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

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

Way to go after the big fish, PTC!

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

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

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

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

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

Way to go after the big fish, PTC!

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Networks sometimes don't get enough credit (or blame) for scheduling moves and the use of summer to lay the groundwork for the fall. So hats off to CBS for the summer surge exhibited by its comedy "The Big Bang Theory," which looks poised to blow up during the 2009-10 season in its new timeslot following "Two and a Half Men."

"TBBT" (as it's known to lazy friends with a fondness for symmetry) is now consistently building on "Men's" lead-in among adults age 18-49, which suggests that audience is coming to and sampling the show during the summer. Moreover, it skews younger than "Men," which explains why it can deliver a higher 18-49 rating (2.7 to 2.5) while still attracting a smaller audience (8 million on Monday, vs. "Men's" 8.6 million).

If the sophomore series can continue matching "Men's" demo performance in the fall it will provide CBS a hugely formidable 9 o'clock tandem -- and a valuable building block for expanding (or at least continuing) its success with conventional multicamera sitcoms. (That's Emmy nominee Jim Parsons, by the way, looking appropriately smug, pictured.)

Moreover, "Big Bang" is precisely the kind of show that could have considerable value to its production company, Warner Bros., down the road given its bull's-eye appeal among young men.

Producer Chuck Lorre -- who oversees "Men" and "Big Bang" -- often enjoys poking fun at CBS with his vanity cards, but if the latter explodes come September in part because of the network's savvy scheduling move, he's going to have one less thing to complain about.

Then again, as a longtime admirer of those soul-baring end-of-show messages, I have no doubt he'll have no trouble finding something else to fill the void.

KFWB's long-time slogan has been "Give us 22 minutes, and we'll give you the world." Now, with a new direction charted to accentuate entertainment coverage -- and differentiate itself from sister AM news station KNX (1070) -- it also uses the tag, "Hollywood listens to KFWB."

Honestly, I've tried, but I keep asking myself -- other than wanting to know whether traffic is moving on the 101 freeway between Barham and Western -- why on earth "Hollywood," which presumably knows something about its own machinations, would listen to something as ill-informed as KFWB?

If CBS Radio (which operates both news outlets) is genuinely committed to carving out an entertainment presence on the Los Angeles station, the company needs to hire a few people that have some feel for the field, which actually does require a modicum of specialized expertise. By contrast, having your newswriters and anchors simply read truncated versions of stories out of Variety and the Los Angeles Times' Calendar section -- instead of reading stories out of the Times' front section, as they used to -- won't cut it. Listeners are too sophisticated for that -- even those that aren't directly part of "Hollywood."

This opinion is informed in part by the fact that I've done two recent interviews with the station (980 on the dial) about articles published in Variety, and each time, the anchors seemed to have only the slightest clue as to what we were talking about. Listening to the station strictly as a consumer/commuter, I find that to be true on a regular basis.

As it stands, a station that once proudly jousted with KNX for news listeners sounds as if it's dying the death of a thousand cuts. The stations experienced significant layoffs last October (who hasn't?), which clearly excised a good deal of institutional knowledge. KFWB also inked a deal to carry Angels baseball on weekdays beginning this season.

As the Times' Jim Rainey reported, KFWB now airs infomercials pretty much around the clock on weekends, so unless you're looking for quickie mortgage advice while sitting in traffic, it's essentially useless as a news source those days.

In April, director of news programming Andy Ludlum told the Times that KFWB's focus on the business of entertainment represented "the ultimate local story." And that it might be -- if the station covered the industry in a more intelligent manner, instead of like some half-assed, wire-service version of People magazine.

With CBS radio revenue down more than 20% based on second-quarter results, throwing money at the problem seems unlikely. But until someone addresses these shortcomings and embraces this new niche, there's little reason to afford KFWB a second thought, much less give it 22 minutes to prove that there's not much left of local newsradio except weather and sports.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whoops.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that, indeed, is the way it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Barack Obama:

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

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

America had a love affair with Walter Cronkite.”

 Katie Couric, Anchor, THE CBS EVENING NEWS:

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

 Mickey Hart, Drummer of the Grateful Dead:

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

 President Bill Clinton:

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

 George Clooney, Actor/Director:

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

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

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

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

 Charlie Gibson, Anchor, ABC “World News”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At times, the dueling spin coming from networks begins to approach the level of alternative realities -- a bit like flipping back and forth between MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Fox News' Sean Hannity, or scanning the lead items on the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post.

