Past Deadline

Another Report From the Scene of the Mel-tdown

The Mel Gibson apologists already have taken to the Internet and blogosphere in earnest to defend the actor and de-facto spiritual figure during a weekend of charges, countercharges, ugliness, explanations and apologies in the wake of his Friday morning DUI arrest. So I thought it prudent to interrupt an otherwise fine Sunday to try to set the record straight, if I may.

1. "There's no real evidence except for a couple of pieces of people snatched by by TMZ.com to prove that Gibson actually uttered anti-Semitic slurs, just the tabloid posturings of an unreliable website."

Reply: This, from Gibson's very own Saturday statement: "I...said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said, and I apologize to anyone who I have offended." Seems pretty clear what/who he's referring to, no?

2. "Gibson had a blood alcohol level of 0.12%, which isn't heavily drunk, just kinda drunk. It may have impaired his driving, but how could it have caused him to start spewing the alleged statements of hate?"

Reply: Very easily, actually. In fact, at that significant but not falling-over level of intoxication, it wouldn't come close to causing a blackout but would be more than sufficient to free Gibson's social inhibitions. And it's been proven that booze doesn't plant thoughts, it simply serves as a lubricant that frees the tongue to utter what's typically bottled up. Drunk or not, if the words ascribed to him are true, this is who the guy is in his heart, I'm afraid.

3.  "Sheriff Lee Baca told the Los Angeles Times that the idea of a cover-up is overblown as it relates to any attempt to alter Gibson's offensive comments in the official L.A. County Sheriff's Dept. report of the incident, and that the only legal issue is over the actor-director's level of impairment at the time he was stopped. Shouldn't that be the case?"

Reply: Actually, yes. Legally, all that's relevant is how much Gibson drank prior to operating a motor vehicle. His words only matter as they relate to his reported resisting of arrest. Baca is correct when he says the department's job isn't to focus on what he said but what he did. And I don't care a whole lot if a report was fudged and a mugshot withheld to help out a famed friend of law enforcement in the area. I'm sure this stuff happens all of the time. However, from a moral standpoint, what Gibson allegedly said during the incident means everything. This goes beyond the sensationalist media grinding an ax.

4. "Hey, Mel gave a full and quick and genuine statement of apology, which is more than a lot of guys would have done. He took immediate responsibility and didn't try to blame anyone else. It's clear he's embarrassed and is begging forgiveness in the finest Christian tradition. Shouldn't that be enough? What do we want, the dude's blood?"

Reply: It's true that Gibson stepped up and did the right thing without a lot of dawdling. But one could also point out that from a career standpoint, it was what he had to do. Anything less would have been suicidal. This is still about damage control. It's about getting this behind him with the least amount of damage to his reputation, which could range from moderate to severe (depending upon how things play out over the next several weeks/months). But an apology doesn't wipe away the words that purportedly exited the man's mouth. He's fortunate to have plenty of time until his new film "Apocalypto" comes out over the holidays to play down this dreadful piece of business with the help of numerous PR professionals. By the time they all get through spinning this, it'll seem in hindsight like Mel was just swearing at himself under his breath while the cops stopped to help him with a flat tire.

5. "Mel will get past this, just you wait. And he'll come back bigger than ever. This isn't a career killer. It may not even be a career wounder. At the end of the day, he didn't hurt anyone but himself. It's just a stumble. Good Christians do it all the time. God grants forgiveness. The rest of us should, too."

Reply: Oh don't worry, we will. There will be the obligatory People magazine cover piece ("I'm Sorry!"), the equally obligatory Diane Sawyer forgiveness-begging interview ("I'm just another recovering alcoholic..."), possibly even a face-to-face primetime browbeat from America's favorite cloying finger-wagger, Dr. Phil McGraw ("What in living hell were you thinking, Mel Gibson?"). The Mea Culpa Express will soon be chugging down the tracks through your very neighborhood!  But trust me that it's probably not even necessary. It's been less than 72 hours since the whole awful scenario played out, and Gibson is already practically forgiven -- in part because he's Mel Gibson. The question isn't whether Hollywood will let this pass. It will. The larger issue -- already practically answered as well -- is if Christianity as a movement will continue to embrace a man prone to drunken anti-Semitic rages as an icon. And again, my guess is yes.

6. "But let's turn this around. What if a renowned Jewish figure -- say, Jerry Seinfeld -- were to similarly disparage Christians in a drunken rage ("I own Encino! And another thing: you bastards can't cook brisket worth a shit!") as Gibson reportedly did Jews. Would he also be quickly forgiven?"

Reply: I'd put the odds at roughly 100-1, against. From what I've seen, anti-Semitism is considered a less serious transgression than Christian-bashing.

(Gibson photo courtesy WireImage.com)

For Mel Gibson, Opining About Jewish Influence While Under the Influence Maybe Isn't the Best Idea

WARNING: Strong language and profanity contained herein.

It's one thing to get pulled over and arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. It's quite another to be dragged off kicking and screaming in an anti-Semitic rage under the presumption that the Jews have somehow done this to you. Understanding that the man is innocent until proven guilty -- at least, under the old-fashioned notion of justice before the tabloid age rendered it moot -- Mel Gibson could well have done significant damage to his career early Friday morning by spewing a string of profane, anti-Semitic, sexist epithets after being detained for suspicion of drunken driving on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. But this is probably hardly a secret at this point as you read these words.

If the allegations are in fact true (as they certainly appear to be, particularly after Gibson released a long and apparently deeply sincere statement of apology today), this taint on his reputation probably won't be going away anytime soon. Oh sure, it will eventually. Just about every transgression fades with time unless your name happens to be O.J. But what's most disturbing about this whole mess with Gibson is that it seems to confirm a lot of notions about the man's true feelings of hatred and racist beliefs that had long been whispered. For a dude so sanctimonious and God-fearing, it don't look good.

Based on four pages of an original L.A. County Sheriff's Department report salvaged by TMZ.com from the scrap heap of a reported cover-up, Gibson was uncontrollable and belligerent after getting pulled over, launching into a bout of heavy swearing. There was an apparent episode in which Gibson began to bang himself against the seat and tell the arresting deputy, "You motherfucker, I'm going to fuck you!" There then followed a reported string of anti-Semitic statements, somehow finding a way to blame the Jews. (I doubt arresting officer Deputy James Mee is Jewish, or was put up to it by a Jewish cabal of some sort.)

Gibson reportedly said, "Fucking Jews...The Jews are responsible for all of the wars in the world," echoing a popular anti-Semitic sentiment. (I add here parenthetically that Gibson's father Hutton Gibson has long been a vocal Holocaust denyer renowned for his anti-Jewish rants.) This goes on and on, the arresting law enforcement individuals smartly using audiotape and videotape to corroborate what could prove a dicey legal situation for the department given Gibson's power, money and clout. At one point, he also turned to a female sergeant nearby and reportedly said, "What do you think you're looking at, Sugar Tits?" It's horrifying to hear the episode being described as it continued to escalate even after Gibson was placed in a holding cell.

