September 2006 Archives

“Wonder Showzen,�? MTV2’s faux-kids’ show so ingeniously appalling that its producers requested five copies of my rave review of it, will soon release its second season on DVD. Thoughtfully, they sent me an advance copy and, as I was perusing its contents (which are so utterly subversive that attempting to explicate narratives and then explain their revolutionary goals and then further elaborate upon the fierceness of their social insights would be so wearying that it’s far easier merely to offer a blurb: “‘Wonder Showzen’ is a wonder! Your children will likely be scarred for life anyway, so let them see this to understand why!�?), I came upon what appears to be an homage to your Mayor.

One episode features an animated vignette concerning “Detective Dave Kronke, supercop.�? (It mispronounces my surname, ignoring the long “e�? at the end, but then, many people do, which makes me sound like a Disney character. “Chicago Hope�? employed this same sort of character assassination against my beloved father.)

Speaking of assassination, “Detective Dave Kronk(e)�? is murdered early on in the skit. For, I am aghast to report, humor’s sake. It’s as if a standing U.S. President mocked a discredited pretext to war while troops were dying. The fact that, in this case, the particulars of the results of said death is actually kind of funny, should not stem the outrage of the citizens of Television.

Your Mayor has been the subject of character assassination in the past, namely, about a decade ago, when a really unpalatable fast-food franchise specializing in gastronomically dubious fast-fare ran a radio ad about one David Kronke’s addiction to reduced-fat burritos (they did, at least, pronounce my name correctly). (And though many wonder, curiously enough, about the veracity of many of this blog’s entries – as if a political figure would lead you astray – I promise this bizarre entry is true.) (Well, except for the upcoming "Will & Grace" thing -- as if I'd own a late-season "Will & Grace" boxed-DVD set.) Robert Stack, of all people, narrated the radio ads; several people actually asked me if I was, in fact, involved in the promotion of said burritos.

The idea that I – then, a mere freelance writer – could be considered someone who could convince idiots to patronize a crappy Tex-Mex fast-food outlet was pure folly; yet I had to convince several friends and acquaintances that I had nothing to do with those radio spots and, in fact, had to request of the offending ad agency to pull those spots which, eventually, they did. (Though, in many dark moments of the night, I had to ask myself why my name was recruited to tout inedible Taco Bell fare and not, say, Mercedes automobiles.)

At any rate, your Mayor’s chief regret at this point is that he didn’t attend himself to “Wonder Showzen’s�? DVD earlier. When I visited Amoeba Records earlier in the evening, the employees were watching and laughing at “Wonder Showzen.�? Had I been able to name-drop myself at the store, I might’ve been able to wrest a dollar or two more from trading in my copy of the lame seventh-season of “Will & Grace.�?

Again, the above headline goes into my portfolio for that job on a mid-level paper's copy desk.

"Ugly Betty" debuted last night, nearly knocking "Survivor" off its throne. "Survivor" had 16.6 million viewers; "Betty," 16.1 - the most for any new series so far this season. Just as it was shocking when CBS usurped NBC's Thursday-night dominance a few years back, ABC's threat to take out CBS is more imminent that one might've guessed.

And now that "Survivor" has already merged tribes, it doesn't even have that lame race-baiting gimmick to keep viewers interested. Could "Betty" actually beat "Survivor" in the future?

"Grey's Anatomy" v. "CSI" became a horse race. "CSI" had 23.49 million viewers; "Grey," 23.31. But when you start noodling with demographic numbers, "Grey" won Adults 18-49.

In its second week out, "Shark" beat "ER," 14.72 million to 14.27 million, while "Six Degrees," to no one's surprise, commenced its tank job, losing more than half the generous lead-in "Grey's Anatomy" provided and another 3.6 million from 10 to 10:30 p.m. "Six Degrees?" It'll be lucky to see six episodes.

And The CW actually beat Fox on Thursday.

Sacha Baron Cohen, who at this point probably doesn’t want you to know he actually exists, despite having been in the movies “Madagascar�? and “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby,�? is oh-so thisclose to creating an international incident – all to promote his upcoming movie, “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.�?

Borat, hands-down the funniest character of Cohen’s Emmy-nominated series “Da Ali G Show,�? appeared in Washington, D.C. yesterday, mocking the Kazakhstani government’s wildly thin-skinned response to his movie. Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev will meet President Bush today; it was widely (if erroneously) reported that he intended to complain to the President about the impending release of the film. As is, Kazakhstan took out a four-page ad in the New York Times on Thursday arguing that the country was just a smidgen more progressive than Borat’s antics made it seem.

Which is all well and good, but here’s guessing most people are asking: What’s up with this Borat? Who really knows or gets what he’s about? (For the film, Cohen is only allowing interviews with his screen mask. And you know how your Mayor disapproves of those who hide behind a comic persona.)

Sure, his film was a rave at the recent Toronto Film Festival, with everyone who saw it declaring it the most hilarious/offensive/hilariously offensive/offensively hilarious movie they’d seen in years.

Not that many people actually saw “Da Ali G Show�? in America, but here is the indisputably funniest thing the show ever offered, and quite likely one of the funniest things you’ve seen on television.

In the clip, Borat attends a wine tasting in the deep South. There are many laughs, but three things are remarkable in this clip:

1) The inspired bit of physical business in which two men try to get Borat to hold a wine glass in the proper manner – by its stem. Of the three involved in this, two have no idea that they’re participating in a gag, and yet it works perfectly: Once they get Borat to carry his wine glass appropriately, he puts it on the table and engages the conflict anew.

2) Borat notes that the society’s wine steward is black and asks if he is one of the men’s slaves. They explain that slavery has been abolished in America, and when Borat approves of the region’s ostensible progressiveness, one agrees that the abolition of slavery was “a good thing – “for them.�?

3) Borat gets wasted – he downs glass after glass, ahead of his guests, declaring, “I win!�? Eventually, he gets so blitzed that he wallows in self-pity, informing them, “My mother, she never loved me. She tell me she wish sometimes she been raped by someone else.�? This is such a darkly funny line that even Joe Scarborough, MSNBC’s most engaging conservative pundit, quoted it admiringly on Thursday.

Hence, if the “Borat�? movie is remotely as funny as this sequence, and the advance reviews are correct, it’s left to us to guess whether Peter Travers or Joel Siegel will issue this blurb: "You'll laugh until some jihadist murders you!"

Ray Richmond, a man who clearly wants to besmirch your Mayor’s good name by calling into question his sanity, Swift-Boated me today with an excoriating essay. Amongst other things, he suggested that I am “clearly very ill and in need of new meds to keep his schizophrenia in check.�? I would remind Mr. Richmond that I’m not the one who briefly took a job with E!

That Mr. Richmond also described this blog as “oddly brilliant�? is cold comfort. Past Deadline, Richmond’s own blog issuing dispatches to the People of Television, relies upon keen insight, wit, erudition and social commentary to engage his fans. I might suggest he consider his audience and wonder aloud if this is the best strategy to lure readers.

Also, the readers he has directed to this site are apparently cheapskates, because none of them have contributed to my fund to update Sid Caesar's wardrobe.

Your Mayor attended another one of those self-gratification-o-fests Wednesday night, and although no trophies or plaques were handed out, the end result was the same.

Sid Caesar created TV sketch comedy. And for his sins, he’s trotted out every so often, in his infirmed state at age 84, to jabber in pigeon French/Italian/German to appreciative audiences who don’t realize how present in the moment he actually remains.

The Museum of Television and Radio offered an event Wednesday evening in which Larry Wilmore (creator of “The Bernie Mac Show�? and current contributor to both “The Office�? and “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart�?) and Mitchell Hurwitz (creator of “Arrested Development�?) were allowed to engage in Caesarian-section worship. Ostensibly, the idea was for Wilmore and Hurwitz to explain how Caesar inspired their own work, but that never happened.

Instead, they lobbed Sid the same sort of softballs I served up to him when I interviewed him a few years ago, and Sid responded with the sort of anecdotes he has become particularly adept at delivering, about how great his writers were (and they were), how great his “Your Show of Shows�? cast was (and it was), how great his audience was (and it was).

The night should’ve been called “Sid’s Greatest Hits.�? When he was asked a question that didn’t fit into the matrix of his legend, Sid simply ignored it and responded with an anecdote he’d espoused many times before: When Hurwitz asked him what network executive “discovered�? him, Caesar launched into a protracted, irrelevant story about his service in the Coast Guard. This seems to be a showbiz tradition amongst Hollywood legends: When your Mayor interviewed Jimmy Stewart 20 years ago and asked questions that weren’t part of his traditional hagiography, Jimmy responded with rote responses that involved a word or two from the query, discoursing about the “studio system�? or Hitchcock, the sort of answers he’d conditioned himself to cook up to perpetuate his accepted narrative to many interviewers past.

These guys have figured out what people want to hear and these are their answers, regardless of what the questions may be. This is hardly Sid’s fault, but he dissembled into desultory monologues blandly championing his writers, his cast, his audience. He was at his best relating the story about his legendary dangling of Mel Brooks (then, a writer on “Your Show of Shows�?) out a window; the audience applauded appreciatively, approving his cruelty.

But here’s my biggest concern: I’ve seen Caesar at a number of events over the past few years, and he’s always worn the same outfit: a blue jacket over a white turtleneck sweater. (On Wednesday, this was accessorized by sweatpants and tube socks and comfy sneakers.)

A legend this legendary deserves a grander wardrobe, one more in keeping with his genius, one that allows him to accept his deserving kudos in a different jacket every so often, a different shirt every damn time.

Hence: My appeal to the Good People of Television: Pledge a few dollars to my Dress Sid Appropriately campaign. Any moneys collected, I promise, will not go to my movement to Unseat Les Moonves; all dollars will go to provide Sid Caesar – who virtually single-handedly created TV comedy, for heaven’s sake - a snappier wardrobe: a black sport coat, for one, a sharp dress shirt. Some combed-cotton dress socks. This can be done on the cheap: I recently patronized Lord & Taylor and purchased a smart button-down shirt at a 40-percent mark-down.

Seriously: This man is a legend. He deserves comfortable new clothes. Help me erase that lame blue sport coat from our collective memory. Pledge now.

In its premiere last night, "Help Me Help You" squandered the generous audience provided by "Dancing with the Stars" (20 million viewers in its last half-hour), managing 12 million viewers. No new show seems to be clicking on Tuesday: "Smith" was off from its debut, and lost a sizable chunk of viewers in its second half hour, and "Standoff" fails to exploit "House's" audience - if Fox hadn't already axed "Justice" and "Happy Hour," "Standoff's" days would likely be numbered. As is, the show has taken time off to retool. As if that'll help at this point.

