The Late Shift, a 1996 HBO movie based on a book by the New York Times' Bill Carter, chronicled the infamous struggle between David Letterman and Jay Leno to replace Johnny Carson as the host of the Tonight Show after his retirement. Higgins, in an interview with Starpulse's Mike Ryan, said that he knew at the time he was offered the role that the film would be controversial and that he risked facing a backlash within the notoriously petty industry for taking the role, but at the time he was a struggling actor who desperately needed $300 to fix his broken-down car.

They had a hard time casting it for that reason. And he was very powerful — and is. He didn't like the project from the beginning and didn't make it easy for me — or for anyone doing that project. It was (pauses) it was hard. I took it because I needed to fix the steering column on my Subaru is why I took it. I needed $300 or I wouldn't have a steering wheel. So, I ended up making more than $300 but in the end it's one of those jobs you just can't... I could not turn it down. I may be able to turn it down now, but I couldn't at the time. It would just be completely crazy and irresponsible.

You know, it was scary. I was scared of it. No question. Actually, doing the job itself was a tricky acting challenge but I had had harder acting challenges onstage. That part wasn't so bad, it was the appendant hoopla which was difficult for me to navigate and I didn't do it that well because I was so inexperienced. There was a lot of press, there was a lot of interviews and comparing me. And [Letterman] was saying things about me on his television program. It was difficult. I didn't know what I was doing.

I had a lot of help from HBO's publicity department who was holding my hand through it because I suddenly was in a rather glaring spotlight. Mostly not because of the project, which was good, but it wouldn't have gotten all that press. It was mostly because of the nature of the project. An inside, big Hollywood story where people were actually getting represented on the screen. People who are alive and well.

It was a great opportunity and it was really daunting and scary. It was like, "Should I do this? This could end it all. This could start and end the whole thing." Thankfully, it didn't.

Higgins also said that Letterman has refused to speak to him in the years that have passed since, though he was booked to appear on Letterman's show, only to get bumped without explanation.

There was a famous incident where he invited me to the show and I got bumped off the show. Everyone sort of tried to figure out what happened there ... it's odd though, it's an interesting job. It's really interesting to industry people. To still be talking about a job I was in 12 years ago is very unusual.

Back in February, Letterman invited the mother of the late comedian Bill Hicks onto his show so he could apologize publicly for a slight he perpetrated upon Hicks back in 1993. Maybe one day Letterman can invite John Michael Higgins to join him on the air to talk about The Late Shift and put all of the animosity to rest. We think it's be a tremendously nice gesture, not to mention something that would make for very compelling television, don't you think?

John Michael Higgins Talks [Mike Ryan/Starpulse]

In an email sent out tonight by one of the organizers, Palin pal John Ziegler, the group claimed victory and implied that the fight has only just begun:

This is John Ziegler, the Los Angeles radio talk show host and documentary film producer who went to New York to speak at Tuesday's rally outside the taping of David Letterman's show.

I wanted give you some major news about this cause. Despite the media doing their very best to try and diminish our efforts and pretend that the issue is dead, several the members of this list have received e-mails from "Olive Garden" announcing to them in very strong language that the restaurant chain is pulling their advertising from David Letterman's show for at least the remainder of the year.

We hope/expect that this major development will create some news coverage on Thursday and hopefully other advertisers will follow suit if you keep the pressure on.

Regardless, congratulations!! You have already made an impact and we still have a chance for some sense of accountability and justice here.

Ziegler then went on to offer his followers a treat for all of their hard work, a discount on some stupid DVD he's been going around peddling:

As a big thank you for those of you who have supported this cause, I would like to offer you a special discount on my highly acclaimed (endorsed, on air, by both Governor Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh) documentary on the media coverage of the 2008 election which got me involved into this issue to begin with.

How many of the sheep receiving Ziegler's email do you think are actually stupid enough to buy his garbage? Just curious.

Regardless, Zeigler's email points a major flaw in Olive Garden's claims that the termination of their Late Show ad buying just so happened to coincide with the protests—The fact that an executive at the company sent out emails filled with "very strong language" announcing their allegiance to a handful of extra-chromosome wingnuts and disgruntled Hillary supporters. A flack for Olive Garden told the Times' Bill Carter that the person who sent the emails to the group, company guest relations manager Sherri Bruen, isn't "an authorized spokesperson for the company." Yeah, okay. Can we just go ahead and call "shenanigans" now on this?

