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

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

Here's the money quote from the Crimson article:

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
For Fox Sake!
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that took longer than I expected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, whoops.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Random thoughts from a full evening of Thursday TV viewing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Sahara" (1943)

"The African Queen" (1951)

"The Mountain" (1956)

"Alive" (1993)

"Titanic" (1997)

"The Day After Tomorrow" (2004)

"The Rainmaker" (1956)

"When the Levees Broke" (2006)

"An Inconvenient Truth" (2006)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can "The Simpsons" really be up to "Treehouse of Horrors" No. XX? Egads, where did the time go?

The 20th edition of the show's annual Halloween episode will air Oct. 18, and to put the half-hour in the parlance of Fox's upcoming World Series coverage, it bats about .333.

The first segment, an homage to Alfred Hitchcock with a lot of references to movies like "Strangers on a Train," is extremely clever, containing all sorts of stuff that's too good for the kids to appreciate. (Remember, those who were in middle school when the series premiered are in their 30s now, so its audience cuts across a wide swath, to say the least.)

The next two installments -- one loosely derived from "28 Days Later," and reasonably gruesome, which is quite a feat for animation -- are considerably less effective, including a stage show complete with musical numbers.

There's a great line in "Chinatown" about how politicians, ugly buildings and whores becoming respectable if they last long enough. "The Simpsons" has become an institution, perhaps -- as one jaw-dropping longevity milestone after another has fallen -- and will even be honored by the Paley Center for Media as the centerpiece of its annual gala this December.

But to its credit, as the latest "Treehouse" attests, the Fox program has managed to steadfastly avoid the dreaded "respectable" label.

Every so often a press release crosses your desk that helps explain a lot about the kind of series that cable programmers order -- or at least, why I recently had to sit through something called "Celebrity Ghost Stories."

So it is with an Animal Planet-Zogby poll of 2,700 U.S. adults regarding whether they believe in various monsters and aliens. Part of this is just promotional -- Animal Planet has an upcoming series titled "The Haunted," about people whose pets supposedly "act as mediaries to the afterworld." Yet buried within the survey results are some findings of the "Ah, so those are the people watching Glenn Beck" variety:

-- More than one third of those surveyed (39%) said they have seen a ghost or know someone who has.

-- When asked what legendary creature they would like to see proven as real, 36% of people said they would like Bigfoot to be real, while 21% said ghosts. Twenty-seven percent said various other creatures, including vampires and werewolves. (Note: I believe this last grouping is otherwise known as "'Twilight' fans.")

-- About one in five respondents (21%) said they have been visited by a dead friend or relative.

-- Thirty-five percent of people said they believe in aliens, while 40% said they don’t, and 25% were unsure.

If these figures are even remotely accurate, expect to see a lot more paranormal-themed programs, based on the rationale that for most cable networks, attracting even one percent of the (currently living) population is enough to make you a hit. And fortunately, Nielsen data doesn't indicate whether viewers believe they are watching with a deceased person who the cat is channeling for them.

Coming off his Emmy and Tony-hosting stints, Neil Patrick Harris -- star of stage ("Rent"), screen ("How I Met Your Mother") and web ("Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog") -- turns up in an unlikely venue, starring in a musical episode of the animated Cartoon Network series "Batman: The Brave and the Bold." The half-hour will premiere on Oct. 23 -- a week after "Brave and the Bold" begins its second season.

 Granted, musicals have broken out all over TV since "High School Musical" helped beget "Glee," but this is an unusually inventive use of the form -- or at least, not the first place you'd look expecting to find such an ambitious exercise. Featuring a number of original songs, the episode casts Harris as the Music Meister, a villain whose lilting voice can compel heroes and bad guys alike to succumb to his will -- and break out into finger-snapping musical numbers, a la "West Side Story."

Resisting his power is the consistently cranky Batman, but other characters (including Green Arrow, Aquaman and Black Canary) join in the elaborate Busby Berkeley-style numbers. Foremost, committing the resources to producing original music for an animated kids show reflects a respect for an audience that consists of many adults in addition to the tykes that tune in. (Unlike some earlier DC Comics-derived series, such as "Justice League," "Brave and the Bold" -- which pairs Batman with a rotating assortment of less-recognizable heroes -- has a light, mostly comedic tone.)