In response to today's article on "Lost" in the Daily News, a reader has submitted his incredibly meticulous trivia quiz on the show that should serviceably eat up the rest of your work day.

If you get a passing grade on this quiz (without cheating), you should seriously consider getting psychiatric attention.

People are still chattering about the Chris Wallace/Bill Clinton dust-up on “Fox News Sunday,�? with reactions predictably divided along partisan lines (Clinton looked insane/responded aggressively; Wallace asked a legitimate question/smirked aggressively).

(If you haven’t seen it – and if you haven’t, what’s wrong with you? – here it is.)

This latest Moment To Inspire Pundits Who’ve Neglected Their Rabies Shots reminds your Mayor of the time Chris Wallace had me on his program (cue hazy, swirling visual effects):

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on “Fox News Sunday,�? I got a lot of email, and I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn’t you do more to keep “According to Jim�? and “The Flavor of Love�? off the air? There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called “The Looming Belushi.�? And it talks about how the fact that when you allowed NBC to briefly air “Titans�? in 2000, Flavor Flav said, “I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of network television executives.�? Then there was “The Secret Diaries of Desmond Pfeiffer�? and the UPN Network in general.

MAYOR: OK…

WALLCE: May I just finish the question, sir? And after those shows, the book says ABC was emboldened to work further with the men who had created “Hiller and Diller.�? I understand that hindsight is 20/20…

MAYOR: No, let’s talk about…

WALLACE: …but the question is why didn’t you do more? Connect the dots and put them out of business? Certainly you were aware that that ABC was developing a series with Jim Belushi.

MAYOR: I will answer all of those things on the merits, but I want to talk about the context in which this arises. I’m being asked this on a Fox network, which has given the world “When Animals Attack�? and “Married By America�? and “The Swan.�? And my record on reality programming is well-known.

WALLACE: I understand…

MAYOR: No, wait. You asked me why I didn’t do more about Belushi and Flavor Flav. Early on, I went to what I perceived was the core of the problem, Fox reality development guru Mike Darnell. I authorized the Ministry of Television Aesthetics to get groups together to try to kill him. I was determined to keep reality programming from infiltrating the Land of Television. I’ve been at the forefront of silencing those who would pollute our air with lame sitcoms.

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?

MAYOR: No, because reality programming has entered the Land of Television.

WALLACE: Right…

MAYOR: But at least I tried. I wrote a withering review of “Chains of Love.�? And when ABC tried to pair “According to Jim�? with “Rodney,�? I panned that show, as well. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the television development executives who are attacking me now. I tried. So you did their bidding on this show. You did a nice little hit job on me.

WALLACE: Now, wait a minute, sir. I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

MAYOR: It was a perfectly legitimate question. (Poking Wallace) But I want to know if you asked Stu Bloomberg, when he was at ABC, how hard he tried to keep Jim Belushi off the air. Did you ever ask Gail Berman when she was at Fox, what she was doing to protect Television from reality programming.

WALLACE: Do you ever watch “Fox News Sunday,�? sir?

MAYOR: Nah, I like to sleep in on Sundays.

As expected, NBC 'Heroes' managed strong ratings last night, with every statistic a good one - 14.3 million viewers, No. 1 in the timeslot, significant build-up from its lead-in, viewership increases as the hour went on. Ladies and gentlemen, this may be our first bona fide hit of the season.

'Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip,' on the other hand, had 11.2 million viewers: Good, not great. But NBC'll take it. ('CSI: Miami' handily beat it, with 17.4 million at 10 p.m.)

And you saw this coming from a mile away: The CW's first new show of the season, 'Runaway,' was allowed to run free, since no one seemed very interested in tracking it down: 2.3 million viewers, a real tank job. The CW should've learned from The WB's disastrous final season, where it tried to lure not only its base of teen audiences but also older viewers with junk like "Just Legal" and "Twins" and got nothing instead: Same deal here. Now, since The CW had weak development and has virtually nothing on its shelves (a mere one midseason scripted drama), it's going to have to watch this timeslot wither and die for several months or add yet a third airing of "America's Next Top Model" (actually more likely: a rerun of "Gilmore Girls") or slap together another reality show really quickly, thus ensuring it fails, as well. So, the launch of a splashy new network: 1 new scripted show that'll survive and two out of 13 hours of primetime devoted to repeats. Fans of "Everwood" must be chuckling bitterly over their bowls of cold bile.

CBS's new sitcom "The Class" could be on the verge of flunking out: 8.5 million viewers in week 2. Originally, the network was going to protect the show, pillowing it between "How I Eventually Got Around to Meeting Your Mother" and "2.5 Men," but, apparently deciding "The Class" was the stronger show, decided to lead with it. This doesn't appear to be working: Plan B, which is the original Plan A, should be in the works as we speak.

And I believe the above headline suggests that if I ever tire of this whole Mayor of Television thing, I have a viable career on a newspaper copy-desk in a mid-size market somewhere in the Midwest.

If you had either Fox's "Justice" or "Happy Hour" in your Fall 2006 death pool, collect your winnings on the way out.

Both series have drained off a third or more of their initial audiences and thus have been cold-cocked into the state of consciousness known as "hiatus."

While your Mayor is engaged in a most very valiant battle with a head cold, we present a Greatest Hit from our past, from one of the earliest entries from this site, dating Sept. 25, 1953:

Greetings to all the people of the newly formed Republic of Television! As we deal with the usual birth pangs inherent with the creation of any great new democracy – unrest in the streets, unrest on the sidewalks, the odd CIA coup (the most recent ousting Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh – without eternal vigilance, Television could be next), not enough men wearing fedoras and far too many boxing and wrestling matches on the primetime schedules – we anticipate a future that will heighten the intellectual, cultural and social awareness of every individual. As it grows and expands in its reach and influence, under my stewardship television will undoubtedly emerge as the most positive stimulus in the history of the planet, surpassing perhaps even the malt-shop jukebox.

In fact, my duties are at present so pressing that I will relinquish the remainder of this dispatch via “weblog�? to my Executive Deputy Assistant, Lawrence King. King, a celebrated lady’s man who looks very dapper in suspenders, tends not to think in coherent sentences, preferring to pepper his thoughts in a fragmented, “bite�?-size manner. And while this means of communication will never find fashion in the Republic of Television – where the citizens prefer to absorb the full context of every issue, in order to mold informed opinions and not just half-baked, knee-jerk reactions – Lawrence’s youthful enthusiasm is indisputable and his insights are, well … Here’s Mr. King.

Thanks, Mayor, and welcome everybody. I gotta tell you, that Dumont network is a keeper! … But what’s up with this Ernie Kovacs fella and his complex visual style? Someone explain to him that TV is radio with pictures and not movies on a smaller screen. … I keep hearing that this Lucille Ball is a redhead, but you can’t tell it from my TV. … What about that Uncle Miltie dressing up as a woman – again! And not a bad-looking woman, at that! Berle really knows how to milk the toe, if you know what I mean. … You know what’s cool? How news broad-casters get to smoke while reading about the news. The curl of smoke really lends authority to the presentation. That’s a look that’ll never go out of style. … I hear that Sid Caesar is one heckuva nice guy. … Communists, shmommunists: I don’t care what the guy’s selling, Joe McCarthy has a presence that simply lights up the screen! He could peddle floor wax, and then, I’d have way too much floor wax cluttering up my apartment! … Hey, now that television is such a big deal, does anyone know if they’re still making books? …

A very great admirer of the Mayor writes in:

"OK, Mr. TV Critic Person, explain something to me: Why is is that you, and all other TV critics/reporters whose stuff I have perused over the past two weeks, are so obsessed/focused on ratings and shares? Are you required to report that stuff? ... That sh!t is boring! ...

"I start reading something about how 16 million watched this piece-of-crap show, and 13 million watched that other piece-of-crap show, tossed in with the shares and the ratings, and it all just doesn't make a damn bit of sense or even matter to me. Ya'all think you might be doing us a favor by giving this information, as you said, to keep us little people from becoming invested in watching a particular show that might be cancelled. But we don't follow that line of reasoning week to week."

Thank you for the kind invective, Great Admirer of the Mayor. A representative from Fox News Security is racing to your residence as I type.

And now, to appease you, here is the weekend's ratings report.

Friday: "Men in Trees:" Ehh. "Law & Order" v. "Numb3rs:" Everyone's a winner here, with both shows clocking in 11 million viewers.

Saturday: Not even the networks care.

Sunday: "Desperate Housewives" was the big hit of the night, but it lost 4.5 million viewers from its second-season premiere. And things look grim for "Brothers & Sisters," which lost nearly 8 million viewers from its "DH" lead-in and nearly 3 million viewers from 10 to 10:30 p.m. Lots of people: Not impressed. CBS's "Without a Trace" beat it -- and NBC's football -- handily.

Further discussion as to the relative interest of ratings as the new season launches (we're only tracking days when new shows debut) is invited.

... is it can make you sick.

A mere one episode in, and "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" already has its own drinking game, not to mention a piece of weak viral marketing that NBC may soon come to regret. The "blog" entries are blandly uninteresting, but the comments -- initially, NBC employees doing what they're told and playing along, but increasingly, ordinary people using NBC-Universal bandwidth to slag NBC, Jeff Zucker, Aaron Sorkin, Amanda Peet and so on -- can be pretty funny.

The CW is really aggressively pimping its '70s logo and that particularly ugly shade of green it's enshrouding most of its publicity materials in.

CW Entertainment president Dawn Ostroff, beaming furiously, exclaimed of the new network's ersatz chartreuse, "Green is also a very happy color. It really represents fun, happy. It really stands for a lot of what the network is about."

Your mayor, in a wholly scientific endeavor, searched his own residence for items approximating that same color palate, and this is what he came up with:

"Lysol Power Toilet Bowl Cleaner with Bleach: Brightens as it Cleans! ... It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling."

"Antibacterial Scrubbing Bubbles: Easily Removes Soap Scum! ... We work hard so you don't have to! ... HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS ... STORE OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN."

And nothing else. (That surprises you? Apparently, you have a very dim opinion of the Mayor's fashion sense.)

Getting back to our original point: Apparently, The CW -- home of "One Tree Hill," "Runaway," repeats of "America's Next Top Model" and "Smackdown!" -- decided that its symbolic visual signposts should come from toilet cleansers.

"Age before beauty" doesn't really apply in the land of Television, unless of course it refers to who's being shown the door.

ABC's "Grey's Anatomy" pretty effectively whipped CBS's "CSI" in their first showdown this season, 25.1 million viewers to 22 million. What really tilts things in "Grey's" direction are the numbers from premiere week last year: "GA" gained more than 6 million new viewers, while "CSI" lost 7 million. Somewhere, a very zealous TV writer is already pounding out "CSI's" obituary.

