I was able to catch a bit of The Late Show with David Letterman last night, when David Letterman was still talking about John McCain’s sudden decision to bow out of a scheduled appearance the night before.  McCain canceled his appearance at the last minute, so he could play superhero and “race” to Washington to save the country from an economy he told Letterman was “about to crater.”

In the clips below — from Wednesday’s show — Letterman, who made it clear that he regards McCain as a real hero for his war service, wasn’t particularly amused:

“So the economy is about to crater.  You’re a senator, a fourth-term senator from Arizona.  You go back to Washington.  You handle what you need to handle.  Don’t suspend your campaign.  You let your campaign go on, shouldered by your vice presidential nominee.  That’s what you do.  You don’t quit.  Or is that really a good thing to do?”

Then there was this about McCain’s absent “second string quarterback:”

“You say, ‘I gotta get back to Washington to save this country.’  Good for you.  ‘And while I’m gone, campaigining in my stead will be my great running mate from the state of Alaska, Sarah Palin.  And she comes out and campaigns.  What happened there?  What’s the problem?  Where is she?  Why isn’t she doing that?”

Here’s a clip of nine minutes’ worth of Letterman’s remarks on McCain’s last-minute decision.  Enjoy.

Towards the end of the clip, Letterman points out that McCain had called him personally to tell him he was “racing back to Washington,” then pointed to a supposedly-live clip of McCain sitting down for an interview with Katie Couric.

Maybe his pit crew had to change a tire during the race to the airport and they just happened to stop right outside CBS News?

On last night’s show, Letterman pointed out that after all of that, McCain didn’t actually leave for Washington until Thursday morning, which would have given him time to make Letterman’s show with no problem.

That’s essentially the question posed by The New York Times’ TV Decoder blog, in pointing out that ABC’s new reality series, Wipeout, just became the highest-rated new show of the summer.

The premise of the show, according to the blog, is that families compete for cash and prizes by making their way through a mud-filled obstacle course.

There are those who genuinely think such programs mean society’s destruction who blame the media for that. “If they’d stop showing such awful programs,” these people might say, “things would be a lot better.”

“What things?” I ask.

Will the absence of reality shows make people turn off the television and actually have a conversation with each other? Will their sudden disappearance make folks read a book instead?

Or will they just pick up the remote and find something else?

Wipeout doesn’t sound like the kind of show I’d be remotely interested in. Neither does that CBS show Swingtown that the family groups are having such a hissy-fit about. And the funny thing is, when either of those two shows are on — I couldn’t venture a guess what either show’s regular time slot is — I manage to find something else to watch, anyway.

It’s as simple as picking up that little remote control that’s sitting right there next to you. You know, that little thing you grab every time a commercial break comes on. If you don’t like what’s on, that same little remote works while the show itself is on, too. It doesn’t deactivate itself after the commercial break ends.

Give it a shot.

Just heard on Today: Katie Couric is returning to the Today show tomorrow, according to Matt Lauer. She’s coming back, apparently, for a single appearance and to make a “major announcement.”

Is she announcing that she’s giving up the anchor chair at the CBS Evening News? Probably not. It seems like CBS wouldn’t allow her to go announce such a thing on her former show at NBC.

Meredith Viera even joked, upon hearing the news, “Permanently?” Viera, of course, replaced Couric on Today when Couric left for CBS.

Is it some cheap marketing ploy designed to make people just curious enough to watch? Yep.

I’m curious enough, and I’m sure I’ll be disappointed by whatever the “major announcement” turns out to be.

UPDATE:  I found out what the “major announcement” is, and wouldn’t have spoiled the details until I realized that all of the networks were doing a fine job of spoiling it on their own.  And it’s not just Katie Couric appearing on Today.  NBC’s Brian Williams is going to appear on ABC’s Good Morning America.  And ABC’s Charlie Gibson is headed to CBS’s The Early Show.  In fact, all three anchors are appearing together on all three morning shows.

The reason?  To announce a new initiative to fight cancer.  More here.

See?  Not knowing was a lot more exciting.

If you’re a fan of CSI:, the original version, then it’s almost impossible for you not to know that one of the original cast members is leaving after tonight’s episode.