At any rate, this is great fun, and another savvy use of Harris' seemingly boundless talents. As for his growing roster of fans, it's good to know that if he ever gets tired of acting, hosting or playing himself in "Harold & Kumar" movies, he can always fall back on doing voiceover work in cartoons.

The New York Times is the latest to weigh in on the White House's public efforts to de-legitimize Fox News Channel as a credible news source (Time magazine had an earlier piece), instead approaching the channel as if it's a partisan organization and adjunct of the Republican Party.

For all the hubbub surrounding this, it's a logical stance that will benefit both sides.

Fox has stated that the administration is unable to differentiate between Fox's opinion programs and its news coverage, but that's mostly just spin. For starters, FNC's opinion programs are the most widely watched programming on the channel, and there's no doubt that a partisan slant creeps into some of Fox's conventional news coverage as well in both the stories they choose to cover and the manner in which they play them. (Admittedly, one man's "partisan" is another's "fair and balanced," but there's been less fairness -- and balance -- with a Democrat in the White House.)

Fox has also been disingenuous in advancing its editorial pages vs. news pages analogy, since editorial pages are supposed to hold columnists and contributors to basic standards as far as factual accuracy and correcting errors. There's little evidence of such safeguards being employed on Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity's programs, and Bill O'Reilly only rarely admits when he's gotten something wrong or distorted the truth -- not to be confused with merely spinning facts, as op-ed columnists do, to buttress his opinion.

Baltimore Sun critic David Zurawik has written that the administration's action should chill news organizations, which seems like a gross overreaction to what White House officials have said -- namely, that they see Fox as a partisan operation, and the Obama administration will treat them as such. It's quite a leap from that to a Nixon-like "enemies list," as he suggests.

Any tears shed by FNC chief Roger Ailes and his minions, meanwhile, will strictly be of the crocodile variety. Fox has benefited enormously by stoking apprehensions about Obama's presidency, and being proclaimed a foe by the administration will do nothing to lessen the channel's bond with much of its audience -- a point that the White House surely recognizes. Even the sponsor boycott against Beck can be balanced against how his program has lifted ratings for the hours surrounding him, though I suspect even colleagues wish that Beck would curb some of his more outlandish remarks. (Fox's response is that it has no control over what its evening hosts say, which again, merely sounds like a convenient alibi and flies in the face of the newspaper op-ed comparison.)

What these stories will really do, though, is provide Fox's highest-profile talent an excuse to do something many of them relish -- namely, talking about themselves, and painting themselves as victims. And the White House appeals to its supporters on the left by bad-mouthing a channel they love to hate. The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz wonders if Obama wouldn't be better served by engaging the Fox audience, but there appears to be a calculation here that the most hardened portion of that constituency is simply a lost cause, making bipartisan outreach pointless.

Like I said, win-win -- except perhaps for those who would really like to see "fair and balanced" mean "fair and balanced."

"All the news that's fit to predict" update: Both O'Reilly and Beck used their on-air forums to respond to the White House criticism. Huffington Post has the links.

Late October is arguably the best period of the year in terms of the sports calendar: Baseball is actually exciting thanks to the playoffs, pro and college football are in full swing, and basketball is just about to begin. It's that one window where the U.S.' major sports are all in action.

So add to that overflowing menu of viewing options ESPN's "30 for 30" documentary series, or at least two of the upcoming offerings: "The Band That Wouldn't Die," director Barry Levinson's deeply personal look at the Balitmore Colts' departure from his beloved town, on Oct. 13; and "Muhammad and Larry," Albert Maysles and Bradley Kaplan's piece on the Muhammad Ali-Larry Holmes fight and its aftermath, on Oct. 27.

Fans of "Diner" and Levinson's other Baltimore-centric films (remember the Colts quiz to which an aspiring bride was subjected?) will get an extra kick out of his examination of the town's relationship with the team and how people reacted when then-owner Robert Irsay essentially packed up and moved for Indianapolis in the middle of the night. The best moment involves a press conference that an apparently drunk Irsay held on live TV, where he railed against the local press for reporting what turned out to be the truth.

