At Upfronts Next Week, Networks Will Tell Us What We’ll See Next Season

[NOTE: The following article will also appear as my regular television column for WILDsound.]

Next week the broadcast networks will reveal to the world which programs will appear on their fall schedules. The execs will tell us which shows will live, and which will disappear from the prime-time landscape. The so-called upfront presentations in New York are intended for advertisers, but as an avid follower of television, they’re a big week for me. Kind of like a four-day version of the announcement of the NCAA March Madness brackets.

So here is my network-by-network look at what issues I am thinking about with next season's schedules.

NBC, Monday, May 12, 2008
NBC, which spent the 2000s plummeting from the top of the ratings pile to the depths of despair, has decided to take a different approach to scheduling, eschewing a traditional glitzy upfront presentation and moving towards a year-round schedule. Kudos to the network for trying to shake things up, although Fox found a few years ago that premiering new programs outside of the fall time period in which viewers are used to looking for new shows is a dicey proposition.

I took a look at the NBC schedule while researching this article, and I came to a stunning conclusion: Aside from the Thursday night sitcoms, I don’t watch a single prime-time offering on the network. (Well, I will occasionally catch an episode of “Deal or No Deal,” but it is far more likely that I’ll watch that game show in a CNBC rerun.) So it’s not like I’ll be waiting on the NBC announcement to see if any of my favorite shows have been cancelled. We know “Scrubs” is done on NBC, and “The Office,” “30 Rock” and “My Name Is Earl” are sure to be back. My first order of business will be to check out the sitcom (I’m assuming programmers won’t throw in another genre amidst the single-camera comedies) chosen to join the Thursday night lineup. I’ve also heard good things about “Chuck,” so I’ll be interested to see where it is placed on the schedule for its sophomore year. And maybe one of the new NBC offerings will get my attention.

I think what a lot of people (including me) are really waiting to see from NBC is if the rumors are true and Jimmy Fallon will be handed Conan O’Brien’s slot in 2009, when O’Brien shoves Jay Leno out of the “Tonight Show” host’s seat. Anything that leaves Leno out of a job is fine with me, although I think O’Brien and his quirky brand of comedy are more suited for the 12:30 slot.

ABC, Tuesday May 13, 2008
ABC poses an interesting dilemma for me. On the one hand, I watch more shows on ABC than on any other network. (As you may recall, when I compiled my list of five new shows I was looking forward to for Fall 2007, four of them were on ABC.) But the network took a big chunk of the drama out of its upfront months ago when it announced that the whole Wednesday lineup (“Pushing Daisies,” “Private Practice” and “Dirty Sexy Money”) would be back in the fall, as would “Samantha Who?” Clearly, ratings winners like “Grey’s Anatomy” and “Brothers and Sisters” aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not sure many of us care if “Carpoolers” will return. And, sadly, I hold no hope that “October Road” and “Miss Guided” will make the grade (yeah, it’s a bad pun, so sue me) for 2008, but maybe I’ll get a rare nice surprise from a network. I’m just not counting on it.

So what is there to look for at the ABC presentation on Tuesday? Well, one super large thing: If you believe what you read (and I hope you do, since you’re reading this), ABC is considering taking on “Scrubs,” which has been cast off by NBC. While the ratings for “Scrubs” haven’t been strong in quite some time, the show is a winner in syndication and, surprise, Disney (who owns ABC) owns the show. So it might make financial sense to squeeze another year out of the critically beloved hospital-set sitcom. ABC is also supposedly looking to scoop up “The New Adventures of Old Christine” if the Julia Louis-Dreyfus comedy is the loser in the CBS battle royale for a spot on Monday nights. “New Christine” never sucked me in, but if it’s part of an ABC sitcom night, I may just have to give the “Seinfeld” alum another chance.

CBS, Wednesday May 14, 2008
Speaking of CBS’s Monday night sitcom scramble, with “The Big Bang Theory” already getting the go-ahead for next year, the big question for me (and probably my biggest anxiety-inducer for the week) is whether the sorely underrated “How I Met Your Mother” survives for another year. The ratings have been stronger since the Britney Spears guest appearance, and “Mother” has the youngest median age (43) of any show on geezer-skewing CBS. Then again, there is always the chance that the network will look at its schedule, filled with one-hour police procedurals aimed at the AARP crowd, and say to itself, “What the hell are we doing with this edgy sitcom about a bunch of 30-year-olds hanging out in a bar? They don’t even solve crimes!” Let’s hope that CBS decides it needs at least one hip show on the air, if for no other reason than to avoid being completely ignored by the generations that don’t remember World War II rationing.