At the risk of appearing to pile on here, what's most alarming about this meltdown involving Gibson -- an admitted recovering alcoholic -- is the man's profound level of anger, hostility and targeted religious antipathy. And the truth is that under the influence of booze, the tongue is naturally loosened to a great degree but the mind typically merely amplifies, embellishes and exacerbates thoughts and belief systems that are already well established but covered by decorum and correctitude. In other words, alcohol doesn't by itself plant the prejudicial seed. It only helps what's already in the soil to germinate.

Ergo, while Gibson said all of the proper things to dispel charges that "The Passion of the Christ" was anti-Semitic at its core while that film was becoming a blockbuster, this unfortunate episode opens that door wide once again. That Gibson has been able to carve such a spectacularly successful career in a town run largely by Jewish executives given the swirl of anti-Semitic controversy that's long enveloped him is a bit remarkable. And he may well emerge from this bloodied but unbowed and ultimately just fine. But in the short term, the man is going to have a lot of explaining to do.

Nearly everyone screws up at one time or another. Mel Gibson is allowed not to be perfect. However, he would be well advised at this point to go out of his way to become a more accepting, less judgmental, more open-minded and inclusive human being. On the other hand, the anti-Semitic stuff probably isn't going to turn the public against him. Too many of Gibson's fans no doubt even agree with him. And I hate to say it, but as long as his box office stays strong, Jewish execs aren't going to hold Mel's feet to the fire for this inebriated anti-Jew spew, either.

But the minute the man's power begins to go south, look out below.

(Mel Gibson photo courtesy WireImage.com.)

Yes, But They Were Two Really, Really Good Lines

A controversy of sorts is building over the fact that Ellen Burstyn received an Emmy nomination for outstanding supporting actress in a miniseries/movie for her role in the HBO telepic "Mrs. Harris." It's not that anyone has anything against Burstyn, a fine actress in anyone's book -- an Oscar winner no less. The problem is that she was only on-screen in "Mrs. Harris" for, well, barely a clip's worth of time. Her screen presence is literally less than 15 seconds. She has some two lines -- obscured by music playing underneath -- and is identified in the credits as "Ex-Lover #3." In the official Emmy nomination list distributed by the TV Academy, Burstyn's role is listed as "Former Tarnower Steady" (Tarnower meaning Dr. Herman Tarnower, played in the film by Ben Kingsley).

The question is how a performance so absurdly short can qualify for Emmy consideration, crowding out other, more worthy (and surely more substantial) roles. In this case, Burstyn would barely qualify for "outstanding acting moment." It would have had to stretch substantially longer even to be deemed a cameo. What it means, of course, is that Burstyn was nominated by a lot of voters who didn't even see the film. This isn't surprising, of course, given the large number of tapes and DVDs required in judging based on a popular vote. And indeed, the new voting system can't be blamed in this case because Burstyn's category didn't fall under that heading. Another question: why was she submitted for consideration in the first place?

Tom O'Neil, a longtime Emmy expert and columnist on the L.A. Times awards Website TheEnvelope.com, believes the Burstyn situation supplies more evidence for why more targeted Blue Ribbon voting panels are the way to go. "It shows why the idea of a more mass popular vote doesn't work," he believes. "You get too many voters who see the name of an actress they like and respect like Burstyn and they just blindly support her without even seeing her project."

It's also not fair to Burstyn, who has been put in the uncomfortable position of having to root against herself lest a victory embarrass the academy further.

Long Arm of the FCC Strangles the Spineless Broadcasting Service

The programming and policy braintrust of the Public Broadcasting Service met critics on Wednesday as the Television Critics Assn. press tour in Pasadena wound into the homestretch. And whereas PBS once was the standard-bearer for free expression on the airwaves, it now instead resembles a frightened, flailing child, cowed into compliance (and then some) by the threat of Federal Communications Commission fines for alleged broadcast indecency and justifying its own stringent self-policing as vital to its very survival.

You may have heard that a new PBS policy issued on May 31 and immediately put into effect requires producers whose shows are broadcast before 10 p.m. to adhere to greatly tightened editing requirements in terms of perceived profane language, context be damned. Why? Because Big Brother FCC is staring down from its 1950s-era high horse with a disapproving gaze. It's designed to guard against things like the $15,000 fine levied by the commission against PBS outlet KCSM of San Mateo, CA over blue material broadcast in the ironically titled "The Blues."

Mind you, "The Blues" was a documentary series -- from Martin Scorsese. But no matter. PBS stations can't take any more chances on fines, what with legislation signed into law that increases the penalty for each violation 10-fold (to $325,000 per transgression). And as PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger reasoned this morning, "The fines now would put stations out of business, and we cannot allow that to happen."

So in order to keep doing business, PBS is having to sell its soul. The May 31 edict now goes beyond mere language bleeping to require that whomever is uttering the words on camera have his or her mouth digitally obscured -- apparently to protect lip-readers from having their fragile sensibilities compromised as well. Producers have complained that the masking process is awkward and embarrassing. And of course they're right.

What's next? How about digitally decapitating the speaker so as to remove from the equation any facial movements that might be viewed as patently offensive? It's ridiculous, but trust me that it isn't so far off.

"We are only (blurring the mouths) in places where we can see very clearly the judgment" is the way PBS senior VP of programming John Wilson described it on Wednesday, which raised the question: How exactly does a human mouth convey judgment? Wilson continued, "Our current policy is to try to follow the zig and the zag here of the FCC.  We are now blurring the lips when you can see plainly, to a reasonable person making this judgment, that you can tell what they are saying. And that's on the advice of counsel. The FCC hasn't directed us to do that, but we are taking this route."

This is disturbing for a number of reasons. One is that it finds PBS running so scared that the pubcaster sees it as necessary to expend vast amounts of energy predicting the most radically repressive content path the FCC might think to follow -- and then beating it to the punch! Another is the notion that language concerns need suddenly extend to the eyes. We don't even have to hear the profanity now to be offended by it so long as we can see it. It's but a small step from justifying censorship through mind-reading. We know what that guy is thinking, and it's not good. That'll be $325,000 please.

The slippery slope being traversed here by public broadcasting is one of self-fulfilling prophecy, I fear, rather than genuine prudent restraint. It's destined to result in government bureaucrats dictating scheduling, specifically with regard to the much-anticipated Ken Burns World War II series "The War" that's earmarked for Fall 2007. With salty language uttered by the featured veterans themselves, the dread is that PBS may feel compelled to bury it in a 10 p.m. timeslot rather than the 8 p.m. family position it deserves. Right now, PBS is considering both 8 p.m. and 9 p.m., because upsetting Burns may be the only thing that frightens these folks more than does running afoul of the FCC.

In any case, both Kerger and Wilson vigorously defended their caution and timidity on Wednesday, vowing to fight the FCC but at the same time practically adding the caveat, "We're presently asking the FCC if they'd mind our disagreeing with them a little bit on this."

"It is an issue...of free speech," Kerger emphasized. "It is an issue because our filmmakers deserve to be able to tell their stories and tell them well...The FCC (needs to) understand that we are not talking about doing salacious work, we are just trying to do good work."

Some Web Servers Are More Secure Than Others

Why would Middle Eastern extremists be motivated to hack the official Website of a Hollywood writer-producer? That's probably what Matthew Carnahan is asking himself right now. Carnahan, a novelist, writer, producer and director and longtime significant other of (and father of a daughter with) Helen Hunt as well as creator-showrunner of the forthcoming FX comedy series "Dirt" starring Courteney Cox-Arquette, had his site's home page taken over by an unidentified group on Wednesday.