If you somehow have remained clueless, stop reading now.  Otherwise, you might just end up feeling the way I do about these constant “behind the scenes” details and “spoilers.”

In case you don’t know, and you’re stubbornly still reading this, I’ll throw in one more delay before getting to the meat of the issue.  Actress Marg Helgenberger has just signed a two-year contract extension.  That will keep her on the show as long as William Petersen, who signed his extension back in April.

Just knowing those two details, it seems to me, kills a lot of opportunities for suspense in the medical drama.  Odds are if either of their characters fall into a life or death situation in the next 15 months or so, they’ll probably survive.  (They could always die and come back as their own ghost, but that’s more of a soap stunt.)

Actor Gary Dourdan is leaving the show and tonight is his last episode.  There may be suspense in how he departs:  will he be shot to death by a perp or arrested for something he’s done?  Will he catch a contagious virus from a contaminated crime scene or get hit by a drunk driver running from police?

Who knows.  But he’s leaving.

The thing is, why do I know that?  Why do I need to know that before I see it actually happen?

Shows like Entertainment Tonight, which used to be a decent show in its early days before it turned more tabloid than the National Enquirer ever dreamed of being, are constanty revealing details that the audience really shouldn’t know going in.

I watch all of those behind the scenes documentaries about how this effect was done or how that trick was pulled off, then I see the show and can’t help but be less than impressed with the magic because I now know there’s no doubt about it being a trick.

Sometimes I actually want to be surprised.  Just once — and this is quite a fantasy these days — I’d like to know what the ending will be only after I see the episode actually end.

Sometimes, I wish these behind the scenes reports would just shut up.

When the new president is inaugurated next January, another big change may take place: CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric might just be moving away from the big desk.

Or maybe not.

The Wall Street Journal reports that after two years of record-low national ratings, Couric is likely to leave the show, possibly just after the election is wrapped up. That’s about two years sooner than her current, $15-million-per-year contract is set to expire.

CBS News, on the other hand, says not so fast. A spokesperson for the network told reporters, “We are very proud of the ‘CBS Evening News,’ particularly our political coverage, and we have no plans for any changes regarding Katie or the broadcast.”

“We like being third place and are delighted that the ratings with Couric are lower than they were with interim anchor Bob Schieffer,” the spokesperson did not add.

As for Couric, she says she’s “working hard and having fun.” “My colleagues continue to impress me with their commitment to the newscast, and I am very proud of the show we put on.”

Should she stay or should she go? Do you watch her? Have you tried? Do you care?

NBC is still reeling from the spectacularly bad ratings of the television premiere of Quarterlife, a series about sa group of twenty-somethings.  I note that it was the television premiere because the show has been running for some time online on Myspace.  I’m not sure how many people have viewed the show’s “webisodes,” but as TV shows go, last Tuesday’s 10pm premiere earned the Peacock network its lowest ratings for a premiere in 17 years!

That’s gotta smart.

NBC had originally planned to air six episodes of the series.  That plan quickly changed after its 1.6 rating debut, which translates into barely over 3 million viewers.  While most cable networks would jump for joy with numbers like that, for a major network, it’s not the news anyone would hope for.

The show’s creator didn’t seem all that surprised:

“It never should have been a network show. It’s too specific,” [Marshall Herskowitz] told a Harvard Business School conference Wednesday, according to The Hollywood Reporter. “From the first three minutes” of watching the show on TV, he added, ”I knew it wasn’t right.”

Too bad he didn’t come to this realization a little sooner.  At least, I figure that NBC might have liked to hear that argument.

In the old days, the show would probably make at least one more appearance, hoping that the audience would “find” it, give it a chance, and come back.  Now, shows that place in the ratings cellar rarely get the benefit of the doubt:  in terms of NBC’s prime time schedule, Quarterlife is dead.

All in the Family was one of those shows that began with low ratings.  Part of that was by design, as the story goes.  After NBC and ABC passed on the show, a cautious CBS scheduled it in a poor time slot, hoping more than anything that their switchboard wouldn’t be flooded with calls about the social satire that comprised the series’ scripts.  It was during the summer reruns of the shows first season that viewers started noticing, and liked what they saw.  And All in the Family still ranks in the top 10 best sitcoms of all time in my book.

