ABC just put out a "My audience can beat up your audience" press release, bragging about the fact that the network ranked first during premiere week among adults age 18-49 in homes with annual income over $100,000.

Of course, my guess is CBS kicked the crap out of them in upscale homes with adults over 50, but since nobody wants to talk about them, nothing to see here, move along.

It's probably just me, but I find these kind of stats fascinating -- mostly because it feeds my premise that as network audiences dwindle, they have to be more creative in carving out areas where they can claim to be first. If nothing else, it's also reassuring to see that the well-to-do don't automatically have any better taste in TV programming than anybody else.

Here's the key portion of the release:

ABC Claims 7 of the Top 15 Non-Sports Shows for the New Season Among Adults 18-49 in Homes with $100k+ Annual Income

“Grey’s” is the No. 1 TV Show Overall, "Cougar Town," “FlashForward” and “Modern Family” Stand as TV’s Top 3 New Shows with Upscale Young Adults

Premiere Week National Audience Demographics

In addition to winning season premiere week among Adults 18-49 based on Nielsen’s Total U.S. rating, ABC finished as the No. 1 highest-rated network during the first week of the 2009-10 TV Season among key Upscale demographics, leading its competitors by wide margins.

Among Adults 18-49 in Homes with $100k+ annual income, ABC (3.74 rating) outdelivered No. 2 CBS by 17% (3.21 rating), No. 3 NBC by 21% (3.10 rating) and No. 4 Fox by 34% (2.79 rating).

ABC claimed 7 of TV’s Top 15 highest-rated non-sports programs during the season-opening week with high-income young adults, including the No. 1 show overall with “Grey’s Anatomy,” and each of the top three new programs with "Cougar Town," "FlashForward" and "Modern Family."

Oh, and here's the top five (and a pretty good bunch they are) in that upscale demo. (For the record, the three new ABC shows ranked Nos. 7, 9 and 11.)

"Grey's Anatomy" (ABC) -- 8.43

"House" (Fox) -- 6.28

"The Office" (NBC) -- 6.23

"Desperate Housewives" (ABC) -- 5.39

"The Big Bang Theory" (CBS) -- 5.36

This might qualify as the self-serving item of the day, but screw it, here goes.

Conventional wisdom says television critics are as useless as a vestigial organ in this day and age. Hell, former NBC honcho Don Ohlmeyer -- always a shy and retiring sort -- once colorfully referred to us during his tenure as “teats on a bull.”

Nevertheless, positive reviews appeared to play a role in steering viewers toward ABC’s “Modern Family” and “FlashForward,” both of which clearly exceeded expectations.

For that matter, even with NBC’s all-out marketing blitz, a tidal wave of media coverage doubtless contributed to the sizable opening-week numbers for “The Jay Leno Show,” generating considerable curiosity about this new construct, even if it turned out to be the same old show with the pieces reorganized.

Critics have come to doubt themselves, having watched too many programs that they collectively embraced -- "Arrested Development" and "The Wire" come to mind -- receive scant attention from audiences. Yet reviews, it would seem, remain a tool to help discerning audiences cut through the clutter. And while many critical favorites have died on the vine (and many newspapers have decided to do without their critics), there’s at least evidence of an audience looking for guidance before making a commitment — even if it’s just their time — to sampling a new series.

Personally, my mother asked me if she should watch "The Good Wife." So there.

Does this augur job security for ink-stained wretches? Hardly. But it does suggest there’s still utility in criticism that goes beyond just art-house movies or vanity quotes in Emmy campaigns.

Conan O'Brien did a nice job handling the tumble that resulted in him smacking his head -- and an episode of his show getting bumped last week -- on Monday's show, but man, that looks like a tough way to get attention. O'Brien has done a lot of big physical stuff since taking over "The Tonight Show" -- including some amusing bits with a stunt man -- but after this, it might be time to dial those down a bit.

Just got through watching "Superman/Batman: Public Enemies," the latest PG-13-rated direct-to-DVD animated production from DC Comics/Warner Premiere, which provides another sterling example of why this has become a golden age for geekdom.

The 66-minute movie -- based on a graphic novel by Jeph Loeb and Ed McGuinness -- is essentially one big, rollicking fight, as Superman and Batman are declared enemies of the state by newly elected President Lex Luthor, who promptly puts a $1 billion bounty on the former's head. This brings out what seems like half of the DC Comics universe to do battle with the two caped heroes, who are simultaneously trying to stop a giant Kryptonite meteor that's barreling toward Earth.

Directed by Sam Liu and written by Stan Berkowitz, it's all tremendous fun, if not perhaps aimed at those unable to recognize more obscure denizens of the comics world. Because the audience is expected to be in the loop, the movie doesn't waste any time introducing characters: You either know who Captain Atom, Lady Shiva and Power Girl (pictured below) are or, well, just keep up as best you can.

Both Marvel and DC have gotten into the direct-to-DVD business, where the lower budgets and artistic freedom that animation provides allow them to tell stories in a much more fan-centric way than live-action features that must cater to the widest possible audience in order to justify gargantuan production and marketing costs.

Still, with Warner Bros. exerting greater control over DC by virtue of its recent organizational shakeup -- putting Diane Nelson in charge of the rechristened DC Entertainment, in part to integrate its properties more seamlessly into the studio -- one hopes that there's still room for these sorts of single and double-type endeavors. Not only do they appeal to core comics fans in a way that little else can, but they also provide a useful lab for tinkering with what works and doesn't when adapting costumed characters from page to screen. A case in point would be the animated "Green Lantern: First Flight," released in advance of the planned feature starring Ryan Reynolds.

While there's potential gold in secondary characters (see "Iron Man"), they also require a particularly delicate touch to avoid tumbling over a creative precipice. That's why both DC/WB and now Marvel/Disney should take advantage of animation to help them, as it were, look before they leap.

Meet the new neighbors, who are again being asked to introduce a zesty element of intrigue to the doings on Wisteria Lane.

The latest new arrivals to "Desperate Housewives" are a couple -- "The Sopranos'" Drea de Matteo and Jeffrey Nordling (fresh off "24") -- who move into Mary Alice's old house. Sunday's premiere doesn't reveal much about them, other than a sense of possible menace that will likely play an active role in the serialized plot.

