1. Does Comcast have a plan for NBC? It's obvious that the company wants to wed its cable networks with NBC Universal's to unlock additional value and expand its content portfolio, but what about NBC -- and what does this do, if anything, to the prospects for the Jay Leno experiment?

2. Is there genuine content-distribution synergy? People have soured on this notion thanks to misfires like AOL-Time Warner, but Comcast would appear to be such a neat fit with many of NBC Universal's assets that there are opportunities to make 2 plus 2 = 5.

3. What will the company have to give up in the regulatory process? Free Press is already out with a press release condemning the deal, and other opponents of media consolidation are sure to weigh in, meaning the Obama administration will feel pressure from the left if it gives an unqualified blessing to this corporate marriage.

4. How does NBC operate during this twilight period? With approval likely to drag on months and possibly more than a year, will the network really be able to make things "business as usual" in the interim?

5. Who is Bill O'Reilly going to direct his venom at now? The Fox News Channel host has targeted GE as a way of punching back at MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, trying to punish his bosses for allowing Olbermann to ridicule O'Reilly on a nightly basis. Does he shift his attention to Comcast's Brian Roberts? And does GE finally get itself off the hook from the host's increasingly shrill attacks?

6. What are Comcast's plans for the movie studio, Universal, which has become almost an afterthought in discussing the deal?

7. How will Comcast capitalize on the marriage of NBC Sports to Versus and the Golf channel, as Richard Sandomir explored in the New York Times, and will they drive up the bidding for sports rights?

8. What does this do to negotiations between Comcast and other cable networks -- and what are the implications for subscriber fees?

9. Can Comcast leverage all this additional content into a viable viewing-on-demand approach that makes sense for the industry? Because thus far, while everyone has frittered with answers, nobody has found one.

10. Will David Letterman begin telling jokes about the "Comcast weasels," and is there a Comcast corporate handshake?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The TV Critics Assn. tour is officially over, meaning that I won't have to wait for my car at the Langham Huntington Hotel in Pasadena again for awhile, and thank God for that.

Thanks to fortuitous timing, the first post-Comic-Con press tour wasn't a complete news-free zone. In fact, we learned the following from the latest gathering:

-- Every network except NBC feels entitled to take a few parting shots at NBC, and more than a few producers are determined to get their licks in as well.

-- All network executives love Paula Abdul and think she's an interesting, fascinating and wonderful piece of talent, at least until they sort out what she'll be doing next. Once she lands on another network one suspects she'll be considerably less interesting to everybody.

-- The out-of-town press really couldn't give a rat's ass about the skirmish involving the "time-shifting" of acceptance speeches during the Primetime Emmy Awards.

-- Even if the press tour is spiraling toward irrelevance, reporters and critics still take umbrage when they feel they are disrespected by networks failing to dispatch top executives to the event, especially if there has been a management shift. (Translation: If this thing's still around in January, NBC should put Jeff Gaspin on the stage for questions.)

-- The sessions might have been full of people barking questions, but the number of longtime critics who were absent this time around provided a nagging, constant and depressing reminder of the changes and cutbacks that have assailed the newspaper industry in general and critics in particular. Fortunately, old standbys like the Philadelphia Inquirer's Jonathan Storm were still there to call CBS' Nina Tassler "Nancy," so the tour wasn't entirely devoid of comic relief.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A real-time review of Tuesday's festivities:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Remember last November, when newspapers were flying off racks and broadcast news ratings soared because of the election of Barack Obama?

To quote those "Bruno" ads, that was so 2008.

The media remains fascinated with Obama, all right, but it still can't resist its tabloid cravings for illicit affairs, shark attacks and freak shows such as the one represented by the later years in the life and now death of Michael Jackson.

Nearly a week after Jackson's death, the story is still dominating cable news, network morning shows and even key newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, which seems to have seized on "owning" the Jackson story by keeping it on the front page every day as its latest bid to save the struggling Tribune-owned franchise.

Unfortunately, such coverage is better suited to TMZ.com and other outlets that are more comfortable wading through celebrity trashcans -- no slap at them, by the way (as I've noted in an earlier post, it's Harvey Levin's world now; we just live in it), but a mere statement of fact.

There was "Nightline" on Tuesday, trying to cover the Jackson story without getting its hands dirty by running a puffy profile of TMZ mastermind Levin. "We use the same principles that 'Nightline' uses," Levin said earnestly, but I couldn't help thinking that the reality was a little closer to the other way around -- that "Nightline" has inched closer to TMZ's celebrity-crazed mix.

Like the shark attack mania and Chandra Levy-Gary Condit coverage that dominated the news in the summer before the Sept. 11 attacks, Jackson's death occurred after Memorial Day, when network primetime is free and easy. In fact, it's considerably freer and easier today than it was when the decade began, what with network ratings at historic lows, making a hasty news special look infinitely preferable to rerunning "Private Practice" or burning off episodes of "The Unusuals." (Even leading anchors have gotten into the act, with Katie Couric fronting "Michael Jackson: Picking Up the Pieces" under the "48 Hours" banner on CBS.)

Let's face it, documenting the unfolding events in Iran -- especially with the government cracking down on journalists -- and explaining the Obama administration's effort to reform health care is complicated and difficult. And South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford simply isn't known well enough on the national stage to compete with a personality like Jackson, though as Stephen Colbert noted earlier this week, the Republican would have been even luckier had he publicly admitted cheating on his wife one day later.

The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism summed up the obvious with its running tally of news coverage (excerpted below), and I have a feeling the figures for the current week will be even more jaw-dropping, if sadly predictable.

Bottom line: When it comes to feeding the media beast, even Obama and Iran currently can't lay a hand on the gloved one.