So it is with the David Letterman-Conan O'Brien derby, where NBC is frantically touting "The Tonight Show's" younger demos while CBS crows about Letterman drawing a larger audience than his latenight counterpart for the first time in more than three years.

The most interesting figure being pushed by NBC is the median age of the audience -- namely, that O'Brien's viewers clock in at just under 46 by that measure, while Letterman's posse perhaps not unexpectedly skews significantly older, at 57. That's reasonably close to the age gap between the two hosts.

That means that the O'Brien audience is more attractive to media buyers chasing younger men, but also that the older contingent that had been watching Jay Leno has pretty quickly abandoned him -- as evidenced by the just-released total audience figures for the week of June 15-19: "Late Show With David Letterman," 3.5 million; "The Tonight Show," 3.3 million. Even with a clear boost for Letterman thanks to the fabricated, media-stoked flap involving Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, that's a fairly steep decline for O'Brien from "Tonight's" overall average under Leno.

The truth is latenight is no longer a zero-sum game given all the options that are available, so both shows can thrive in slightly different quadrants. Yet NBC has been perhaps understandably fierce about proclaiming O'Brien the "new king of latenight" and madly spinning to reinforce that impression. (See my earlier column on this.)

The real mistake would be reading a shift as a failure somehow on O'Brien's part. If anything, both shows are doing a pretty good job of defying gravity, given how mediocre the primetime ratings for the major networks have been since Memorial Day.

Meanwhile, the ratings breakdown of the two programs puts the consumer press, in particular, in an awkward spot: In terms of cultural sway, total viewers is the obvious number to go by, as well as the easiest for lay people to understand, as in "X million people watched." From a business perspective, though, staying ahead among younger demos is significant. So at this point, who wins the war of spinning the referees, as it were, is far from an inconsequential point.

So you be the judge. Here are a few key passages from the respective releases.

CONAN HAS INCREASED 'TONIGHT'S' DEMO DOMINANCE, WINNING THE WEEK BY A 67 PERCENT MARGIN OVER 'LATE SHOW,' UP FROM A 53 PERCENT WIN LAST YEAR AND A 34 PERCENT LEAD EARLIER THIS SEASON

CONAN DELIVERS DECISIVE DEMO MARGINS OVER ALL BROADCAST AND CABLE COMPETITION FOR THE WEEK 

CONAN'S AUDIENCE IS 11 YEARS YOUNGER THAN 'LATE SHOW'S,' AND CONAN IS EVEN YOUNGER THAN HE WAS ON 'LATE NIGHT' FOR THE SAME WEEK LAST YEAR

The median age of Conan's audience last week was 45.8, more than 11 years younger than Letterman's 57.0.  Conan is also younger than he was a year ago on "Late Night," where the median age of his audience for this same week one year ago was 48.5.

In the younger half of the key 18-49 demographic, adults 18-34, Conan won the week by a towering 164 percent margin (930,000 adults 18-34 vs. "Late Show's" 352,000), up from 103 percent for the same week last year and up from 50 percent for "Tonight" this season through the end of May.

Meanwhile, from CBS' press department, a more straightforward assertion -- and a "first time since 2005" breakthrough, which ought to command tomorrow's headlines:

"LATE SHOW" BEATS "THE TONIGHT SHOW"

"Late Show with David Letterman" Tops "The Tonight Show"

Among Viewers in a Full Week of Original Broadcasts for the First Time Since 2005

 

"Late Show" Continues To Narrow the Gap in Adults 18-49

"The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson" Closes the Gap

with "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon"

           

            CBS's LATE SHOW with DAVID LETTERMAN beat "The Tonight Show" in viewers for the first time in a full week of original broadcasts since December 2005, according to Nielsen live plus same day ratings for the week ending June 19, the third week since Conan O'Brien took over as host of "The Tonight Show."

 

LATE SHOW with DAVID LETTERMAN delivered a 2.5/06 in households with an average of 3.46m viewers, up +14% in households (from 2.2/06) and +13% in viewers (from 3.05m) compared to the same week last year. 