When surfing at www.matthewcarnahan.com, instead of Carnahan's credentials and samples of his work, visitors (as of 2:45 p.m. PT on Wednesday) were met by the words "This Site Has Been Hacked By...," followed by Arabic characters. There are pictures of a little girl wearing camouflage and another of the purported body of a six-year-old girl said to have been killed by Israeli soldiers, along with the words, "If You Stop War We Will Be(sic) Stop Hacking."

It's obviously very disturbing stuff, a jarring reminder that even wrapped in our little Hollywood coccoon, real life can occasionally pay a visit.

UPDATE: Hacked Carnahan site was taken down at 2:58 p.m. PT.

Alas, a revealing clue emerged later in the day Wednesday as to why Carnahan in particular might have been targeted by, say, a Palestinian group: mistaken identity. A screenwriter named Matthew Michael Carnahan (different guy, no relation) scripted the now-shooting Universal political thriller "The Kingdom" (featuring Jennifer Garner, Jamie Foxx and Chris Cooper) that centers on a team of U.S. Government anti-terrorism agents who are sent to investigate the bombing of an American facility in the Middle East. Whomever did the hacking may simply have chosen the wrong Matt Carnahan. This would seem to make the hacker responsible for this a hack in his own right.

Lance-y, We Hardly Knew Ye

Lance Bass -- gay? No no, stop it, stop it! From 'N Sync to Out 'N Sync. Wow. That's all I can saw. Wow. Wow because it so messes with my sense of the universe. Wow because it now seems possible that even guys like Richard Simmons and Nathan Lane could be...you know...that way. Wow because it now occurs to me that had Lance been able to buy his way into space, we'd have had our first admittedly gay cosmonaut. As it stands now, we have our first admittedly gay man to almost join the Russians in zero gravity.

Let me be the first (okay, maybe the second) to say that I accept Lance Bass's sexual orientation without reservation. His music still blows, however. And I'm wondering what was meant by the wording on the obligatory People magazine cover where it's described that Bass was "hurt by rumors." Can one be hurt by rumors that are in fact true? And if confirmed, doesn't that automatically render them something other than rumors? Just askin', just askin'...

Oh, and about Bass's contention that he is in a "very stable" relationship with "Amazing Race" winner Reichen Lehmkuhl (that's Irish, isn't it?), I'm wondering if it's considered possible to have a stable relationship with a reality TV icon. Doesn't that kind of go against everything the unscripted world stands for?

But I digress. Good luck in your new fraud-free life, Lance. It took some courage for you to do this. And to think that without the existence of People magazine, we might never have known. God bless you, TimeWarner Inc.

Hey, If It's About Them, Then It Isn't About Us! Yippee!!

I was speaking to someone in the television industry (these people generally don't like to be identified because, I mean -- duh! -- it's TV), and this individual whom I will call Rumpelstiltskin gave me some interesting food for thought about ABC's decision to aggressively counterprogram NBC's Primetime Emmy telecast on Aug. 27 with a broadcast of "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl." Rumpelstiltskin gave me the idea that there appears to be a certain Br'er Rabbit in the Briar Patch aspect to this thing.

Because the Emmy ratings are no doubt destined to suck anyway given that the ceremony is being held in late August, when many viewers are either vacationing or paying more heed to the barbecue grill than the television set, the embittered move by ABC to bury the Emmys as revenge for "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives" getting shafted gives the TV Academy an easy out.

"Hey, they put that damn Jack Sparrow flick on. How are we supposed to compete with that? I mean, sure, it's a three-year-old movie everybody's already seen, and it's of course really pathetic to be so vulnerable that even overexposed theatricals might trounce us, but that's something we'll just have to take up in committee."

Getting back to the issue at hand, an especially conspiratorial mind could go so far as to speculate that the academy all but goaded ABC into doing it, secretly instructing its members to shortchange as many ABC shows and stars in the big categories as possible -- knowing that ABC Entertainment chief Stephen McPherson can be a mite reactive and gambling that he'd fall right into the trap by using something in his program arsenal designed to give the Emmys a good smack upside the head. And voila! They couldn't have plotted it any better.

Anyway, it's pretty far-fetched, of course. But the truth is that without far, I'd have no fetched at all. However, were I NBC, I think I'd shove it right back in ABC's face by renaming the awards telecast, "The 58th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards: The Curse of the Blue 'Earl'."

Oh, and a final note. The Los Angeles Times apparently just uncovered a huge scoop: winning an Emmy isn't nearly as cool as winning an Oscar. You talk about crack reporting. My God, it's journalistic alchemy! How on earth do they manage to weave such profundity?

Never Scream 'PBS!' in An Air-Conditioned Hotel

So with Wednesday arrives the final two days of the Television Critics Assn. press tour in Pasadena. And it's just the luck of PBS that it has to go last. When PBS is in the middle, everyone has to stick around. When the pubcaster is in the wrap-up position, my guess is that up to 35% or 40% of the critics will head out early and skip the final two days of TCA. Whomever made the order this year probably isn't a huge fan of "Frontline," "Nova" and "The American Experience," I'm guessing.

Critics will stomp and shout about the dearth of quality in the broadcast primetime world (though we're hearing less of that this year), but that still won't keep many around to cover the new offerings on a consistently high-end purveyor like public broadcasting. Bottom line: at the end of the day, the masses care less about it. It's a major reason why the audience generally gets the television it deserves. Often that's pretty good, too. I'm not a doomsayer who decries the TV medium as a vast electronic wasteland. Actually, the real wasteland these days, more often than not, can be found on the larger screen at your local movie house.

Surely You Can't Be Claiming That the Lives of Unattractive Non-Blondes Are Worth Anything

At a TV Critics Assn. press tour session on Monday designed to hype the 10th anniversary of Fox News, a critic asked Fox News Channel chairman and CEO Roger Ailes why it seems that the only time his news service seems to care about missing people is when they're female, attractive and generally blonde (hello, Natalee Holloway). Are these the only humans who ever disappear?

"Well, I think you make a good point," Ailes admitted, "in that, you know, there are actually more missing people, boys and girls, in minority communities. We did two this year of African-Americans, actually, one somewhere in the Midwest and one in Philadelphia. Both stories sort of ended tragically, I think, pretty quickly. But we covered both of them for...as long as the story went."

But Ailes went on to make the point that in the case of both minority-themed missing persons stories, the network received less e-mail and Internet traffic discussing them than was the case with Holloway in particular -- which he ascribed to the fact that "parents are freaked out (by) a senior trip or graduation trip (as was the case with Holloway). So I'm not sure that (spike in interest) happened just because she was a pretty blonde girl. But as you know, as with everything else in society, some people have it more fair than others."

Brad Garrett Is a Very Tall, Very Funny Man

I only wish that Brad Garrett's new Fox sitcom "'Til Death" were as hilarious as he is. He's a great stand-up comic. I saw him in Las Vegas last year and he killed. He also killed -- evidently in a different way -- in May at the Fox upfronts in New York City, offending a whole bunch of people with what was seen as inappropriate humor for the venue. (Thin skin, I believe they call it.) But Garrett had no such problem with the TV critics Monday at the Television Critics Assn. gathering in Pasadena, where he charmed the uncharmable with some dead-on improv wit.

