recognizing Michael wearing a disguise. "Maybe now Michael they will leave you alone," he says. One of Jackson's children speaks.

12:41 p.m.: At 2 hours, 10 minutes, it's over -- except for a closing invocation that nobody seems to care about . Or rather, it's over for now.

Couric signs off at 12:45, but elsewhere the analysis continues. "It was a marvelous show, but it wasn't a circus," ABC's Cynthia McFadden said.

Hey, just 'cause there were no elephants doesn't mean it's not a circus.

Bill O'Reilly was back from vacation and instantly in rare, midseason form on Monday. His hour included lamenting the blanket media coverage devoted to the Michael Jackson story -- in a segment where, without a trace of irony, he devoted at least five minutes to talking about the Michael Jackson story.

The inevitable highlight that I tuned in to see, though, was O'Reilly's reaction to Al Franken being sworn in as a U.S. senator from Minnesota. The host didn't disappoint, calling Franken's long-deferred election "a sad day for America."

Franken, of course, built up his slim political resume by picking feuds with prominent conservative voices, writing the book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" and "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." Moreover, O'Reilly unintentionally helped promote the latter by prodding his bosses at Fox to file suit in an effort to legally block the second book's publication -- a bid that the judge dismissed as "wholly without merit, both factually and legally."

Beyond the indignity of being pictured on Franken's book, O'Reilly was still smarting over a joint appearance at the Los Angeles Book Expo in 2003. With each allotted time to speak, Franken pretty much filibustered for about a half-hour (C-SPAN covered the event) before an exasperated O'Reilly shouted, "Hey, shut up! You had your 35 minutes. Shut up!"

Conservatives in general are apoplectic about the phrase "Senator Franken," but for O'Reilly -- who has plenty of imagined enemies, never mind the real ones -- seeing those words together is a much more personal affront and must be, indeed, a sad day. Still, for his viewers -- or at least those fascinated by the host's combustible nature -- watching him fume whenever the former "Saturday Night Live" writer's name gets mentioned is doubtless going to be extremely entertaining.

Fox News Channel's Stuart Varney came up with a hilarious excuse for Sarah Palin's surprise decision to resign as governor of Alaska before her term's completed.

It's David Letterman's fault!

Throughout Fox's breaking coverage Friday, fill-in anchor Varney kept repeating the question of whether Palin was hounded out of politics by the "vicious" and "scurrilous" attacks against her, citing Letterman's joke about her daughter (and the subsequent controversy that Palin and her supporters stoked) as a prime example.

Sorry, it doesn't wash.

Even if you accept that Letterman's poorly constructed joke was beyond the pale -- and for the record, I feel all that righteous indignation was highly calculated and overblown -- it's hard to defend buckling to such comments as the rationale behind Palin's action. After all, if she truly aspires to higher office, the criticisms will be a lot more pointed than the kind that get delivered by latenight comedians.

Of course, the notion that Palin is nobly stepping aside to A) advance her political career or B) for the greater good of Alaska doesn't endure close scrutiny, either, so Varney was in essence grasping at straws. As Fox News' Carl Cameron put it -- summing up the hanging curve that Palin has served up to detractors -- the political ads against her in any future race will simply say, "Sarah Palin wants to be president, but she quit her last job."

Meanwhile, the unhappiest man in America is probably John Ziegler, the conservative talkshow host turned documentary filmmaker who has sought to transform defending Palin -- or rather, lambasting the mainstream media's handling of her -- into a cottage industry. If Palin is truly out of politics -- as some, in the frenzy of instant analysis, suggested she might be -- it's another sign that the Wasilla native was out of her depth all along.

Strictly as TV theater, Palin's rambling speech -- with her bizarre basketball analogy about when to "pass the ball for victory" -- rightfully should mark the end of her time on the national political stage. As the New York Times' increasingly indispensable Gail Collins noted, not only was the delivery bizarre, but the timing served to "interrupt the plans of TV newscasters to spend the entire weekend pointing out that Michael Jackson is still dead."