The series has always felt some pressure to replace its initial suicide mystery, giving rise to the neighbor locked in the basement, or the newcomer bent on revenge. Yet the show's simple pleasures shouldn't be overlooked, which include another late-in-life pregnancy for Lynette (Felicity Huffman), who in a hilarious scene scares the bejesus out of another expectant mom; and the ongoing power struggle between Gabrielle (Eva Longoria Parker) and the teenage niece (Maiara Walsh) who has taken up residence with her.

At this point, "Housewives" has the comfortable feel of an old shoe -- and not necessarily in a bad way. The series has managed to incorporate characters (none better than Dana Delany) while still conjuring credibly soapy twists for its central quartet, all while mixing comedy with drama.

Series creator Marc Cherry has enviously talked about wrapping up the show in the same way that "Lost" will this spring, but as long as the producers can keep finding ways to invigorate the program, there's no reason "Housewives" can't hang around several more seasons. Sure, the Emmy heat and ratings have cooled, but audiences have enough invested in the characters that barring a major misstep (and the show has already survived several minor ones), it's unlikely ABC could put on anything else Sundays that would do equally well. And if the series begins to get too expensive, hey, let's just say the telephone poll that took out Edie could always strike again.

Based on a preview of the opener, anyway, season six is off to a pretty good start -- or at least, one that makes it worth taking yet another bite out of that apple.

Jon Stewart nailed it when he mocked those within news circles who wondered if President Obama might be "over-exposed" by appearing on five Sunday-morning talk programs.

Well, Nielsen issued ratings for the Sept. 20 morning shows on Thursday, and the aggregate tally for the three most-watched of those programs? Less than half the tune-in for the season premiere of "NCIS."

Consider this a classic case of the news media talking among themselves, since it's otherwise difficult to be "over-exposed" to less than 4% of the U.S. population. As further evidence, the latest Pew Research Center study actually found a slight (and statistically insignificant) dip in those who felt they were hearing "too much about President Obama" compared to the organization's survey in July.

In other words, just because journalists obsess over such stuff doesn't mean the average viewer gives a rat's ass -- sort of like the inside-the-Beltway preoccupation with Tom DeLay on "Dancing With the Stars."

Here's the weekend tally:

      TOTAL VIEWERS A25-54 MM/Rtg

ABC “THIS WEEK”    3,080,000  1,010,000/.8

NBC “MEET THE PRESS”  3,290,000      1,070,000/.9

CBS “FACE THE NATION”     2,740,000    900,000/.7

FOX “FOX NEWS SUNDAY”     1,240,000    530,000/ .4

And the related "Daily Show" segment:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Five Easy Pieces
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Apparently not. TiVo put out a press release Wednesday noting that Emmy-winning series exhibited some of the highest levels of time-shifted viewing -- no surprise there -- but also that the Emmy winners posted "among the lowest levels of commercial retention," based on data from its Stop//Watch ratings service.

In most respects, this isn't a surprise. One would expect the audience for programs like "Mad Men" and "30 Rock" would trend more upscale than many other shows and thus be more apt to capitalize on available technology to streamline the viewing experience by skipping over commercials.

It's bad news, though, in terms of ad-supported networks being able to monetize prestige programs, if higher-brow shows do worse in the zapping department.

Then again, I suspect many people are spoiled like I am -- that is, sure, I want "Mad Men" to be viable economically so I can enjoy watching it, but not enough to cost me 15 minutes of sitting through commercials.

A telling quote from the press release, and the accompanying chart based on TiVo users -- once you figure out how to read it -- is pretty interesting, too:

“This data clearly demonstrates that while critics and general audiences may love a program, that doesn’t mean they’ll watch the commercials,” said Todd Juenger, Vice President & General Manager, TiVo Audience Research & Measurement. “In fact, the most beloved programs are often subject to the highest degree of timeshifting and commercial avoidance.” 

 Primetime Emmy Award Winners – Timeshifted & Ad Fast-Forwarding Percentages

Network	Emmy Award Winning Program / Genre	% of Viewing Timeshifted	% of Audience Fast-Forwarding Commercials: Timeshifted
OUTSTANDING COMEDY SERIES
NBC	30  Rock	74	64
	Sitcom	68	66
OUTSTANDING DRAMA SERIES
AMC	Mad Men	85	83
	Drama	75	73
OUTSTANDING ANIMATED PROGRAM
COMEDY	South Park	82	66
	Animated	69	55
OUTSTANDING REALITY-COMPETITION PROGRAM
CBS	The Amazing Race 14	67	77
	Reality	65	73
OUTSTANDING VARIETY, MUSIC OR COMEDY SERIES
COMEDY	Daily Show w/ John Stewart	78	66
	Variety	53	58

 

The ship has sailed, seemingly, for NBC's "Heroes," whose two-hour premiere did little to address the creative flaws in last season's storylines, and which opened to tepid ratings -- indicating the audience that has abandoned the show is likely gone for good.

Monday's two-hour launch averaged a mere 6.1 million viewers and a more respectable 2.8 rating among adults 18-49 -- fourth in its timeslot by both measures. Yet even with a tough "House" premiere as competition, it's hard to imagine those numbers rising after the uninspired debut.

Once one of TV's hottest series, "Heroes" has become a cautionary tale for serialized dramas. After growing too ambitious and teeming with new characters early in its run, the show has struggled to reclaim any kind of rhythm -- and hasn't helped its cause by introducing a new threat (played by Robert Knepper) and several more new faces in the season kickoff.

The show's time-traveling exploits -- with Hiro Nakamura (Masi Oka) again jumping back and threatening to alter the present and future -- has also been to its detriment, confusing and silly all at once. The storytelling increasingly seems less informed by comic-book sensibilities -- which was part of the program's initial charm -- than merely sloppy, including the off-putting twist from last year of having a shape-shifting Sylar (Zachary Quinto) stand in for the slain Nathan Petrelli (Adrian Pasdar). Other than keeping both actors employed, it remains a mystery what purpose that plot serves.

Even with the benefit of having TiVo-ed the premiere, I found myself walking out of the room and simply letting the recording run. And while I've seen every episode and would like to keep that streak alive, it's going to be a challenge to stay interested if the series continues along its current track. The only suggestion I could offer would be to dramatically streamline the cast down to a handful of characters, but that's obviously not going to happen on the fly.