 

LATE SHOW beat "The Tonight Show" in households (2.5/06 vs. 2.3/06, +9%) and viewers (3.46m vs. 3.32m, +4%).  LATE SHOW beat "The Tonight Show" in viewers against an all-first run week of "Tonight Show" broadcasts for the first time since the week ending December 2, 2005 (the week Oprah Winfrey appeared on LATE SHOW). 

Happened to tune in Craig Ferguson on Monday night (I was doing due diligence on the David Letterman-Sarah Palin flap), and caught this very funny bit at his desk where he talked about why media buyers covet younger demographics.

 The theory, Ferguson said, is "If you buy a product when you're 18 or 19 years old, you'll stick with that product your whole life. And I'm like, 'Are you crazy? I was buying cocaine when I was 19. I'm not buying it anymore."

Interestingly, that really is part of the reasoning behind the infatuation with adults 18-34 and teenagers -- that marketers hope to hook them young and reel them along throughout life, moving them on to more expensive brands within the same corporate family. We can all see how well that worked out for General Motors.

Ferguson doesn't strike me as a suck-up-to-the-boss type, but mocking the whole young-adult-target thing on the oldest-skewing of the major broadcast networks isn't a bad career move. After all, CBS CEO Leslie Moonves has joked that the only "upscale" 18-to-34-year-olds that he knows are his kids -- and they're getting their money from him, an "upscale (and then some)" 50-something.

Mostly, though, what really impressed me is just how loose Ferguson is. Not everything works, but unlike, say, Jimmy Fallon -- who essentially tries to foster the illusion of spontaneity -- he does seem to be creating a lot of the show on the run, riffing freely and at least appearing to fly without a net.  On Monday, that included a silly gag about gay penguins in a German zoo -- with Ferguson particularly tickled by the fact that the penguins were German, not gay.

Fortunately for Ferguson, this satisfied customer still falls within a couple of important demographics. Now if only I could stay up that late on a weeknight.

A bit of Socratic logic:

Neil Patrick Harris has proven himself to be a talented host of award shows.

CBS -- the network upon which Harris stars in "How I Met Your Mother" -- will broadcast the Emmy Awards this fall.

Is Neil Patrick Harris the logical choice to host this year's Emmys?

In addition to the Tonys -- which he opened with some very funny stuff and closed with a riotous song, including a joke about how "singing on your knees" is the way to win Golden Globes -- Harris did a yeoman's job hosting the TV Land Awards recently. He obviously likes this stuff -- he actually told the New York Times that "I love the hosting thing" -- which separates him from the many who rightfully view award shows as a sort of thankless task.

After last year's misguided experiment with a quintet of reality hosts, the Emmys are likely to try and get back to basics a bit. Yet while that might augur going with Craig Ferguson -- host of CBS' "The Late Late Show" -- Harris could be a more logical fit. He's been nominated for "Mother," and it's a show CBS would like to prop up as the series slides down to 8 p.m. in the fall.

Actually, the really logical choice would be David Letterman, assuming that someone could convince him that the exposure would do him good in his goal of becoming No. 1 in latenight again. But getting Dave to attend the Emmys, much less host it, has always been a problem, and I suspect that Oscar-hosting "Uma-Oprah" thing still sticks in his craw a bit. Then again, the pitch to Dave could be about achieving a measure of redemption in more ways than one -- reminding the TV world why he's so highly regarded by critics and helping promote his program in the process. Just think of all the "Leno at 10 o'clock" jokes he could do on the night before Leno premieres.

At the least, CBS and producer Don Mischer have some interesting options. And I'm pretty sure that after last year, Jeff Probst isn't one of them.

Read even slightly between the lines, and there was nothing at all subtle about CBS' upfront presentation on Wednesday. Sure, the network touted its growth and (sometimes awkwardly) trotted out its stars, but the main point was this: NBC's bailing out of the game as a major player with the Jay Leno move; give us their money.

CBS CEO Leslie Moonves set the tone, saying the real problem wasn't with the network model but "not being able to find any hit shows for years" -- a big F-U to NBC Universal's Jeff Zucker if there ever was one. Sales chief JoAnn Ross followed by belittling NBC's comments about "managing for profit margins" instead of ratings. "Not keeping score might work in T-ball," she said, but not the big leagues.