A clips show of "Grey's Anatomy" even did well at 8 p.m., with 13.5 million viewers, though "Survivor: It's Our Rancid Idea and We're Sticking With It" won the hour with 17.25 million. "Earl"/"Office" did what's considered OK for NBC these days, each with about 9 million fans, with yet more "Deal or No Deal" at 9 p.m. luring 10 million lobotomy patients.

At 10 p.m., "ER" -- the Michael Myers of TV; just when you think that finally, finally it's dead and you can return to going about your life, it springs up and assaults you anew -- won the hour opposite two new series' debuts. It began lucky season No. 13 with 15.6 million viewers. CBS's "Shark" had 15 million and ABC's "Six Degrees" had 13.3 million, but the big deal here is that "Six Degrees" lost a lot more of its lead-in audience than "Shark" did, not that "Shark's" viewer retention (not to be confused with water retention -- industry-ese is a joy to speak) was anything to write home about. More damning for "Six Degrees," however, is the fact that it lost 4 million viewers over the course of the episode, meaning many, many people just did not care if the guy who saw the girl with the kid was going to befriend the other guy whose brother knew a guy ...

Fox was hoping to be more competitive on Thursdays this season but it looks like it ain't gonna happen. Its lineup of "'Til Death:" "Happy Hour" and "Celebrity Duets" consistently lost steam as the night wore on, beginning with 6.8 million viewers and shedding half, to 3.3 million, by the time Little Richard and David Foster were done getting on one another's nerves.

"Jericho," CBS's apocalyptic new thriller, seemed to surprise prognosticators with a reasonably hearty 11.4 million viewers for its Wednesday premiere. It came in second to, of course, ABC's "We Say They're Stars So They're Stars, Dammit, Watch Them Dance" results show (14.9 million viewers), but helped lead CBS to an overall win on the night: "Criminal Minds" lured 15.6 million viewers; "CSI: NY," 16 million.

Someone must've abducted "Kidnapped's" audience, because NBC's new serialized drama only got 7.5 million people to watch. Of course, it -- like the network's "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" on Monday -- suffered from an incompatible lead-in, in "Kidnapped's" case, a two-hour version of "The Biggest Loser," whose fan base is thinning to anorexic levels. Its audience was only 7.17 million.

The CW made its primetime debut with a two-hour installment of "America's Next Top Model," which attracted its requisite 5.3 million fans. And now that the other networks have joined the hunt, Fox is beginning to stumble: "Bones" got 6.6 million viewers, "Justice," 5.6 million.

ABC's repeat of last season's two-hour "Grey's Anatomy" finale attracted 12.76 million viewers. So, tonight, the fall schedule's biggest battle begins: "Grey's Anatomy" vs. "CSI." And the winner is: TiVo.

We're not going to be doing this ratings update thing forever; just long enough for you to know which new shows you shouldn't be getting too closely attached to lest your heart be broken at their inevitable cancellations. So, Tuesday:

ABC's "Dancing with the Stars" steamrollered pretty much everything with 18 million viewers. It even dinged CBS's "NCIS," which stands up strong against "American Idol," but last night managed a soft (by its standards, at least; strong by most others) 13.1 million viewers. "House" had a similarly not-up-to-its-usual-juggernaut-standards 13.4 million viewers at 8 p.m. and NBC's "Deal or No Deal," forced into a placeholder's position, managed a mere 10.7 million viewers after doing so much better on Monday.

"Dancing" won the 9 p.m. hour, as well, with CBS's "The Unit" sturdy with 12. 1 million viewers and NBC's "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" OK with 11.6 million. "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" perked up at 10 p.m. with 14.4 million viewers, good enough to win the hour.

And though today's Daily News named "Standoff's" Rosemarie DeWitt as someone worth keeping an eye on this season, the ratings imply you better not get too attached to her: "Standoff" got rolled by the competition at 9 p.m. with only 7.9 million viewers.

At 10 p.m., "Boston Legal" followed "L&O: SVU" with 11.6 million viewers. CBS's new "Smith," even without those pesky commercials, managed 10.7 million curious sets of eyes. Not bad, but given that cast, you'd be forgiven for expecting something more (from the numbers -- and, frankly, from the show itself).

Tonight, it's the end of the world as we know it on CBS's "Jericho;" will viewers feel fine?

Three days after the fall season has already begun, the nascent CW network – cobbled together from the tattered remains of The WB and UPN – embarks upon its – well, “bold�? is too bold a word – experiment. Tonight, “America’s Next Top Model,�? UPN’s nominal “hit,�? premieres with a two-hour special. (Pretty girls bitching about one another for two hours – that’s how The CW plans to break through to audiences, even though in past seasons the show has done well to lure a mere 5 million viewers.)

Keith Marder, former WB publicist (and former L.A. Daily News TV critic), appeared before TV critics in July on behalf of the new network and wryly noted that The CW's new slogan was: “Two wrongs do make a right.�?

The CW essentially melds the most promising shows from The WB and UPN. On its face, this description should not inspire much confidence. That tired rubric, “synergy,�? applies here on only one night, Tuesday: Will “Gilmore Girls�? lure any more viewers to the perennially ignored “Veronica Mars?�?

About 25 new shows will debut this fall, only two from The CW: “Runaway�? and “The Game.�? So the new network looks to get ignored during its launch, as the nation’s TV critics will focus on new shows.

And The CW’s offerings are hardly breakout shows; at best, they’re programs that will perpetuate The CW’s previous incarnations’ reputations of being uninspired ratings grabbers. “The Game,�? about women voraciously dependent upon football stars, is mildly amusing – but, it’s airing opposite NBC’s “Sunday Night Football,�? which is all but assured to cannibalize “The Game’s�? audience. (“Sunday Night Football�? will likely turn up in the autopsy on one of The CW’s best shows, “Everybody Hates Chris,�? which deserves a chance to find an audience beyond the African-American viewers The CW has consigned it to on Sunday.)

“Runaway,�? a “Fugitive�?-style show about an entire family on the lam, will be hard-pressed to engage anyone, given its generic concept.

(The fact that virtually no CW show challenges CBS's premieres -- genious overlord Les Moonves oversees the progress of both networks -- underscores its overall underrated value in the grand scheme of things.)

So, we’re left with that question of whether “Gilmore Girls�? will inspire more viewers to watch “Veronica Mars,�? and that’s contingent on whether “Gilmore Girls�? fans are anxious to see Lorelai and Rory scripted by someone besides series creator Amy Sherman-Palladino. I spoke to a 13-year-old recently who expressed severe misgivings whether the show could retain the same panache without Sherman-Palladino’s input. And, sure, you’ll say, she’s just 13, but when I spoke to her about “Survivor’s�? segregated season, she was most thoughtfully appalled: “Are you kidding?�? she demanded. So if 13-year-olds are so finely attuned to a show’s incipient jumping of the shark, you better expect that the rest of the country will be watching the show with equal measures of discretion.

The point is: “Gilmore Girls�? could lose it this season. So its lead-in to “Veronica Mars�? could count for squat.

What The CW truly needed was a splashy, breakout show that declared to viewers, ‘We’re not content with mediocre ratings.’ The network failed that test. This is a network that is hoping for good results from the justifiably ignored "One Tree Hill." That's all you need to know.

Boy, the people at MTV Networks are hellbent to convince people not to watch their cable stations. A day after Nickelodeon announced it would go dark for three hours to encourage kids to play outside, TV Land issues this press release:

"As part of its commitment to Family Day – A Day To Eat Dinner With Your Children, TV Land will pre-empt regularly-scheduled programming and “go dark�? on September 25, from 6pm to 7pm (ET/PT) to encourage families to dine together. Over the last several months, people committed to eating together on Family Day have been registering participation at www.FamilyTable.info for their family, friends and loved ones."

Intriguingly enough, TV Land has trademarked the phrase "A Day To Eat Dinner With Your Children." Which means, one presumes, that if you do indeed dine with those precious to you, you'll have to pay royalties to TV Land.

While millions of estranged families will almost certainly use the excuse of "There's nothing on TV Land, so I guess we'll all have to spend some time getting to know one another," your Mayor has always advocated the principle: If you don't want people to watch your network, just run episodes of "According to Jim."

Tomorrow, I expect CBS to announce that it will go dark at 8 p.m. Friday, because a test pattern is almost certainly going to be more entertaining than "Ghost Whisperer."

Overnight ratings for the first evening of the new season are in, and your Mayor declares victory for ... everyone! Well, except ABC. And The CW, but, of course, The CW goes without saying.

Fox had a bit of a time with it. CBS and NBC could probably be a little happier...

But, victory! For all!

On CBS, the debut of "The Class" did OK, with 10.5 million viewers ("The King of Queens" did just incrementally better in the timeslot last year). "How I Met Your Mother's" ratings were close enough to last year's that they don't have to worry much. "2 1/2 Men" and "New Adventures of Old Christine," 15 and 12.1 million viewers, respectively.

But they were all squashed by the two-hour "Deal or No Deal" on NBC, which averaged 15.6 million viewers. (OK. I can't even imagine watching an entire hour of "Deal or No Deal," but for the sake of argument, let's say I can. But two hours? Of imbeciles guessing? Really -- your time is that valuable to you?) That led into the debut of "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," which averaged 13.4 million viewers, but lost a couple of million in its second half-hour. Which, given a lead-in like "Deal or No Deal," would seem to be a given: Protoplasmic lumps watching the no-braineriest show on TV suddenly confronted with bracing dialogue and nuanced concepts? Of course they're gonna flee in terror.

"CSI: Miami" handily beat "Studio 60" in the hour, with 17.6 million viewers. (Also, just wondering: how many viewers did "Studio 60" lose through NBC's arrangement with NetFlix to provide subscribers to that service with screeners of the pilot, so they didn't have to actually tune in Monday night?)

Over on Fox, "Prison Break" sturdily stood up to the added competition with 9.4 million viewers, though "Vanished" is turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy, with only 7.4 million viewers. ABC's junky evening of reality ballparked in the 7-8.7 million viewership range. (ESPN's "Monday Night Football" clobbered ABC, which used to own "MNF," by the way, with 13.3 million viewers.) The CW did not officially launch last night, though a special, "ET Presents: The CW - Launch of a New Network" wowed a pittance of 1.38 million people whose remotes apparently weren't working.

From today's Press Release Of The Day:

"On Sept. 30, Nickelodeon will celebrate its third annual Worldwide Day of Play by going off the air for three hours (12 noon – 3 p.m.), in order to encourage kids to go outside and be active. Worldwide Day of Play is part of the “Let’s Just Play�? campaign, Nickelodeon's pro-social commitment ... to encourage kids to participate in active, healthy, and playful lifestyles."