I missed the premiere of Quarterlife, which puts me right in line with most everyone else, apparently.  So I can’t offer much in the way of the quality of the series.  I just hope it isn’t anything nearly as entertaining as All in the Family was back in 1971.  It’d be a shame to have missed a show like that these days.

I found this little personality quiz about a show I’ve actually watched. Here’s the character I’m most like from the series Jericho:

Which Jericho Character Are You?

More on Jericho. Created by BuddyTV

I think the description is a nice way of saying that I’m a little creepy.

The longest-running show in the history of broadcasting is getting a major makeover that hits the air today.  And based on what I’ve read about it, I’m glad I’m not a fan of the show.

That show is Guiding Light, which began its record-breaking run 71 years ago on radio and made the move to television in 1952.  I have a lot of respect for any show that has been able to last that long.  But ‘GL’ is generally at the bottom of the ratings, and in an effort to keep it running while cutting production costs, the producers of the show are trying to redefine the way soaps are made by using smaller handheld cameras and adopting a New Jersey town as the stand-in for the show’s fictional town of Springfield.

The show’s executive producer, Ellen Wheeler, says it’s time to shake things up:

“Soap operas have been shot, by and large, the same way since the 1950’s, the same way I Love Lucy was shot - with pedestal cameras, in just a few interior sets.  [It’s] old-fashioned, and it isn’t working anymore.”

Daytime’s number one soap opera for 16 years, another CBS show, The Young and the Restless, seems to be working fine doing things the tried and true way.  (I doubt if she added that little fact in the conversation.)

The show will go for a cinema verite look.  This is a fancy term for a kind of “documentary” shooting style, in which cameras are handheld, up-close and personal, and follow the action by generally moving around much more.  Generally, that style works for documentaries and when it makes sense.  But when a production actually “tries” for that look, rather than using it when it’s the obvious thing to do, it has been my experience that what ends up happening is a lot of annoying camera moves — especially unnecessary shakiness — that is more annoying than innovative.  There was some cop show on a few years ago…I don’t remember which one…maybe NYPD Blue, but don’t hold me to that…that relied on handhel, intentionally shaky camera work.  I tried to watch an episode, and noticed that before every cut, the camera would suddenly jerk left or right slightly.  I began to notice the distracting move more than I was paying attention to dialog.  I never made an attempt to watch the show again.

Unfortunately, a lot of the people in the business who really like this style are some of the same people in film class who toss around big words like juxtaposition whether they know what they mean or not, and are more caught up in emulating a style than thinking about whether what they’re shooting will actually work in that style:  it’s supposed to be what works for the viewer and lets them stay engaged with the show, not what the crew thinks is “cool.”

Guiding Light has been working some of the “new” style into episodes over the past few months.  Here’s a sample:

What will take soap opera fans some getting used to — beyond the shakiness, which could easily be avoided with steadycams if they just have to go off-shoulder — is lower sound quality and bad lighting.  In the clip above, featuring two actresses in a gym, there are lots of echos in the room and lots of shadows on their faces because the room isn’t really lit for television.  A side effect of the bad lighting, one that will probably make some more vain actors and actresses start checking their contracts, is that wrinkles will be a lot more obvious.

Making your characters look like hell just so that the cameras can move around more, to me, isn’t exactly a worthwhile trade.  But maybe that’s just me.

The show is also doing a lot more outdoor scenes in the small New Jersey town of Peapack, which has agreed to become the real-life Springfield for shooting purposes.  That, I’ll admit, is a cool idea; I’m sure fans of the show will enjoy seeing characters out and about in “real-life”-looking settings in the town they “live” in.  Even so, steadycams wouldn’t really destroy the mood.

It is worth noting that the show won Best Drama Series last year in the Emmys, so I doubt that this is really some “last ditch effort” to “save the show” from cancellation.  But still, are all of the changes the “next great thing” or will it be a sad attempt at hip?

If you watch the “new” look, I’d love to know what you think.

On Friday night’s edition of The Price is Right Million Dollar Spectacular, something happened that has never happened before: someone actually won a million bucks.

The show featured two opportunities for a contestant to win: during one of the six pricing games, perfect pricing would have earned a contestant the seven-digit top prize, but that one wasn’t won.