As my colleague Rick Kissell noted in his indispensable ratings recaps, NBC "had a tough night all around," as "Heroes'" weak bow did nothing to help "The Jay Leno Show," which took a predictable hit against season premieres.

At one point, the NBC drama seemed poised to challenge "Lost" on the buzz meter among TV's serialized sci-fi obsessions, but that battle's over. And in the real world, there's no going back in time to fix where "Heroes" went wrong.

 

"You must be snorting crushed up Adderall by now," a friend recently wrote, alluding to the deluge TV reviews that she's been seeing in the paper and online.

She's not alone. I've actually been rather touched, frankly, by some of the feedback from readers asking, essentially, whether a TV critic's brain turns to mush around this time of year.

Well, no -- or at least, no more so than usual.

Yes, there are an inordinate number of new series in September (I think my total review tally is somewhere around 28 for the month), but that's frankly a pretty unrelenting flood these days, in what's become a year-round business.

If anything, with NBC airing "The Jay Leno Show" and thus occupying five hours, the number of new network programs is slightly less than in recent years. The real problem is that it's no longer just the networks, with cable -- which still tends to load up in spring and summer -- now providing a steady tide of high-profile offerings through the fall and winter as well.

In short, the spigot never stops flowing anymore, and there are no natural gaps built into the calendar. So yes, it's busy -- but let's keep matters in perspective.

For starters, any journalist is lucky to be busy these days, so I'm the last person you'll ever hear complain about that. In addition, Howard Rosenberg did this job at the Los Angeles Times for 25 years, and not only is he still a lovely guy, but he can carry on a lucid conversation and is currently poisoning the minds of impressionable college students at USC. So there are rays of hope that any scarring won't be permanent.

The real challenge, ultimately, is to be fair to new programs. When they start piling up on you, there is a tendency to get impatient with the worst ones, and you want to watch with as fresh a set of eyes as possible. Moreover, that often includes sitting through multiple episodes of newcomers when they're available as well as advance screeners of returning series.

The only way to do that is to try to space out viewing. My own strategy involves watching a couple of things in the morning, going to the office and writing, then watching something else in the afternoons. If you watch six pilots back to back, there's no way the fifth isn't going to start feeling like root-canal surgery. And everyone deserves a clean slate.

Granted, critics don't always get this right, but the worst thing one can do is to let ennui and cynicism bleed into the reviews in a way that's unfair to the people who have labored on these programs, as well as those who might devote an hour of their lives to sampling them.

That said, when Ken Burns' latest documentary "The National Parks" arrives in the midst of all this  -- and it's 12 hours long -- it's difficult not to let the groan approach the level of primal scream.

At any rate, to all who have noted the volume of reviews, thanks for your concern. And if you happen to have some spare Adderall lying around, hey, it probably couldn't hurt.

Fox News Channel's Chris Wallace did some whining about President Obama conspicuously skipping Fox's Sunday-morning program in his media blitz this week, which seems to ignore the obvious: By setting itself up as the "opposition network," FNC gains as many privileges as it might lose in terms of access to the White House.

As noted during a discussion on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" (see clip below), Fox has been the official organ for former Vice President Dick Cheney to address the world since he's left office, presumably because he thinks he'll get the best possible outcome on the network. Moreover, Fox's activist role in stoking and promoting protests against the current administration included video of a Fox producer actually pumping up the crowd for one of its live segments.

Fox hasn't fully addressed what's happened in that case -- or the clearly misleading ad that the network ran claiming that its rivals hadn't covered the protests.

So if Obama's perceived snub of "Fox News Sunday" was a shot across the bow, as it were, that too simply plays into Fox's marketing niche, mostly in a helpful way.

The disingenuous part is for Wallace to act like his feelings are hurt because the administration bypassed him. Because getting to play the aggrieved party in this case is actually good for Fox, in the broader picture.

Fox is doing fabulously well ratings-wise thanks to the current approach, but such a strategy can yield consequences. So while Wallace called the Obama team "crybabies" for skipping Fox, I suspect the only real tears here are of the crocodile variety -- and Wallace qualifies as whiner in chief.

Yes, there was a lot of repetition, but strictly as a viewer, it's hard to quibble with many of the major choices that emerged from this year's Emmy Awards.

Bryan Cranston, Glenn Close and Toni Collette were all pretty spectacular in their respective series. And while I would have gone with Jim Parsons for "The Big Bang Theory," it's hard to argue that Alec Baldwin is week in and week out the best thing about "30 Rock."

The comedy field yielded too many niche and youth-oriented contenders for the Academy's voting body, and "Mad Men" is in one of those grooves.

OK, so the seven-year streaks for "The Daily Show" and "The Amazing Race" have grown pretty monotonous, but it's not like either of them fell on their face creatively this year. If anything, "TDS" rose to the 2008 election in extraordinary fashion.

Both miniseries nominees were also extremely worthy, though personally, I'd have gone with David Simon's remarkable Iraq war study, "Generation Kill," over "Little Dorrit." But there's no arguing that the academy has a taste for period costume dramas, and the British production was exquisitely done.

As I've stated before, the Emmys are the most difficult awards show structurally because they have repeat nominees, unlike the other major academy-backed kudocasts (that is, Oscars, Grammys, Tonys). There's nothing wrong with awarding consistency -- it is, in a sense, what sets TV apart -- but admittedly, doing so tends to make these affairs a trifle dull.

Anyway, that's a first impression before I've done any drinking. Let's see how I feel about it with a hangover tomorrow.

Seriously, like, even more than Ryan Seacrest.

The "Glamcam" for the Emmy red-carpet arrivals on E! essentially pans up the body of whoever Seacrest or Giuliana Rancic is interviewing. I currently know more about Jon Hamm's shoes than I ever wanted to. There was even a "stilettocam" for, I guess, foot fetishists.

OK, yes, fashion is a big part of the evening, but I'd say half the emphasis on style and wardrobe is because the hosts have absolutely nothing to say to the nominees and presenters that cross their paths.

"I had a dream about you last night," Seacrest told Sarah Silverman, who might be one of the few female celebrities around who could actually roll with that line.