This is all so unfortunate—On the handful of occasions in life where I've eaten at Olive Garden I've really enjoyed those breadsticks and that gluttonous never-ending pasta bowl thing. Too bad I'll never eat there again.

Olive Garden Backtracks on David Letterman Ads [Politico]
Olive Garden Says It Did Not Cancel Ads on the Letterman Show [New York Times]

It's brutal. Carter wrote around the quotes and got exactly what he wanted: to write a Riot-Act level piece capable of inciting the pitchfork-wielding masses of Hollywood suits, gossips, and former NBC employees who want a Blackberry lodged through Silverman and Jeff Zucker's skulls (and put on display prominently at the NBC-Universal commissary). The title alone ("NBC Hired a Hit Maker. It's Still Waiting.") is fairly cruel. But then again, so was what he managed to get. For the first time, we're seeing less signs of Silverman hanging himself out to dry, and what might be the first instances of a somewhat apologetic-sounding Jeff Zucker beginning to try and swim to shore on Ben. Yes, Zucker is now trying to save his own ass:

Jeff Zucker, Mr. Silverman's boss and the chief executive of NBC Universal, says he continues to value Mr. Silverman's work. "Ben has a skill set that is incredibly appropriate for these times," he said. "If we weren't supportive of Ben, he wouldn't be here."

Still, the fact that there has been no formal deal announced to renew Mr. Silverman's contract will probably set off speculation among Mr. Silverman's critics that Mr. Zucker does not want to make a public endorsement of him.

As for his personal life, Mr. Silverman said he had taken steps to temper his social profile, which made him a frequent target in the Hollywood blogosphere. (He famously held a party populated by models in bikinisand white tigers in cages.) "I am more conscious of how I'm being presented," he said.

The off-hand remarks:

He was quoted dismissing two network competitors as "D-girls" - or low-level development executives. "I should never have called them that," Mr. Silverman said.

Silverman's goal posts:

...In its current position, still last among the major networks, NBC needs up, not flat; it also had the Super Bowl this season and it won't next year. To pick up [the] slack, it will require something (or several somethings) shiny and successful out of Mr. Silverman's shop.

...as well as his removal from the day-to-day of developing and green-lighting shows, the programming failures (though there is some praise reserved for his success with The Biggest Loser and The Office, both of which arrived via him, before he got to NBC). Oh, and then there's this gem, which makes Silverman sound like he showed up to work on the first day in boardshorts, ready to rock the lot with a set of aged cedar bongos under his arms:

"What I didn't realize is, it's really hard to have a vision running a network," Mr. Silverman said. "You can have an agenda. But it's almost impossible to have a vision because of the scale of the business and the entropy that already exists."

What the hell were Zucker and Silverman thinking giving anything - quotes, on the record or off - to Carter in the first place? How did they not know he was gonna hang them out to dry? If anything, this is throwing a propane tank on the coals: the piece in it of itself represents a massive fuckup on both of their parts, and Silverman - probably sitting at home right now, face in a Pyrex - will inevitably go deeper into hiding from being the programming rockstar he once saw himself as, and further into the dark, cavernous corridors of his advertisers' offices to do the "business stuff" he imaginably despises. It doesn't help that they included a chart (pictured below) to show how terrible of a job Silverman's doing. Growing up: bummer, man.

">

The idea that ABC would elbow aside its vaunted Nightline franchise for the late-night host is certainly flattering to him; that Jay Leno and David Letterman are believed to have received the same offer in past years only makes it more impressive. Such a move would signal not only Kimmel's high relative worth within ABC, but confidence that he could beat NBC's O'Brien.

But you won't find any ABC executives so much as acknowledging the talks in Bill Carter's story:

ABC executives, including members of the news division, disavowed knowledge of any plan to make a late-night change, saying that no such action was being pursued. Anne Sweeney, the president of the Disney-ABC Television Group, said that any such conversations were speculative and strongly denied that moving Mr. Kimmel was in anyone’s plans at the network. Mr. Kimmel and his agent declined to comment.