In Just Two Days, Jackson’s Passing Nearly Passes Iran in the News of the Week

 With unrest in Iran and a new political scandal, the media had its pick of stories to report on the week of June 22-28. But by week’s end, the death of Michael Jackson quickly dominated the media agenda, according to a report by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Early last week, ongoing attention to protests over the Iranian election continued to dominate the news narrative, and by week’s end Iran filled 19% of the newshole, making it still the No. 1 topic of the week. But much of that came early. Indeed, in the first two days of the week, nearly a third of all coverage (31%) was devoted to events in the country. But as the protest movement moved underground, and the story became harder to cover, coverage subsided. By Wednesday attention shifted to the third biggest story of the week—the controversy around South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who admitted to an extra-marital affair after having gone missing for several days (11%).

But it was the late Thursday afternoon reports that Michael Jackson had died that captured the essence of the media narrative last week. The passing of the “King of Pop” was the No. 2 story last week, accounting for 18% of the newshole. From the time of the announcement of his death through the end of day Friday, more than 28 hours (60% of news coverage studied) was dedicated to Jackson’s passing. Cable news led the coverage, devoting 93% of airtime to the icon on Thursday and Friday. The story captured 55% of online coverage and 37% of front-page newspaper coverage. All other stories vied for attention amidst the biggest celebrity story in a decade.

Give credit where it's due: TMZ.com, the web site and TV franchise run by Harvey Levin, approaches wading through celebrity trash cans with the sort of conviction once reserved for the Pentagon Papers. Small wonder that it was TMZ that broke the Michael Jackson story (as even the Los Angeles Times no doubt grudgingly acknowledged) and which will surely be everywhere over the next several days as new revelations about Jackson's strange life and death emerge.

Meanwhile, good luck seeing any other serious news over the next few days. Iran? Hang on folks, we'll catch you later. Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina? Lucky break, pal.

Even when CNN cut to Capitol Hill, it was to catch a "moment of silence" for Jackson. When it turned out that the "moment" had already occurred and they actually were discussing what appeared to be legislation, the network quickly cut back to Jackson-related news. CNN then found a woman who is "one of Michael Jackson's biggest fans" (I'm not sure who hands out those awards) on Hollywood Boulevard.

Frankly, when TMZ made its debut, I had my doubts about the viability of a web-based service devoted to nothing but celebrity gossip and news. After all, we had seen plenty of similar dot.com ventures rapidly go bust. But Levin -- who has a background in local Los Angeles TV news -- clearly got where the marketplace was heading, that even national news was drifting toward the tabloid sensibility that TMZ represented.

So congrats, Harvey. For better and mostly worse, it's your journalistic world now. The rest of us that cover entertainment just live -- hanging by our fingertips -- in it.

President Obama can forget about getting much attention for his health-care reform efforts over the next few days, as two celebrity deaths -- Farrah Fawcett, which had been anticipated; and Michael Jackson, which came out of the blue -- seem destined to dominate the conversation for a few days.

While the onslaught of coverage tied to Fawcett's death at 62 after a long illness felt more than a little excessive, the 50-year-old Jackson's sudden death warrants the wall-to-wall coverage that local TV and cable news are already showering upon it.

Few public figures over the years have been more tragic, bizarre or fascinating than Jackson, a cautionary tale about the effects of child stardom if there ever was one. Enormously talented as a singer and songwriter, Jackson's legacy will forever be sadly tainted by his personal quirks and excesses as well as allegations of abuse and child molestation that repeatedly dogged him.

For years, Jackson has been most famous as an oddity, and in that context, the instant media spectacle surrounding his death -- the frantic search for news, insight and analysis, as well as the crowd surrounding UCLA Medical Center -- seems strangely appropriate. There was CNN's Wolf Blitzer, left soberly introducing clips from the "Beat It" and "Black or White" videos like some aging, bearded veejay.

ABC and NBC had already announced Fawcett specials, but one suspects those plans are in flux. It seems inevitable that Jackson will be primetime news on the major networks tonight and -- given the treasure trove of high-rated interviews conducted with him over the years -- perhaps for days to come.

Having grown up with the Jackson Five, I would love to say that I'll remember Jackson for the sweet-voiced little boy that he was. There is, after all, a strong impulse not to speak ill of the dead. Unfortunately, no comprehensive discussion of Jackson's legacy can hold to that gauzy, nostalgic image for very long.

Update: And tonight's lineup: CBS News has scheduled "The Life and Death of Michael Jackson" for 10 p.m. NBC will air a two-hour "Dateline" devoted to both Jackson and Fawcett, bumping its previously announced Fawcett encore, "Farrah's Story," to Friday. ABC has set its own hour, also titled "The Life and Death of Michael Jackson," for 9 p.m.

Second Update: I went to Westwood on Thursday night to see the play "Farragut North" at the Geffen Playhouse. Not only was traffic mucked up by all the satellite trucks surrounding the UCLA Medical Plaza, but a group of a-holes were standing on the corner adjacent to UCLA selling Michael Jackson memorial T-shirts. Then again, what's the point of having a media circus without a bunch of parasites to sell concessions?

Jon Gosselin said he hadn't signed up to have his life pored over by tabloids, and that he couldn't leave his house without being harassed.

His wife Kate was shown walking to the supermarket while photographers snapped pictures.

The next day, on "Today," People senior editor Kate Coyne insisted that the media coverage had nothing to do with the couple's breakup.

Over on "Good Morning America," they seemed to want to use the media circus as a teachable moment, promising to explore what parents should do at this stage of a marital split that's best for the children. "The experts weigh in," said Robin Roberts.

Ah, Diane Sawyer, behind that smile, it's hard to imagine what must go through your mind at times like these.