How many kids will mistake this for a "Let's Just Change the Channel" campaign?

While efforts continue apace to locate the rumored underground bunker/laboratory that manufactures the diminutive, dissembling executrixes that Les Moonves seems to prefer to run his empire (Nina Tassler at CBS, Dawn Ostroff at The CW), we'll cut short the analysis on CBS's 2006/07 season. Mainly because there isn't a lot to say.

CBS is in as sound a shape as a network can be these days. The network needed a paltry four new shows to kick off its season, which begins officially tonight with the debut of "The Class." It and "Shark," which finds James Woods playing against type as a brilliant, charismatic and arrogant attorney (the "attorney" part is where "playing against type" comes in), should do quite well.

"Smith:" Eh. "Jericho:" Ugh. (The latter's not bad, but a feel-good show about nuclear devastation seems a tough sell to the masses; NBC's "Heroes" also features a nuclear blast -- what is it about the current global situation that has TV producers thinking in such apocalyptic terms? -- but at least that one can be averted.)

As its shows age, the network that delights in empirically dubbing itself "The Network" may lose a smidgen of steam (we've discussed "Survivor" at length already, but any network executive would barter a lackey's soul for a show with those ratings, even if it's considered by pundits to be something less than an unqualified success). But by filling its schedule with slick, generally smart (notable exception: "Ghost Whisperer"), middlebrow (in the best sense of the word) entertainment, Moonves' sovereignty looks to remain healthy for many years.

An avid patron of the arts, your Mayor happily drove this afternoon to the exhibit by guerilla artist Banksy – happily, that is, until I arrived in the desiccated industrial neighborhood south of downtown where the exhibit was tucked away, and saw a line snaking the length of Hunter Street and pouring out onto Santa Fe.

Such are the hazards of staying on art’s cutting edge. We’ve discussed Banksy before, namely his inspired prank involving Paris Hilton CDs: I surmised at the time that his devastating critique of her lifestyle would be just the thing to force her into a reassessment of her values; alas, I appear to have been incorrect. (More on the CD later.) Banksy’s an apparently well-funded provocateur who enjoys such pranks as surreptitiously placing hilariously repurposed paintings in art museums; he’s not above spraying a little graffiti around if it serves his, well, vision.

But the reason so many thousands of Angelinos tore themselves away from the day’s pro-football antics is that Banksy offended some animal-rights activists by including a live elephant that had been spray-painted bright colors standing in a quaint living-room tableau for this exhibit. Those attending were handed a small card that read, in part:

“There’s an elephant in the room. There’s a problem that we never talk about. … 1.7 Billion people have no access to clean drinking water. 20 Billion people live below the poverty line.�? (A most astounding statistic, given that the World PopClock projects that, as I write this, there are a mere 6,544,778,901 people actually on the planet. Well, now it’s up to 6,544,783,291. Now, 6,544,784,023. I'm going to have to bail on the updates, but I guess what's it's suggesting is that enough people aren't dying.)

It continued: “Every day hundreds of people are made to feel physically sick by morons at art shows telling them how bad the world is but never actually doing something about it. Anybody want a free glass of wine?�?

Banksy, as the exhibit makes clear, has issues with the very medium in which he labors (a malady from which I can assure you I, as the Mayor of Television, do not suffer). And rather than, yes, crusade for the homeless, thousands of us spent up to an hour in line – longer than it takes to get on the Pirates of the Caribbean ride in Disneyland on a summer day, for heaven’s sake – in order to receive a witty, if firm, slap on the wrist.

That line moved with a spirit-crushing slowness. In one third-floor apartment across the street, a guy tried to sell those stuck there beverages, but he was none too swift: He dropped a can on a truck parked below his fire-escape balcony, then, giving up, popped open a bottle of Champagne, sprayed a little on those below, then swigged from the bottle. He disappeared into his apartment, his exercise in capitalism collapsed, never to be seen again.

I doubt you could gather those attending this event under one roof under any other circumstances. Though there were plenty of inked and pierced fans (note to all of humanity: Don't pierce your septum; the resulting jewelry looks like a booger), the cleancut couple in front of me – teachers both, apparently – spent a great deal of time avidly discussing a lesson plan that involved coloring in construction-paper M&Ms. A few people, apparently inspired by the exhibit, boldly engaged in civil disobedience – um, freedom of expression – tagging buildings along the street at will.

A man distributed a flier summing up the ongoing controversy: “While I am better described as an animal lover than an animal activist, I was appalled to read about the painting of Tai (the elephant) for the titillation of the art-going public.�? While I must right now insist that I was, in fact, not titillated by the elephant, not even remotely – perhaps because by Sunday evening, most of the paint had worn off, or perhaps I just don't have a body-painting fetish – it was heartwarming to see that people could get more distraught over the fate of one animal rather than millions of impoverished fellow humans.

After about 40 minutes in line, a rescue truck and two ladder trucks came down the street. A videographer, perhaps some TMZ.com wanna-be, jumped on the second ladder truck's back bumper as it headed down the narrow street. Some nervously wondered if that meant the exhibit would be shut down. I hopefully offered the notion that it was all part of the act. Neither scenario proved true; the fire trucks backed out immediately upon arriving, though the rescue truck stayed put. A shocking number of people were taking photos or video footage of the long line, as if they had never seen a crowd of people before in their lives. Or, perhaps, they were NSA operatives documenting patrons of an anti-war, anti-consumerism art show. Or, perhaps, they were NSA operatives documenting radicals attending, simply, an art show.

Outside the sultry warehouse in which the exhibit was placed, an angel wearing a gas mask floated above the crowd. Inside (after surviving a phalanx of security folks rooting out those who had stickers or spray-paint cans - they didn't want people to add further comment to Banksy's measured, reasoned artifice) was a hodgepodge of artworks that had been humorously defaced and some with iconic images bastardized or made fresh by propagandistic sloganeering (you can see them in the first link in this entry). Minutes after I got into the warehouse, Tai punched his timeclock and was herded into a trailer: I came this close to missing him. The problem of poverty, alas, had not been solved.

Actually, the elephant was hardly the most interesting thing in the exhibit. One room even hotter and sweatier than the others ran a film loop explicating Banksy’s ballsy exploits, including the notorious Paris Hilton prank. (Paris is seen on TV, too much: There’s your tenuous link for this entry in this blog.) While Banksy’s version of Hilton’s CD, with music by Danger Mouse, were unfortunately not available for sale, the funniest thing in the whole exhibit was a cube containing copies that were being fed upon by what appeared to be enormous Madagascar Hissing Cockroaches.

When I left, the line was just as long as it had been when I joined it, and there was less than an hour left before the exhibit was scheduled to shut down. And, of course, Tai had already packed his trunk and gone home. (Sorry to end such a long entry with such a lame joke, but after all the poverty stuff, it felt like the right thing to do.)

Given that NBC isn’t going to get clobbered by The CW this season (The CW won’t clobber anyone but MyNetwork, but then, some cable-access channels could clobber MyNetwork), the network has nowhere to go but up. It’s improved its schedule a smidgen, albeit with traditionally tough-sell programming. It’s not going to catch up to CBS or Fox this year, but if ABC’s new shows falter, the network some people call “The Peacock�? when they’re trying to sound in the know and/or just tired of saying “NBC�? might make a run at third place.

(Admittedly, even that scenario’s a tough sell, given just how phenomenally popular ABC’s most successful shows are and how mediocre the reception tends to be toward NBC’s best current shows. On the other hand, more of ABC’s new shows appear to be more readily perched on the precipice of failure – and ABC has a lot more new shows.)

NBC’s new shows are a bit problematic, as we’ve pointed out a few times in the past: The network’s most promising new series are in genres routinely rejected, with a clockwork regularity, by viewers. The first one up comes tomorrow night, when Aaron Sorkin’s “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip,�? the best new broadcast-network series, premieres; it and Tina Fey’s “30 Rock,�? both offer behind-the-scenes glimpses into those hyper-neurotic souls who fuel the TV business. That may fascinate those of us who live on the coasts, who are within cat-throwing distance of such vermin, but as for the rest of the country: Not so much. As for “Friday Night Lights,�? a slick yet soulful and, yes, pretty melodramatic look at small-town Texas high-school football (the book upon which the show is based, and the film which is likewise based upon the book but which more directly inspired the TV series, were both excellent; this, on the other hand, is merely very good) – viewers don’t tend to flock to sports-themed shows.

So, that leaves us with “Kidnapped,�? a neatly constructed Sudoku puzzle only with a body count, which is more than serviceably absorbing and has a decent chance of succeeding (unless viewers retreat en masse from serialized dramas, at which point the entire season will be an unqualified and unexpected disaster of Old Testament proportions). And “20 Good Years,�? which’ll succeed only if viewers really want to revisit TV’s worst impulses – namely, really, extraordinarily outsized performances that overwhelm anything the material might have to offer – of the past 40 years.

And “Heroes.�? I’m of two minds about “Heroes,�? about a group of disparate bunch of global citizens possessed of powers that – well, see below. My initial take was that the creators have kind of over-thought their premise. Of course, an initial scroll reading: “In recent days, a seemingly random group of individuals has emerged with what can only be described as ‘special’ abilities. … These individuals will not only save the world, but change it forever. … Volume One of their epic tale begins here…�? coupled with blather like this: “Why are we here? What is the soul? Why do we dream?�? would give anyone that impression.

But as the thing goes on, some of the stories of these disparate empowered characters – and the suburban dad who would destroy them (no, honest) – get pretty fascinating. The “Lost�? crowd should take to this, and NBC has already pretty effectively marketed this show to click with the geek clique (there’s a reason it’s the new show that’s generated the most Internet searches). That narration – taken, I’m assuming, from a book written by one of the characters’ murdered father (another sample: “Suddenly, the change in your life that should’ve been wonderful comes instead as a betrayal, as disloyal as a blush�? – it’s like “Desperate Housewives�?’ narration written by a New Age self-help nitwit) – still needs to go, though.

It was hard sometimes to tell whether the talk show within HBO's "The Larry Sanders Show" was intended to be any good. Few of the actual in-show sketches, or what little we were shown of them, were any good; they seemed to just allow Garry Shandling another opportunity to do that thing where his smile becomes a grimace so subtly you got to where you couldn't tell them apart.

All this by way of introducing "Talkshow with Spike Feresten," starring a former writer for David Letterman, which debuts tonight at midnight on Fox. Where, Feresten reminds us repeatedly, there's little or no expectations for an actual audience, just a random spate of losers who suddenly lost the gumption to keep pressing buttons on their remotes.