The sources on the talks, who told the Times ABC "has held discussions" about moving Kimmel to 11:35 pm, are described not as ABC suits but as "people with knowledge of meetings."

We're not saying we who the Times' sources are, but it's worth noting that both "Mr. Kimmel and his agent declined to comment." Hmmm. Carter sure went to a lot of trouble to secure not just one but two denials from Team Kimmel.

Then again, ABC's Sweeney didn't bother to deny that talks took place, only that they were "speculative." And in an anonymous denial to Reuters, the network only denied that the news and entertainment divisions had discussed the idea over, which Carter did not exactly report; he said only the idea of moving Kimmel had been discussed with the entertainment division, leaving open the question of who was on the other side of those talks.

So, angry as her network may be about Carter's story, it sounds like some sort of power struggle is afoot.

We started noticing that this commenter, more than anyone else, seems to post a response to any and all posts about the Times. And it's always something defending the paper. Hey, this is a fine thing—we like it when commenters can bring some expertise, some new information, a little intrigue. And you know, there's lots of stuff we like about the Times too. Or else we'd talk about it as little as we talk about the New York Sun!

But we've also noticed that, while this commenter often comes across as sarcastic and "biting," he also seems genuinely hurt over any criticism of the paper.

Here's what Urnidiot had to say on July 16, in response to a post about a Times article about middle-aged men who play Guitar Hero:

Could someone let the technicians know that the GawkerBot AutoPilot 3000 that's apparently been producing the posts on this site for the last several months is stuck in that mode where it only generates perfunctory, knee-jerk items about the New York Times? Thanks!!

In response to our post about where Times employees sit in the new building, Urnidiot had this to say:

Did you know there are also special chambers on each floor of the Times building where men and women are segregated by gender, and then made to enter individual containment units before they excrete solid and liquid wastes from their bodies? What a crazy, crazy company.

Urnidiot seems particularly piqued whenever we mention reporters or editors on the Culture desk. Take this response to a post about TV reporter Bill Carter getting beat on the Sopranos finale story by Star-Ledger TV critic Alan Sepinwall, who got an interview with David Chase (Carter wrote that Chase wasn't doing interviews):

Um, maybe it's because the publicists at HBO are a bunch of #@!%ing liars? But yeah, Bill Carter did interview every single member of the Sopranos cast this weekend, so I guess his HBO contacts must be really weak. Or something like that?

Or his response to our post, "Who's Winning the Battle of Hollywood":

This post reads like a first-grader trying to explain where babies come from. You've obviously gleaned some superficial details about the process, but you still have no idea what you're talking about.

Your criticism of Edward Wyatt has no basis; he managed to break some big stories despite the fact that networks wouldn't make key people available to him.

You are dead wrong that Bill Carter "has trouble" with HBO stories — did you even bother to do a cursory Nexis search on him?

You are dead wrong again that Sharon Waxman lacks sources and has been "basically blacklisted" by the industry.

It's very strange you make no mention of Michael Cieply or Jacques Steinberg, who break stories regularly on both coasts — or would this refute your shaky thesis?

It's stranger still that you seem to think the LA Times has any esteem or prestige whatsoever in the entertainment industry anymore.

It's strangest of all that you are still pimping your theory that Nikki Finke is the only person in the world who knew on Friday that Kevin Reilly was about to be fired.

Seriously, where do you get your information from?

Finally, we have this comment, from yesterday, in response to our post wondering if Brian Stelter was going to raise the ire of the notoriously prickly Bill Carter:

Indeed, I wonder what Jacques Steinberg, Virginia Heffernan, Alexandra Stanley, Edward Wyatt, Brooks Barnes, David Halbfinger, or any of the dozens of other people who write about television for the Times think about the fact that there's one more article about television in the paper today.

Anyway, maybe that typo was some meta-commentary about the fact that Alessandra makes so many mistakes?

We'd execute this guy, but somehow it seems more fun, and more sporting, to keep him around.