As for what's best for the kids, hmm. Maybe not turn them into props who grow up on television in the first place? Can't wait for the "E! True Hollywood Stories" on this group around 2023.

"The great Jon & Kate debate is over," they said on CBS' "The Early Show."

If it is, why are you all still talking about it?

The real winner here, obviously, is TLC, which stumbled into a pop-culture/tabloid sensation when its series about a couple raising eight kids saw their marriage begin fraying, throwing off rumors of affairs and launching a thousand US Weekly covers. Hell, I felt compelled to watch (OK, TiVo and zap through) Monday's big "Divorce, American Style" episode, a small triumph for a series I had previously managed to pretty much ignore until now.

The trick now will be how to continue mining that mini-gold mine as the story inevitable cools. Both parents have indicated a willingness to keep taping segments, mostly because at this point, what else do they have? The program has overtaken their lives and become a cash cow. Besides, the title "Kate Plus Eight ... and Maybe a new Man-friend?" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Meanwhile, here's some advice to the parents on "Raising Sextuplets," WE's new "Jon & Kate" knockoff: Start bickering. A lot. Sure, it'll be unpleasant initially, but just keep reminding yourself that in the world of tabloid TV, you'll actually be doing it for the children.

My weekend reading included Robin Givhan's Washington Post piece, "Echoes of TV's First Lady," which concluded that Michelle Obama's only real cultural antecedent is Clair Huxtable, the lawyer mom on NBC's iconic 1980s comedy "The Cosby Show."

The only problem, as was evident throughout the piece, is that supporting and propping up that premise meant ignoring or discounting examples that might inconveniently undermine it. And given that "Cosby" signed off 17 years ago, there are plenty of characters and personalities -- beginning, most glaringly, with Oprah Winfrey and Tyra Banks -- that Givhan was forced to omit or significantly diminish in order to buttress her theory.

Of course, to make her case that "the last similarly accomplished and wholesome black woman to enter the homes of TV audiences" was the "Cosby" character played by Phylicia Rashad, Givhan had to downplay African-American female doctors on "Grey's Anatomy" and "Private Practice," just to cite a few high-profile current examples, as well as series such as "Girlfriends." Nor does the article exhibit any recognition of how the TV world has changed -- that no comedy or drama circa 2009 approaches the broad reach and cultural heft of "Cosby," which premiered a full quarter-century ago in a media landscape that bears scant resemblance to today's highly fragmented marketplace.

Such disclaimers would clearly soften such a story's hook. But it doesn't make them any less obvious, or any less accurate.

Frankly, I see this as an increasingly common affliction in some of our major newspapers -- a product of reporters too willing to please their editors, too harried to make an extra call, or too ambitious to entertain conflicting information that might dilute a gee-whiz pitch. The aggravating part is that it's a short hop from the Post's Style section or the New York Times' Arts & Leisure pages to the ravenous maws of network morning shows and cable news, virtually ensuring that a half-baked or bogus concept can circle the media globe, as the saying goes, before the truth can get its pants on.

Throw in the prevailing fascination with all things Obama, and it's a prescription for all the non-news that's fit to print ... and link to ... and copy.

All that pageant footage and those not-quite-topless photos were simply too much for the cable news networks to resist: Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN all went live with coverage of megalomaniac Donald Trump ruling on whether Miss California, Carrie Prejean, could retain her Miss USA Runner-Up title.

Of course, all this was manna from heaven for Trump, organizer of the pageant, who at least wasn't being asked about "The Celebrity Apprentice's" mediocre ratings or the real-estate holdings bearing his name that are going south in Mexico. (The Los Angeles Times recently detailed the problems surrounding the Trump-branded Baja project.) 

Oh, and speaking of the Times, let the record show that its awards blogger, Tom O'Neil, was among the media hordes who actually appeared to lend his "expert" opinion to the conversation. And the award for media whoring goes to....

Seriously, Tom, I know everyone wants to be on TV, but when the call is from MSNBC and the topic is as inane as this, maybe it's time to just say "No."

Because Trump was late (keep 'em waiting, Donald!), the spectacle was magnified by having the networks cut back and forth between more serious news -- a soldier murdering several others in Iraq, the budget debate, the release of a jailed journalist in Iran -- to kill time until Trump made his appearance. Notably, while CNN cut away a few minutes before the press conference ended, Fox and MSNBC stayed until the bitter end, proving there is something the two can agree on.

"They were fine," Trump said of the controversial (not really) modeling pictures of Prejean that surfaced, which Fox and MSNBC helpfully posted next to her while she spoke.

"I would like to thank Mr. Trump for believing in me," Prejean said, amid the sort of blinding flash of cameras that would have sent King Kong into a blind rage.

"Most importantly, I would like to thank God," Prejean said, proceeding to talk about her grandfather fighting in World War II to safeguard her freedoms -- no, seriously, she really did -- as she fought back tears.

"Think about how much better our society would be if we could just agree to disagree," Prejean said as she closed her prepared remarks. Wow, out of the mouths of babes. Meanwhile, she will be awarded for her principled stand with an appearance on Fox's "Hannity."

Asked why the controversy had blown up, Trump awkwardly nailed the answer by saying it was all because Prejean is so beautiful. "That's the way the press works," he said, cracking a mischievous smile before adding, "You should be ashamed of yourselves."

"Can I vomit right now?" MSNBC correspondent David Shuster said immediately afterward. That's a rhetorical question, right?

Somehow, I have a pretty good feeling that I just watched the lead segment on the May 12 edition of "The Daily Show."

Wow. I get that op-ed writers and hoary old newspapers like to make themselves more relevant by tying into pop culture, but the New York Times' Week in Review section features not one, not two, but three separate pieces today drawing cosmic significance from the new "Star Trek" movie.