Since I’m still younger than the median age of “How I Met Your Mother,” I’m guessing I won’t be all that interested in the rest of the CBS schedule. But you never know.

CW, Thursday, May 15, 2008
The Franken-network created by the merger of the WB (now available as an online channel) and UPN is still fighting for viewers and attention. It got some real buzz last year with “Gossip Girl,” as well as some critical love for “Reaper.” Both shows were on my “maybe” list to check out when last year’s schedule was announced, but I never got around to seeing either. I’m guessing that won’t change for 2008-09, but I’m open to giving “Reaper” a whirl. Since I’m not a sci-fi guy (“Smallville” and “Supernatural”), nor do I follow the WWE or shows meant for teenagers (“Gossip Girl” and “One Tree Hill”), and since I generally steer clear of broad reality shows (no “Beauty and the Geek,” “America’s Next Top Model” or “Farmer Takes a Wife” for me), I will be watching for Thursday’s announcement for only one thing: Whether the quirky, funny and smart “Aliens in America” finds some way to survive.

It doesn’t look good. The single-camera sitcom got booted from its time slot this year, the CW shut down its comedy department in a reorganization a few months ago, and the network currently has only two half-hour comedies (“Everybody Hates Chris” is the other) on its prime-time strip. But I’m rooting for some kind of miracle. “Aliens in America” handled it’s potentially controversial subject matter (parents agree to take in a foreign-exchange student to provide a friend for their nerdy son, but the kid turns out to be a Pakistani Muslim) without resorting to racist stereotyping or giving in to the impulse to make the kid a 21st century Balki (Bronson Pinchot in “Perfect Strangers”). And it is genuinely funny, playing off an interesting and entertaining family dynamic.

FOX, Thursday, May 15, 2008
I have tended not to be a big fan of Fox. The network has a decent amount of shows I’ll watch on occasion, if I happen on to them at the right time (like “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader,” “Don’t Forget the Lyrics” and “New Amsterdam”). And I enjoy the occasional Sunday night dip into the animated lineup of “Family Guy” (my wife is a big fan), “The Simpsons,” “King of the Hill” and “American Dad.” Of course, Fox boasts two of the most successful programs on the air: “House,” which I admire even if I don’t watch it, and “American Idol,” which I, well, don’t. But of all the shows on the Fox schedule, only one has a spot on my TiVo Season Pass list: “Back to You.” And it’s no sure thing that it will be back for next season.

The comedy, starring comedy veterans Kelsey Grammer, Patricia Heaton and Fred Willard, and executive produced by old pros Christopher Lloyd (“Frasier”) and Steven Levitan (“Just Shoot Me”), carries the weight of being the last great hope for big, traditional, multi-camera sitcoms. With its heavy hitters (and, presumably, their heavy salaries to match), a lot of expectation was heaped on the program, and it was a hard mark to measure up to. But judged on its merits, “Back to You” is really funny, with a very sharp ensemble. The show certainly deserves another year to see if it can find a higher gear, and I think it will get the chance. But if the program is cancelled, I’ll be bummed.

Clinton Hits Rock Bottom in Speech After Indiana Primary

[A] persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary

- Merriam-Webster's definition 2(b) of "delusion"

At about 10:30 p.m. last night, Barack Obama had trounced Hillary Clinton in North Carolina, and Clinton held a narrow four-point lead in Indiana -- with the Obama stronghold of Lake County yet to report. But Clinton took to the podium in front of her supporters and said that by Obama's definition, Indiana was the tie-breaker, and that she had won, so, "it's full-speed on to the White House."

What, has she decided to take a tourist's tour of the presidential mansion? Because short of being invited to visit by George W. Bush before January 2009, or by Obama or John McCain after January 2009, that's the only way Clinton is getting inside.

I don't think it's a stretch to call Clinton's speech last night delusional. After all, she is faced with "indisputable evidence," after last night's results, that she doesn't have a clear path to the nomination, and yet she maintains (at least publicly) a "persistent false psychotic belief" about her chances. Okay, I'm no shrink, so I can't promise that her position is psychotic, but it is patently false.

In fact, I hope that Clinton is delusional. The alternative is that she knows that the party would be ripped apart if the superdelegates give her the nomination, alienating Democratic voters, especially those brought to the political process by Obama, and greatly injuring the party's chances of winning in November. If she's not delusional, and she is seeking the nomination even though she knows it will have disastrous results, then she is dishonest and will do anything to win, just like her detractors claim. And I don't want to believe that. After all, last July, when she was still the unquestioned front-runner, I wrote that Clinton was unelectable. But in my analysis, I was very sympathetic to her, calling myself an admirer of hers and arguing that the negative views held of her by so many Americans were unfair and unfounded.