Comments By Urnidiot

Stelter's first piece is about the popularity of the Game Show Network, and how the network has also used various online applications to expand its viewers' experience. Now, there are a few reasons why this wouldn't have been a Bill Carter piece in the first place. Let's go over them! 1) It's not a meh piece about HBO. 2) It's not a palsy piece about NBC and/or Ben Silverman. 3) It hasn't already been written about in the LA Times or the Wall Street Journal. But that doesn't mean that Carter's not reading it and shaking his fist at the young upstart. Good thing they got Stelter to agree to be in the intermediate reporter program! After all, as some people know too well, one wrong look at Carter and Stelter will be outta there faster than you can say "God these upfronts are dull, but such a great time to take old network friends out for beers."

Old Game Show Network Reinvents Itself With Interactivity [NYT]
TV Newser Stelter Joins NYTimes [Romenesko]

As evidence of his appropriately cool relationship with Silverman, Carter volunteered the fact that the two had never met each other's families. "We don't have the trappings of friendship," he said.

In fact, Silverman and Carter have met members of each other's families. As Carter acknowledged in a subsequent interview, Silverman once met Carter's son during a visit to the set of The Office, which Reveille produces. [...] And according to a reliable source, Silverman has told people that Carter has met his mother—a former television executive for Court TV and other networks—and his sister and has described Carter as a "personal friend." (Carter denied meeting Silverman's mother, and said he doesn't recall ever meeting his sister.)

In any event, should be an innaresting time on Monday, when NBC Uni co-prez Ben Silverman presents at TCA! Fun for all of T.V. land.

Times TV Reporter's Cozy Coverage [Radar]

Well! Probably not Larry Ingrassia and his Business staff—like David Carr, Joe "Near-Death Experience" Sharkey, and soon, ex-TV Newser Brian Stelter—who are stuck way down on 2 (maybe they sold it to them as "bad views, but a short way down in case of emergency"?). Sharing that floor are various research/administrative-y departments like contracts and news surveys and database reporting, but also fun desks like Escapes/Travel; Investigative, which is run by former "Our Towns" Metro columnist Matthew Purdy; the Science desk (presumably where counterintuitivist John Tierney hangs his hat); and the wacky dudes of Sports. Oh, and Week in Review also gets its own corner on 2.

On 3, we've got a real newsy smorgasboard: City Weekly (hey, Jake Mooney! What's up, Jennifer Bleyer!), the clerical staff, the Continuous News Desk (they still have those?), Alison Mitchell's Education desk (where we presume ethics-loving and Jew-struggling Sam Freedman probably has a cubicle), the Foreign desk (the editors, we assume? If everyone else is, you know, in a foreign country?), and hip-hop and memo loving Joe Sexton's Metro staff—like Clyde Haberman, overwriter Michael Brick, weather poet Robert D. McFadden, and Peter Braunstein-chronicler Anemona Hartocollis. We're not done, though—also crowded into the third floor are the National desk, led by Times lifer Suzanne Daley (though, like the Foreign desk, most of her reporters are scattered in various places); the News Administration, News Design, and the simply named "News Desk" desks; Obituaries, where advance writer Marilyn Berger toils away, presumably maintaining the office celebrity death pool; the limping Regional Edition; and WQXR, the Times-owned classical music station.

Most important, though, is that the "Masthead" also lives on 3. Who, or what, is the "Masthead" desk? Why, simply the Most Important Editors of Our Time, such as executive editor Bill Keller, managing editors Jill Abramson and John Geddes, and deputy managing editor Jonathan Landman, who've clustered in a corner of the floor to protect themselves from the unwashed masses.

Up on 4, we've got Sam Sifton and his Culture clique—Alessandra Stanley, Bill Carter, Virginia Heffernan, Jon Pareles, Kelefa "K" Sanneh, etc.—who share space with a bunch of other features-y departments. We've got Trish Hall's Home section, which, of course, is not just for rich people! This floor is also where Pete Wells holds court over the Dining section, which is home to sometime bartender Frank Bruni, cheapskate Peter Meehan, and food-world gossipper Florence Fabricant; the Real Estate section, which hopefully will never again publish a front-page story printed at an angle like they did the other week; "Special Sections"; the TV Studio; and (drumroll!) WASPy Jew Trip Gabriel and his Styles minions. This, we imagine, is where the real decisions at the Times get made. It's where Stephanie Rosenbloom sits at her cubicle, calling her mom. Where Guy Trebay and Eric Wilson get into catfights over who's wearing the skinniest pants. Where Cathy Horyn swans into the office in a conceptual muumuu. Where "society editor" Bob Woletz has the power to decide which couples shall receive an announcement the paper's Weddings section, and which shall die a certain social death.