Maureen Dowd's attempt to link President Obama to Mister Spock was at least entertaining, though I'd put her on columnist probation just for sneaking in the term "Rahmulen" (get it? As in Emanuel).

The other salvos came from Columbia professor David Hajdu, who weighed in on "Trek" history; and Dave Itzkoff, a regular contributor to Arts & Leisure, whose own piece sought to tie cultural trends today to those that existed when the original series launched in the 1960s.

All that was missing was a couple of paragraphs in Frank Rich's column somehow blaming George W. Bush for torturing the fan base and killing off the TV franchise with that imprudent excursion into "Enterprise." (Notably, both Rich and Dowd explored the difficult economic climate facing journalism, which is certainly on most print wretches' minds right now.)

Newspapers are obviously grasping to widen their appeal, but piggybacking on summer movies doesn't sound like a sustainable longterm strategy.

In the meantime, brace yourselves for next week's Week in Review section, which will focus on what "Angels & Demons" tells us about U.S. attitudes toward religion and whether we can truly achieve salvation through watching "Terminator" movies.

Ted Koppel will weigh in on May 11 on the U.S. use of torture in a segment on "BBC World News America." Meanwhile, Dan Rather could be seen last week good-naturedly joining in a "The Daily Show" spoof regarding the ridiculous amount of time that the cable news networks devoted to President Obama ordering a hamburger.

It's a rather odd time to be one of broadcast journalism's lions in winter.

Koppel -- for my money, the foremost TV journalist of his generation -- is still doing serious work, first at Discovery Channel and now for the BBC, albeit on a much smaller stage. Meanwhile, "Nightline" plods on, delivering respectable ratings but also regularly filling out its half-hour with heavy doses of lifestyle and pop-culture trivia (Paula Abdul!) as well as lighter "signs of the times" to pay the bills.

Rather has plied his trade for Mark Cuban's HDNet in relative obscurity, staying in the spotlight mostly when there's some new flurry of activity regarding his lawsuit against his former employer, CBS News. In terms of the old gang Tom Brokaw stands out, enjoying emeritus status at NBC News while having the latitude to write books and produce documentaries for cable.

Given all that's going on in the world, it's something of a shame to see TV's old guard of journalistic royalty not being pressed into service, but it's not like "Dateline" or "20/20" have much of an appetite for anything much beyond "Why do men cheat?" stories or true crime. That leaves "60 Minutes" as an increasingly lonely island of sobriety in the commercial broadcast space.

It also leaves Koppel tackling one of the day's biggest stories on a relatively small channel, and Rather cracking wise -- under a fake '70s Afro -- about fish tacos.

Courage, Dan. Courage.

The Senate held a "The Future of Journalism" hearing this week, and I finally caught up with the testimony of David Simon, the former Baltimore Sun reporter who parlayed that experience into "Homicide" and "The Wire," then recently followed it up by producing the splendid HBO Iraq miniseries "Generation Kill."

For the complete document, here's a link, by way of Jim Romenesko's Poynter site. But the key passages include Simon's observation that because newspapers can't monetize the Internet sites that are aggregating their content, "the parasite is killing the host;" and that the industry's demise began out of greed and mismanagement "long before the threat of new technology was ever sensed."

Simon left the Sun in the mid-1990s, right when I was starting at another Tribune newspaper, the Los Angeles Times. And with the benefit of hindsight, I think he's right about almost everything -- including the pervasive effects of a "prize culture" that he documented in the final season of "The Wire," where editors push Pulitzer-bait projects at the expense of the nuts-and-bolts reporting that actually serves their local community.

As for greed, Tribune got into the layoffs-in-pursuit-of-bigger-margins business long before the Internet began leeching away profits. Indeed, I was hired there to fill a vacancy left after job cuts and a hiring freeze imposed about a year before I started in '96.

Simon closed his testimony by outlining several proposals to help "save" newspapers, which mostly boil down to providing antitrust protection that would allow them to collude on a system to charge for online content; and facilitating the shift to non-profit status. Both sound like reasonable ideas to me, though I confess to some skepticism about either gaining much traction. For starters, too many on the right are delighting in the financial woes assailing what they deride as the "mainstream media" (see Jeff Jacoby's Boston Globe column on the misguided gloating) to let such measures to move forward without turning it into a political circus.

Meanwhile, Simon is moving ahead with his next HBO series, "Treme," about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Based on his Senate testimony, it's an appropriate choice, because the guy knows a thing or two about how to clean up a complete mess.

Fox News Channel didn't endorse Barack Obama, and one suspects few of its primetime hosts would publicly admit how happy they are to have him in office. Nevertheless, his administration is working out very, very well for the right-leaning cable network.

From News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch's comments regarding today's quarterly earnings:

"Our Cable Network Programming segment showed remarkable growth, led by the Fox News Channel, which nearly doubled its operating income over the year-ago quarter. ... The Fox News Channel (FNC) almost doubled its operating income versus the third quarter a year ago, primarily from increased affiliate revenues on higher rates. In the quarter ended March 31, 2009, FNC primetime ratings were up 23% compared with the same period a year ago."

The practical implications of this -- amid an otherwise tough quarter for the media conglomerate, in keeping with the deflated results put up by its peers -- are that Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes and his posse should continue full steam ahead in delivering voice-of-the-opposition attacks on the Obama administration. Murdoch might have personally softened his political views (or so Michael Wolff says in his biography of the mogul), but he's nothing if not a pragmatist, and feeding red meat (and of course Tea bags) to the disenfranchised right has been very good for business.

So remember, the next time you see someone on Fox complain about the president being a socialist/Marxist/fascist/foreign-born/closet-radical/terrorist sympathizer, strictly from the standpoint of good old-fashioned capitalism, they wouldn't have it any other way.