The second opportunity came in the Showcases. Traditionally, if a contestant bid the closest to his showcase’s actual retail price and was within $250 of the actual price, he’d win both showcases. For this special, if the winning contestant was within $1,000 of the showcase’s retail price, he won both showcases plus a million-dollar bonus.

Here’s the video of the big win, including the brief credits before CBS cut to those annoying split-screen credits courtesy CBS, which apparently had other people’s postings taken down in favor of its own “creditless” version:

I’m sure that if I were a contestant, I wouldn’t complain about a million dollar bonus. But as a fan of the show, tacking on a million bucks just seems a bit unnecessary to me…as if ‘Price’ is just tossing that out there because a million-dollar top prize seems to be the latest fad. At least now, a well-done game show is offering that prize for a change.

For the non-diehard ‘Price’ fans, I point out that the endgame of the show is the Showcase round. The “Showcase Showdown” is the part with the famous Big Wheel, during which it is decided which two contestants will move on to that final round. For a show that has been on the air for 35 years (and featuring the one-hour format with the Showcase Showdowns for the last 32 years), it’s amazing how many newspaper articles that discuss the show get the Showcase and Showcase Showdown confused.

Two days ago, 89-year-old Mike Wallace, one of my all-time favorite journalists, underwent triple bypass surgery, CBS has revealed.

Today, he took his first steps since the procedure that doctors are calling a success.

Heart surgery.  At 89.

I think if I had heart surgery at 39, I’d be off my feet for at least a week.  Hell, the pain would probably be enough for me to request being placed in a medically-induced coma for a good month-and-a-half.

May we all be going that strong just months from the big 9-0!

If you ever have a chance to attend a taping of The Price is Right, I highly recommend it. Not because you have a chance to win cash and prizes, but because it’s just an incredible experience.

One of the things that makes it so amazing is the spirit in that studio, when 320 people start cheering like there’s no tomorrow. To call it a party atmosphere is an understatement of epic proportions. And new host Drew Carey is issuing an interesting challenge to people who visit to keep that “magic” alive even when the red lights go off:

This little inspirational message was delivered during a commercial break before the final showcase round.  Do you dare give it a try in your own life?

If he were still alive (he died at age 81 in 1999), game show great Gene Rayburn would have been 90 today.

Rayburn was host of Match Game, a goofy, racy, laugh-fest that ran for nine years on CBS in the 1970s and early 1980s.  Match Game, other than The Price is Right, was my all-time favorite game show.  (Third place would go to the original What’s My Line? for those of you who were dying to know.)

Match Game was one of the few bright spots on the GSN (formerly Game Show Network, now, apparently, just three letters) lineup in an ocean of lousy poker shows and interactive crap.  (Match Game is generally among the highest rated show on that lineup, which should tell them something.)  Even though Comcast decided to quietly move GSN to the next tier up, which would require me to pay more money to them, I still have some of Rayburn’s antics on tape.  Thank goodness.

Rayburn always claimed his antics on the set were all because of the game’s “weak format.”  It was a show about fill-in-the-blank questions with celebrities suggesting their own answers and contestants trying to match as many as possible.  “It needed to be goosed up,” Rayburn told an interviewer shortly before his death, “and my way was with comedy.”  Rayburn’s decision was not popular at first with the legendary Mark Goodson, the host added.  He spoke of memos to the producer in which Goodson complained, “‘What’s Rayburn doing?  He’s getting laughs!  He’s getting laughs!’  Goodson thought the most important thing was the game,” Rayburn recalled.

But the show became the number one daytime game show for a number of years, even beating The Price is Right for a few years, and Goodson (who owned both) apparently changed his mind.

After all, it’s not the questions anyone remembers about Match Game; it’s moments like this:

Happy Birthday, Gene.  You’re still missed.

It’s time for another YouTube clip.

If you’ve ever watched The Price is Right, you’re surely familiar with “Race Game.” If you’re not, here’s how it works: a contestant is shown four prices and four prizes. They must race to place the four price tags in front of the correct prizes before the clock runs out, and they can keep making changes until they’re either out of time.

Simple, right?

One more detail: they have 45 seconds to get the prices on the right prizes. Except in this particular playing from the early to mid 1980s:

Barker’s ad lib about the contestant not having enough time was priceless.