Meanwhile, CBS' Bears-Steelers game went down to the final seconds, as did the Chargers-Ravens game. Of course, that won't stop much of the football audience from flipping over to NBC for the Giants vs. the Cowboys, but because of the football overrun, the network's going to truncate "60 Minutes" down to less than half an hour so the Emmys can start on time. And, aw shucks, that means the piece on USC football coach Pete Carroll -- whose team lost on Saturday -- will have to be delayed. As a UCLA graduate, I'm heartbroken.

Anyway, should be interesting to see what all of that means for ratings.

Not to be premature, but this Sunday's Emmy awards are off to a good start. Alright, I doubt very many people are counting down the seconds to the ceremony the way they are on the website emmys.com, but there is a downloadable ballot on the site that gives the precise order of the awards. And I like what I see.

As previously announced, the awards will grouped together by theme, meaning all the comedy awards (the four actors, writing and directing) will go first except for best comedy, followed by the two reality awards, all eight longform categories, the variety/music honors, and finally drama. The evening culminates, as usual, with outstanding comedy and drama.

This makes an enormous amount of sense -- and not just because it will make it considerably easier for those of us covering the awards to identify trends as we go. Putting all the comedy honors together -- and using fewer presenters who have to be introduced and saunter on stage -- ought to not only unify segments of the show but potentially speed up the presentation, without having to dabble with "time-shifting" or other guild-aggravating methods of scrunching time out of the three-hour telecast (OK, two hours, 9 minutes sans commercials).

My pal Lisa de Moraes at the Washington Post has a typically amusing piece about this year's awards likely being a rehash of 2008, but there's only so much that the producers can control -- and that includes the weather, which with the forecast in the mid-80s, should at least make the red-carpet mayhem tolerable.

As an added bonus, those who attend the awards can come home and watch a terrific episode of "Mad Men" (no spoilers here) and the return of "Curb Your Enthusiasm."

When it comes to Emmy night, you spend a lot of time thanking God for small favors.

Networks do all kinds of things now to try and prevent people from selling DVD screeners on eBay. ABC, much to the chagrin of critics, only makes its programs available online, meaning you get to see a big lavish pilot like "Eastwick" on a 15-inch computer monitor, not a 46-inch flat screen, like God intended.

HBO took to imprinting codes on the discs, so they're in the corner of every frame. Sometimes they use initials, meaning there's a "BL" etched in, which always reminds me of "The Odd Couple" line where Oscar says that it took him awhile to figure out that "FU" meant "Felix Unger."

"Mad Men" now has a numerical code that pops in and out. It's less intrusive, but still slightly distracting -- though admittedly, that's a small price to pay for getting to see those episodes before the rest of the unwashed masses.

Fox puts a disclaimer on the front of its DVDs, telling us that piracy hurts everybody and that if we don't abide by the rules, the network won't be able to supply us with advance screeners. I know, there are a lot of sleazeballs out there that have violated these guidelines, but still, there's nothing like a relationship predicated on trust.

So I was amused to see the following warning on the latest screener that came from Comedy Central: "Don't even think about posting, swapping or putting this up for sale to the highest bidder or karma, not to mention the FBI, may come and get you."

I only wish more of their shows were that clever.

NBC's Thursday lineup launches this week, with one of the funniest episodes of "The Office" that I've seen in awhile.

In it, Michael (Steve Carell) begins concocting fabulous lies about the staff to cover up one uncomfortable truth that he discovers, not knowing that one of the "secrets" he's spreading -- that Pam is pregnant -- happens to be true.

Not only are there multiple laugh-out-loud moments, but the show continues to display considerable bravery in playing around with its characters.

As for "The Office" producers' second venture, "Parks and Recreation," that series returns somewhat improved from last season's first few episodes, though without the same inspiration as its predecessor. Amy Poehler remains engagingly clueless as a small-town official -- the premiere sees her become an unlikely gay-rights champion -- but the supporting cast still hasn't fully found its groove. The second episode (airing Sept. 24) proves slightly better than the first, but it still feels like "The Office" is sandwiched between clearly inferior comedies (see my review of "Community"), on a night where the competition could be more formidable with Fox's "Fringe" (here's Stu Levine's take on its second-season premiere) and ABC's "FlashForward" taking up residence on the night.

It will also be interesting to see how "The Jay Leno Show" fares on Thursday, and whether the network's one sitcom block provides a more compatible flow into the program than, say, "The Biggest Loser" or the new series "Trauma." (Leno did get a nice boost Wednesday from the "America's Got Talent" finale, but again, that's before the big guns arrive on the other networks next week.)

NBC is holding "30 Rock" back until October, airing "Saturday Night Live" to fill that extra half-hour. Presumably, the network is hoping another showy Emmy performance will help give the series some additional momentum heading into the fall, but after all the hoopla surrounding Tina Fey in the run-up to the 2008 election, the heat surrounding the show last year will be difficult to replicate.

A tale of two medical dramas....

Despite my consistent admiration for Hugh Laurie's brilliant work in the title role, I've been only an intermittent viewer of "House" the last couple of seasons, having grown somewhat weary of the medical procedural format. (For starters, I could barely get my health insurance to approve an MRI for a sore shoulder; these guys think nothing of running about a million dollars worth of tests every week, just for the hell of it.)

All that disappears, however, during the excellent two-hour season premiere on Sept. 21, with Laurie's Dr. House doing time in a mental-health facility for his painkiller addiction and running into an equally formidable adversary in the form of the Mayfield Psychiatric Hospital's administrator (guest Andre Braugher). Although House plots to bend his keepers to his will, the two hours explore the character in a compelling way and showcase some of the best acting you're apt to see on television this year.

It's an extraordinary departure, the sort of creative lark (inasmuch as other series regulars go largely unseen) in which established procedurals occasionally indulge, but seldom this well.

A few days later, "Grey's Anatomy" returns, having painted itself into an unfortunate corner in last spring's cliffhanger, which left both George (T.R. Knight) and Izzie (Katherine Heigl) hovering near death, less in the service of drama than backstage shenanigans about who would be leaving the series. (It remains to be seen whether "The Ugly Truth" will scare Heigl straight, as it were, but it's no secret that she'll be hanging around at least for a little while.)