After having gotten into trouble for joking at the upfronts that he and Ryan Seacrest were lovers, the 6-foot-8 1/2 Garrett noted, "Well, we've been together four years, Ryan and I, and...no, that's really just comedy...It was just good fun. You probably shouldn't do comedy during the day is what I learned."

Yet here was Garrett once again doing comedy with the sun still shining brightly. Some of his greatest hits:

--About a new film he recently shot entitled "Music and Lyrics By": "I play Hugh (Grant's) manager. See, I have a weird film career. I'm very picky and not in demand."

--On filming at the same lot where some great old sitcoms were shot: "I used Webster's old car."

--After being asked to give a one-word answer for his opinion of the key ingredient in a happy marriage: "Attorney."

--After "'Til Death" co-star Joely Fisher noted that her five-month-old daughter is "perfect": "Well...let's not get crazy. She's cute."

Again, Garrett deserves better than the material he gets in his new series, which doesn't come close in the pilot to matching the greatness of his "Everybody Loves Raymond" role. Maybe he'll, uh, grow into it.

It Would Be So Nice If You Weren't Here

The above headline is actually the title of a great showbiz memoir written by none other than Charles Grodin (one of my heroes). It relates in this, however, to a very funny blog entry from Knoxville News-Sentinel TV critic Terry Morrow that lists the top 10 "Signs That Critics Don't Love Your New Show Even Before It Hits the Air" as culled from the Television Critics Assn. press tour in Pasadena.

#9: The publicist calls for "last question" during the star's introduction.

#2: The name of the show is "Everybody Thinks We Suck."

#1: It's on The CW.

I'll Have the Three-Bloody Mary Breakfast, Please

You can tell it's getting toward the end of the Television Critics Assn. press tour. Instead of building "writing time" into the schedule, blocks of minutes are now being turned over to "drinking time" -- before 10 a.m. And this is embraced as one very fine idea. When a panel session for the Simon Cowell-produced "Duets" got canceled Tuesday morning, Fox decided to move up the panel (previously skedded in afternoon) for the new comedy "Happy Hour" that came complete with faux cocktail waitresses serving Mimosas, Bloody Marys and Irish Coffees to the, um, working press.

At least one of the critics, Melanie McFarland of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, believed that this move supplied ample proof that Fox itself was a network that needed to admit it has a problem -- a hole that perhaps only Networks Anonymous could fill.

Maybe DMV Means 'Department of Mother's Vehicle'

My mother (85 years young, healthy as a thoroughbred) called on Monday to boast that she had passed the DMV test for the renewal of her driver's license. This was good news indeed, as the ability to continue driving remains her greatest form of independence. You'll know my mom when you see her on the road. If you're behind her, she appears to be a pair of tiny disembodied arms seemingly floating in midair. She drives just fine, if a bit fast. But her being able to pass the DMV test so easily should give one pause.

Here is how our conversation went:

Me: "So Mom, how did your road test go?"

Mom: "Didn't have to take one."

Me: "What? Why not?"

Mom: "I dunno. The lady behind the counter didn't even ask to see my driver's license, so I don't think she had any clue of how old I was."

Me: "I was going to say, once you hit your mid-80's, isn't it kind of a requirement that they make you, you know, prove that you can still drive or something?"

Mom: "I thought so. But they only made me take the written test. I only missed 2!"

Me: "Good job, Mom. But help me here. Why is this conversation suddenly not so reassuring?"

Mom: (Laughing) "I don't know honey. You worry too much. My eyesight's fine. I drive good."

Me: "Well. You drive well."

Mom: "Yeah, that too."

And we wonder why half of the people tooling around in front of us seem unqualified to be operating a motor vehicle. Nothing against my mother, obviously, but if people in their 80's aren't required to demonstrate their road-worthiness, who is? And not to get all crazy here, but the Santa Monica farmer's market tragedy of three years ago can't help but race to mind. I don't think it's senior-bashing to suggest we could use a better screening system, no?

But I believe what I'm really trying to say is, "Congrats, Ma!".

ABC Decides It Makes Strategic Sense to Try to Crush Emmys Like a Bug -- Squish!

So it seems that ABC -- its feelings hurt after "Lost" and '"Desperate Housewives" got shut out of Emmy nominations in the big categories -- has decided to adopt a strategy of, "If you can't join 'em, beat 'em!". In its knee-jerk wisdom, the network will now counterprogram the Emmys on the night of Aug. 27 by tossing on the broadcast of "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl" opposite the annual telecast on NBC.

This naturally obliterates the unwritten rule that you simply don't try to beat a program that after all is honoring some of your own. Despite the "Lost" and "Housewives" snubs, ABC still has "Grey's Anatomy" up for outstanding drama, Sandra Oh ("Grey's Anatomy') and Candice Bergen ("Boston Legal") duking it out for supporting drama actress and "Dancing With the Stars" in the running for the reality-competition prize, among many others. ABC hauled in 63 total Emmy noms, more than any other broadcast network. For those of you keeping score, this hardly represents a complete and total diss.

But with apologies to women, Hell obviously hath no fury like a network entertainment president scorned. ABC's Stephen McPherson was mad as all get-out and somebody was gonna have to pay, dammit! He made no secret of his being upset at the way the nominations went down and obviously decided to lash out, using "Pirates" not as, say, a sweepstime ratings generator but an object of revenge. Good business decision there Steve-O, blowing off one of your few valuable theatricals in late August. As long as the Emmys suffer for their perceived sins, evidently, it's all good.

What McPherson may be missing here -- in fact, what I'm pretty much positive he's not getting -- is that this doesn't represent any kind of payback with the TV Academy. All he's really doing is punishing his own network's nominees while at the same time showing his contempt for the competition. It's not the kind of thing that's likely to engender goodwill with anyone. And here's a prediction: once this petulant snit subsides, McPherson will come to his senses and change his mind for the good of his nominees, his network, his bottom line...and his reputation.

They Never Age, and They Will Never Die

My eldest son was not yet four years old when "The Simpsons" first showed up on the scene. In September, he will be a senior in college. That's how long this show has been around. It premiered during the elder Bush administration and all indications are it won't be leaving the air anytime soon, if ever. During his Monday morning Fox session at TCA, Fox's Peter Liguori briefly discussed the show that is the longest-running comedy in terms of years in primetime history, entering an astonishing 18th season this fall (and with a milestone 400th episode rolling out next May).

"I think I'm going to be dead and buried before 'The Simpsons' ever gets removed from our air," Liguori estimated. "And that's really a testament to what (executive producer) Al (Jean) and (creator-producer) Matt (Groening) and (creator-producer) Jim (Brooks) are doing with that show. It's really exciting just to go to their offices. They are as sharp and dedicated as they've ever been."

Liguori added that the much-anticipated "Simpsons" movie that's due to arrive in theaters precisely one year from this Thursday "will introduce a whole new, young audience to the franchise."