And this is precisely the show they deserve. It's something of a marvel Feresten made it to the air at all: Last May, at Fox's fairly disastrous upfront, he may have been the lowest point in a roundly criticized show: The response to his stand-up monologue would actually have been improved by crickets chirping. That he's on the air after bombing so thoroughly in front of advertisers, who would therefore know better than to throw ad money at a show like this, suggests that Fox could give a crap or is just clueless about late-night programming (this is the network, after all, that gave the world "The Chevy Chase Show").

"Talkshow," ostensibly, is a parody of talk shows, so a bit entitled "How to do man-in-the-street comedy" seems like it's supposed to point out how cheap this sort of thing is. And certainly, there are some noxiously unfunny sketches, but then, there also appear to be moments in which Feresten is actually trying to get a laugh. (That he's unsuccessful is beside the point.) So, as best as I can tell, Feresten is an anti-comic in the tradition of Neil Hamburger -- whose whole shtick is alienating audiences -- but, in the end, he lacks the courage to follow through on that gambit and therefore looks all the more miserable. When the show returns from a lame filmed sequence to Spike's hearty laughing, it's hard to tell if he is genuinely deluded into thinking the bit was funny, or that's the only way he can think to disguise his flop sweat. And certainly, it doesn't help that his mannerisms suggest a Xerox of a Xerox of a Xerox of his mentor Letterman.

Bits with celebrity guests -- Andy Richter tonight; Mary Lynn Rajskub in the future (provided there is a future) -- are likewise underwhelming and anticlimactic, despite the guests' relative gameness.

Feresten has already written his obituary, in tonight's vaguely amusing opening exploring the notion of a "Fox late-night curse," which resulted in atrocities such as the aforementioned "Chevy Chase Show." A narrator grimly asks, will that curse continue with "Talkshow?": “The answer is, almost assuredly so.�? And there you have it.

Just as another lie from our childhood is exposed -- that spinach is good for you -- so is the supposition that everyone in Hollywood is focused on their careers over all else.

Amanda Peet, one of the stars of NBC's upcoming "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," is pregnant; so is "Desperate Housewives"' Marcia Cross.

Hence, a season of lots of close-ups, of shots of actresses behind furniture, of women with pillows in their laps, of characters trading in their physique-flattering wardrobes for formless frocks and muumuus.

Patrick Dempsey of "Grey's Anatomy" is expecting a child, too; fortunately for his fans, that show's producers won't have to hide him behind a retrofitted stethoscope the size of a hubcap.

Last night's premiere of "Survivor: Montgomery, Alabama" -- er, sorry, "Survivor: Cook Islands" -- did OK in the ratings, but the segregation gimmick proved not to be the thing that'll put the kibbosh on viewer erosion.

CBS issued the obligatory giddy press release, which breathlessly exclaimed that last night's episode's 17.7 million viewers -- a not inconsiderable number by any means -- "delivered the largest audience and highest ratings in key demographics for a 'Survivor' episode since last February." Given that maybe about 10 episodes of "Survivor" have aired since last February, that seems to be an awfully weak selling point for such ebullience. More noteworthy is that last year at this time, "Survivor: Guatemala" debuted before an audience of 18.4 million.

(UPDATE: CBS released a final ratings number of 18 million viewers, enough of a bump to make qualifying and hedging and rewriting the paragraph above a bit of a chore. Still, to further stem viewer defection, the next version might consider human sacrifices.)

"Cook Islands"' crass gimmick, in the end (at least last night), was neither fish nor fowl -- the fowl were lost when that "Rollergirl" let them escape. Sure, Jeff Probst was anxious to point out a cultural stereotype (black men don't respect their women) and the show's producers are clearly accentuating any moment that race even hints at becoming an issue. But the contestants, by and large, to their credit don't seem particularly interested in playing along.

Meanwhile, Fox's new Thursday sitcoms couldn't even beat a repeat of "Grey's Anatomy" at 8 p.m. last night. "'Til Death" and "Happy Hour" lost more than 20 percent of their audience from last week, garnering 6.3 and 5 and a quarter million viewers, respectively (though not respectably), numbers that generally spell cancellation, though of course this is Thursday, where Fox has traditionally struggled. Its "Celebrity Duets" at 9 p.m. just barely managed to scrape past repeats of "My Name is Earl" and "The Office."

Wednesday: ABC's "Dancing with the Stars" (sorry; don't get it, never will) trounced everything in its path. CBS's finale of "Rock Star: Supernova" was received with the same shrug that has greeted it since its incarnation. And Fox's "Bones" and "Justice" are praying that the hit they take when the season begins next week won't cripple them.

MyNetwork's shows, "Desire" and "Fashion House," average fewer than a million viewers nightly -- that's fewer than a million viewers spread out throughout the country. So you have a better chance of contracting cancer than of meeting a MyNetwork viewer.

Finally, next week on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," guests include Bill Clinton and Johnny Knoxville, touting "Jackass Number Two." Actually, I suppose there should have been some sort of qualifier in there between "Clinton" and "and," because to the best of my knowledge, Clinton is not also promoting "Jackass Number Two." But where, outside of right-wing blogs, do you get the chance to see the words "Bill Clinton" and "Jackass" in the same sentence?

Well, Stephen Colbert's heroes managed their assignment quite well. On tonight's "The Colbert Report," he announced that the winner of an online vote to name a Hungarian bridge was: Stephen Colbert.

This is news so fresh that not even his fan site has it up yet, though give them time. There may be a hitch, however: Colbert was told tonight that in Hungary, bridges are only named after dead people.

No other TV performer has figured out the possibilities of Internet interactivity with fans like Colbert. Consider his Wikipedia prank or his current contest inviting fans to alter some greenscreen footage of him with a light sabre. A good number of TV series and performers could learn something from Colbert, though they'd probably never be as funny about it.

Your devoted Mayor has already issued a proclamation to his dedicated constituency as to Mike Judge’s satire of America’s imbecilic future, “Idiocracy,�? which its studio was doing its utmost to bury. Said film imagines America a half-millenium in the future, where the TV show “Ow! My balls!�? is the No. 1 hit.

We hereby wish to clarify that film’s prescience. In the coming dark days, Showtime’s “The Underground�? will clearly appeal more to lobotomized viewers. "Ow! My Balls!" is nuanced by comparison. We apologize for any confusion this may have inspired.

Anyone wishing to see “Idiocracy�? better do so today; Fox will surely vacuum it from our collective memories by Friday.

The Good People of Television are in talks with Nancy Grace to serve as our Attorney General. Because, well, she may be needing a new job soon.

Grace not only ran her bullying interview with a woman whose 2-year-old son had disappeared after the woman had committed suicide, she offered the woman's suicide -- two hours after her phone interview with Grace -- as a selling point for her story. That’s cajones that even Stephen Colbert can’t boast.

I think it can be said that the jury’s in; Grace is guilty as charged; string ’er up. But as Attorney General of the Land of Television, Nancy with the Snarling Eyes would certainly reduce the number of cases that go to trial and, therefore, the cost to taxpayers.

Your Mayor had the privilege to appear Ms. Grace’s CNN Headline News program. Herewith, the transcript:

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

NANCY GRACE, HOST: It’s been called one of the most heinous crimes of the century: The assassination of John F. Kennedy. We have tracked down new evidence that may force the re-opening of this landmark case. With me now, The Mayor of Television. Mr. Mayor, sit down. Sit down.

MAYOR: Uh, Nancy, why am I here?

GRACE: I ask the questions here, Bubba. Is it true you once lived in Dallas?

MAYOR: Yes…

GRACE: The same exact city in which John F. Kennedy was murdered, correct?

MAYOR: Yes, but…

GRACE: What, you’re going to say Kennedy wasn’t killed in Dallas?

MAYOR: No, but I lived there in the ’80s. Uh…

GRACE: And I guess there’s just no such thing as vacations or traveling about the country, is there?

MAYOR: Well…

GRACE: And you held a rifle when you were in Dallas, did you not?

MAYOR: Well, that’s true, although it was more north of Dallas, in McKinney…

GRACE: Splitting hairs. Quit ducking my questions. What were you doing the day of November 23, 1963?

MAYOR: Mmm, I can’t really remember…

GRACE: Oh, that’s convenient. Honestly, Mr. Mayor, that’s the oldest out in the book. You’re going to have to do much better than that to elude my exquisite grilling of you.

MAYOR: Nancy, I was two years old in 1963. I couldn’t…

GRACE: Boy, it’s every excuse in the book for you, isn’t it? I’m sick of your evasions.

MAYOR: But Oliver Stone proved – he proved – well – The Warren Commission found –

GRACE: You’re beneath contempt. Get out of my studio and run. Run, before the authorities figure out what I already know.

And, dear constituents, I did. Run I did. Because by the end of the interview Ms. Grace appeared to be salivating, and I'm pretty sure I saw a knife and fork in her jacket pocket.

When the Good People of Television periodically run out of awards to give to one another, our preferred fallback pastime is getting on panels and talking about ourselves.

And so it was today, when your faithful Mayor was invited to attend the Hollywood Radio & Television Society's Newsmaker Luncheon, featuring CBS CEO Les Moonves in conversation with talk-show host Charlie Rose, who was multi-tasking (he taped the discussion for airing at a future date, perhaps as early as tomorrow night). The Mayor was honored to be a guest of the HRTS, but really, guys: Table 79?

Moonves, of course, is a favorite of those who cover the semiannual Television Press Tour: He's funny and he's caustic; alas, CBS has somewhat muzzled Moonves, giving his executive-session chores over to the assiduously bland Nina Tassler. Fox's Peter Liguori is now the straightest-shooter of network entertainment presidents, but he doesn't slag the competition enough.

Much of the conversation was given over to things Moonves has said before: "Katie Couric brings accessibility" to the new evening newscast (maybe, but she's already lost more than half her audience from last Tuesday), "Julie Chen is phenomenal" (I think he was referring to her work on "The Early Show"), "It's the story" that's important in creating television, "You still need that content" whether you're a broadcast network, cable channel or broadband internet outlet and so on.

Moonves admitted that during CBS's trudge through the dark days of Memogate, "Things couldn't possibly have been worse for (CBS News employees) at that time," but that was by way of contrasting the Couric-fueled mood today: "Now, we are competitive. That's all you can ask for. Morale is high." Couric was brought in, he said, because the average evening newscast viewer is 60 -- "That means, in a few years, they could be dead," he pointed out diplomatically; Couric hopes to draw younger viewers, "and by younger, I mean 47."

This year's TV development was across-the-board better, Moonves crowed; "Best development year in decades." Why? Rose asked. "If I knew the answer to that, I'd be very rich," Les replied. The requisite, perfectly timed beat. "I am very rich."