The Jackson experience, however, might also explain why Palin is destined to be with us for awhile. Because as with the so-called King of Pop, the Palin circus is just too outlandish, too irresistible a story, to go away anytime soon.

There's no light at the end of the tunnel yet on Michael Jackson lunacy, as CBS just announced that Katie Couric will be anchoring "The CBS Evening News" from the Staples Center July 6-7 in order to cover the Jackson memorial on the second day. In addition, "The Early Show" will also be originating from the Staples Center, and one suspects the other morning shows -- already up to their elbows in Jackson coverage -- will dive right in as well.

Of course, the last time there was a major event surrounding Staples it was the post-championship unrest and looting that ensued after the Lakers won the NBA championship in June. I've never heard of a post-memorial service riot, but inasmuch as this is Los Angeles, the local authorities should be put on tactical alert. As for those wondering who would go downtown to honor Jackson in the middle of a weekday, with disproportionately high unemployment rates in the L.A. area, the crowd will likely spill out of Staples (the capacity for Lakers games is about 19,000) and into the surrounding plaza. My advice is to stay as far away as possible unless you have to be there or near there.

Meanwhile, Jackson media mania is approaching comical heights, even prompting John Stossel to criticize ABC News -- as the website mediabistro.com/tvnewser noted -- for bumping one of his "20/20" pieces to make additional room for the Jackson story. As sick as I am of all things Jackson, bumping ABC's resident swaggering blowhard is the kind of collateral damage a fella could get used to.

This Jackson carpet-bombing illustrates the major difference between print and television. On the latter, the obsession with a tabloid oddity like this can squeeze practically everything else off the air. In print, at least there's still room for other stories, though admittedly, you'd scarcely notice that from reading the Los Angeles Times -- a.k.a. TMZ Spring St. -- which has seemingly committed to keeping Jackson on the front page above the fold every day until Sam Zell sprouts a full head of hair.

As for Couric, it's certainly easy to rationalize devoting so many resources to a story that's so good for business -- witness the Christmas-in-July ratings spike for "Nightline" last week, which averaged more viewers than either of the latenight talkshows -- but I suspect we'll all be looking back on this circus a few months from now with the same level of embarrassment and derision that followed the shark-attack summer of 2001.

Of course, we all know what happened in September of that year. Let's just hope we don't have to wait for something truly terrible to happen again to deliver another wake-up call.

Right after the Tonys aired in June, I politely suggested that Neil Patrick Harris -- who also did a brilliant job emceeing the recent TV Land Awards -- was the logical choice to host the Emmys.

I know what you're thinking: Brian, do you ever get tired of being right? Well, no, but thanks for asking.

As my colleague Cynthia Littleton is reporting, it looks like the "How I Met Your Mother" star does indeed have a date with the Emmys, a savvy move that promotes host Emmy network CBS' Monday comedy block while bringing a multifaceted talent (go back and watch that terrific closing number at the Tonys) to the hosting role -- someone who actually welcomes the pressure associated with a gig that brought five reality stars to their knees.

Now I know what else you're thinking: There's nothing more obnoxious than columnists who dislocate a shoulder patting themselves on the back over what they told you (or rather, Toldja!) would happen, and I completely agree. But frankly, that's child's play.

From the pundit's couch that I occupy (and someone should really re-upholster this baby), the real trick is having the insight to anticipate what should happen. You know, like stating outright that ABC should declare an official end date for "Lost" two or three years down the road -- under the headline "'Lost' needs an exit strategy" -- about six weeks before producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse wisely cajoled ABC into doing just that.

Of course, I've been wrong a number of times over the years too, but for some reason my Google refuses to dredge any of those up. (OK, so I might have predicted that the premiere of "Law & Order" looked shaky and that "Cop Rock" was likely to open big; sue me.)

At any rate, with the prospect of Harris as host I'm actually looking forward to the Emmys -- the actual show, I mean, not just the melee that's about to ensue when the TV academy tries to strip a handful of awards out of the main televised ceremony without causing a major ruckus among producers and members of the talent guilds.

So for now, assuming that nothing derails the deal, CBS and the Academy should reap the rewards of a solid decision, one that could be -- wait for it -- Legendary.