I'm conservatively estimating that the movie will take in $400 million domestic and $1.3 billion worldwide. As for the show, the voices are signed through season 19 and it's widely anticipated they'll be asked to renew at least through season 20. So that's three more years (including the forthcoming season) at least. Who would have thought that going through life with yellow jaundice could promote such unprecedented health and longevity?

Critics Take a Final Stab at Serial Questioning

By far, the issue du jour thrust most repeatedly at the network suits during this Television Critics Association event has surrounded serialized dramas -- namely, how the broadcasters planned to remedy the problem of viewers being left high and dry when hour-long programs with recurring storylines get pulled from the air early and saddle the audience with no closure and feeling all discombobulated and out of sorts and all-around sucky and...well...kinda like that.

Last on the firing line: Fox Entertainment honcho Peter Liguori, the affable former head of FX, who on Monday morning was immediately asked to explain why -- given the way Fox handled the demise of "Reunion" last year, often cited as a textbook example of what not to do to your audience -- people should be expected to invest in the new serial drama "Vanished" (an ironic title in the current environment if ever there was one).

Peter?

"I think that's a legitimate question," Liguori began, though he also could have said, "That's a redundant question, and why should I be expected to handle things any differently in that area than past heads of primetime? There was no problem because we didn't particularly care what viewers thought since we knew they'd come back anyway. It's only a problem now because you're making it a problem you two-bit ink-stained hacks! But, um...I digress."

No, Liguori said none of that. But he did have plenty to say considering the actual answer was, "Uh, well, we're not really sure what we're going to do about that. Suggestions?"

Liguori: "I think it's a question that we not only face with 'Vanished,' but frankly that the whole industry is going to be facing this year. Given the proliferation...of serialized shows, I think all of us have to ask the question: what do we do if these shows don't work? It's not an idea that we like to think about going into a season, but frankly we do have to have some plans that say: If these shows don't work, how do we wrap them up? How do we give the audience some satisfaction? And I think that there are ways to do it.

"One, you'd love to have an episode that does wrap it up. Something like a 'Reunion,' I think, is a little more challenging on that front as it spanned 20 years. But, two, even if we did a conversation with the showrunner and the creator and put that out online and had text on it, I do think the audience deserves some closure. And frankly, as an industry as a whole, I think we all have to start thinking about that...(The question is) when a bunch of serialized shows come out, will audiences now be really gun-shy about committing to (them)?"

So spread the word: the networks are now at least paying lip service to the idea of an exit strategy surrounding shows yanked from the schedule without explanation. At the minimum, there has now officially been some 'splainin. Because that's just how much the networks care about the feelings of each and every viewer.

So These Five Network Entertainment Presidents Walk Into a Hornet's Nest...

If you were a critic attending the Television Critics Association press tour (winding down this week in sub-Saharan Pasadena) back in the 1980s, the one network you always looked forward to was NBC because you knew Brandon Tartikoff would be there. Not only was he the most charismatic network entertainment head ever to hold the job, he was glib, self-deprecating, unapologetic, genuine and entertaining in his own right. There will never be another Brandon. And as we've seen once again during the current gathering, the present handful of presidents running the broadcast network entertainment divisions are more straightforward and generally guarded than they are jocular and/or quotable.

That's actually not to denigrate this quintet as a group. And it probably says more about the pressures of running an increasingly complex and corporately-driven enterprise than it does the individual personalities themselves.

Be that as it may, here's a quick look at how they compare (as viewed from the middle of a large hall in Pasadena):

Stephen McPherson, ABC: He's smart and energetic but also a bit on the bland side. Doesn't appear to have much of a sense of humor, which would seem to be an indispensible prerequisite to survival in this job. He also tends to take the Emmy nominations way too personally. If he wants to get into a scrum over who's been screwed over the most, McPherson ought to talk to the "Simpsons" producers (whose show has never ever been nominated for top comedy).

Nina Tassler, CBS: Tassler is a capable programmer, sharp and well-informed. She also tends to be a tad stiff with the media, seemingly caught up in the need to avoid saying anything perceived as wrong or insensitive. The result is she's not exactly a quote machine, if a likeable enough human. She got drawn into a little bit of a war with the critics over her seeming apathy surrounding the needs of fans left hanging when serial dramas are canceled early. She'll be better prepared next time.

Kevin Reilly, NBC: The most charismatic of the bunch, Reilly also appears to be the loosest and most relaxed with the critics. He's not averse to making the occasional joke (even at his own expense), which is like catnip to this group. He also demonstrates the commendable trait of standing behind his decisions, good or bad. He's careful not to overstate things, but you can tell that Reilly is dying to do exactly that, emotional sort that he is. Seems like the kind of dude who would take a bullet for the team. You've got to love that in a boss.

Peter Liguori, Fox: A straight-shooter with a smooth, easy manner. The smoothness might sometimes be mistaken for arrogance, but it fits his personality well. Liguori has the uncanny ability to appear forthcoming even when holding his cards close. The critics respect him, even if his quotes are occasionally more filled with spinworthy proclamations than actual information. He's generally a savvy and likeable guy who brings a measure of sophistication to this table.

Dawn Ostroff, The CW: Too often, I've heard the adjective "Poor" used in front of Ostroff's first name, as if she represents something of a sacrificial lamb heading up the forthcoming maiden season of a merged, semi-rudderless entity. But it often seems that Ostroff brings the underdog label onto herself by appearing to be a bit in over her head, such as during her TCA session when she made a passionate defense of enhanced "content wrap" advertising. Even-tempered and engaging, she'd be wise to do a little toughening up.

Somebody Apparently Forgot to Tell Steely Dan They Were Supposed To Be Flattered

The fact that Steely Dan is presently on tour and that someone still cares enough about the aging duo of Donald Fagen and Walter Becker to pay to see them perform ought to be enough, don't you think? But no! It seems that they're all in a dither on account of the fact there's a comedy out now that you may have heard of called "You, Me and Dupree," and it just so happens they crafted a Grammy-winning tune in 2001 entitled "Cousin Dupree" -- and they're just totally and completely convinced that this is not a coincidence and that they were shamefully ripped off. Because I mean, we know how screenwriters are all sitting around devising ways to commandeer the titles and ideas of Steely Dan songs that no one's ever heard of and turn them into major release comedies.

Seeing this as somehow blasphemous rather than, you know, mildly flattering, the Dan braintrust penned a rambling, manifesto-like missive on their blog (who knew they even had one?) in which they call on poor Luke Wilson to talk some sense into his older brother (and "You, Me and Dupree" co-star) Owen. Get this: they want Owen to show up at one of their concerts and give a mea culpa for his sin -- as if he wrote the film (he didn't). And if Owen refuses? As the Steely Dan whack jobs write in their blog entry, they believe that Owen "may be creating an extremely retrograde reality matrix for himself with his whole sellout moviestar game and there may be some righteous dues to pay, amen."

In other words, Steely Dan has lost its collective "we-used-to-matter-back-in-the-1970s" mind.

No word on whether Owen Wilson was able to contain his laughter long enough to consider Steely's, um, offer.