Finally, CBS Entertainment Prez Nina Tassler called the NBC shift at 10 p.m. "a sea-change," and the Eye network has responded by making an aggressive push to dominate that hour on TV's biggest night, moving first-year hit "The Mentalist" to Thursdays coming out of "CSI." Even with "CSI" looking considerably weaker this season, that should create a formidable tandem.

In another smart strategic move, CBS will relocate "The Big Bang Theory" to follow "Two and a Half Men" on Monday nights, which should fortify the network's comedy block and allow "BBT" -- coming off a stellar sophomore year -- to grow further, bolstering "CSI: Miami" as well as planning for the day when "Men" has hummed its last chorus.

For all that, CBS' lineup remained conservative, including a few moves that take compatibility to almost comic extremes. "NCIS" leading into spinoff "NCIS: Los Angeles?" "The Ghost Whisperer" leading into the NBC transplant "Medium," for a psychic overdose on Fridays? It might work, but it still fosters the impression that the older CBS audience is simply falling asleep in front of the TV.

Oh, and with apologies to LL Cool J, asking a guy to get up and rap in front of an audience of uptight media buyers in suits -- urging them to stand up and wave their hands in the air -- is never, ever a good idea.

In terms of the new shows, CBS has also stayed close to home, but with purpose. Julianna Margulies plays a lawyer (as she did in Fox's "Canterbury's Law") but should be more at home in "The Good Wife," and the hospital drama "Three Rivers" seems more conventionally "ER"-ish than most of the other medical franchises being introduced to vie for that title. Also, the reality show "Undercover Boss" seems especially well-timed and appears to have breakout potential.

All told, a pretty savvy lineup with a lot of meat-and-potatoes type programming, if nothing at first glance that warrants rushing out to buy a back-up TiVo. Moonves opened by joking about the fact that CBS wasn't sexy, but that for him, winning is enough.

Of course, if that were completely true, the presentation would have skipped the rap number.

Overall grade, subject to revision: B

Unlike most of its characters, "Harper's Island" -- a 13-part murder-mystery with a beginning, middle and end -- is going to experience a very, very slow death.

With viewership dropping over its first three episodes, CBS has announced plans to shift the limited series from Thursdays -- where it followed "CSI" -- to Saturdays at 9 p.m.

In TV terms, this is a bit like being forced to move from a Beverly Hills mansion to a studio apartment in Pacoima.

Perhaps the most interesting part of CBS' announcement, though, is the network's suggestion that the show -- a good idea, executed in mediocre fashion -- is basically thriving as an online/DVR commodity, meaning that it doesn't really matter if the remaining installments are dumped in a little-seen, low-impact timeslot.

Given the fact that CBS relies on scheduling savvy to prop up and launch shows more than any other network -- in part because its older audience is generally more responsive to lead-ins -- I'm afraid I'm going to have to call "bullshit" on this one. Still, the idea of a program being viable irrespective of how it's performing in its actual network time period is an interesting one -- even if we're not really there yet, and CBS' explanation is just a polite way of saying that they're burning off the already-ordered episodes of what appears to be a failed experiment.

So here's the key part of CBS' announcement, which probably isn't true, but some day will be. Think of it as the news before you can use it.

Oh, and if you were one of the dwindling masses watching "Harper's Island" on Thursdays at 10 p.m., please give NBC's "Southland" a try. It's gotten progressively better each week.

"The preliminary DVR and online streaming data suggest a passionate audience for HARPER'S outside its current Thursday time period borders," said Kelly Kahl, Senior Executive Vice President Prime Time, CBS Television.  "This move gives us an opportunity to improve the time period on Thursday while experimenting with more original programming on Saturday, and continuing to serve an audience that is clearly engaged in the ongoing HARPER'S ISLAND story."

  According to Nielsen live plus 7-day playback results versus live, the HARPER'S ISLAND premiere audience increased by +29% in adults 18-49 (3.1 from 2.4), +33% in adults 18-34 (2.0 from 1.5), +25% in adults 25-54 (4.0 from 3.2) and gained +1.64 million viewers (11.29m from 9.65m).