The Washington Post's ombudsman has tackled an issue that I've often considered -- namely, whether it's possible for a TV critic to weigh in on a politician's TV persona and performance without spilling over into political commentary.

Ombudsman Andrew Alexander writes that the Post received plenty of angry email about a Tom Shales piece in which he praised Obama's smoothness at a primetime press conference. After quoting some of the reaction, Alexander interviewed Shales, who told him, "I never talk about policies. I talk about how [Obama] comes across on TV. I like him based on what I see on television."

I agree with Shales -- both in his assessment that Obama is a masterful performer by TV standards, and that it's possible to analyze television dexterity without considering specific policy merits. A pre-2008 John McCain, who famously referred to the media as his "base," won reporters (and critics) over more with his style, accessibility and "The Daily Show" appearances than his policies. Even Ronald Reagan's critics grudgingly admit (or most of them do) that he spun a great yarn. By contrast, one needn't be a wild-eyed liberal to have serious doubts about Sarah Palin's readiness for national office based on how ill-informed she appeared in a number of campaign interviews.

That said, it's virtually impossible in today's shrill, overheated environment to register even the most innocuous opinion about a prominent politician without appearing to take sides. Any praise or criticism thrown Obama's way will invariably trigger knee-jerk responses from the customary knee-jerkers on both political poles. Still, conservatives tend to be far more vehement about this, inasmuch as they're always seeking evidence to buttress their self-serving claims that the "mainstream media" has it out for them.

Nothing will mollify such voices short of an admission of bias and being "in the tank" for Obama. That said, the impulse to "review" a presidential news conference is sort of asking for trouble -- often motivated by the desire of feature-section editors to demonstrate that they can play in the same sandbox as the big boys on the national desk.

Ultimately, I'd say if you want to cover politics from every angle -- including the significant question of how imagery plays through the media's filter -- then be prepared to take a few hits. If your analysis is honest, only the wing nuts and true believers will be truly bent out of shape by it, and frankly, most of them are pissed off before they read word one.

The Las Vegas Sun recently claimed a prestigious Pulitzer Prize for public service, which is quite a feat for a relatively small newspaper in this strained and stressed journalistic environment. (Los Angeles Times media columnist James Rainey niftily chronicled the Sun's improbable accomplishment in a recent column.)

Against that backdrop, there's a rather timely new look at newspapers -- and particularly the Sun -- in their fatter and sassier days. Writer-producer-director Scott Goldstein has produced a documentary about the Sun's colorful founder and former editor, "Where I Stand: The Hank Greenspun Story," which will be playing this weekend at the Los Angeles Jewish Film Festival. (Check here for festival scheduling and details.)

Greenspun's path crossed a remarkable array of historical figures, from gangster Bugsy Siegel to anti-communist crusader Joseph McCarthy to Howard Hughes, who Greenspun helped lure to Las Vegas. As opposed to straight narration, Anthony Hopkins vocally portrays Greenspun by reading passages from his autobiography.

Foremost, Greenspun represents a rough-edged throwback to the days of crusty old newsmen in rolled-up shirt sleeves, at a time when newsmen seem decidedly less crusty, and the old ones are being laid off at an alarming rate. So while I agreed to watch the film because I've known Goldstein for years (his credits include Steven Bochco's "L.A. Law" and "Doogie Howser, M.D."), I couldn't honor his entreaties to write something about it for the paper. Print space, after all, is precious these days.

As such, "Where I Stand" provides a rather bittersweet look at what feels like a bygone era.

Earlier this week I schlepped down to Cal State Fullerton as a speaker for its annual Comm Week, where I counseled students interested in careers in journalism to stay in school at least until I am ready to retire. (Yes, I'm all in favor of "giving back," but these days I try to make sure there's something in it for me, too.)

Anyway, the kids asked all the right questions, including several I couldn't answer -- like why websites charge so much less for advertising and how television can survive as an ad-supported medium if everyone just zaps through the commercials.

The most interesting moment for me, though, was when I asked about whether the audience (about 100 to 120, mostly students) would be willing to pay for access to their favorite websites and portals. Would you pay $10 a month, I wondered, seeking a show of hands, for Google? Not a single one went up.

Now maybe Fullerton students still do their searching and surfing out of books, but my guess is they're all Googling like crazy. The problem is that everyone is so programmed now to expect the easy availability of online content for "free" (that is, the cost of being exposed to some ads) that they're reluctant to part with cash, even if the cost is relatively small for something they use all the time.

The observation's strictly anecdotal, of course, but if it's correct, there are pretty significant implications for television, newspapers, and any other media dinosaur that's hoping to stave off extinction by charging for its content.

In the meantime, don't listen to what anybody tells you, kids. Your parents have plenty of money, and they're just dying to send you to grad school while we old farts try to figure all this stuff out.

There are plenty of reasons why Rupert Murdoch's journalistic enterprises are viewed with a jaundiced eye, and the recent announcement that former Fox News Channel exec John Moody has taken an uber-position at News Corp. should raise additional red flags at rival studios.

That's because Murdoch has never been shy about using his far-flung assets -- foremost among them the New York Post -- to jab at competitors. And if that happens to destabilize other media conglomerates -- or have reporters yapping at their heels at inopportune times, like leading up to primetime's upfront sales period -- so much the better.

Because of this history, the timing and tone of reports in the Post are often suspect, even when there's a rational basis for them. The paper's most recent salvos against NBC Universal and Disney, helpfully for the purposes of this demonstration, appeared simultaneously. One report last week stated that CNBC is in a supposed panic over its anti-Obama image, while another the same day placed ABC Entertainment chief Stephen McPherson in the Post's gun sights, with anonymous sources (and one ad buyer) saying the ABC exec desperately needs to find a new hit because of this spring's poor performance with a crop of new series.