Charlie told Les, "You seem to be a bit cocky." Um, Charlie: It's Les Moonves.

At one point, Rose got Moonves to stop talking so he could finish a question, something I had not seen a journalist manage before. Nor had the audience, which laughed at the anomaly. Later, though, Charlie got a little too fawning: "You get up in the morning and you're excited about the day." Not a question really, just an intimation that Rose knows a little more about Moonves' mornings than anyone previously suspected.

It was moments like that, not to mention the copious questions about Wall Street and Rose's incessant name-checking of MySpace and YouTube and Google, that I had trouble focusing; the four or six glasses of wine may not have helped. (But before you scoff and say, "Ah, the Mayor cannot hold his alcohol," let me point out that at the Mayor's mansion, there is no bottle of wine with a vintage younger than 1998, while the grog set out at the table -- odd that the wait staff didn't provide anyone else at my table with a bottle -- was a 2004. Practically Thunderbird. My cultivated palate wasn't prepared for such uncouth grapes.)

Woozy, I looked down at my pen, and noticed that it sported NBC's peacock logo. In my hazy state, I began to fear that I had been transformed into some sort of "Manchurian Candidate" hitman without my knowledge or cooperation, and, quite likely, the man responsible was Jeff Zucker, who no doubt wanted Moonves dead. Desperately shaking the cobwebs from my brain, I realized that Moonves hadn't taunted Zucker in quite some time, and that not even an NBC executive would leave behind such damning evidence, so I concluded that the real puppet master manipulating my actions was former Viacom executive Tom Freston, who had been engaged in a power struggle with Moonves until his ouster last week, and was diabolically framing Zucker.

I then realized I had no weapon with which to perform the task for which I had been dispatched. I considered my butter knife, but it had salad dressing upon it and Les was wearing too nice a tie to get dirty. I decided to improvise, and lunged toward the stage, hoping the NBC pen was perhaps a gun in disguise.

"Que?" blurted my bodyguard, one I had hired away from a Panamanian strongman or two ago. "Que pasa? Put that pen down! Are you loco?" (I had trained my bodyguard to speak like all Latino characters on TV -- using Spanish only where even the dimmest viewers could figure out what they're saying, and English at all other times.)

I was wrestled down at table 77 before I reached the stage. After several indignant, well-pitched cries of "Don't you know who I am?", order was restored, and I was released on my own cognizance.

"Path to 9/11"-style disclaimer after the jump.

It’s the proverbial Dickensian best/worst of times at ABC these days: Its hits (“Lost,�? “Grey’s Anatomy,�? “Desperate Housewives�? are positively powerful; most of the rest of the schedule, pretty puny. (If the network hadn’t renewed the low-rated “What About Brian,�? it would’ve gone 0-for-2005 in scripted series.) So ABC Entertainment president Stephen McPherson took a huge gamble and will launch 10 new scripted series between tonight and November.

The fun, relatively speaking, begins tonight with “Men in Trees,�? which stars Anne Heche as a self-help relationship guru who realizes she actually understands very little about men – only after she discovers her fiancé’s infidelity. (The show moves to its regular timeslot on Friday.) It’s seeking the quirky charm of “Northern Exposure.�? I’m not persuaded it fully finds it.

But ABC has a lot of new guns in its fall arsenal. Critics so far seem to be most seduced by “Ugly Betty�? – starring the winning America Ferrara in what looks like a deft “Devil Wears Prada�? ripoff but is, in fact, the sixth or so remake of a famous telenovela – executive-produced by Salma Hayek, who’ll appear occasionally in hilarious glimpses of Betty’s own favorite and way-over-the-top telenovela. Tough timeslot, however: Thursdays at 8 p.m.

ABC has likewise made a bold, perhaps even foolhardy, move in devoting so much of its airtime to strenuously serialized fare, such as “The Nine,�? “Day Break,�? “Six Degrees�? and even most of its new sitcoms. Its current hits cited above are all serials, and every one of the new shows that connect will be considered appointment television. Those that fail, however, could kill their timeslots for the season.

Of them, the best seems to be “The Nine,�? about strangers who establish a symbiotic link with one another after surviving a 52-hour hostage crisis after a botched bank heist. (Too bad they didn’t have the kids from Fox’s “Standoff�? manning the negotiations; they seem to knock off two similar situations an episode, while the particulars of this one will take the entire season to fully suss out). Its characters are all intriguing; it’s appropriately moody. The one caveat is that all the characters already know what happened, and the writers will only allow this information out in dribs and drabs over the course of the season, which is kind of a storytelling cheat when it comes to a TV series. It helps that “The Nine�? follows “Lost�? on Wednesdays, though that didn’t sufficiently help “Invasion�? last season.

“Day Break�? – which will take “Lost’s timeslot in November and run straight through for its initial order of 13 seasons – is a even trickier proposition, though if executed properly could result in a really cool show. It’s been glibly dubbed “The Fugitive�? meets “Groundhog Day:�? Taye Diggs stars as a cop framed for murder; every morning, he wakes up to find himself stuck in the same day, though armed with the information from previous days, allowing him to alter his routine with each passing day and, presumably, solve the crime. What’s problematic is that viewers may have to pay such close attention to the show to figure out what Diggs is up to that casual viewers may throw up their hands in exasperation. With so many new shows demanding so much of viewers’ discerning (as opposed to distracted) attentions, how much can we reasonably allot to each program?

“Six Degrees�? is a special pup, perhaps as un-high-concept as network TV gets. (Of all the 30 or so new shows unveiled at May’s upfront presentations, it was the only one that, after viewing its cut-down, I had absolutely no idea what it was about.) It charts the experiences of six strangers, and how they interconnect in unexpected fashions, ways the characters themselves don’t even realize. On a purely commercial level, it simply appears to be a concept too ethereal to play well to the sort of mass audience a network needs to lure (except, perhaps, ABC at 10 p.m. Thursday). But I also just sort of found it kind of incorrigibly self-satisfied with its own brand of ersatz mysticism, or, to be more blunt, just kind of unnecessarily pretentious. In my above-linked story on the proliferation of serialized dramas, series co-creator Stuart Zicherman says, “We’ve created what we like to call six shows.�? Well, six shows that clearly weren’t strong enough to stand on their own; we’ll see if super-gluing them all together results in something more trenchant.

But the new ABC show I really disliked was “Brothers & Sisters,�? which, despite an impressive cast (Sally Field, Rachel Griffiths, Calista Flockhart, Ron Rifkind, etc.), felt like a stab at an HBO drama, only written by robots. And robots that routinely and irritatingly freeze up on buggy Microsoft software (is that a redundancy?), and need frequent rebooting.

In the recent past, ABC’s sitcoms have been lamentable in so many ways. This season, except for “Notes from the Underbelly,�? highlighting a crushingly bland principal couple, I kind of liked them (in some cases, to be fair, I was in the distinct minority). “Big Day�? is a “24�? parody, set against the far-less-high-stakes background of a wedding day; its characters, however, consider the stakes just as desperate as any crisis situation Jack Bauer lands himself in. “Knights of Prosperity�? focuses on some doofuses (doofi?) on a quixotic quest to break into Mick Jagger’s Manhattan condo and roll off with his treasures. “Help Me Help You�? follows obliquely in the tradition of “Frasier�? and “The Bob Newhart Show,�? upping the ante a smidge by making its resident shrink (Ted Danson) at least as lunatic as his patients.

Hence, this year, ABC trots out the most adventurous slate of new shows of any network (too frequently in the past, they offered the safest new shows), programs that will clearly divide viewers. If three of these shows do well enough to merit renewal, McPherson no doubt would be thrilled. Mark Costello’s recent novel was titled: “Big If.�? Regardless, next season, McPherson would be well advised to offer viewers a lot fewer time-commitment-heavy series.

Last night, ABC's disturbing, much-maligned "Path to 9/11" and a repeat of CBS's grim, Emmy-winning documentary "9/11" were taken in by almost exactly the same number of viewers -- each had an 8.2 rating and a 12 share, translating roughly into 9, perhaps up to 11, million viewers. (No, honestly: each rating point reflects 1.1 million households, and then, eventually they figure out just how many people were watching in each of those households.)

NBC's Manning-v.-Manning "Sunday Night Football," of course, was the evening's big hit, grabbing at least 17 million viewers. The most disquieting thing about it was that song by Pink at the beginning: part snarl, part come-on, all dumb.

When CBS's "9/11" aired originally in March 2002, 39 million viewers -- a third of the nation's TV sets -- tuned in.

Today, of course, will mark the conclusion of the glut of the coverage of the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a tragedy that has been covered from virtually every angle imaginable. There's a documentary that focused on the dust from the collapsed towers. There's a book about the police dogs that sniffed through the rubble lookiing for remains. There's a comic-book version of "The 9/11 Commission Report." There's a book collecting the nation's newspapers' front pages of Sept. 12, 2001 (hands down, the best one is the San Francisco Examiner's banner headline "BASTARDS!"). (This sort of begs for a companion book, featuring the most histrionically overwrought prose that appeared on the nation's editorial pages on Sept. 12, beginning -- but by no means ending -- with Ann Coulter's declaration that "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.")

In short, there's a lot of 9/11-abilia out there, and "How safe are we now?" has become a staple of TV news (CNN's Wolf Blitzer just trotted it out again seconds ago). It's become an industry unto itself, which is why it was a little amusing when detractors of "Path to 9/11" accused its makers of cashing in on the tragedy for personal gain: Yeah, and? They differ from everyone else who has written about it for a paycheck -- including, right at this minute, yours truly -- in what way, specifically?

And so we're reaching the inevitable end of the cycle for virtually every commodity America produces. 39 million initially watched the documentary "9/11;" probably only 10 million watched "Path to 9/11," created in easier-to-swallow docudrama form. Five years after the fact, there's only one book about 9/11 on each of the New York Times' hardcover and paperback nonfiction bestseller lists. The glut of coverage itself begets the residual nonchalance. Americans aren't tired of the story, necessarily, but we do believe we understand it fairly well and until a repository of new information comes along, we'll give a pass to the anniversary remembrances along the lines of "I was in New York that day -- the upper Westside, perhaps, but still -- "

Besides, Iraq and the regrouping of the Taliban in Afghanistan seem more pressing issues than revisiting 9/11's horrors. We have plenty right here, right now.

We haven't moved on -- our government and the media refuse to allow us to move on -- but perhaps it's time to at least consider it or at least to reflect upon our future as much as we have our past. After all, how long will officials conduct memorial services that are part respectful yet part morbid before the terrorists can at least claim victory over our time-management skills?