Without giving too much away otherwise, the episode's highlight comes when the doctors indulge in a bout of gallows humor that finds them laughing uncontrollably over all the improbable things that have happened to them in a short span of time. Of course, that also exposes the fact that "Grey's" has indulged in too many plot twists that border on the absurd, in part driven by what appears to be a potentially unhealthy amount of off-screen angst.

There are still fine moments in the premiere -- primarily courtesy of Chandra Wilson and Sara Ramirez -- and there's an introduction of some corporate hospital politics that the program could certainly use, if only to take some of the focus off A) death; B) chronic bed-hopping; and C) marriages, or the lack thereof.

For the most part, though, "Grey's" feels like a cautionary tale about where a good show can go bad. That likely won't prevent the series from running successfully several more seasons, but even so, some new cast additions can't arrive fast enough, since this is a series that needs help, stat.

Quote of the day, from Jeff Gaspin, Chairman, NBC Universal Television Entertainment, regarding the debut of "The Jay Leno Show" on Monday: "It's great to launch this innovative new show with such strong initial sampling, but we realize this is just one night and that we're going to build our business in this time period with ratings that will level out over time. Our focus is on delivering a great show and developing a consistent comedy viewing habit at 10 p.m. over the long haul."

Translation: "You're not going to get to bitch-slap us all over again for proclaiming anybody the 'new king' of anything after one night, like we did with Conan O'Brien."

Smart guy, that Gaspin. And also smart of NBC to include the 25-54 demographic prominently in its press release, since Leno figures to do markedly better by that older-skewing measure over time than among adults age 18-49, the standard that NBC and other networks usually tout.

Here was the tale-o'-the-tape breakdown on Monday for Leno:

Total viewers: 18.4 million

Adults 18-49: 5.3 rating

Adults 25-54: 6.4 rating

And one afterthought on some of the reaction to the program that's been dribbling in: My guess is some of the people criticizing the premiere hadn't actually tried sitting through an entire episode of "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" in ages, except perhaps for his final episode. Frankly, "Same show, different time" would have nearly sufficed as a review, but where's the fun in that?

Finally, I must confess to being a trifle amused (and more than a little terrified) about the comment posted on my review by someone seemingly obsessed with the size of Leno's feet.

His feet? Really? I mean, sure, he looked like he was standing on a symbol from "The Da Vinci Code," but his feet?

If you want to know why Diane Sawyer wanted to jump from "Good Morning America" to "World News Tonight," look no further than the completely inane segment that the ABC morning program devoted on Tuesday to the "trend" of overweight people in reality shows -- focusing entirely on the Fox dating show "More to Love."

A few problems here: Nobody really watched the show. The show was merely an attempt to do a plus-sized version of "The Bachelor," by the producer of "The Bachelor." And while they found someone from a fat-acceptance group to complain about the series, there was no controversy to speak of, no heat, not much of anything.

Of course, there are several other dieting-related shows about the overweight, like "Ruby" and "The Biggest Loser," but those are about fat people trying to become less fat. Besides, one suspects the network wasn't eager to plug the latter -- an NBC series -- on the night that it's premiering. So they went with "More to Love," like this is burning issue now?

In other words, some "GMA" producer stumbled across the show and thought this was "news," or at least irresistible to the morning audience -- "Hey, struggling with obesity, and reality TV! Win-win!"

Sawyer gamely threw in a comment about all the discrimination that the overweight have to face, but inside, it sure felt like she was thinking, "A little while longer and I'm done with this BS! Woo-hoo!"

Or maybe I'm projecting.

The tributes and obituaries to Patrick Swayze -- who died Monday at age 57 -- will doubtless focus on more memorable films like "Ghost" and "Dirty Dancing."

My first thought, though, was of a Swayze vehicle I didn't think much of at the time that's so deliciously awful, such a wonderfully guilty pleasure, that it plays (and plays, and plays) on what occasionally feels like a continuous loop on cable television.

That would be "Road House," the 1989 action movie that features Swayze as a super-tough bar bouncer who tries to bring order to a rough tavern, only to run afoul of the bad guy who runs the town (Ben Gazzara) and thus wind up having to take on not only him but all of his assorted minions. It's a movie where the ER doctor who treats Swayze's wound is played by Kelly Lynch, who winds up rolling around with him in short order: and where a brutal fight with the bad guy's chief enforcer includes the villain spouting the unforgettable mid-brawl taunt, "I used to fuck guys like you in prison."

Variety didn't have much nice to say about "Road House" in its initial review, and I can't really argue with any of those conclusions. Still, that appraisal didn't anticipate the way people use cable TV, where certain movies that otherwise might not have been appreciated based on their initial theatrical run (from the silly "The Beastmaster" to the brilliant "The Shawshank Redemption") can find new lives and audiences -- in part, especially with a movie like "Road House," because you can start watching pretty much anywhere along the way and figure out the plot (such as it is) in about 30 seconds.

"Road House's" neanderthalic charms haven't been lost on other purveyors of pop culture, with Entertainment Weekly also paying tribute to the movie several years ago and Coed magazine (whatever the hell that is) earlier this year proclaiming it "The Best Movie Ever." (Seriously, it's amazing the kind of crap that a simple Google search occasionally unearths.) 

 So while Swayze will be better remembered for other roles, I suspect you'll see as much of "Road House" in the next few days -- and just as significantly, the years to come -- as any one of them.

As much as I liked this show when it premiered for its initial seven-episode run, "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" has left me pretty cold since then, and the opening of the fifth season -- barring a few fleeting moments -- is no exception.

It's illustrative, in fact, to watch the four "Sunny" episodes that FX made available (the season begins on Sept. 17) alongside the "Curb Your Enthusiasm" DVD that HBO sent along.

Both shows are loud, brash and feature people yelling at each other. But "Sunny" doesn't pay off enough of its gags and seems too enamored with the fact that its key characters occupy their own insular world, blissfully unaware of anyone else's feelings.

The show has also suffered since the addition of Danny DeVito as Frank, the equally self-absorbed dad of Dee (Kaitlin Olson) and Dennis (Glenn Howerton), who run a bar along with their moronic pals Mac (Rob McElhenney) and Charlie (Charlie Day).