Page Six used "an insider" to report about a "top-secret" dinner in which top GE and NBC brass held a "powwow" to discuss "whether CNBC has become too conservative and is beating up on Obama too much." CNBC denied that was the point of the meeting, but this alleged cabal has already provided ripe fodder for Bill O'Reilly on Murdoch's Fox News Channel, who has been in a blind rage against NBC ever since Keith Olbermann began regularly mocking him on-air.

As for McPherson, there's no question that ABC has struggled of late, though I'm not clear as to how that distinguishes the Disney-owned network from any broadcaster except CBS and, to a far lesser degree, the CW. Even the Post conceded, "To be sure, McPherson's job isn't in jeopardy ... but his reputation as a talented script doctor and series shaper is indeed on the line." And as we all know, there's nothing more painful for a TV honcho than a tarnished rep as a "series shaper."

Again, these articles wouldn't particularly stand out until you consider the source -- which is why Moody's News Corp.-level gig bears watching. Obviously, there are cost-cutting advantages and synergies to be found in allowing "worldwide editorial properties to share content and resources across the entire company." With one person coordinating all that coverage, however, the question is whose ox will News Corp. gore? Already, a Post-Wall Street Journal-Fox News echo chamber exists, with the first paper's conservative tilt and the latter's editorial pages feeding and legitimizing items for use by FNC's right-wing talent.

Moody was famous (or notorious) for circulating "the memo" to Fox News staff, which directed them on how to approach that day's coverage. It will be interesting to see what kind of marching orders emerge from his new role, but don't be surprised if well-timed barbs at other studios just keep on coming.

Forgive this bit of indulgence in a pet peeve (though this is a blog, after all), but I receive a ridiculous number of email pitches lately that begin with personalized messages -- from people who I don't know.

"Hey, B.," one began.

"Hey Brian, How's it going?" said another.

This is a relatively recent trend, presumably designed to lure journalists into entertaining a pitch before they realize it. I'm waiting for one that starts out, "Hey, how's the family? We should really get together for dinner soon. You haven't called in awhile. Anyway, I was wondering if you'd be interested in talking to one of the executives at Gurgle-tech about the latest gizmo that's going to revolutionize TV...."

So hey, flacks, here's a friendly suggestion from your old pal: If you don't know me, don't pretend like you do. This may come as a surprise, but I gave up on imaginary friends several years ago, and acting like we're bosom buddies when we're not doesn't do anything except make it that much more likely that I will hit "delete" before bothering to read your email.

Anyway, thanks for listening. And be sure to give my best to, you know, whoever.

Here are the Los Angeles Press Club nominees for "CRITIC, TELEVISION," in its second annual National Entertainment Journalism Awards, with comment:

* Shawn Edwards and Russ Simmons, Fox4 News, Kansas City

Rightfully notorious as a "quote whore," Edwards earned the following compilation from Variety editor Tim Gray in his 2007 wrap-up of embarrassing quote ads:

"No Reservations" -- "The most delightful movie of the year!" (July 22)

"Resident Evil: Extinction" -- "The most exciting movie of the year!" (Sept. 28)

"Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium" -- "The most magical movie of the year!" (Nov. 11)

"I Am Legend" -- "The best movie of the year!" (Dec. 15)

* Nancy Jay, AAFES-EXTV

I'm not sure what any of those letters mean.

* Manny the Movie Guy, KMIR6/NBC

This might sound like nitpicking, but shouldn't you have to provide a real last name to be nominated for a journalism award?

* Sandie Newton. CBS11/TXA21, Texas

Never heard of her.

* George Pennacchio, KABC-TV

Him I have heard of, but A) he's not a critic and doesn't do reviews, and B) gushes so much over celebrities that there's a constant fear he's going to spontaneously combust on them.

The same five folks, by the way, account for six of the eight nominees in the television "FEATURES" and "NEWS STORY" categories, which suggests either a dearth of submissions or that the ballots were tabulated in Florida and Ohio.

The press club's March 26 event will honor Wall Street Journal film critic Joe Morgenstern, who is certainly more than deserving of the accolades (and already owns a Pulitzer Prize). Still, with newspapers and broadcasters ailing financially, maybe it's time to spare journos from hitting up their bosses (or worse, digging into their own pockets) for the submission fees on these manufactured prize hunts -- or at least declare a moratorium.

In fact, I think that's "the best idea of the year!" (March 18)

My expectations weren't particularly high for "The Rotten Tomatoes Show on Current," Current TV's latest series, which will premiere on March 5. Yet it's a pretty fresh (pardon the expression), breezy, not surprisingly snarky look at movies that seems to seamlessly fit with the Fox Interactive Media-owned movie-review site's brand as well as the cable channel's youthful demographic.

The show is hosted by Brett Erlich and comedienne Ellen Fox, and as a rule when one of these things is fronted by a comic you've never heard of that's seldom a good sign. But the sample they sent over -- reviewing "Punisher: War Zone," admittedly a big ripe (sorry again) target -- was funny and wove in a diverse array of opinions using chintzy-looking web videos in addition to the hosts. The real shocker, though, was that there was actually some context -- pointing out that this was the third try at adapting the character and weaving in clips of the earlier Dolph Lundgren and Thomas Jane versions of the Marvel vigilante. Favorite line: Erlich said when he asked for a ticket, the guy behind the counter said, "Really?" Hey, been there, done that.

Frankly, the series achieves some of the tone that Disney's syndication unit doubtless wanted to achieve in its makeover of "At the Movies," which sought to have it both ways -- incorporating younger hosts (Ben Lyons, Ben Mankiewicz) but still largely aping the "Siskel & Ebert" format. The problem is that Lyons' criticism is so banal that they have the worst of both worlds -- no sizzle to go with no steak.(Mankiewicz enjoys a modicum of residual good will with me because of his work on Turner Classic Movies, but he can't redeem what's become a real mess, at a time when criticism is already under siege as newspapers shed critics.)

