PMSimon.com

This morning, Donald Sterling- The Other Donald- was on T.J. Simers' show on Xtra Sports 690 and 1150 in L.A., making a rare appearance to talk about the Clippers and why they suck. And he admitted the team loses a lot and he wants them to win "more than you know," but what he said right off the bat was most telling: the Clippers are "one of the most successful franchises" in the NBA.

Say what?

Say this: he was talking about their financial success. They're one of the most profitable franchises. Winning? Oh, sure, they've made mistakes, but blah blah blah.

Hey, sports fans, you wanna know what it's really all about? There you go. Thanks, The Other Donald.

Yes, the fact that success for many owners involves profit and not winning is obvious, not news, duh. But I hadn't heard an owner slip like that. You never hear Dr. Jerry Buss say a season was successful because they made a lot of money even though the Lakers didn't win. You never hear any owners say that. They THINK it, but they don't SAY it. But The Other Donald has long been ahead of this game. He's got company now. Bruce Ratner's actions since buying the Nets have all been aimed not at winning but at paring the payroll and minimizing costs while "stuck" in the lame duck Meadowlands situation, waiting for what will likely be several years before- kaching- the new arena in Brooklyn opens its doors.

And The Other Donald led the way for Ratner and Angels owner Arte Moreno in another way, one I've written about before: he bought a San Diego franchise and bullied the league into letting him turn it into an L.A. franchise. That meant they wouldn't necessarily be filling the house every night, and they'd be perennial second-stringers in the fans' mins. But it meant that instead of San Diego-sized media revenue, they'd get L.A. market money. And, because of that, the valuation of the team would skyrocket. A loser in Los Angeles is worth more than a winner in San Diego.

So Ratner did the same thing- buy a team at New Jersey rates and turn it into a New York (or Brooklyn- there's a marketing hook) franchise worth more even if they don't draw a single fan more than they do 7 miles west of the tunnel. And now Arte Moreno wants to change the Angels back into the Los Angeles Angels without even bothering to move them to L.A. While it ultimately doesn't matter to me- I'm not an Angels fan and I don't live in either Anaheim or L.A. proper (just L.A. County, but I'm a Phillies fan, so I don't count)- it's unseemly to watch the guy treat a contract, the deal that saw the city of Anaheim kick in a lot of cash to renovate what is now Angels Stadium, as if it doesn't exist. But Anaheim can probably be bought off, right? And those nearly 4 million fans who show up to see the team, the fans from Orange County who, truth be told, don't really like L.A. all that much, they'll show up anyway, right? It's all in the TV and radio money, and maybe he can get more if it's an L.A. team, right?

Right. The only difference between Moreno and Sterling is that Moreno, right now, still wants to win and is willing to spend the cash to do it. But that's for now. This Anaheim thing is coming off very The Other Donald-like. And it's another example of something that's true 9 times out of 10 in pro sports- if you think the owner of your team wants to win for any reason other than pure ego, if you think he wants to win for the community, for the fans, for YOU, you're living in a dream world. And the name of that dream world is subject to change, too, if it'll make the owner more money that way.

 Share

I could quote this whole article from TV Week, but the headline says most of it:

Execs Mull How to Gear Blue Shows to Red States

The article asks several TV executives if the election will change the kind of programming they purvey. The part about the hesitancy to do risque programming due to FCC and Congressional perception is a real problem, but then there's this:

Some in the industry think the perceived change in national mood will result in more shows that will appeal to the "values voters"-those who cited "moral values" as their top concern when exiting the polls.

The re-election of President Bush and the passing of same-sex marriage bans in 11 states left many in the entertainment community wondering whether they understand Middle American sensibilities-and whether programming opportunities are being overlooked in the process.

But asked whether viewers can expect more shows along the lines of "Blue Collar TV" and "Joan of Arcadia" and fewer like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and "Nip/Tuck," executives were as divided as voters.

Ted Harbert, CEO and president of E! Networks, predicted the election will signal a programming shift.

"Yes, I'm going to really go out there to consciously appeal to [viewers in red states]," Mr. Harbert said. "There's a bunch of ratings points to be had, and you forget about them at your own peril. And I think we're particularly well-positioned because everybody wants to know about Hollywood celebrities-whether they want to embrace them or ridicule them."