Of the new episodes, the premiere sounds the most promising, but the title -- "The Gang Exploits the Mortgage Crisis" -- ultimately proves superior to the show itself. The best comes later, when the younger four try to stage an intervention because of Frank's drinking, but they seem every bit as much in need of help as he does.

"It's Always Sunny" remains a feel-good story in terms of its origins, having been created by McElhenney on what amounts to a shoestring and improbably sold to FX. Shooting quick and cheap, in fact, has been a hallmark of the show's run, exhibiting savvy in producing for a niche audience. And to their credit, everyone seems to have a good time doing the show.

I just wish I had a better time watching it.

Nikki Finke recently asked on her blog whether the current season of "Entourage" is the show's best, which only proves that TV criticism -- as subjective as that dying art is -- isn't for everyone.

Because after watching the three episodes that begin Sept. 13 (leading up to the Oct. 4 season finale), I would conclude that this has been the worst season of the show since its first, largely because it has focused on romantic entanglements when the writers seem to have absolutely no feel for female characters.

Every woman on the show this season has been flighty and weird, when they're not bat-shit crazy. Ari's wife has virtually disappeared, and the various romances of Eric (Kevin Connolly) are flat-out boring. Finally, the relationship between Turtle (Jerry Ferrara) and the actor's real-life flame Jamie-Lynn Sigler (playing herself) has proved equally silly, including her own bouts of improbable jealousy in these later episodes.

You begin to understand why women on the show have historically been limited to the role of silent sex toys. These new relationships were apparently supposed to be a way of showing that the central quartet is growing up and maturing, but it's only underscored that the faceless butts and boobs of years past were on display for a reason.

The sad part is that the show has indeed produced some wonderful sequences in the inside-Hollywood shenanigans involving Ari (the ever-mercurial Jeremy Piven), including the clever bit where he dragged Aaron Sorkin (who exhibited some acting chops) to jail in an effort to sign the writer. Yet even that sphere has been tainted by the woes of Ari's TV chief Andrew (Gary Cole) after an intra-office affair that broke up his marriage.

"Entourage" has flourished this long thanks to its fine eye for Hollywood eccentricities and the camaraderie among its four life-long friends, and the program remains an inoffensive guilty pleasure, especially for those close enough to the front lines to grasp its more obscure references. In the upcoming chapters those include a cameo by series creator Doug Ellin (but not as himself), a dopey bit with Zac Efron and even a shout out regarding the aforementioned Ms. Finke.

Still, having occasionally chided the HBO show in the past for its persistent shallowness, now that I've seen a season that attempts to unearth a little more character depth, the old template was clearly preferable. Because in the world of "Entourage," the women are always drop-dead gorgeous -- right up until they open their mouths.

Back when Paula Abdul tweeted her farewell I proposed that altering the judging dynamics would potentially be good news for "American Idol," injecting some new energy into a familiar format.

Adding Ellen DeGeneres as the fourth judge would definitely seem to achieve that objective -- providing a "win-win" for both the series and the daytime host.

Whatever the mutterings of those Abdul fans pledging to stay away because of her departure (including New York Post critic Linda Stasi's ramblings that Abdul was a wronged woman a la Bette Davis' character in "All About Eve"), DeGeneres' arrival -- bringing additional comedy to the program, albeit here of the intentional as opposed to train-wreck variety -- will both promote the comic and foster a jolt of curiosity about "Idol" that the Fox heavyweight hasn't enjoyed in some time. Frankly, the fourth judge didn't really do all that much to alter the chemistry, but because other media are obsessed with all things "Idol" (think traffic, baby, traffic), it nevertheless produced torrents of coverage.

DeGeneres would appear to be an ideal fit -- a genuine fan whose enthusiasm for the show is obvious, but also somebody who can ventilate some of its self-importance and Simon Cowell's trademark pomposity with humor instead of merely rolling her eyes. It's the kind of new wrinkle that producers love -- offering considerable benefits and scant risk (although don't be surprised if some religious bigot tries to drum up publicity by assailing the propriety of DeGeneres' sexual orientation on a "family" show).

Whatever Abdul chooses to do next, her ex has found a new relationship that amounts to plenty more than a mere rebound. Abdul's fans can only hope that her own fortunes pan out half as well.

You get a chance to work with damn few legends in this business (or any business, I suppose), and Army Archerd was certainly that.

Army died Tuesday (here's the full Variety obit) at the age of 87. When I started here for the first time in 1987, the mere idea of me -- then just a few years out of college -- working in the same building as Army Archerd  seemed simply preposterous to a few of my friends, who kept asking if I had met him. To them, Army was Variety.

Although I have several memories of Army, the image that always stands out in my mind was how hard he worked, how he answered his own phone, how he came into the office every day and pounded out that column. At one point an editor asked him if it wasn't bigger news that Genvieve Bujold had been cast as the star (she was later replaced by Kate Mulgrew) in the new version of "Star Trek: Voyager." Army had dashed it off in just a single line. When I said that exclusive was probably Page 1 news, Army was asked if he might at least move the item up from the bottom third of his column into the lead.

"There's no 'buried' in my column," Army said. "Everyone reads through all the way to the end."

And for the most part, they did.

Army continued working, steadfastly, long past the point where many of his contemporaries had retired, even as technology (computers were something of a mystery) occasionally flummoxed him. After more than 50 years pulling together items, I'm not sure he would have known what to do with himself without it.

The days of the "... " column have largely disappeared, especially for those of us who grew up reading Allan Malamud's sports musings and Army Archerd in Variety. (I actually did occasionally read Army as a kid on those occasions when I visited my dad's law office, since he subscribed, even though he didn't have many show-business clients.)

At one point early in my career I wondered about what it would be like to replace Army, but the thought soon passed. Sure, it looked like a darn good way for an ink-stained wretch to make a living, but those shoes just seemed impossibly big to fill.

Legends have a way of doing that.

A brief announcement about a change in Variety's TV review policy that I'm planning to implement in an effort to save time given the crush of original programming that comes our way.

Although we will continue to publish the same fairly detailed credits for new series, we're going to be much more discerning about them when reviewing returning programs. This will hopefully allow us to continue running reviews of second- and third-season premieres without the often-arduous process of hunting down credits beyond the show-runners that might be listed on the network's website.