And Now, a Word From the Other 'SNL' Backstage Peek

Tina Fey has already let it be known that she is, for the time being, qutting "Saturday Night Live" as writer and "Weekend Update" coanchor to focus on her faux "SNL" series "30 Rock," as she reiterated during a Saturday panel before the assembled critics during the TCA confab in blistering Pasadena. She did add, however, that she won't promise not to "call up with an opinion or show up on hiatus wanting to write a sketch." And the man whom she'd be calling, longtime "SNL" guru (and "30 Rock" exec producer) Lorne Michaels, was sitting right there beside Fey.

Not that Fey wasn't going to have her hands more than full with her new gig. In fact, it's almost unprecedented in TV history that a series showrunner should also be its lead writer and star -- a trifecta that pretty much guarantees complete exhaustion and an inability at some point to continue functioning. And how does Fey plan to avoid such a fate?

"I'm going to go nuts," she admitted. "I think the one thing I have going for me is I do not understand the train that is about to hit me...We're trying to get as much done as possible in the writers' room now before we start...We're going to literally try to have the writers' room physically very close to the set so that I can go back and forth."

Ah, the joys of multitasking.

No Pressure, But We're Expecting You To Be the Next 'West Wing.' Any Questions?

Yeah, you know what they say about success. It's not underrated or anything, but the problem is then you have to keep being a success. And then the second you stumble, everyone asumes you've lost it, partiularly if you've once had an arrest for drugs and continue to be in recovery. Welcome to the world of Aaron Sorkin, who holds the hopes and dreams of a dreamy-eyed peacock on his mega-talented shoulders with his new fall hour "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" and who met critics on Friday at NBC's end of the Television Critics Association press tour in Pasadena -- which critic Tim Goodman of the San Francisco Chronicle has cannily dubbed the "Death March with Cocktails."

On a panel with co-executive producer and director (and longtime collaborator) Thomas Schlamme and players Matthew Perry, Bradley Whitford, Timothy Busfield, Steven Weber and D.L. Hughley, the esteemed, Emmy-encrusted "West Wing" creator talked about the anxiety and the burden that ride shotgun with great expectations, of being The Series That Everyone Expects To Become a Humongous Hit (and nothing less will do). But first, he had by what his own admission was a minor faux pas during the session in light of his drug woes of several years back.

He referred to TV's influence on asociety -- particularly that of reality TV -- this way: "I think it's bad crack in the school yard."

Whoops.

Sorkin, immediately: "Why did I use that word?"

Whitford, in response: "I have no idea." The room erupted in laughter.

Sorkin, about 20 minutes later: "I will go person to person, giving each of you $100 if we can just get that crack quote out of the papers tomorrow. It's an expression I meant nothing by. And with all of the mental preparation I did for this panel, that I was actually able to say that is beyond belief."

Oh well. Nothing like a "crack" crack to break up the room. No harm done. At least, not much. And the fact that Sorkin was back doing what he does best (an hour-long network series) is what mattered more to those in attendance than any unfortunate narcotics allusion. With apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien, this was "The Return of the King -- Primetime TV Division."

On the more important topic of "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" and all of those oversized expectations, Sorkin discussed the fact that the show is so eagly anticipated as a network savior that not pnly has there already been a backlash against it in buzz circles, there's already been a backlash against the backlash.

"We kind of maxed out on the pressure we put on ourselves, because we want it to be good and...listen, we hear the same things that you do and we understand that NBC has high hopes for the show -- and that's something to be proud of."

Yet at the same time, Sorkin, his fellow producers and his cast were loathe on Friday to make too much of the heat and outsized potential surrounding their show. They know that it remains just another unproven commodity that has yet to generate a single rating point, merely one of two backstage-at-"Saturday Night Live" homages (the other being Tina Fey's" "30 Rock") that is about to hit the NBC air with a massive amount of hype but few guarantees.

"David Mamet just said in an article about (the TV show) 'The Unit' that doing a play or a movie is like running a marathon; doing a television series is like runnung until you die," Sorkin said. "Everyone here on this panel has done television series', and they know that's true. There is nothing you can do that's going to make it easy that also won't make it bad. It's a very hard job. And everybody up here feels incredibly lucky to have this hard job."

Yes, it's grueling. As Whitford chimed in, "It's the equivalent of (making) 11 geature films in nine months."

But if the sassy, self-deprecating, flippant  "Studio 60" panel is any indication of the show's wit and savvy over the long haul, the show looks destined to be closer to LeBron James in terms of equaling or exceeding hype than, say, "The Sharon Osbourne Show." And by anybody's measure, that's a lot more satisfying than bad crack in the school yard.

Brian Williams: Not Just Another Pretty Face

Because he's a handsome guy, Brian Williams is underestimated and taken less seriously than he should be. He happens to be a terrific newsman and surprisingly glib off the set. But more than that, he's exceptionally bright and the classiest of acts, as he demonstrated once again on Friday before the assembled critics during an "NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams" session at TCA in Pasadena.

Exhausted from two weeks spent in the Middle East and the extensive travel that entails, he nonetheless could not have been warmer or more engaging. Williams also made clear that he appreciates the absurdity of he now being the dean of network anchors in light of the ascension of Charles Gibson and (soon) Katie Couric. But you can tell that when he spoke of it, he wasn't being disingenuous. He's a genuine journalist -- as he proved during his Katrina coverage a year ago -- and a worthy successor to Tom Brokaw.

The Life of Reilly Not Looking So Bad Now

NBC Entertainment chief Kevin Reilly, his eyes sparkling and the demeanor confident to the point of brash, met with the gathered critical multitudes Friday morning in Pasadena and spoke of how great it is now to be the heavy underdog anymore. The peacock's fortunes are looking up in primetime, there's now a genuine nucleus in place on which to build...and after three years away, Aaron Sorkin is returning to the NBC fold from whence he came.

Life is practically looking grand for a guy who had spent so much time trying to plug holes the past few years that the callouses on his fingers were thought to have become permanent. But this is a sinking ship no more, Reilly assured all. And he picked up the sailing analogy and ran with it, noting that his beleagured but rebounding network was looking as if it might find its way back to the mainland after all.

"I'm not going to make any hard predictions about what our ratings will be or what our rating will be next season," he said at the outset. "But I will commit to this: our ratings will definitely be better. We will not be mired in fouth week after week...And most importantly, I believe we have new series that will emerge as amongst the best on television."

I actually hope Reilly is right. I admit it: I'm rooting for the guy. He speaks his mind, stands by his guns and comes across as a real dude, not a corporate bean counter-cum-propagandist. He's not as smooth as a Brandon Tartikoff (no one was), but he has charisma and -- as we're starting to see -- pretty sound gut instincts.

What that means for the long haul remains unclear. But Reilly, after some treacherous waters and lean times, is correct that probably he's withstood the worst of it and now has the beginning of a success cycle to look forward to. He rolled the dice on stuff that no one else thought had much of a prayer ("The Office," "My Name Is Earl," "Deal Or No Deal") and is seeing the rewards of having faith in one's convictions and sticking by a show -- like "The Office" -- when the ratings dictated otherwise. Reilly didn't flinch and overreact for an old-fashioned reason: he liked the show. He now may wind up with the Emmy winners for top comedy and lead actor as a result.

Reilly also handled the assembled media mass with greater dexterity and charm than usual -- not that he's ever a stuffed short, but he's now clearly feeling his oats. And you could sense from both the vibe and the questions in the room that until and unless he does something stupid that causes the press to turn, he's got the critics on his side.  Talk about a change of pace.