But her head-scratching speech last night left me in utter disbelief. Clinton gave a victory speech, even though the results signaled that she was all but done. Even before last night's primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, the math didn't add up for her. It was virtually impossible for her to catch Obama in pledged delegates, and thus it was highly unlikely the superdelegates would rip the nomination from Obama's grasp for fear of dividing the party for the general election. And, in the days leading up to the primaries, a strong trickle of superdelegates made their way into the Obama camp, while none managed to make the journey to the Clinton side.

To make a convincing argument that she should be given the nomination, Clinton needed a "game changer" yesterday. She had to show that Obama's campaign was dying, hers was surging, and that momentum was clearly on her side. Coming off a nine-point win in Pennsylvania and her earlier solid win in Ohio, Clinton had to be competitive in North Carolina (a state in which Obama's early large lead in the polls had eroded) and win convincingly in Indiana. Neither happened. Obama soundly defeated Clinton in North Carolina by 14 points and came within 25,000 votes of winning in Indiana, too.

That means that Obama increased his already commanding delegate lead. As of this writing, of the 115 pledged delegates to be awarded in North Carolina, 108 had been determined, with 62 going to Obama and only 46 landing in Clinton's column. In Indiana, since the race was so tight, Clinton's net gain will be one delegate. So, according to CNN, the total pledged delegates tally now stands at 1588 to 1419 in favor of Obama. He has also narrowed her once-commanding lead in superdelegates to a mere 13, 267 to 254. With only 217 pledged delegates left to be awarded, and with the Democrats' system of proportional allocation, that means that Obama has gone from being virtually assured of winning the pledged delegate race to absolutely coming out on top, most likely clinching on May 20 when Kentucky and Oregon hold their primaries.

Short of a major slip-up, it seems nearly impossible for Obama not to be the Democratic nominee. Including superdelegates who have already made their allegiances known, Obama is only 183 delegates away from victory, with 491 delegates still to be awarded (274 superdelegates to go with the 217 to be had in primaries). So even if Clinton wins 60 percent of the remaining elected delegates, she would need to secure 178 of the remaining 274 superdelegates to tip the scale her way. That's almost two-thirds. It's not going to happen.

Put another way, it seems the only way that Obama can lose the nomination is if he goes on television and announces that his running mate will be Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

But last night, Clinton and her supporters said she is on her way to the White House. Which is why I come back again and again to the word "delusional." Her actions would be entertaining, if they weren't so damaging to the party, preventing Obama from organizing his general election campaign and letting the media finally turn its attention to the seemingly daily wacky statements made by McCain, not to mention his voting record of walking in lock-step with Bush.

To me, Clinton's speech last night hit rock bottom when she again referenced her support of a three-month repeal of the federal gas tax that had been originally offered by McCain. Her use of the gas-tax holiday as a central issue in her Indiana and North Carolina campaigns crystallized everything Clinton's detractors accuse her of being. The repeal, along with her proposal to make up for the lost revenue by instituting a tax on oil companies, had no chance of being passed by Congress and signed by Bush, who, if he was any closer to Big Oil, would have an ExxonMobil employee ID card in his wallet. Even more importantly, more than 200 economists (including four Nobel laureates) came out to say that the tax holiday was a bad idea, since it would primarily benefit the oil companies and likely wouldn't lower the price of gas for consumers. And, as Obama repeatedly pointed out, even if the repeal worked and gas got cheaper, the savings would be minimal to consumers.

Of course, none of this even addresses the larger question of global warming, and how higher gas prices and lower consumption are actually positive steps in addressing climate change, nor does it take into account the failing infrastructure of the nation's highways (repairs are funded via the gas tax, something noted by the 200 economists) and the need for the government to support development of alternative energy sources.

So why did Clinton push so hard for a bill that wouldn't do what it was advertised to do and had no chance of being signed into law? For the political benefits, of course. It was a dishonest and sleazy come-on to voters, pretending to give them something while making it look like her opponent didn't want to give them anything. It was calculated and soulless, the very qualities that many Americans already associate with Clinton.

As far as I am concerned, Clinton lost all sympathy and any claim to the nomination when she campaigned on the gas-tax repeal. So it is only fitting that in her post-primaries speech last night, in which she painted a picture of the race that had no passing resemblance to reality, she again invoked the holiday.

