Now that the Emmy dust has settled, and we’ve seen the ratings rise from last years broadcast, it’s safe to say that this was the best Emmy Awards presentation in recent memory.  From the solid hosting job by Neil Patrick Harris, to the fast paced energy throughout the show, this year’s ceremonies didn’t make you want to flip through that remote.  Even if were switching between the NFL game and the Emmys you could find out what was ahead by looking at the bottom of the screen.  In this respect, the show seemed to borrow an age old promotional idea from the six o’clock news, tell them what’s coming up and what time they can find it.  The program also appeared in some respects to be a bit like radio. If you turned away and just listened you could paint a picture of what was going on.  The producers also cleverly wove the internet into the night’s theme and made portion of it interactive.  All in all, the production of this year’s Emmy Awards, left you the thought, that you might actually want to watch it again next season.

Well, what do you know?  The ratings are in and it seems the numbers are up over last years least watched Oscar telecast ever. In fact they increased some 13 percent.  Not bad for a broadcast that was panned by a number of critics. During our live KNX/KFWB broadcast coverage backstage at the Academy Awards, I said that I thought the Oscar telecast was the best we had seen in some time.  It was a  fresh approach by producers Laurence Mark and Bill Condon and a great job by the host, Hugh Jackman.  Mark and Condon actually pushed the envelope by giving the awards more punch with the song and dance numbers.  Jackman pulled off the evening with great style and humor.True, the Oscars has long been the domain of a first rate comedian and it will no doubt return to that format sometime in the future. So, I’m trying to see the down side of this year’s show.  It couldn’t have been that elaborate set which looked great on the air.  Perhaps it was the introduction of all the principal acting nominees.  Yes, that was different and I was all set to squawk about it myself. But after the first few, you realized these tributes made a lot of sense. One out of the five nominees was going to lose, but each of them in their own way was already a winner.  Some of the obstacles in putting on a fast moving telecast are built in by  the Motion Picture Academy, and there isn’t a producer or director that can do anything about that.  But, as far as molding the clay they were handed, the artists who created this year’s Academy Awards broadcast did great a job.  

The other day Rush Limbaugh, in his constant rant against the Obama Administration spoke up about the Economic Stimulus Plan which was voted on by the House of Representatives.  He was talking to Georgia  Rep. Phil Gingrey who was actually apologizing to the talk host for accusing him of trying to stir up a controversy.  Far be it from Limbaugh to do that.  Nevertheless, Rush posed the scenario that not one Republican vote for the plan. Rush thought that would be perfect. Gingrey said that would never happen….but it turns out Rush was right. Coincidence? Or was the conservative radio talk kingpin trying to send another message to influence his flock of Republican sheep on Capitol Hill? I’m thinking none of Gingrey’s colleagues on the right, wanted to be taken to Rush’s electronic woodshed.

It was a great segment on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” this week and you can see it on our “TalkBytes.com” site.  MSNBC talk host Rachel Maddow, said she was embarrassed by the fact that President Elect Barack Obama and his family were forced to stay in a hotel until the inauguration.   She’s certainly right on that count.   How in the world the Bush administration allowed that to happen is beyond me too.  No matter whom the next President was going to be, the block of days leading up the inauguration wasn’t going to change. You would think someone managing the calendar of invited guests would have blocked out a few weeks for the next leader of the free world. If it was an oversight on the part of Bush and company it was just another careless move by a group that’s made quite a few.  If it was done on purpose, then it really was an insult. I’m sure we’ll learn the real truth one day, in someone’s memoir.

It came down to the wire, but somehow Time Warner Cable and Viacom came to a deal just before the content provider (Viacom) pulled 19 of its cable channels including, Nickelodeon, VH-1, and Comedy Central.  TWC was already facing an onslaught of calls from angry viewers, like those who want their MTV and lots of kids and their parents who weren’t going stay silent over losing shows like “SpongeBob Square Pants.”So what happened?  A compromise.  Both companies realized they had a lot to lose if the plug was pulled and, thus came to their senses. Perhaps that compromise thing could work in the current standoff between the major film and TV production conglomerates (AMPTP).Oh, what am I thinking?  We haven’t come down to that devastating deadline yet.  We will though, and let’s hope the word compromise plays the same role here because once again, both sides have an awful lot to lose. 

It’s kind of a bittersweet day for the entertainment industry.  The Screen Actors Guild presented the nominations for its upcoming awards in both film and television.  Normally, it’s a fun time, for many in the industry but right now it’s tempered by the growing threat of a SAG strike. Not only is it affecting celebrations surrounding the nods…but it also may turn out to be a real factor when ballots for the awards are sent out..   A group of very vocal supporters for a strike, within the Guild has now been countered by an equally outspoken group of Critics, also inside the union.  As the actors who reveal their positions on whether to strike continues to grow….how will this affect the voting?  Remember, the SAG awards are actors voting for actors.  Will a peer’s position on whether to strike affect the way their colleagues vote.  It shouldn’t…but…you know it will.

Is it a sign of the times or just a bad decision?   It really doesn’t matter.  CNN has decided to get rid of science correspondent Miles O’Brien. After 16 years the network is terminating him and shutting down their science/technology and environment division. Some shades of green are more important than others.   The thing here is, that O’Brien, isn’t just a superb reporter, especially when it comes to space exploration, he’s also a solid anchor and has been a great utility player for the network.  Whatever Miles O’Brien did for the cable network, he did well, really well. Hopefully CNN’s loss is about to be another news operation’s valuable gain.