"Muhammad and Larry," meanwhile, goes back to the 1980 fight where an out-of-shape Ali was pummeled by the much younger Holmes. The filmmakers use a treasure trove of footage shot at the time, as well as current interviews with Holmes and others, with many discussing the tragedy of the neurological condition that has left Ali a shell of his former self.

ESPN is on something of a roll -- witness its recent record-setting "Monday Night Football" rating -- but the channel is often more of an irritant than a haven for this sports fan, from the unrelenting bombast on "SportsCenter" (do those guys have to yell all the time?) to the hyperventilating analysis that characterizes its pregame shows and forums for sportswriters.

Credit "30 for 30" with commemorating the cable network's three-decade anniversary with an inordinate (if welcome) degree of class. In fact, I'll break down and praise the channel in terms to which we have unfortunately grown accustomed.

Booya.

There's no more shocking sentence in this morning's reading than this one, regarding TMZ founder Harvey Levin, in the Los Angeles Times story about Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies obtaining Levin's phone records in connection with its probe into who leaked information about Mel Gibson's 2006 arrest:

"Levin declined to comment to The Times about the search warrants."

Levin is a lot of things, but "press shy" has never exactly been one of them. The guy would show up at a shopping mall opening if he thought it would get people to write about him or his site. During the Michael Jackson insanity, he seemed to be everywhere at once, like that X-Men character who can teleport from one place to another. He'll drag his ass out of bed at 2 a.m. to do any morning show that wants him. And this story -- as the Times notes -- makes him look like an unlikely "1st Amendment martyr."

And Harvey declined to comment? Really? Seriously, after reading that, you could have knocked me over with a feather.

The creative community is still smarting over NBC's decision to strip "The Jay Leno Show" at 10 p.m. Canceling the gritty John Wells-produced cop drama "Southland" before the show can begin its second season only exacerbates the sense that the network is in full-on cost-containment-over-quality mode.

This is a series that not only opened to strong reviews (here's mine from last April) but carried an elite producer pedigree, with former "ER" exec producer and newly elected Writers Guild of America West President Wells at the helm, and Ann Biderman as its principal writer. Although some elements of the large cast worked better than others, Michael Cudlitz and Ben McKenzie were simply outstanding as the tough older cop nurturing the fresh-faced younger one.

By acting to in essence cut its losses, NBC has sent a chilling message to drama producers and production companies, indicating that concepts that are moderately demanding have little future there. And while it's understandable that the network would worry about the prospects for such a dark series -- the proposed Friday timeslot was a bad idea from the get-go -- bailing out now amounts to not only a slap to the show's audience but a double whammy for writers disappointed that the former home of "L.A. Law" and "Hill Street Blues" abandoned 10 o'clock dramas. (See my earlier column on that topic.)

Newly installed NBC overseer Jeff Gaspin clearly has his work cut out for him, but the "Southland" move -- almost certainly a bitter pill to swallow for Warner Bros. Television, which produces the program -- won't make the inevitable "We love you, bring us your best stuff" pitch from Gaspin and scripted chief Angela Bromstad any easier.

Then again, "Southland" was notable for its realism, and in what looks like its last act the show's fictional cops have mirrored the lot of real ones: Despite admirably doing their jobs, they're faced with bean-counting cutbacks.

Welcome to L.A.

Bill O'Reilly hosted regular guest Dennis Miller on "The O'Reilly Factor" to explore one of the former's favorite topics -- namely, why TV critics are so hostile toward Fox News Channel. (The full YouTube clip can be found here.)

Miller's conclusion: Critics are filled with self-loathing because they "hate what they do for a living," getting paid $60,000 a year to "sit at home in your undies ... and watch something you hate."

Speaking personally, I like the job, especially the getting to work in my undies part. What I actually tend to limit much of my disdain for is one-note comedians who crapped out in syndication and experienced conservative epiphanies post-Sept. 11, apparently because it seemed like a good career move at the time.

Miller also explained that the success of the Fox News formula is attributable to the fact that CEO Roger Ailes is a genius when it comes to hiring women who are "even smarter than they are beautiful."