The premiere of HARPER’S ISLAND was also CBS.com’s biggest online premiere ever, delivering more video streams (combined clips and episodes) than any previous show launch for the CBS Audience Network, and continues to be the fastest growing series in CBS.com's history.

 

An ad for the new "Star Trek" movie appropriately ran in the middle of CBS' "The Big Bang Theory" this week, but who would have guessed that the week's biggest geekfest (other than perhaps Glenn Beck's show) would come on ... "CSI?"

The forensic crime show's latest stab at a very special episode, the April 16 installment subtitled "A Space Oddity," centers on a murder at a sci-fi convention, and provides a pretty dead-on spoof of "Trek" fans. Perhaps that's because it was written by "Battlestar Galactica" alums David Weddle and Bradley Thompson, who manage to make the send-up affectionate and still reasonably biting -- not that Trekkies (OK, Trekkers) are known for their collective sense of humor.

 Mostly, the hour plays like an excuse to showcase Liz Vassey and Wallace Langham in a whole lot of cool Trek-like costumes as he fantasizes about their otherworldly life together,  though she's the one likely to garner most of the attention in several shiny form-fitting outfits and boots. As pastimes go, it beats the hell out of looking at a CGI shot that zooms up the nose and down into the small intestine.

"Big Bang," meanwhile, continues to speak geek with a kind of fluency that's seldom seen in mainstream TV or movies, though the latest episode inadvertently mirrored an earlier gag in "Heroes," where the pathetic male patrons at a comic-book store are stunned speechless by the  presence of an attractive blond (Hayden Panettiere in the first case, Kaley Cuoco in the second). Notably, "Heroes" has to veer outside of its lane, as it were, to keep incorporating such inside gags, whereas "BBT" is able to do so completely organically.

As a recovering comic-book collector, I should probably defend my peeps and note that it's not like comic-book types have never seen or been exposed to attractive women before. It's just that as a group, we generally have no idea how to approach or speak to them.

Given that, it's amazing the "Trek" base managed to produce a "next generation," but here they are, ready to take (or drag) their kids and even grandkids to the new movie. Kinda puts a smile on your face.

The NCAA Final Four will be played on April 4, with the title game two days later. So after two weeks of enjoyable basketball and ear-straining bluster, here are five final thoughts on the event so far:

-- Producers love to find feel-good stories around the tournament, but this year, they should probably keep the focus strictly on basketball. For starters, the games are being played in Detroit, where any allusions to Motown or the auto industry will only depress people and bring to mind the hideous economy. Connecticut, meanwhile, enters the weekend under a cloud because of alleged recruiting violations -- a reminder that college sports are a big business that occasionally leads to bending of the mostly preposterous rules designed to protect its "amateur" image.

-- Attention, sportswriters: The Final Four will consist of two No. 1 seeds (Connecticut, North Carolina) playing against a No. 2 and No. 3 (Michigan St. and Villanova, respectively). All four are solid basketball programs that have won championships before. And guess what? The tournament has been just fine without more of the Cinderella stories that you keep whining about. CBS could certainly hope for a little better geographic diversity, but in terms of marquee matchups, the network should be smiling.

-- It's always a relief when color guy Bill Raftery (he of the exclamation "With the kiss!") has called his last game of the season. Dick Vitale has made a fine living hyperventilating and coining nonsensical phrases; the pretenders/imitators like Raftery -- who also feel compelled to create their own languages, sort of like that character in "Nell" -- have grown pretty tiresome.

-- Play-by-play man Jim Nantz sounds like he's having a religious experience (or an orgasmic one) during those promos for CBS' Masters Coverage. "The celebration at 18. Where dreams ... come true," he oozed in one. Dude, it's friggin' golf, for crissakes.

-- "60 Minutes" always looks a little bit silly when it tries to be a good network team player by offering a sports-themed piece to tie in with CBS sports coverage -- in the case of Sunday's episode, Steve Kroft's profile of LeBron James. Kroft did elicit a few interesting tidbits about James having surrounded himself business-wise with childhood friends, but for the most part the Cleveland Cavaliers star didn't have much to say, and Kroft couldn't think of much to ask him.