NBC's "Sunday Night Football" began with a ripoff of ABC's, and now ESPN's, "Monday Night Football," which has employed Hank Williams, Jr.'s swagger for the broadcast's kickoff. Except, um, they recruited Pink for the opening number, singing over a cityscape of adoring fans taking to the streets -- apparently, they'd rather see her than the football game. Not that pop stars really tend to care about this sort of thing anymore, but Pink -- the first name that comes to my mind when it comes to bone-crunching football action -- kind of flushed her tough-gal indie cred to shill for NBC's glitzathon.

Other people who'd be great to open "Sunday Night Football:" Leonard Cohen. Louis Andriessen. The Tiger Lillies. Joni Mitchell. David Helfgott. Bright Eyes. One Ring Zero. Kenny G. The Wingdale Community Singers.

Enough of that: Onto Manning v. Manning.

Once again, as I previously stonewalled and obfuscated about, the Good People of Television are preparing for a civil conglagration amongst the warring factions at the broadcast networks. I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong... No mayor wants war.

But war it is. While we can expect CBS to remain a mighty fortress, and for Fox to continue to thrive thanks to its wile and cunning, we worry about the other networks as the battles grow more heated.

Those in my cabinet who have bravely ventured into the outlying areas of Television report that only a small number of network executives and reality-show producers are engaged in sectarian violence, while the overwhelming majority want peace and a normal life in a unified country.

While the fighting is expected to become particularly fierce next week, when the networks roll out their new fall schedules, Fox has already ventured forth with a few attacks with some success. “Prison Break,�? “House�? and “Bones�? all remain steady performers for the network, while “Vanished�? seems to be losing a little steam and viewership ebbed from “Justice�? just a bit in its second week. “Standoff�? did well in its debut, but its true test will come when it’s not up against repeats. “’Til Death�? and “Happy Hour�? may need reinforcements in the fierce Thursday-night battleground. So the network has already introduced all of its new fall shows, and doesn’t look to need to make any strategic adjustments until after the World Series.

One must implore the networks to consider more peaceable tactics in the future: Please, no more reality shows involving "celebrities" unless the phrase "washed-up" or "has-been" is actually in the title.

ABC, meanwhile, is pursuing a policy of aggressive caution: It’s introducing 10 new scripted series, but rolling them out over a two-month period. “Men in Trees�? has been dispatched to make the first incursion on the primetime schedule, airing this Tuesday before settling down in the relatively somnolent Friday-evening combat zone. Leading the attack with such a modest, mildly charming show seems an odd choice – I might’ve led with “The Nine,�? a splashier show more attuned to our times, or “Ugly Betty,�? perhaps ABC’s best new series, to ensure it some sampling on Thursday night before its big guns get sent in, or maybe “Brothers and Sisters,�? just to get that sorry bit of cannon fodder over with.

ABC needed to be this bold in bringing out so many fresh troops, because outside of four or five hits, its lineup is sucking air. On the other hand, launching this many new pilots is obviously risky, because there’s only so much promotion the network can do and there are only so many new shows audiences have an appetite for sampling, so the long, slow rollout is probably sage.

I wish the violence would go down, but not as much as ABC programmers would wish the violence would go down. But, incredibly enough, they show great courage, and they want our help. And any sign that says we're going to leave before the job is done simply emboldens reality-show producers and creates a certain amount of doubt for people so they won't take the risk necessary to help a civil society evolve in the country. But here's betting that ABC will have already cancelled a new show (at least) before it debuts "Day Break" in November.

Meanwhile, it’s hard to point at a weak spot on CBS’s schedule. A weak show, or two, or three, sure, but the network has maintained an astonishing stability and, “Shark,�? given the unbeatable combination of James Woods’ charisma and “CSI�? as a lead-in, may be the surest thing to a guaranteed hit coming in this season. Barring any unforeseen widespread crumbling of viewership on hit shows, CBS will continue to prevail over virtually every battle.

Which is worrisome: We’ve all seen what the all-powerful warlord Les Moonves did to Tom Freston over at Viacom; I fear he may have his sights set on my position next.

NBC’s clearly in the toughest position as the insurgencies continue to spring up. Kevin Reilly may have inherited depleted troops from Dark Overlord Zucker, but for some reason, it’s his leadership on the line. Reilly has responded with some pretty good new shows, albeit some that are tough sells: Programs about showbiz (“Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip,�? “30 Rock�?) and sports (“Friday Night Lights�?) may be the network’s best new offerings, but they’re notorious for failing to attract viewers.

I am aware that extremists and terrorists are doing everything they can to prevent NBC from growing stronger. That's what I'm aware of. How they managed to sneak into Reilly's office and slip "20 Good Years" on the schedule is a mystery we're all trying to solve.

As for The CW, it probably should have been more aggressive in terms of new programs and made more of a statement that the mediocre ratings of UPN and The WB were no longer acceptable. But apparently, the mediocre ratings of UPN and The WB are acceptable. The only interesting thing to watch there is whether “Gilmore Girls�? can help spark a ratings insurgence in “Veronica Mars.�?

So, as the annual autumnal civil war gets under way, sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. This is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times, and they're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country. I understand that. You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see havoc wrought by reality-show producers. And our question is, do we have the capacity and the desire to spread peace by confronting these network executives and reality-show producers, and supporting those who want to live in liberty? That's the question. And my answer to that question is, we must. We owe it to future generations to do so.

Fox's new sitcoms "'Til Death" and "Happy Hour" got fairly steamrollered last night by NBC's football game. While NBC garnered 17 million viewers, "'Til Death" managed only 8.6 million -- just a smidgen more than those tuning into the dispiriting "Big Brother" on CBS -- with "Happy Hour" drawing a fairly dismal 7.2 million, numbers that will be hard-pressed to improve once the other networks introduce their new fall lineups.

Meanwhile, Katie Couric has lost 3.5 million viewers in three days since her Tuesday debut. Thursday's audience totaled 10.1 million. And MyNetwork's "Desire" and "Fashion House" continue to wow no one except a smattering of Nielsen families who expired before their TVs over the summer watching an episode of "Reba."

The ongoing battle regarding ABC's docudrama miniseries "Path to 9/11" poses the question: Which is more craven behavior, making stuff up in a film that purports to be based on "The 9/11 Commission Report" (and employed the commission's head as a consultant), or to cave immediately when those depicted call you on your b.s.?

(Rumors swirl that ABC just might cancel the $30-million production outright.)

(UPDATE: ABC will interrupt the miniseries on the East Coast on Monday at 9 p.m. -- right about the time things really head South for the Bush Administration in the narrative -- for an address to the nation from President Bush, one the White House declares "will not be political in nature.")

Bill Clinton and others have pointed to some fictionalized scenes in the film, complaining that the film says that he was too politically hamstrung by the Monica Lewinsky scandal to act boldly against Osama bin Laden when he had the chance in 1998 (there’s a pointedly smirking inclusion of his famous utterance, “I did not have sex with that woman…�?).

But one accurate kvetch doesn't necessarily make the follow-up grouse equally credible. The charge seems a not-unreasonable interpretation; other parts of Clinton’s agenda were certainly thwarted by House Republicans eager to impeach him, who assailed his one failed missile strike as a weak, "Wag the Dog" strategy and no doubt put a kibbosh on future, tougher measures. Certainly, had he not been embroiled in scandal, he could've struck harder at al Qaeda. (Those rabid to nail Clinton over such a relatively petty offense, rather than soberly consider the geopolitical situation, should share a measure of complicity in this failure.)

Democrats also complain that the film, written by conservative Cyrus Nowrasteh -- they managed to find a conservative in Hollywood! -- doesn't take the Bush Administration to task for its own oversights. It's true the film is less explicit and even a smidgen obfuscating in examining the current Administration’s pre-9/11 failures, though there is a scene in which White House anti-terrorism czar Richard Clarke is snubbed by Rice when he tries to engage her on the subject.

(Clarke, in his book "Against All Enemies," insists Clinton never kept his eye off al Qaeda during his personal turmoil, while pointing to a host of nonchalant behavior on behalf of the current Administration. Question: Does the fact that Bush devalued Clarke in 2001 validate his claims, make his reportage sour grapes, or some combination thereof?)

But there's plenty of blame to go around, and the miniseries is most damning when considering America's future, pointing out at the conclusion just how remiss the Bush Administration has been in implementing the 9/11 Commmission's recommendations for making the country safer.

ABC buckled awfully quickly when liberals complained, however, which begs the question: If the network had such little faith in its material, why did they OK it in the first place? (CBS, of course, moved its far less incendiary miniseries "The Reagans" to Showtime, where it was seen by a mere fraction of the audience it would've garnered on the broadcast network.)

Joe Scarborough, on MSNBC the other evening, became an unlikely advocate for artists rights (he often grouses about La-La Land's creative element) when he decried ABC's caving in, saying no one asked for changes to Oliver Stone's "Nixon" or Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now." This seems a pretty seriously disingenuous argument: "Apocalypse Now" was fiction, pure and simple, while "Nixon" came after the principal character had died and the controversy that plagued him had dissipated over 20 years. Sept. 11 and its fallout continues to affect us today. (To be fair, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann kind of went in the other direction in oversimplifying, declaring the film placed blame on Clinton and Clinton only.)

Finally: It's a movie, a docudrama. It's not a news report, not a documentary. All docudramas take artistic license, and anyone who takes the particulars of one as gospel without consulting other sources is too stupid for their opinion to matter much.

All this said: "Path to 9/11," politics notwithstanding (and whatever form it finally airs in), is a pretty compelling thriller (many said the same thing about "The 9/11 Commission Report" itself).

"Idiocracy," a new theatrical film from Mike Judge ("King of the Hill," "Office Space," "Beavis & Butt-head"), is set 500 years in the future where the average human has an IQ approaching that of an eggplant (reasons given: Stupid people outbreed smart ones and lots and lots of advertising -- in the future, all clothing, all everything, practically, is covered with logos).

Luke Wilson stars as an average underachiever from 2005 (the film's been sitting on the shelf for quite a while) who is put in a cryogenic deep freeze and forgotten, only to emerge in that dystopian world of moronicism, where he's suddenly the smartest man alive. (His ability to speak in sentences irritates the rest of the populace.) Buildings are crumbling and leaning against one another; freeway overpasses have collapsed (which doesn't stop people from driving on -- and then off -- them); Carl's Jr. has merged with the phone company and the U.S. government; the local Cost-Co is as big as a state and offers a law school; Fuddruckers is now officially called what most people refer to it as anyway and still hosts children's birthday parties. The President is a former TV wrestler and porn star. The most popular TV show is called "Ow! My Balls!" (on the Violence Channel; there's also a channel devoted to helping viewers gratify themselves); the most popular movie is the Oscar-winning "Ass," 90 minutes of a bare butt farting. "Idiocracy" is pretty hilarious (if kind of a mess - at least a couple of scenes are very obviously missing)...