Translation: The Fox audience tunes in for the hotties? When you realize that the median age for an FNC viewer is 64, the image of them sitting at home (hopefully not in their undies) ogling the channel's female talent is nearly as creepy as the Letterman story.

Miller might have transformed himself from a stand-up into a pundit/radio talkshow host, but I'm certain of one thing: Nobody would pay 60K for his insights as a TV critic.

David Letterman often seems indifferent at the desk -- especially when sitting across from guests with whom he's not particularly familiar -- in the best of times. But his two interviews this week with pretty young women -- "Glee's" Lea Michelle on Monday and "Dollhouse's" Eliza Dushku on Tuesday -- were especially awkward.

The host seemed distracted in both cases, a complete stranger to both of the Fox series (he told Dushku he's asleep when he isn't doing his program) and perhaps -- and maybe I'm projecting here -- uncomfortable being juxtaposed visually with beautiful young women in extremely flattering dresses while conjecture swirls around him about who he might have slept with on his show's staff.

Both nights, notably, Letterman's monologue was quite funny. But you have a feeling for the foreseeable future that what comes after that will give a pretty good indication of what sort of toll having his private life exposed is exacting upon him.

Given the relative dearth of serious documentaries -- and especially the emphasis on true crime, scandal and fluff on network newsmagazines except "60 Minutes" -- the arrival of two hours devoted to Afghanistan is worthy of note.

PBS' "Frontline" weighs in Oct. 13 with "Obama's War." MSNBC, meanwhile, gives correspondent Richard Engel an hour for "Tip of the Spear,"which airs Oct. 11, culled from video following a single unit in Afghanistan for more than a year (some of which has been featured on "NBC Nightly News").

Engel's project is more personal, more interested in tactics and the soldiers' experience than the bigger picture -- and it includes what for many is an awkward homecoming after lengthy deployments. Frankly, I could do without Engel trying to yell over firefights and the interviews with his producer and cameraman -- both have the vague stench of showboating -- but the pictures are undeniably striking.

Not surprisingly, the "Frontline" piece -- produced by Martin Smith and Marcela Gaviria -- offers the richer, more contextual portrait. Exploring the difficulties of a country where "corruption is the rule, not the exception," it's well-timed to the current debate over whether to send more troops to the region, in essence doubling down on what's already been invested. The other choices range from trying to get by with the existing force to reducing the American presence there, which many see as simply cutting our losses.

Beyond the resurgence of the Taliban, the underlying concern is neighboring Pakistan, which possesses a nuclear arsenal. Interviewing an impressive array of sources on all sides, "Obama's War" leaves the takeaway perception that the country is one big steaming mess -- and the only thing worse than staying might be a premature exit.

As Steve Coll of the New Yorker states, "This could not be a more complicated war."

Military officials are equally frank. "I absolutely have to hold my nose when I work with the Pakistani government," says retired Lt. Col. John Nagl. "But I don't have a better alternative than continuing to work with this Pakistani government and continuing to nudge it forward toward taking more effective action against the Taliban."

"Frontline" has captured that choice -- as Woody Allen might say, between the terrible and the horrible -- in all its frustrating glory.

Update: My sense of David Letterman has always been that he's one of those guys that probably doesn't function terribly well outside the comfort zone of his talkshow. But in that setting, he's in control.

So it's no surprise that Letterman has used that venue to handle the fallout from last week's disclosures -- which he did again Monday -- about as well as he could, especially when he started to tell jokes about Bill Clinton and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, only to stop himself and look chagrined.

The host made light of the situation at his own expense, then expressed contrition to the staff for putting them through the ringer of tabloid speculation. For good measure, he apologized to Sarah Palin again, you know, just because.

Whatever you want to say about his personal life, his instincts as a broadcaster -- and in this context, that goes beyond merely being a comic -- serve him extremely well in these situations, where he has to step out of his latenight clown role.

Letterman surely would have rather not had to become the story, but he appears to have employed a bit of comic jujitsu, milking the humor from his predicament.

Does it make him sympathetic? Perhaps not. Is it smart? Absolutely.