Whatever Happened To 'The Show Must Go On'?

Back in Pasadena to start the final week's slog on the Television Critics Association summer press tour, I wanted to share what has to be the oddest and perhaps most disturbing (all in one) question posed during the confab thus far.

It came during the session promoting the new ABC series "Ugly Betty." A critic addressed star Vanessa Williams, asking if she knew that UPN had canceled a "South Beach" session back in January by telling everyone that Williams had suffered a death in her family. The critic wanted to know if  A) Williams was aware of this; and B) Whether this was the real reason for the cancellation, since -- as he said -- "some of us were skeptical" and thought it instead possible that UPN had already simply "lost faith in the show."

So what is Williams supposed to say? Oh yeah, I really suffered a loss, so it was legit. Next question. Here is how she responded: "I knew nothing. But thank you for mentioning my father."

Cue "Twilight Zone" music.

The real question here is what might possibly be served by even bringing this up. UPN is about to be swallowed into The CW. The motivation for the cancellation is irrelevant, anyway. It was six months ago. It's doubtful that Williams gave a second's thought to a dumb press conference in light of her father's passing. But that's TCA for you. Things sometimes emerge from mouths before the brain's natural filter can keep the words from being made public.

I See Wet People

I haven't yet seen "Lady in the Water" and I'm not sure that I ever will. A "Narf" living under a building swimming pool? It sounds way too much like "Splash Goes to Hell." Seems like maybe it's about time for M. Night Shyamalan to tell stories about things that happen back here on Earth instead of the deepest recesses of our imaginations. Sounds like he's gone a little bit off the deep end -- in this case literally -- with a tale of H2-D'Oh! So I'd just like to assist any headline writers looking to get a jump on the weekend and the stories of tanking box-office expected to come floating in.

Here are a few suggestions:

--"'Lady' Emerges From Weekend All Wet"

--"'Lady' Drowns In H2-No!"

--"'Lady' Sinks To the Bottom"

--"This 'Lady's' a Bottom-Feeder"

--"Good Night Has No Good Luck"

--"'Lady' Sleeps With the Fishes"

--"That's No 'Lady,' That's My Bomb!"

--"Lady' Spends Weekend Drenched and Shivering"

--"Weekend Only 10% 'Water'"

--"'Lady' Performs Nosedive

--"'Lady' Learns She Can't Swim!"

--"'Lady' Takes a Bath"

--"'Lady' Sent to Watery Grave"

--"The 'Lady' in Red"

--"'Lady' In the Toilet"

--"'Lady' Succumbs To Pool Sharks"

And finally...

--"'Lady' Swims the Blues"

Oh, and if the movie should emerge a hit? Um...then never mind.

An Early Critique of What the Forthcoming Primetime Season Hath Wrought

A friend of mine who has access to all of the new network fall season pilots -- and whose opinion I greatly respect -- checked in with the following assessment of 18 of them. Interesting stuff. Food for thought, even.

-30 Rock  is good.  Alec Baldwin is the reason to watch.  Tina Fey holds her own and they're giving Tracy Morgan some funny stuff to do.  However, the better show is...

-Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip  Great writing.  Great cast.  Not sure if anyone will care about either.  But this is one that I will TiVo.

-20 Good Years  Doesn't even have 20 good minutes.  There aren't 20 laughs.  It won't run for 20 episodes.  This is serious old school bad shitcom time.  What a waste of John Lithgow and Jeffrey Tambor.  Both deserve better. 

-Ugly Betty  In short, no thanks.  Two-dimensional characters in a world that I couldn't care less about.

-Notes from the Underbelly  Fairly well done.  Nice writing, good cast.  Jennifer Westfeldt is used well here.  However the pilot holds little promise for a series to me.  I doubt it will catch on.

-The Knights of Prosperity  Is one of the funniest pilots of the year.  Donal Logue is great and I laughed out loud more than a few times.  I don't know how they are going to sustain this, but I said the same of My Name is Earl and I'm still watching it.  I will TiVo.

-Help Me Help You  Thoroughly unpleasant.  I liked Ted Danson better on Becker, which I didn't care for at all. 

-Six Degrees  This one intrigues me.  Serendipity as a series feels like it could get old very quickly.  It runs the risk of being precious yet I was really engaged by this pilot.  Great cast and really well produced.  I will watch a couple more when it launches.

-The Class  This is a show that will make it through a season or two before I decide whether I will watch it.  It has no depth or originality but is well crafted nonetheless.  I won't TiVo but if I catch myself watching it by accident, I won't flip away immediately. 

-Till Death  There's a title that's just asking for it... and I think they'll get it.  Brad Garrett's post-Raymond shitcom is just awful.  Too bad, because I think he and Joely Fisher could be very funny together.  It will appeal to an older audience than Fox wants and not a very discerning one.

-Happy Hour  Isn't as good as Till Death.  A real contender for the worst comedy of the year.  This and Help Me Help You will be fast cancellations, mark my words.

-Men In Trees  Sex & The City scribe Jenny Bicks creates a show about a relationship writer who discovers that she's got a lot to learn about relationships.  Hmm, sounds a little like Carrie Bradshaw.  But wait... it takes the urbanite character and drops her in the middle of a small Alaskan town.  Hmm, that's a little like Northern Exposure.  Take those elements and add in Anne Heche as your lead and you know what you've got?  A show I won't be watching!

-Big Day  One wedding will play out over an entire season?  After watching the unfunny pilot and all the forced Father of the Bride antics, I predict a quick annulment.  It is noteworthy that ABC has abandoned its onetime bread-and-butter traditional multi-camera sitcoms hoping to bring audiences back to the half-hour comedy with these single-camera shows.  An interesting strategy on the heels of Emily's Reasons Why Not and Jake in Progress, doncha think?

-Heroes  Humanity is progressing into the next stage of evolution as people all over the world are beginning to develop various super powers.  It sounds a lot cooler than it is. 

-Jericho  A post-apocalyptic vision of a small Colorado town starring Simon and Simon/Major Dad vet Gerald McRaney.  It sounds a lot cooler than it is.  And it doesn't even sound all that cool.  Yeesh.

-Shark  James Woods as a high-priced defense lawyer who has a crisis of conscience and joins the DA's office.  Next to the skilled legal writing that we've come to expect from David E. Kelly and the Law & Order shows, this simplistic offering didn't impress me at all.  But it does have James Woods in the lead, so if they can get some better writing, it may be worth another look. 

-Smith  Ray Liotta in a somewhat interesting heist drama.  It's grittier and more progressive than most fare on the usually bland CBS.  However so was EZ Streets.  I didn't love it, but it felt like an admirable swing.  I doubt I'll watch it.  I doubt anyone else will either.

-Justice  What's the deal with these new legal dramas?  Like CBS's Shark, this offering from Jerry Bruckheimer for Fox is a pedestrian attempt to profile a high-priced, high-achieving, high tech legal defense team.  However they don't even have James Woods to prop them up.  If I'm any judge, I find Justice guilty of the crimes of being dull and unoriginal.