... and 20th Century Fox, which produced the movie, has flat-out dumped it (today was the first I heard of its release, a week after the fact; Judge told me he was working on it a while back, when "King of the Hill" celebrated its 200th table read). They released it into a handful theaters with no advertising whatsoever (they didn't release it in San Francisco -- where "Office Space" was a huge cult hit -- or New York); there were no screenings for critics (most weren't even told it was being released); there wasn't even a trailer cut for it (apparently, Moviefone, when first listing it, had it as "Untitled Mike Judge Film").

I supposed 20th decided since the movie was so anti-advertising it didn't want any its own self.

Now, movies get buried and shelved all the time, but usually because they're awful. This one isn't; not even close. One wonders what Judge must've done to piss the studio off so badly they decided to drown his baby in the bath water. (Someone who might've actually told me is, alas, on vacation.)

It can't be simply because the movie's subversive, because it is only mildly, unless a film studio considers a guy politely suggesting people read a book and think a little more to be bomb-throwingly radical.

Or maybe because it's old news, or the idea that it would take 500 years for civilization to reach this point struck someone at the studio as far-fetched. As I left the theater, my first non-filmic sensory perception was of a guy in a suit snapping open his cell phone and grunting, "Yo!" As I drove home, a large guy in an even larger pickup truck backed up traffic, parked in the middle of a narrow street talking to someone, oblivious to everything else around him. And when I got home, Nancy Grace was on TV.

19.4 million viewers turned into the third-season premiere of "House," which found the good doctor giddy by his standards after an operation apparently took care of that limp of his; 13.6 million took a look at the new "CBS Evening News," featuring Katie Couric's debut.

Comparing the two, obviously, is unfair, as primetime ratings are generally higher than evening news numbers. Couric's ratings performance represented CBS's best for a newscast in eight and a half years, and left NBC and ABC (which both had around 7.5 million viewers) in the dust. Couric's viewership represents roughly one viewer for every dollar CBS is paying her (not to mention the network's big campaign to introduce her).

OK, again, extremely unfair. The key question now is, did viewers like what they saw enough to stick around in the future? If two-thirds to three-quarters did, then she'll prove a boost for CBS. On the other hand, if a lot of those sampling respond with a desultory, "Ah, yes, this is why I don't watch the evening news," or an, "OK, been there, done that; back to Brian Williams (or Charlie Gibson)," then CBS has plunked down a lot of money to attempt to resurrect a moribund medium.

Other ratings news: Fox's "Standoff" did OK, with nearly 14 million viewers, but retaining only 72 percent of the lead-in "House" presented it with; it lost about 5 percent more viewers at the half-hour mark. Those are numbers Fox will be thrilled with if they maintain once the season begins and the show's competing against "The Unit" and "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" instead of repeats and crap reality shows.

And the UPN/WB affiliates who didn't end up with The CW are really sweating it right about now, as the patchwork MyNetwork's debut last night suggests that it might more reasonably called Nobody'sNetwork. English-language telenovelas "Desire" and "Fashion House" each roughly drew about a million or so viewers, or roughly what the most miserable UPN repeat would draw in the dead of summer. There's a new word for "Desire:" Apathy.

Further thoughts on my professionally issued thoughts on Katie Couric’s debut in the anchor’s chair of “The CBS Evening News�? (which concluded with the quote cited above):

A number of outlets I’ve perused have, in their initial takes on her initial performance, highlighted Couric’s ostensible “scoop�? of the evening, offering the first glimpse of uber-infant Suri Cruise from the issue of Vanity Fair that hits the stands Tuesday. That’s hardly Couric’s fault and, in fact, disrespects the good job she did overall in the anchor’s chair. But then, she may have invited it just a smidgen with her tease of it at the beginning of the newscast, showing the cover with the miracle baby’s face blurred, in effect forcing viewers to stick around - just to witness the visage of the result of a celebrity coupling.

Couric will, in fact, probably do quite serviceable work as a news anchor. CBS CEO Les Moonves, who famously decried the “Voice-of-God�? anchorman nearly two years ago, told me in July of hiring Couric, “This is not the voice-of-God theory. Katie is not that. The Voice-of-God was the imperial voice of God skewing us through the news. I think Katie is anti-voice-of-God. I don’t think that’s counter-intuitive to what I said at all.�?

And he’s right: Couric opened her broadcast with a folksy, “Hi, everyone,�? which is in keeping with what fans like about her and eschews the sort of TV-news-man earnestness that most people understand is as much a performance as Couric’s gal-next-door persona.

Couric opened with a terrific report from CBS correspondent Lara Logan, who has been doing excellent work from the Middle East for quite some time, on the Taliban’s troubling resurrection in Afghanistan. The story was given enough time to allow Logan to include telling details of her handling by the Taliban and the dangers the region still faces, even the fact that the extremists defiantly pray in the open a mere 10 miles from a U.S. base – their weapons at the ready.

Though the Suri Cruise thing wasn’t the only pop-culture take in Tuesday’s newscast – she introduced a brief musical snippet from Peter Gabriel, as well as images of the late “Croc Hunter,�? Ted Baxter, Ron Burgundy and even TV wrestling, along with a commentary by cheeky documentarian Morgan Spurlock - Couric more or less covered the day's significant events, which, on this day, weren't all that significant. With copious pop-culture references, non-news features and a smattering of commentary, Couric and CBS have striven to create a kinder, gentler, slightly more humanized telecast that can easily be digested by a wide array of viewers – not unlike a distilled version of your daily newspaper.

In fact, the newscast Couric Version 1.0 most reminded me of was MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,�? which also combines pop culture with trenchant commentary, but filtered through its anchor’s snarky wit.

I spoke to Olbermann in July, as well – though far removed from Moonves – and, though he’s taken numerous potshots at Couric on his newscast, he advocated exploiting personality in the evening news (he included NBC’s own Brian Williams, who has a very dry and playful sense of humor when not delivering the news).

“If … CBS has made this huge investment in a personality, why wouldn’t you?�? he said. “I’m not telling (anyone) how to do (his or her) business, but why not do a tweak that might hurt you short term but might produce long-term results that might be prohibitive in terms of a race between two other operations. … You’re going to have to realize that these are television broadcasts. It’d be lovely if it were, ‘OK, sit down and shut up,’ but we’re competing against everything else in the world. You’ve got to try to make something else out of it – just try. Don’t even announce it, just do it, and people might like it, they might not, and you stop doing it and go back to the old format.�?

CBS’s new, subtly different approach won’t likely resurrect the network evening newscast or result in significant long-term ratings growth, but it certainly won’t kill it off, either, though hardcore news junkies will likely look elsewhere.

The true test of Couric’s mettle, however, will come when a big, breaking news story erupts close to airtime and she and her producers won’t have time to edit together neatly scripted packages and can’t rely on NewsLite features. With the mid-term elections approaching and the war in Iraq remaining unpredictable, that day may be soon in coming.

“Croc Hunter�? Steve Irwin failed to appropriately ingratiate a stingray.

This was the same guy who almost fed his infant child to a croc. Hence, a lesson for us all – or, at least, those of us who would seemingly feed our newborn to maneaters for publicity’s sake.

The Good People of Television mourn Mr. Irwin’s passing, as well as his brand of behavior that made his passing all the more inevitable. Unless said behavior manages to find its way to “8th and Ocean�? or “Flavor of Love�? or “The Hills."

But at least she's good for ruthless little parodies, such as the one perpetrated by British guerilla artist Banksy, who placed 500 mock versions of Hilton's no-doubt-thrilling new CD in record stores in England, Ireland and Scotland.

The sticker on the cover promises the hits "Why Am I Famous?" and "What Have I Done?" Inside, there's a photo of Hilton emerging from a car in front of homeless people; the legend reads: "90% of success is just showing up."

You know, I'm pretty certain that this is the gesture that will force Paris to re-examine her life and her values.

George W. Bush has more to worry about these days than lousy poll numbers and convincing Americans that a plan for Iraq exists somewhere. Some nutcase/provocateur has made a new film, presented in the form of a fictionalized documentary and premiering at the Toronto Film Festival on Sept. 10 and airing on British television on Oct. 9, depicting his assassination.

Entitled “Death of a President�? (or, as it’s called at the Toronto Film Festival, “D.O.A.P.,�? as if that’s somehow less incendiary and/or changing what it’s about), the film examines the fallout following the assassination of the President when the suspect in the killing is a Syrian. Directed by Gabriel Range, who has made a couple of other speculative-fiction films playing off current events, the film posits that the President is shot in October 2007 in Chicago. The film combines archival footage with material shot for the film; an actor portrays the President, with Bush’s face digitally added. (So the upside is, the President could be up for a BAFTA Award.)

Noah Cowan, co-director of the Toronto Film Festival, explains, “The film is never a personal attack on Bush.�? No, of course not – who’d be so silly as to construe a movie about your assassination as a personal attack?

“Range simply seeks,�? Cowan continues, “to explore the potential consequences that might follow from the President's policies and actions.�? Which couldn’t possibly have been done without shooting the guy. Range automatically nullifies any arguments he might make because those he’s ostensibly debating are already outraged at the premise and have dismissed the film as hate-mongering.

Must be something in W.’s DNA that inspires fiction-spinners to contemplate his death. In 2004, Nicholson Baker knocked off a slender volume entitled “Checkpoint�? that concerned a guy whose outrage over the war in Iraq caused him to lose it and contemplate a loopy assassination plot. Remember when the worst attacks a President got from the media were goofy broadsides like this? (Ann Coulter has made a career out of calling for the deaths of sundry liberals, but hasn’t convinced Sumner Redstone of the commercial prospects for “Clinton’s Painful, Grisly Demise.�?)

As Mayor of Television, I am frequently the target of many death threats, or, at least, less-than-complimentary Emails. And rumor has it that there is a project in the works about my own execution at the hands of extremist fundamentalists angered by my policies regarding reality TV. In fact, I have received through covert means an early draft of the script. While I must concede that “Death of a Mayor�? boasts sparkling dialogue and some piquant assessments of some of my more ill-considered policies, I find the frequent allusions to the hair-gel scene in “There’s Something about Mary�? downright baffling, the third act collapses completely, the sex scene is not only gratuitous and inappropriate but drags down the narrative’s momentum and the note in the script that all the mayor’s dialogue must be delivered in a high-pitched voice with a clumsy Italian accent threatens to damage the piece’s verisimilitude.