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

Having taken the weekend to absorb coverage of David Letterman's admission that he had sexual relationships with women on his show's staff -- a disclosure brought about by an alleged blackmail plot -- the oddest wrinkle has been the question whether the latenight host's audience would be disappointed in him, or if he'd be hurt by charges of hypocrisy.

To which I can only ask: Since when have our most popular comedians been choirboys?

Johnny Carson certainly wasn't, and had the ex-wives to prove it. He was just lucky enough to have operated for much of his career during an era where there was less conspicuous probing into private closets -- or at least, much of the press turned a blind eye, in the same way that JFK's liaisons went unreported.

One TV news outlet contacted Variety on Friday looking for a wise man to comment about whether Letterman's revelation's would diminish his popularity and ratings. Although I passed (not only is it a dumb question, but we'll know soon enough), I was hard-pressed to think of a recent example where that was the case.

The public has also had decades in which to get used to the fact that their favorite comedians engage in questionable behavior and relationships. Jerry Seinfeld -- then in his late 30s -- began dating Shoshanna Lonstein around her 18th birthday during "Seinfeld's" run. Bill Cosby -- America's dad for most of the 1980s -- admitted to an extramarital "rendezvous." The list could go on and on (Charlie Chaplin comes to mind), but why bother?

For a figure as private as Letterman, having to go public with this story is doubtless its own personal kind of Hell. In terms of an additional price to be paid, though, barring any unexpected wrinkles, an educated guess would say that beyond people who don't like him already (see Sarah Palin fans), the pain ends there.

It's obviously not a major factor, but it's interesting to ponder whether General Electric's openness to a deal that might involve giving up majority control of NBC Universal has anything to do with the headaches that the Fox News Channel-MSNBC feud have dropped in the lap of GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt.

The mere fact that GE brass would be drawn into past (and unsuccessful) efforts to negotiate a kind of ceasefire suggest that Immelt was tired of having Bill O'Reilly giving out his email address and accusing him of secretly working on behalf of Iran to undermine U.S. interests. (That's only a slight exaggeration of the charges that O'Reilly has thrown at GE and NBC U as retaliation for allowing Keith Olbermann to name him "Worst Person in the World" every other night.)

Of course, the larger reason has to do with economic factors and NBC's degraded place within the TV universe. The old "Six Sigma" philosophy says to be first in every one of your businesses. At this point, as evidenced by "The Jay Leno Show" cost-saving maneuver, NBC is playing defense, not offense, and Universal has experienced a similarly underwhelming run at the boxoffice.

Foremost, though, Jeff Zucker has stated repeatedly that NBC Universal is primarily a cable company now, and those assets mesh perfectly with Comcast's profile.

Still, if nothing else Immelt could see shedding some of the peripheral grief that goes with the stewardship of NBC in these politically polarized times -- including the assaults from O'Reilly -- as a welcome bonus to a possible deal.

In an age of so much conspicuous certainty, there's something to be said for a documentary that inspires powerful feelings of ambivalence. So it is with "Outrage," which was previously reviewed by Variety (and discussed by my colleague Ted Johnson on his "Wilshire & Washington" blog) at the Tribeca Film Festival but premieres Oct. 5 on HBO.

Written and directed by Kirby Dick, "Outrage" made news by naming names of Republican politicians and operatives who are closeted gays, many of whom have inveighed or voted against gay rights. There is, of course, a clear element of hypocrisy in this, but I'd still stop short of activist Michael Rogers' contention that these figures represent "traitors to their people" who must be exposed. However offensive their hypocrisy might be, there's something troubling about using outing as a form of political retaliation against those who don't adhere to the gay-rights platform.

As "Outrage" demonstrates (the subtitle is "Do Ask. Do Tell"), the GOP has also cynically used gay-bashing as a political tool, which makes the participation of gays in those efforts particularly galling. In addition, prominent Republican officials have seen their careers stall because of whispering campaigns about their sexuality, usually hiding behind code words about them being "too moderate."