That Motorola Sure Knows How To Market Cellphones

I pulled this off of the blog of April Winchell, who may be the funniest woman in America whom no one knows is the funniest woman in America. Not sure where it comes from, other than April. All I know is, I want more. And I'm really, really sorry I missed the show.

When at Press Tour, Kindly Check Your Unbridled Enthusiasm and Garden-Variety Toadiness At the Door

We all need someone we can lean on. That became apparent to me the day I started work as a talent coordinator and segment producer for "The Merv Griffin Show" in 1985, during the seminal talk show's dying days. My job was to edit movie promo clips and conduct pre-interviews with guests, feeding Merv questions and answers based on that advance chat to ensure that the show contained no spontaneity whatsoever. What I wasn't told by my fellow talent coodinators prior to my first pre-show meeting with Merv was that you were never to try to be funny in Merv's presence lest he grow offended at the sheer audacity of your thinking you might succeed in drawing a smile. So of course I pretty much immediately launched into a joke. Merv responded with complete silence, literally turning his back on me. Once the meeting mercifully concluded, one of my fellow coordinators frantically took me aside and gasped, "Oh God, we forgot to tell you: nobody can be funnier than Merv!"

Uhhhhh...yeah. Thanks for the tip.

With this 20-year-old story in mind, I'm committed to being there for any TV critics who may be new on the job and taking in their first Television Critics Association press event (currently going down in Pasadena) with the goal of sparing them the same sort of excruciating pain I experienced when Merv put a well-meaning neophyte in his place.

You see, the TV critics have unwritten rules at these affairs, an ingrained code of conduct that first-timers no doubt find perplexing, not to mention unnerving. If you don't know how to properly behave, there is guaranteed to be embarrassment, admonishments, angry stares, wagging fingers and, in rare cases, the outright withholding of meaningless chit-chat. You risk being ostracized, isolated, gossiped about, possibly even placed on the TCA's version of probation (having your key access to the prison cell-size official association suite at the hotel taken away).

To guard against such public humilation and potential trauma, I submit the 10 Iron-Clad Unwritten Rules of TCA:

1. Critics do not applaud at any session no matter what! And when company drones in attendance take to clapping, critics are expected to assume the "Buddha Position" (arms crossed, legs crossed, staring blankly straight ahead, all of the body's muscles in complete repose). The louder the surrounding applause, the more blank and emotionless the expression and inert the limbs.

2. The more popular the star attending a session happens to be, the less outwardly impressed the critic must appear -- demonstrating a palpable indifference to the celebrity's standing via what's known as the "You ain't all that!" line of questioning and level of recognition. (Does not apply if the star is too hot to speak to and simultaneously breathe properly, such as in the case of Salma Hayek.)

3. When asking a question of anyone (executive, producer or star) on a panel, never address he or she by first name. It's not "Ted" but "Mr. Danson." You are not their friend. You are their journalistic overlord. And asking for autographs? Only if you want to be strangled to death. You are not a fan and are not in attendance to help them feel good about themselves or their project. At TCA, skeptical is the new curious. Always has been, come to think of it.

4. If you ask any question during a session that smacks of ass-kissing, your chances of ever achieving the respect of your fellow critics hovers close to zero. Better to let others do the asking until you get the lay of the land.

5. If you still insist on asking a question and are fortunate enough to draw the attention of one of the network pages who control microphone access, be as rude as possible. Jump up and down. Interrupt with impunity. Wave your arms frantically. Holler "Over here on your right!" at three-second intervals until acknowledged. Fall to the ground clutching your chest, feigning a heart attack. Then scream, "I've fallen and I can't get up!" or, while experiencing a miraculous and instantaneous recovery from the heart episode, yell, "I don't know about you guys, but I'm not gonna let these bastards get away with this!" If you don't approach this task with the firm conviction that you are the center of the universe and the other critics mere orbiting pieces of space trash, you'll never get a chance to speak. But again, don't worry about making a scene to get your shot. It's simply how this game is played.

6. If a fellow critic asks a question of a network executive that elicits a shifty, evasive, awkward, uncomfortable, testy or ignorant response, be sure to follow it up by asking the same question in a slightly different way. And then again if necessary. Be sure to work yourself into a hostile lather. Rinse. Then repeat during each subsequent network executive session.

7. Laughing during sessions is permissible, but it must be driven by the proper motivation. You cannot chuckle because you genuinely like the person and believe he or she is a stitch. The laughter can only emerge as a temporary, reflexive, otherwise dispassionate reaction to a single amusing moment and then immediately followed by a quick recovery and a mumbled, "Ha. Funny."

8. You can eat the free food supplied by the hotel and covered on the networks' dime but cannot appear to be enjoying it excessively. It is adequate sustenance, nothing more. To imply otherwise is to effectively abandon your power. The meals must be reflected as moderately satisfying at best. Regular and increasingly frustrated complaints about the poor quality of the gratis grub are encouraged.

9. If you speak to a fellow critic about the general news value of this year's press tour while it's in progress, it must pale in comparison -- using such descriptions as "sucks" or "bites" -- while recalling the quality and excitement of every past event. And if someone misses a session and inquires as to how it went, you are duty-bound to reply, "Oh God, it was painful. Didn't get a thing out of it. (Insert names here) were so lame."

10. If you try to sneak a "plus one" into any network party, expect to be fixed with the evil eye by many out-of-town attendees who are there by themselves. Taking along a friend or family member is not the politically savvy thing to do, implying that special (read: unethical) favors have been sought and unjust enrichment bestowed. Like smoking a cigarette in the bathroom in 7th grade, it is unlikely to escape the attention of someone with an ax to grind and will surely haunt you to your grave.

So anyway, there you go, newbies. No need to thank me. It's all just about giving back for me.

Betty's Still Ugly, But She Isn't 'THE' Ugly

In the world of network television, it qualifies as something of a big deal that ABC would agree to change the title of its new fall hourlong comedy from "Betty the Ugly" to "Ugly Betty" (the "the" is now silent and the other two words transposed). It probably required the tireless efforts of multiple consultants and focus groups to pull this off -- though as executive producer Ben Silverman explained during a Tuesday afternoon panel at TCA, "Ugly Betty" is much more in keeping with the literal translation of the original Colombian telenovela on which it's based, "Yo Soy Betty La Fea." My Spanish is admittedly a little fuzzy, and I'd originally translated it as "Dig It, That Betty Is Sure Into Soy."

Anyway, the "Ugly Betty" panel looked more like a chorus line than a Q&A session. There were 13 chairs filled with cast and producers scattered across the stage, including executive producer Salma Hayek, star America Ferrera (she plays Ugly Betty and actually isn't ugly in the slightest in reality) and co-star Vanessa Williams (who proved to be testy, making it clear she was unwilling to get into any discission of her personal life even though she hadn't even specifically been asked to).

There had already been some discussion amongst the critics leading up to the panel about the "Ugly Betty" title and whether or not it was offensive. The folks involved in the show shockingly chose "No" as their consensus.

Hayek explained further. "The title has a lot to do with the tone of the show (rather than a literal description of the brace-mouthed, horn-rimmed lead character). It's meant to be sarcastic, because Betty is not really ugly. And you know, I've seen lots of skinny models who I think look ugly, who really just need to eat something. We're just making fun of the fact Betty is supposedly ugly. I actually think she's beautiful."