Her supporters might even be worse. On CNN last night, Lanny Davis whined like a fourth grader denied a second cookie at lunch. He made inane points that defied basic election knowledge (like, for example, that Clinton should be the nominee because she won big states like New York, Massachusetts and California, conveniently forgetting that a ticket of Eliot Spitzer and the corpse of Adlai Stevenson would carry those three states for the Democrats), and cried that the votes in Florida and Michigan had to be recognized, even though they violated DNC rules by holding them so early, because Obama did not allow a mail-in re-vote in June (conveniently forgetting that neither candidate campaigned in those states, and Obama's name was not even on the ballot in Michigan). Davis was so shrill and out of touch, I would imagine many undecided voters watching his temper tantrums must have said to themselves, "I don't want to support that guy's candidate."

I found it especially entertaining that Clinton used Obama's tie-breaker quote against him, since she can be pilloried for her past statements, especially regarding how to pick the nominee. Clinton has shifted her view on the metrics of the race so often, you need an Excel spreadsheet to keep track of the changes. Keith Olbermann put together a funny and dead-on guide to the constantly evolving arguments of convenience offered by Clinton and her supporters over the course of the campaign. You can watch it here.

I cannot get inside of Clinton's head, but it sure does seem to me that her actions and words reflect a view that she honestly believes that she -- and only she -- can beat McCain in November and save the country from the mess wrought by eight years of George W. Bush. Until she figures out that she is not a modern-day messiah, the Democrats will have some thorny issues to contend with.

How long does Clinton stick with her delusions? Until the convention? The Democrats can't afford to begin the race against John McCain on September 1. I could almost laugh at how out of touch Clinton was in her speech last night. But if she carries on much longer, the entertainment value will disappear quickly and be replaced by the sinking feeling that the Democrats are blowing another winnable election.

The party has to do whatever it can to wrap this up by the end of this month. Many commentators believe that when Obama clinches the pledged delegate race on May 20, the superdelegates will flood to him, essentially giving him the nomination. Let's hope so.

Buzz Bissinger Loses His Mind on "CostasNow"

Oh, hello, kettle? This is Monica. You're black.

- Phoebe, to the notoriously competitive Monica, calling her on complaining about somebody else being competitive on the “The One With All The Poker” episode of “Friends,” written by Jeffrey Astrof and Mike Sikowitz, originally aired on March 2, 1995.

Buzz Bissinger is full of shit.

Why am I being so graphic? Well, that takes a bit of explaining. Bissinger, a former newspaper sports writer who is best known for his book “Friday Night Lights,” went on HBO’s “CostasNow” on Tuesday night and took part in a roundtable discussion, led by host Bob Costas, on the current “sports media landscape,” including “the rise of Internet bloggers.” Costas introduced Bissniger; Will Leitch, founder and editor of sports blog Deadspin; and, for some reason only the good folks at HBO can explain, third guest Braylon Edwards, wide receiver of the Cleveland Browns.

(You can watch the panel here.)

After Leitch parried Costas’s opening salvo, which accused the sports blogosphere of being a place for nonjournalists to take pot shots at athletes, Bissinger interrupted the discussion to tell Leitch, “I think you’re full of shit.”

So if Bissinger can attack Leitch personally, I figured I should respond in kind. Why? Because I found Bissinger’s attack to be completely hypocritical.

I’ll explain. On “CosatsNow,” Bissinger’s profane insult of Leitch was just the start of his histrionics. With his voice taking on a decidedly uncivil, angry tone, Bissinger proceeded to launch into an attack on sports blogs, saying they are “dedicated to cruelty, they’re dedicated to journalistic dishonesty, they’re dedicated to speed,” before getting even more angry and demanding to know from Leitch if he had ever read the work of sports writing legend W.C. Heinz. (Leitch said he had, in fact, read Heinz’s most famous novel.) Bissinger then launched into a defense of sports journalism, using Heinz as the point of reference and comparing it to sports blogging by reading, still filled with anger, one portion of one entry on Deadspin.

I think it’s a good rule of life that if you are taking the position that “all (fill in the noun) are (fill in the adjective),” you are probably doing something wrong. All of virtually everything is never always anything. (Say that ten times fast.) There are good and bad building contractors. There are good and bad modern abstract artists. There are even good and bad reality television shows. And yes, Buzz, there are good and bad sports reporters and good and bad sports bloggers. Bissinger’s absolutist attitude uncomfortably reminded me of bigots who will tell you: "All (fill in the ethnic group) are (fill in the insult)."

As I listened to Bissinger’s rant, I couldn’t help think that by his highly flawed rules, I could have made the exact opposite point he was espousing. I could have pulled out columns written by newspaper writers, even ones that are well-respected, that were shining examples of some combination of ignorance, carelessness and just being out of touch, while producing sports blogs that were insightful, artfully written and informative.