Still, the forced collision of private and public lives is distasteful, and one suspects an already-debased political climate won't exactly be elevated by spending even more time obsessing over who politicians are screwing in the literal sense -- whether that's "family values" senators on the right, or Bill Clinton and John Edwards on the left. Nor it it clear, as activists maintain throughout the film, that mainstream news outlets -- faced as they are with dwindling resources -- are somehow abdicating their journalistic responsibility by failing to go sniffing around politicians' closets.

For all that, "Outrage" talks to all the right people and Dick methodically builds his case, beginning with Sen. Larry Craig's arrest in a Minneapolis bathroom and concluding with a 30-year-old clip of the late Harvey Milk, in which he argues that coming out is a vital step on the road to gay rights and equality.

Even if you don't agree with the tactics, "Outrage" deserves to be seen, discussed and debated. Bigotry against gays -- much of it rooted in religion, but also predicated in part on obvious political calculus -- is ugly; the pertinent question is whether that justifies outing as a response.

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

On a separate gay-progress front, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamationissued a somewhat misleading annual scorecard on representations of the lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender community for the 2009-10 TV season, under the heading "Where We Are on TV." The detailed report can be found on GLAAD's website.

"Misleading" because the focus is strictly limited to scripted programming, which conspicuously omits the heightened presence of gays in primetime thanks to reality TV. Hell, half of Bravo is seemingly devoted to gay characters, albeit in the unscripted realm.

In addition, simple numerical counts aren't always completely illustrative of the bigger picture -- namely, the quality of the characterizations. Those include some promising additions this season, from the gay couple on ABC's "Modern Family" to the teen dealing with coming out to his peers and family on Fox's "Glee." How those programs will unfold remains to be seen.

As is, the study finds slight increases in LGBT characters among series regulars overall, accounting for 3% of characters on the broadcast networks. Depictions on cable declined -- again, based solely on scripted fare, though that reduced presence appears to be accounted for almost entirely by the departure of Showtime's "The L Word."

Whatever you think of their politics, the most insufferable aspect of Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly is their ability to twist every ounce of criticism back -- whether it's legitimate or not -- into a pity party for themselves.

Both hosts spend an ungodly amount of time talking about those out to persecute them ("smear merchants," O'Reilly likes to call them), which doubtless helps bond them to the most loyal members of their audience but proves a chore to endure for everyone else.

The odd part is that these pampered, fabulously compensated hosts still manage to consistently paint themselves as victims, and that their listeners/viewers buy it. To be fair, they're certainly not alone in this regard, with CNN's Lou Dobbs and to a lesser degree MSNBC's Keith Olbermann also using their platforms to lash out at critics.

At a certain point, the thin skin begins to look like crass calculation, though I've come to believe that O'Reilly, at least, is dead serious about how "vile" people are out to ruin him -- a remnant of the sexual harassment suit brought against hims several years ago.

Anyway, Media Matters has Beck's latest "They're out to get me" monologue from his radio show, and it's a pretty good summation of the tone of these "Please cry for me, Argentina" weep-fests.

Admirers of the "Star Wars" franchise will happily note the return of "The Clone Wars," the animated Cartoon Network series, which ought to have their kids clamoring for a new set of action figures.

The hour-long second-season premiere on Oct. 2 prominently features Bane, the ruthless bounty hunter, and another load of action, as the character seeks to break into the Jedi temple. There he runs into the young Padawan trainee Ahsoka, another one of those "SW" creations that I could do without -- seemingly designed more for demographic appeal (a butt-kicking teenage girl! Woo-hoo!) than anything else.

But no matter. Unlike the latest trilogy, "Clone Wars'" half-hour format, and its use of beautifully rendered animation, mercifully trumps any concerns about clunky dialog or stupid droids meant to play mostly to six year olds. What thus emerges is a consistently brisk, fabulous-looking adventure that has niftily kept the "Star Wars" universe and its merchandise front and center for millions of kids (not to mention their parents).

Fans can find more info at the official website, but the series has clearly been a major boon to Cartoon Network, which is otherwise sullying its brand with an ill-advised onslaught of live-action reality programs (right, we don't get it either). Although "Star Wars" aficionados are still clamoring for info about when and where George Lucas will unleash a discussed live-action series, be careful what you wish for. Because given the recent movies' shortcomings, frankly, "Clone Wars" might just be as good as it gets.