The new Current show is also, inevitably, perfect fodder to be sliced and diced into smaller components for viewing on the Current and rottentomatoes websites. Produced by Jeff Plunkett, the series premiere will tackle "Street Fighter," "Assassination of a High School President" and "Crossing Over."

So with apologies to Rotten Tomatoes for referencing a rival website, if I was forced to assign a Metacritic score to the show I'd give it a 65 or a 70 -- the disclaimer being in comparison to "At the Movies," the bar isn't set that high on avoiding a big fat splat.

Update: A few additional notes that I wasn't completely clear about in my first post: Yes, the show will feature the average "tomato-meter" score that rottentomatoes derives from scanning reviews of each movie, though from what I saw the program doesn't reach out to major critics to include their voices. But again, this was just a sample of one movie. For additional information about the show check out their website.

And in response to a reader, I also generally prefer Metacritic, although the numerical values that they assign to reviews can often be surprisingly off, at least based on my own experiences with them. That said, I do find their chart more useful for a quick thumb-nail sketch of the overall critical response than rottentomatoes.

Against my better judgment, I attended the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.'s 2009-10 Economic Forecast and Industry Outlook on Wednesday morning, and it was every bit as depressing as you might imagine.

Despite the economic stimulus package, the forecasters (and seriously, let's take everything with a grain of salt here based on past performance) predicted that it would take quite awhile to begin to yield any discernible benefits. LACEDC Chief economist Jack Kyser estimated that unemployment in the county will peak at 10.6% in 2010. Looking fora bright spot, the only glint of good news is that the huge decline in home values has made them more affordable to first-time buyers -- though not to existing home owners, since us poor dumb bastards would need to sell our own depreciated houses in order to purchase another.

Although I was rather flattered to be asked to present an appraisal of the entertainment industry, it occurred to me that might be because no self-respecting economist would dare show his face after having been so wildly off in past projections. This observation did not get an especially big laugh from the room, but at least I wasn't stoned to death, which struck me as a possible option.

Kyser generally agreed with my assessmentof the entertainment sector -- that the industry is in a serious state of flux, and that runaway production has essentially become (to quote Film LA) "ran-away production" -- with movies having largely fled to cheaper locales, dropping local film production to its lowest levels since Film LA's tally began in 1993. Jay Leno's move to primetime, meanwhile, represents an ominous sign for the TV production community, and when I asked this fairly well-heeled (or at least well-dressed) gathering how many of them had already purchased a Blu-ray DVD player only a smattering of hands went up, so that might not be the industry's savior, either.

Other presentations were equally gloomy. Mark Liberman, president-CEO of LA Inc. The LA Convention & Visitors Bureau, anticipated a 4.3% decline in L.A. tourism and the lowest hotel-occupancy rates since 2003. Michael Niemira, chief economist of the International Council of Shopping Centers, added, "Consumers have cut back on discretionary purchases of all kinds," which explains why I have yet to buy a "Watchmen" T-shirt.

As far as I can tell, the only enterprise making any money is the downtown Marriott, which fleeced conference attendees to the tune of $13 to park there.

Speakers were asked to offer at least a ray of hope. Lacking that, I said maybe I can keep any political aspirations that I might harbor alive by assuring everyone that while hope might be a bit of a reach, "There will be change."

Apparently, I wasn't the only one struck by the simultaneous media coming-out parties of Nadya Suleman and Chesley Sullenberger, which I discussed in my latest column titled "TV News Goes Soft During Hard Times." (I didn't write the headline, but it perfectly sums up the piece while adding a nice double entendre, so kudos to the copy desk gang.)
For other takes rooted in the same unsavory media stew -- each with a slightly different angle on this odd juxtaposition of sudden celebrity -- see:
- Los Angeles Times TV critic Mary McNamara's direct connection of the octuplet mom and the "hero pilot," appropriately headlined "A Crash Course in Fame."
- Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan's typically thirsty for the good ol' days, "It's morning in America" take on the financial crisis, which at the end ties in Suleman and Sullenberger along with a lot of flowery prose. Noonan, as usual, takes the long way around before turning Sullenberger into John Wayne -- proof that America still turns out heroes -- and Suleman into a cautionary tale of where America might be heading, more about selfishness than delivering litters of children.
- Finally, here's a recommendation for Joe Queenan's Saturday guest piece in the Journal, which manages to omit Sullenberger and Suleman but zeroes in on the likes of Michael Phelps, Joaquin Phoenix and baseball's Alex Rodriguez to examine our preoccupation with the inconsequential. Queenan delivers the key passage about all this to my mind, which is as follows: "We the public think that we know these people because we see them all the time on TV. Because of this, they root us in the here and now in a way run-of-the-mill white-collar villains do not. They have violated an old-fashioned code of morality that we can all understand in a way that we cannot understand a $50 billion Ponzi scheme or the fact that Iceland has put out a 'Closed for Business' sign."

Read separately, each column fritters around a different aspect of the same issue. Read together, the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fall into place in a more interesting way.

A Postscript on weekend reading: The weekend's biggest head-scratcher had to be the story in the New York Times about whether the success of "Slumdog Millionaire" might herald a comeback of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." Although there's no evidence this is going to happen (the show's producer says sure, he'd like to bring it back; ABC says nothing at all), the Times gave the fishing expedition prominent placement. There's a lot of that particular virus going around these days, which is generally symptomatic of A) editors over-reaching; B) reporters who are a little too eager to please; C) slimmed-down newspapers having fewer people to edit stories and ask the right questions; D) all of the above.