Plus a free, completely gratuitous bonus sports-related observation:

-- It's interesting that there would be so much hand-wringing over whether Notre Dame should have invited President Obama to speak at its commencement ceremonies, inasmuch as Notre Dame gets invited every year somewhere where it doesn't truly belong. It's called a "bowl game."

Sports writers occasionally become so enamored with "the story" that they miss the event they're covering, and I think the New York Times' Pete Thamel fell victim to that myopia in his analysis piece on the NCAA basketball tournament.

In a nutshell, Thamel lamented the lack of upsets in the first two rounds and the fact that the 12 top seeds had made it into the Sweet Sixteen, without a Davidson or Valparaiso "for the news media to storm to capture the spirit of a memorable run."

Well, damn those favorites for crushing the hopes and dreams of the news media.

Upsets are swell, but I think Thamel is sitting so close that he missed the whole point of the tournament. The seeding process, after all, is specifically designed to favor the higher seeds -- to have them knock off lesser opponents in the early rounds so the games get progressively more competitive and theoretically better played as the teams advance. For the North Dakota States of the world, the opportunity is just being invited to the dance, not necessarily going home with the glass slipper. Besides, what's the point of doing well during the regular season if it doesn't improve your chances in the playoffs -- the same reason pro teams play for home-court (or field) advantage and (in the NFL's case) opening-round byes.

As a basketball fan, I want to see Duke vs. Villanova and eventually Pittsburgh vs. Connecticut, and not just because I have that in my office pool. It's because they'll be more fun to watch, even if I don't have a dog (mine, UCLA, went home early) in the fight.

If CBS ends up with marquee matchups in the Final Four, in other words, that only means the tournament selection committee did its job. And if sports writers feel let down about not having a heartwarming story to tell, well boo hoo, dude -- skip the hoops and try watching "Oprah."

Update: Chris Dufresne, who along with Mark Heisler remains the only Los Angeles Times sports columnist that I can tolerate, offers his own column largely making the same points as Thamel. Mostly, Dufresne sounds upset that he only ran 9-7 on his tournament pool scorecard in the second round, meaning he outsmarted himself by trying to pick a bunch of upsets that didn't pan out. Anyway, not a bad read, if a wrong-headed one.

Oh, and one final note on conspiracy theories: If you're CBS, the concern is less about the marquee value of the schools than the population centers in which they play. And whatever gripes one can level at the tournament selection committee, let me reiterate that the basketball system -- where a champion is settled on the court in a sudden-elimination format -- is so vastly superior to the politics that surround the Bowl Championship Series, or just about anything else, that I have a hard time buying criticism of it simply because Cleveland St. didn't make it out of its bracket.

The NCAA basketball tournament is traditionally the year’s best televised sporting event, and there’s little reason to think it will fail to deliver the customary assortment of upsets, last-minute heroics and sudden-death tension this time around.

       Nevertheless, the recession plaguing America and the world could have an impact on the atmosphere at the games, especially if fewer fans want to ante up for tickets or travel with their favorite teams than have in the past.

There was already an inkling of this at last week’s Pac-10 tournament, which resorted to offering $10 tickets to UCLA and USC students to help fill the Staples Center, which was conspicuously less crowded than it has been in recent years. Before the Friday-night session, I briefly chatted with a young guy who was watching the games across the street from Staples -- at the recently opened L.A. Live's ESPN-themed restaurant/bar -- unwilling or unable to buy a ticket, but eager to watch the games on an over-sized TV.

This dynamic might translate into higher ratings for CBS, which will once again make games available online — thus assuring that many employees who should be desperately hanging on to their tenuous jobs will instead be surfing the web at work, convinced that the outcome of West Virginia-Dayton or Kansas-North Dakota St. is the key to winning their office pools.

Still, one wonders when the atmosphere at sporting events will begin to conspicuously become less festive, offering a constant if sobering reminder of what’s going on outside the arena as cameras pan the crowd to display an inordinate number of empty seats. Don’t be surprised, too, if more struggling newspapers opt not to dispatch correspondents to follow local teams in far-away venues, instead relying on AP for coverage.

Historically, however screwed up the BCS football championship process has been (and continues to be), basketball has been the one area that the NCAA has gotten right. Granted, even with the rule mandating that high-school players must be at least 19 years old before going to the NBA, the number of one-and-done stars has diminished the general quality of play; still, the tournament has trumped that with the beauty of its David-and-Goliah matchups and lose-and-go-home elimination format.