E!'s recently announced Wayne Newton reality show, "The Entertainer," Mr. Harbert noted, was specifically greenlighted to appeal to red state viewers. "If there's anybody who represents the red states, it's Wayne Newton," he said.

I hope he's kidding. I fear he's not.

Let's all understand one thing: just because someone voted for Bush doesn't mean he or she has no taste, or is offended by sexual content. "Blue Collar TV" is as lame and low-rated in, say, red-state Missouri as it is in blue-state Wisconsin. Pax TV doesn't beat ABC in Texas or Tennessee. Wayne Newton is the same joke everywhere.

Well, OK, there's Branson, but that doesn't count.

Are there differences between the red st... er, the heartland and the big cities? Sure, but there are differences between the big cities and their suburbs. And people watch "Desperate Housewives" and "The Simpsons" and "CSI: Wherever" in city and suburb, in blue and red. Aiming programming at one or the other is a waste of time. Try just doing entertaining, smart TV. And please, no Wayne Newton.

-----------

On a wholly unrelated note, I didn't want to let November 15 pass without sending out a Happy Birthday to my sister Joan. So, Happy Birthday, Joan. There ya go.

 Share

ABC is sorry for that bit in the "Monday Night Football" opening with Terrell Owens and a naked-from-behind Nicolette Sheridan, cross-promoting "Desperate Housewives." They're very, very sorry:

"We have heard from many of our viewers about last night's 'MNF' opening segment and we agree that the placement was inappropriate," ABC Sports said in a statement.

The NFL called the intro "inappropriate and unsuitable for our Monday Night Football audience."

"While ABC may have gained attention for one of its other shows, the NFL and its fans lost," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.

Why?

Why is ABC sorry? Why is the NFL upset? Why are "many" viewers complaining?

Let's take the worst case scenario- a kid sees the bit. Here's the likely reaction:

8 year old: "This is stupid. Is 'Fairly OddParents' on?"
Answer: No.

10 year old: "Hey, dad, what's this about? Where's the game?"
Answer: It's a stupid TV show promotion. You'll understand in a couple of years. The game comes right after the annoying country singer's finished.

13 year old: "Why is T.O. with that weird-plastic-surgery-victim-looking lady?"
Answer: Because Lindsay Lohan was unavailable.

In short, kids really don't care much about this stuff. The ones who are too young for sexual material really aren't interested in sexual material anyway- it's boring ("ewwwww, girls") until their hormones kick in, in which case they've already seen worse.

Jeff Jarvis is all over the broadcast indecency issue at buzzmachine.com- he was on with Stern in the 9:00 hour this morning trumpeting how he used the Freedom of Information Act to discover that the big fine on Fox for "Married by America" was the result of no more than three complaints. I could have saved him the trouble (and I have e-mailed him about it)- the FCC needs only one complaint to fine someone, and that's been the case in most of the radio fines (Doug Vanderlaan's complaint led to the big Bubba the Love Sponge fine; David Smith is the sole complainant in the Mancow cases), something I've reported on over the years at All Access. It's not a secret. It's always only taken one.

And that's not really the issue- we can all agree that's wrong and hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" and "We Shall Overcome" and light candles outside the Portals. No, the issue is simple, and nobody ever asks this question (OK, I HAVE asked it, to radio officials, NAB officials, all sorts of people, and here on this site, and never got an answer)- what exactly is the harm if a child DOES see a breast, or comes upon lesbians on Stern, or hears someone describe a Dirty Sanchez, or- cover your ears, Betty- hears the f-word? What happens to that child? Is he or she irreperably harmed? Or does the kid just a) laugh, b) turn the channel, c) ask mom and dad what that was, or d) burst into flames?

All I know is that I was exposed to nudity, sexual banter, and all sorts of indecency as a kid without my parents even knowing. I sneaked a peek at Playboy, learned about sex from kids on the playground ("hey, you know what f--k means?"), saw movies with "adult themes" back when movies were rated "SMA"- "Suggested for Mature Audiences." I found all of it boring until puberty, then it was fascinating. But it turns out I'm pretty normal- happily married, monogamous, faithful, no great desire for anything especially kinky. And I'll bet most of today's adults grew up the same way, even in the Bible Belt. It's just the way things work out.