To those of you working on these series, I apologize in advance. And to publicists, if you're going to get an earful from producers and crew if they're not credited, then I suggest you distribute comprehensive credits without me having to ask for them, because there's simply not enough time for the constant rigmarole of nagging you to assemble them for us.

Frankly, I still think it's important to review returning programs -- sustaining or improving quality, especially on serialized shows, is a major challenge -- but in some instances those might be addressed in the form of capsule reviews on this blog instead of the more comprehensive ones that we have been running on the web.

At any rate, this is a work in progress, and I welcome your feedback.

Before anybody gets too excited about the Daily Beast reporting that Charles Gibson is "livid" about Diane Sawyer succeeding him, let's remember reporter Rebecca Dana's last major TV news-related "scoop."

During her tenure at the Wall Street Journal, Dana reported -- back in April 2008 -- that Katie Couric would likely part ways with CBS before that year was over.  That story, too, was based on an anonymous source, and last I checked, Couric is still anchoring "The CBS Evening News."

This isn't meant to pick on Dana, only to point out that there is a rather irritating trend lately -- especially among some younger reporters -- of not wanting to let the facts get in the way of a good story, or at least taking the time to see if they actually pan out. Because of the pressure to feed the web, stories are rushed into circulation, and a headline like "Gibson's livid" is sure to be picked up elsewhere, whether it's true or not. (In this case, that aspect of the story doesn't appear to pass the smell test, based on all the other coverage I've read.)

Although the pace of journalism has forever changed, that shouldn't change the fundamentals. Yet the bottom line is that "get it first" appears to be taking precedence over getting it right.

But hey, the Beast got itself a Huffington Post link trumpeting the headline, and that means circulation, baby. As for the accuracy of it, well, we can always sort that out later, right?

The announcement that Diane Sawyer will replace Charles Gibson at ABC's "World News" desk speaks far less to shifting gender politics -- as some would like to couch it -- than a change in the balance of power at the network news divisions.

Although old-line news talent still see anchoring nightly news as the premiere jobs in broadcast journalism, they're living in the past. The real power now resides in the morning programs, which thanks to sheer volume -- that's four hours of "Today" each morning for NBC's sales department to peddle, compared to a half-hour of "The NBC Nightly News" -- have become the primary focus of the news divisions. (Update: The New York Times cites the profitability of "Good Morning America" in this piece regarding the hunt for Sawyer's replacement.)

Moreover, the morning mix of infotainment -- a news recap, followed by giddy cooking segments and soft interviews with network reality stars or actors plugging upcoming movies -- has also triumphed over the hard-news approach traditionally embodied by the evening newscasts. So while Sawyer might understandably see this move as a step up in class, it's actually a step down in the current news pecking order. (Katie Couric has probably discovered as much, whether she'd acknowledge it or not, since vacating "Today" for her leap to CBS' anchor chair.)

Anyone of a certain age doubtless thinks first of the late Walter Cronkite, followed by the 20-year reign of Rather, Jennings and Brokaw as the apex of TV news. Those men (and yes, then it was all men) not only invested the anchor chair with gravitas but also set the standard for their respective networks.

But those days are over. And while most of the reporting has proclaimed Sawyer "the leader of ABC's network news division" (New York Times) or occupying "the top news spot at ABC" (Los Angeles Times), the Wall Street Journal was closer when it noted that she is "inheriting a diminished throne." Despite the romance surrounding the evening news, the tone is now largely set between 7 and 9 a.m. by the likes of Matt Lauer and Meredith Vieira -- and it has also filtered into latenight, where the surviving "Nightline" has morphed into a program as apt to lead with pop culture as global politics.

By that measure, having Sawyer and Couric anchoring nightly news after their stints in the morning merely reinforces what's been apparent for quite awhile -- that they might still call it "evening news," but in terms of morning-TV values, the sun never sets.

Update: From the "Mediocre minds think alike" file, the LA Times' Joe Flint draws pretty much the same conclusion.

And you wonder why so many kids are illiterate? Check out the following Labor Day marathon from MTV -- a "16 and Pregnant" marathon!

Um, no, kids, "Labor Day" is actually not supposed to honor that kind of labor.

On the plus side, the "Teen Mom" spinoff mentioned in the release below is genuinely a good idea, since the series' emphasis on the pregnancy -- without showing its longterm consequences -- feels conspicuously shallow. The toughest part, after all, is once the baby arrives.

Still, as testimonials to organized labor go, "Promiscuous Teenagers of the World Unite" doesn't have much of a ring to it....

MTV BRINGS VIEWERS A “16 AND PREGNANT” LABOR DAY MARATHON BEGINNING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 7 AT 12:30PM ET/PT

Encore Presentation Of “Life After Labor” Hosted By Dr. Drew Pinsky

Kicks Off Marathon at 11:00am ET/PT

Network Greenlights “16 and Pregnant” Spinoff Series “Teen Mom”

New York, NY (September 2, 2009) – This weekend MTV is set to air a special Labor Day marathon of “16 and Pregnant,” the hit documentary series that gives viewers an inside look at the lives of pregnant teenagers as they face the challenges that come with becoming a young parent. MTV also announced today the greenlight of “Teen Mom,” a spin-off series where viewers can catch up with four girls from “16 & Pregnant” season one who are facing the challenges of their first year of motherhood.  The marathon will kick-off with an encore presentation of “Life After Labor” hosted by Dr. Drew Pinsky at 11:00am ET/PT, followed by all six episodes of “16 and Pregnant” beginning at 12:30pm ET/PT. The “16 and Pregnant” Labor Day marathon is hosted by some of the moms featured in “Teen Mom.” 

Each episode of “Teen Mom” will interweave stories of four teenage girls who are navigating the bumpy terrain of adolescence, growing pains, and coming of age – all while facing the new responsibility of being a mother. Each story offers a unique look into the wide variety of challenges young mothers can face: marriage, relationships, family support, or lack thereof, adoption, finances, rumors among the community, graduating high school, starting college, getting (or losing) a job and the daunting and exciting step of moving out of the nest to create their own families.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But wait, that's not the dumbest, most tone-deaf press release of the day. No, that distinction belongs to Bravo, which is offering up another season of ... "MILLION DOLLAR LISTING!" -- as in, "If your house used to be worth $2.5 million, it's now a...."