CBS’ “Road to the Final Four” should continue to be entertaining. That said, my guess is the thrill of that ride will almost surely be negatively influenced by what’s happening beyond the court -- and TV might have to put blinkers on to prevent its cameras from noticing.

If you ever want to see a stark example of the older-demo disconnect, look no further than Sunday night's ratings and the performance of the CBS movie "Jesse Stone: Thin Ice," starring Tom Selleck.

In overall audience, the fifth "Stone" movie trounced the competition, averaging 15.1 million viewers based on Nielsen fast nationals. Yet the vast majority of that consisted of adults who think of Selleck as "that nice young man who used to star in 'Magnum P.I.,'" given that the show ran a distant fourth among adults age 18-49 in it first hour, with less than 20% of its audience coming from that demographic. (By way of comparison, the two-hour premiere of "Celebrity Apprentice" on NBC averaged 8.8 million viewers but nearly doubled "Stone's" demo rating during the second hour.)

By contrast, the Selleck vehicle pulled in a whopping 14.3 rating among adults 55 and older, who accounted for the vast majority of its audience. If you need evidence that there's an older crowd out there with an appetite for a certain kind of programming that's generally under-served by networks chasing younger viewers, it would be hard to find a more stark example of that.

By the way, those who did miss "Celebrity Apprentice" (and I'll say "SPOILER ALERT" here, not that I really believe anyone cares) missed a truly pathetic appearance by comic Andrew Dice Clay, even by the standards of the celeb-reality genre. At every turn, Clay felt the need to keep reminding people that he used to sell out concert arenas, perhaps painfully aware that his career has sunk to the point where pleading with Donald Trump for mercy seemed like a reasonable option.

Clay got booted at the end of the show, and unfortunately for NBC, probably took any reason to continue watching "Celebrity Apprentice" along with him.To borrow from Clay's old nursery rhymes in his stand-up days, "Hickory dickory dock, I'd sell you if you were a stock." Oh!

Having apparently run out of Americans to kill in its procedural dramas, CBS is doing its part to support the North American Free Trade Agreement by importing more fresh corpses from Canada. With "Flashpoint," the series devoted to an elite emergency task force, pulling in respectable ratings on Fridays, the network announced that it was picking up another Canadian cop show, "The Bridge."

CBS' description of the series is as follows: "'The Bridge' is inspired by the insights of veteran insider and outspoken former Toronto police union head, Craig Bromell. It's a procedural crime drama through the unique lens of a charismatic and dynamic union leader who is battling criminals on the street and fighting his own bosses, and sometimes corruption in the ranks, to protect his fellow officers." Moreover, Canadian cops (see photo of "Flashpoint") still look pretty much like American cops (see remainder of CBS dramas).

Beyond doing its part for cross-border North American relations, there has to be a drinking game in this mini-Canadian invasion somewhere -- something like taking a swig every time you hear the hint of a French accent or someone saying"aboot" instead of "about."

Sounds pretty good, eh? Drink up, hockey lovers!

 

David Letterman has never been known for partisanship, but his building disdain for George W. Bush became readily apparent not only in his monologues but the recurring segment "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches," which showcased Bush's verbal tics and periodic slaughtering of the English language.

Letterman retired the bit in Friday's show, but not before a pretty devastating compilation of many of Bush's less-than-memorable moments. Commentators like Bill O'Reilly will claim that Letterman is some raging liberal (O'Reilly's mostly miffed because Letterman insulted him on the air), but that completely misrepresents the record. Nobody was more relentless than the latenight host in painting Bill Clinton as a gluttonous, horny hillbilly. He turned on Bush after Sept. 11 in the same way that much of the country did (and on John McCain, a favorite guest, in response to missteps in his campaign). In that respect, Letterman's increasingly pointed barbs mirror how Lyndon Johnson once mused regarding another CBS mainstay, "If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I've lost middle America" on the Vietnam war.

Similarly, the post-Katrina, no-WMD-in-Iraq Bush lost Letterman, in a manner that perfectly underscored how he had squandered the approval of much of the U.S. public.

Anyway, the speeches send-off is a hoot and a half, so enjoy.