So why is there a problem? I've told you this before, but it doesn't hurt to say it again: it's an unfortunate confluence of the desire of left-wing Democrats to use indecency as a battering ram against media consolidation ("see? If Clear Channel and Infinity didn't own so many stations, there wouldn't be such filth on the airwaves!") and right-wing religious Republicans doing the morality thing ("we must protect our children from such filth!"), with those interests coinciding with an election year. Yet nobody (else) is asking whether there are any studies demonstrating any harm to children, or anyone else, from sexually oriented entertainment. The reason? There is no such study, no study that means anything, anyway. It's all assumed- of course indecent radio and TV has to be bad for kids, because, well, it's indecent!

No, it isn't. But until someone else with more juice starts asking this question instead of focusing on procedure, the apologies and the fines and the chilling of speech will continue. And I'll still be alone out here, defending indecency.

I feel so dirty.

 Share

A friend from Cincinnati writes:

Noted today that you also shun the politics in search of things like (pop culture items).

Why yes, I've been doing that lately. And here's why: I've had enough. Enough of the arguing, enough of the bickering and the "stolen election" and the Marine-shot-an-unarmed-prisoner controversy. Enough of cabinet changes and arguing over whether a tax cut is spending or giving people their money back. Enough of Bush and Cheney and Condi, enough of Harry Reid and Al Franken and Hillary. I'll get back to that stuff, but right now, I've had enough.

And I think I'm in the mainstream on this. That's why I've been turning talk radio off lately, listening more to sports radio or music, anything but politics and war. Doesn't mean I don't care, does mean that right now, I have other things on my mind.

That doesn't, however, indicate that I'm wrapped up in the T.O./Nicolette Monday Night Football controversy, by the way, although I spent some time on it yesterday. I suspect that this whole thing is being pumped up by the news media and, just maybe, by the NFL and ABC, too. I don't think most people who saw the bit cared. That might explain why it wasn't really until Wednesday that the furor really took off- on Tuesday morning, it wasn't much more than a "did you see that? Pretty racy/lame" item before people moved on to other discussions. By late in the day, the flames were beginning to rise, and by Wednesday, it was Topic A. That says to me that the people making the biggest deal about this didn't see it, or saw it and didn't think it was a problem until someone else TOLD them it was a problem.

And I don't think the race issue is really involved. Interracial relationships aren't the taboo they used to be on TV. They've been popping up in prime time for years, and I think most people- yes, including the dreaded Red Staters- are OK with it all. Yes, there are racists out there, but there are always racists, always will be racists, and I think that the kind of racist who would get upset by something like a mottled Nicolette Sheridan flashing Terrell Owens in a comedy bit on TV is in the distinct ultraminority.

So the bottom line is this: I'm bored with politics, I don't care that Plastic Surgery Queen dropped her towel in the Eagles locker room, I'm not interested in anything.

Makes for compelling commentary, huh?

I'll go now.

 Share

Oh, OK, so many people are happening on this site looking for the T.O.-Nic-O video clip that I have to put up a link to the clip.

Here.

Now scroll down and read what I think. Thank you.

 Share

I have limited time for this mishegas this week, but while I have a minute, we were at dinner at the local shopping center and this, in a grainy Treo camera-phone shot, is what was going on below our window:

Yes, if you look closely through the low-res haze, that's a Christmas tree there on the left. The Avenue of the Peninsula had its grand tree-lighting ceremony and I was shocked that anyone turned out, but they did, in force. A zillion kids were there, and a cheesy Christmas Fairy lip-syncing "All I Want For Christmas is You," and a mimimum-wager in a Rudolph costume with a flashing red nose (I was unaware that Rudolph had a nose that flashed- I assumed from the song and the TV show that it stayed on to show the way, as opposed to flashing like a beacon on a tower so planes don't fly into him), and, of course, Santa, who, while not as bad as the 1968 Franklin Field Santa who got booed, didn't really do much of anything, just came out, waved at the crowd, had to walk through (or at least alongside) the crowd to get to the stage (great planning), then, you know, waved a lot. We left before they lit the thing- it was taking forever. And it dawned on me that we don't celebrate Christmas and they weren't erecting a giant Menorah and besides, it's a couple of weeks before Chanukah and it's not even Thanksgiving yet, so the whole thing was pointless, as is this column.

DId I say I don't have time to write much? Good idea. G'night.

 Share