Even more importantly, Bissinger’s position misses a larger point, which is that newspaper sports writers seem to have lost their way in the last few years. Last August, I wrote in this space about the dying art of sports writing, and how the rise of these journalists going on television and screaming at each other on crapfests like “Around the Horn” had sullied a long tradition for which I had great affection.

Instead of going after sports blogs, Bissinger should be demanding that his own former profession live up to its ideals. As he went on about sports blogs, the quote from “Friends” I laid out above sprung into my head. In this day and age, sports writers have to be careful about pointing a finger at anyone else and complaining of shoddy journalism.

It’s not like Bissinger offended me because I write a blog. My sensibilities -- and my love of good sports journalism -- closely mirror Bissinger’s value system for content. But as someone who reads newspaper journalists and bloggers, I have come to a vastly different conclusion than Bissinger’s. Namely, sports blogs closely mirror modern newspaper writing, in that both media feature examples of the best and worst of what is out there.

For example, I could imagine Bissinger’s head exploding if he read Fire Joe Morgan, which is dedicated to critiquing and even mocking, often line by line, ridiculous articles and on-air statements by sports journalists. And yet, the analysis of the “CostsNow” showdown that appeared on Fire Joe Morgan was far more reasoned and persuasive (not to mention funny) than Bissinger’s emotional, disorganized and hostile argument on the show.

I remember learning in high school that in order to criticize something, you should learn about it first. As Bissinger fumbled with the pages he had brought on stage with him and struggled to identify the writer of the excerpt he was lambasting, it soon became apparent that he had little to no idea how blogs worked. And in the same way that he essentially accused Leitch of not being familiar with Heinz’s work, I would suggest (because I’m more reasonable, I will not just assume ignorance) that Bissinger has spent little to no time looking at sports blogs. One thing that jumped out at me was his apparent inability to distinguish between what the writer of the blog had said, and what is said by visitors commenting on the article and the issue.

Here is the dirty little secret about sports blogs that might make Bissinger feel better (assuming he can tone down his rage long enough to think clearly for a second): A lot of people don’t read the comments. I don’t. I might be interested in what a writer has to say, but I’m almost never interested in what the comment posters have to offer. You’ll notice that I have disabled the comment function on this blog, and you also cannot post reactions on Fire Joe Morgan.

While Costas argued that the blogger is responsible for allowing the comments to appear in his or her space, a better approach would be that if a reader doesn't like the comments, he or she shouldn't read them. I choose to read some sports blogs, and for those that allow posted comments, I often (but not always) just ignore the comments section altogether. Oh, and Bissinger might want to take a look at the online version of some of his favorite newspapers. Nowadays, in many cases, there is a section for people to comment on the stories, just like you can on a blog posting. And the posts can be every bit as ignorant and disturbing as what you might find on a blog. Should we indict newspapers for the user comments on the articles and columns? Hardly. I would suggest Bissinger do on blogs what I do on online newspaper articles: Ignore the comments.

The sad thing is, I share many of Bissinger’s concerns about our society. It pains me the way the art of language is being downgraded (or even eliminated) in the culture. I am extremely worried at the rampant anti-intellectualism that has grown in the U.S., to the point where being too smart is actually viewed as a bad quality in a politician. And I certainly agree that the tone of many message boards, blog comments and other public fora on the Internet can be abusive and destructive.

But Deadspin posting a photo of Matt Leinart in a hot tub with several women is not the reason that we’re experiencing a drop in the quality of discourse. The coarser elements of sports blogs are symptoms, not the disease. We have CNN treating sensational crimes and celebrity foibles like they're real news, and we have reality television dedicated to seeing real people and C-level celebrities at their worst. Sports blogs are hardly the only place we're seeing a drop in the level of discourse. These problems exist regardless of the medium in which they are expressed. And newspapers are filled with trained journalists who are sensationalistic and/or lazy and/or dense in ways that are often no better than the blogosphere.

It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that the Internet has brought a vast amount of information to our fingertips, some of it being extremely useful and/or entertaining, and a lot of it being garbage. To dismiss an entire medium of expression as responsible for, well, nearly anything is a dangerous proposition.

My advice to Bissinger would be to read some really good sports blogs and then try and tell me that Woody Paige and Jay Mariotti are better just because they work for major newspapers. But Bissinger’s mind is all made up. So I might as well speak to him in language he can understand. As he said to Leitch on “CostasNow,” Buzz, “I think you’re full of shit.”