You shouldn't need to use your "phone a friend" to answer this one.

As a one-time Howard Stern listener who didn't follow him to satellite radio, my first thought reading about Sirius XM Radio's possible bankruptcy filing -- beyond the haughty way in which Sirius XM CEO Mel Karmazin turned his nose up at reporters back when he was at CBS -- was that the much-ballyhooed $500-million deal for the self-proclaimed "King of All Media," in the final analysis, didn't work.

Yes, the central core of Stern acolytes came with him, but there simply weren't enough of them -- given the profligate spending in the satellite-radio bidding wars -- to justify the kind of insane dollars thrown his way. And while all forms of media are struggling to stay above water in the current environment, Stern's big talk about launching a brave new medium and simultaneously bringing terrestrial radio to its knees sounds especially hollow now based on the way things have played out.

Stern has reached the point where he can do pretty well whatever he wants, including nothing. But that big booming voice that once accompanied me on my morning commute -- the one that boasted roughly 8 million listeners a week, bestsellers and even a reasonably successful movie -- has been reduced to little more than a whisper in the larger media scheme of things.

Too bad. Though I suspect if the old Stern that I remember were talking about some other rich dude who vacated a lofty perch, grabbed the big bucks and wound up at a company that finally filed for bankruptcy, he'd call the guy a big douche.

Just got back from a few days in Hawaii, because A) the trip was already booked and B) somebody has to do something to try to stimulate the economy, and this is my last significant contribution for awhile before joining the rest of America and curling into a fetal position.

Anyway, here are 5 (-0 -- book 'em, Danno!) brief notes and observations regarding the trip and media in the islands:

1) To the two women who stared at me as I left that restaurant in Wailea, no, you did not see film critic/historian Leonard Maltin on your vacation in Hawaii.

2) There's a restaurant in Maui (Kihei, to be precise) called the Bada Bing, but I heard enough bad things about the food that I chickened out on going, even as a feeble excuse to try writing off part of the trip. However, if anyone has eaten there, please let me (or "The Sopranos" creator David Chase's attorneys) know.

3) Why is every local news anchor team in Honolulu an attractive young Asian woman paired with a much older white guy? Watching TV there (and admittedly, I didn't watch a lot) is sort of like revisiting Los Angeles in the 1990s, before most of the older white-guy anchors either died or were shitcanned to reduce overhead. On the plus side, I do like that some of the sports guys wear Hawaiian shirts. Now if they could just get the KTLA and KTTV morning newscasts in L.A. to wear funny hats and clown shoes.

4) The Maui News runs so many Associated Press stories that I temporarily thought I was reading the Los Angeles Times, except that the Maui paper has a better sports section.

5) Although I vowed to mostly avoid TV while away except to check weather and sports scores, I do wish somebody had reminded me that Hawaii's primetime is on the same schedule as Central time. It's annoying to get back to your hotel room at 9 p.m. with pretty much nothing to do and realizing that you've just missed "Lost."

Mahalo for your attention.

While I have no desire to wade hip-deep into partisan politics, it's hard to let a bald-faced lie go by unchallenged.

Said howler can be found in radio host Rush Limbaugh's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal about the current debate over the economic stimulus package. In the course of it, Limbaugh stated -- presumably with a straight face -- "This does not have to be a divisive issue." Hello?

For Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and an array of lower-profile commentators on the left and the right, everything has to be a divisive issue. That's their business. And thus far -- especially for the right-wing contingent with a Democrat back in the White House -- business has been quite good. Indeed, Limbaugh and Hannity have emerged as the de facto leaders of the Republican Party (actually, using the nonsensical way they cut Democratic to Democrat, I guess that could be Republic Party), filling a leadership void left in the wake of the party's congressional losses.

Limbaugh and Hannity (who has labeled his own radio show "conservatism in exile") are in fact not-so-subtly marketing themselves as a balm to those still smarting over the election, the folks who believe that Barack Obama was just short of an al-Qaeda mole. In Limbaugh-Land, every issue must thus be divisive -- part of an ongoing ideological battle (albeit one that's part one-man stage show) in which no quarter can be given.

Hey, business is business, and perhaps we should be grateful that somebody is thriving in this recession. But a call for unity and compromise? Gimme a break.

Having predicted that the switch to digital television would be delayed, I have sympathy for all sides in the debate on when to turn the lights out on analog TV -- mostly because no matter when that happens, a lot of people are going to be sitting there with a quizzical look on their face.

The whole discussion, in fact, brings to mind implementation of the V-chip, allowing parents to block objectionable programming. After months and months of blather about it, I recall polls that showed ungodly percentages of parents had never heard of it. This told me that these are the kind of parents who don't read or watch a lot of news, and that they would remain ignorant until someone knocked on their door and literally implanted a V-chip in their skulls.

Ditto for the 6.5 million households -- or about 5.7% of U.S. homes -- that profess to be unprepared for the transition, according to Nielsen. Although that figure has improved, there's no way around it: When the change finally happens, several million people are going to be sitting there with rabbit ears in one hand going, "Hey, where the hell did my TV signal go?"

As a Los Angeles resident, I am relieved to see that L.A. is only ninth on the list of least-prepared markets, behind (or actually, ahead of) Albuquerque, Dallas, Houston, Tulsa, Portland, Salt Lake City, Memphis and Austin.

Having spent a fair amount of time in Texas, I can't say the fact that three of those markets are in the Lone Star State surprises me. On the plus side, even when their TV's go dark, folks there will still have access to their beer and their guns, so it's not like they won't be able to entertain themselves.

Least Prepared Local Metered Markets Based on Percentage of Households Currently Unprepared for Digital Conversion

                                                                                source: The Nielsen Company