And seriously, whoever thought it was a good idea to lead off with "Foreclosures? Nationwide recession?" deserves 10 minutes in the publicity penalty box:

NEW YORK, NY – September 2, 2009 – Foreclosures? Nationwide recession? These guys can handle it! Bravo gives viewers an up-close and personal look at the top agents in Los Angeles's tough real estate market, who stop at nothing to close the deal on the third season of "Million Dollar Listing." The docu-series takes viewers inside the high-stakes, cutthroat world of real estate, where Josh Flagg, Madison Hildebrand and Chad Rogers struggle to ink their million dollar deals during this economic downturn. "Million Dollar Listing" premieres on Bravo on Monday, October 12 at 11 p.m. ET/PT.

The most idiotic (if easiest) thread being spun out Spidey-style in coverage of the Disney-Marvel acquisition is that "fanboys" are concerned about the Marvel superheroes coming under the control of the Mickey Mouse studio.

Quoting from the Wall Street Journal:

"Unlike Marvel Entertainment Inc. investors -- who pushed the comic company's share price sharply higher on news of Walt Disney Co.'s planned $4 billion acquisition -- fans of the superhero empire took a more jaundiced view of the deal."

The New York Times made a similar point, quoting a website -- and an anonymous poster named "peterpersy," yet -- who wrote, "If you want poor kids in Bali to run around with a Hulk lunchbox, then sign on with Disney."

I usually turn to peterpersy for most of my in-depth analysis.

So comic book fans are distrustful of a major studio's handling of their beloved characters? I'm shocked!

Until a decade or so ago, the entire history of the relationship between comic books and movies/TV has mostly been one of disappointment. Those who grew up reading Marvel and DC titles (and I'm among them) had to sit through monstrosities like "Doc Savage, the Man of Bronze," an animated "Fantastic Four" that added a cutesy robot, David Hasselhoff as "Nick Fury, Agent of Shield," and Joel Schumacher's camp take on Batman.

That began to change with the launch of the "X-Men" trilogy and the advent of CGI effects, but the wariness lingers -- and likely will for a good long time.

In other words, saying that comic book fans have doubts that superheroes will be treated respectfully by Hollywood is pretty much a non-story -- especially since it didn't keep them from being first in line to see a second version of "The Incredible Hulk," just as they will be for the upcoming "Thor" and DC's "Green Lantern."

At least comics fans can derive some solace from knowing that there's really been one good version of Marvel's most venerable franchise, the Fantastic Four -- only it was done by Pixar and titled "The Incredibles."

In fact, getting Pixar and some of those Marvel assets together might be the smartest thing that Disney could do.

The end of the month is always greeted by cable networks claiming new ratings milestones, especially during the summer. They can do this with some impunity, since if they had a really rotten month there are simply too many of them for us reporter types to track them down and call them out.

Still, MSNBC cited one highly illuminating statistic in its ratings release, as did CNN.

MSNBC -- the youngest-skewing of the three cable news networks -- cited the (relatively) strong performance by its primetime hosts Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow among adults age 18-34, averaging 124,000 viewers and 93,000 for their primary airings, respectively, in that demographic. In addition, Maddow drew more viewers in that demo than CNN's "Larry King," at 72,000.

Or, in other words, of the 1.09 million people watching King on an average night, less than 10% are under 35. And the ratio for MSNBC (Maddow averaged 996,000 viewers overall) isn't much better.

Small wonder that the median viewing ages for the three cablers are 64 (Fox News), 62 (CNN) and 59 (MSNBC).

Now, newspapers of course have no right to be smug about this, since their readership is also older, as is the audience for the networks' nightly newscasts. It's a huge problem for everyone in the news business -- namely, that younger people take less of an interest in news, and when they do, they get less of their information from television.

The other factoid came from CNN, which again bragged that it reaches more viewers over the course of a month than Fox News -- despite the fact that Fox's average audience at any given moment exceeds that of CNN and MSNBC combined.

Again, this mirrors the difference between newsradio and talkradio: More people drop in on CNN to make sure the world hasn't gone to hell, but Fox News loyalists watch for much longer periods, mostly because they tune into their evening hosts and stay there.

Frankly, I'm not sure this argument is a winner for CNN -- advertisers care about who sees their commercials, not who drops in from time to time -- but it does reinforce some of the points in my recent column about the roots of FNC's success.

Here's that note from CNN's press release:

REACH

CNN continues to reach more viewers than any cable news network, while HLN tops MSNBC among cumulative audiences in August:

P2+

CNN: 109,168,000, FNC:  99,314,000, HLN:  93,467,000, MSNBC: 87,287,000

25-54

CNN: 49,163,000, FNC:  44,168,000, HLN: 42,693,000, MSNBC: 40,337,000

 

(Source: Nielsen)

Daytime television has been dying the death of a thousand cuts, and the Daytime Emmy Awards are circling the same drain -- probably heading, inevitably, toward a move off broadcast to the less-demanding realm of cable.

The latest telecast predictably plummeted Sunday on the CW, with final ratings showing the average audience at 2.7 million viewers -- dropping by half compared to 2008, when the awards aired on ABC.

Frankly, with the daytime soaps being downsized and disappearing, the Daytime Emmy's reason for being is evaporating along with them. Yet if the two TV academies remain committed to mounting the show, then the likely move would be migrating to a cable network where a glitzy night with a couple of million viewers would look like a victory instead of an embarrassment.

Of course, those of us who have been around for a few years remember when ratings for the Daytime Emmys often rivaled the Primetime Awards, driven in part by the will-she-or-won't-she suspense surrounding Susan Lucci's 19 years of futility in terms of finally taking home a statue. Alas, who knew that when the "All My Children" star finally broke her streak in 1999 that her tearful acceptance would be the last time that most of us bothered to pay attention to these awards?

Granted, a decade ago the Daytime Emmys were drawing about five times what the most recent telecast did (see tvbythenumbers for this convenient chart) and were even considered a plum event to air during the May rating sweeps. 

It's almost a given that every TV-related event must be televised -- think of it as using every part of the chicken -- but with these kind of returns, we're looking at more of a snack, not a black-tie dinner.