Moving on! On 5, ensconced with, undoubtedly, many bookshelves, we've got New York Times Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus and his staff, including Paper Cuts blogger and "Inside the List" columnist Dwight Garner, deputy editor Bob Harris, and assorted other book review staff.

On 6 and 7 is Gerald Mazorati and Alex Star's New York Times Magazine—plus the various incarnations of T, Play, Key, and whatever other one-word glossies they're incubating over there. The Art department also has space on 7. And most of the Editorial staff of NYTimes.com, including Digital News Editor Jim Roberts, lives on 9.

Our friends on the editorial page—editor Andrew Rosenthal, deputy editors Carla Robbins and David Shipley, and Letters editor Thomas Feyer—have taken up residence on 13, which they share with some ad operations people from NYTimes.com.

The Morgue has, sadly, been sent off-site, to the Times offices at 230 W. 41st St.

Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis and her corporate communications cronies are on 17, which they share with the controller's office and part of the executive committee (scary!), part of which is also on 16. Now we're getting to some potentially good views. On 18, we've got the corporate secretary, the "forest products group" (uh, paper?), legal, blah blah. The 19th and 20th floors are home to Ad Sales (and a herd of mice). Then, on 22, which is the very top Times floor (the rest of the building has been leased to fancy law firm Goodwin Procter) are what, clearly, are the most important departments in the place: Circulation and Finance. Just remember that.

Youch! Guess Carter's sources at HBO don't get him unfettered access to popular mob series producers. Not great timing today, either—because the NYT Business section has hired Brian Stelter, the 21-year-old wunderkind behind the TV Newser blog, to be a T.V. "media reporter" on the web.

Young Brian's job sounds similar to the position that the Times had offered to former New York Observer TV reporter Rebecca Dana, but with less "what's this new media internet mobile thing the kids are into." When rumors of unknown provenance made the rounds that Dana had said—jokingly, and possibly years ago—that she was going to "kick Bill Carter's ass" or some such, her offer was quickly changed to a three-year intermediate reporter position, an unexpected and unappreciated re-offer that she wisely declined.

Stelter has been hired at this status, called 8i, which means he'll basically be a glorified intern for three years. (It seems unlikely that the Times would've offered a 21-year-old a real full-time reporting position, but stranger things have happened.) Stelter will report to media editor Bruce Headlam on the Business desk, while Carter reports to Steve Reddicliffe on the Culture desk.

Things will undoubtedly get very interesting very quickly. Stelter has a ton of sources in the industry, and is just the kind of hungry fellow who could show up his older colleagues. Unless he gets stabbed in the back!

TV Writers Were Also Watching 'Sopranos' [NYT]
'Sopranos' Creator's Last Word: The End Speaks For Itself [Star-Ledger]
NY Times Hires TV Reporter Stelter [NYO]

His most recent television articles—a piece on May 27 on the Fox sitcom 'Til Death, a story about Bob Barker's TV specials on May 15—were merely forgettable, but some of his pieces are eyebrow-raising for their cluelessness.

Before moving to Los Angeles last year to be with his wife, Jennifer Steinhauer, the head of the Times' Los Angeles bureau, Wyatt covered publishing from New York, and without particular distinction.

On Saturday, April 28, the New York Times ran an article, "Well-Known
Secret: 'Grey's Anatomy' Spinoff for ABC," by Wyatt. In the article about Grey's Anatomy, Wyatt wrote, "Like a doting parent trying to hide a child's Christmas bike under the bed, ABC has been pretending to hope that no one notices what could be its biggest winner in next fall's television season, a spinoff of its hit nighttime soap opera 'Grey's Anatomy... Despite the buzz being generated by a potential spinoff of its highest-rated scripted show, executives at the ABC network and its television studio have refused to talk publicly about the new venture."

The next day, Sunday, April 29, the front page of the Los Angeles Times' Calendar section was devoted to the Grey's Anatomy spinoff. It featured quotes from, among others, ABC's entertainment president, Stephen McPherson, and Shonda Rhimes, the creator of the series.

And in a piece of Wyatt's about Lost on May 8, he wrote, "ABC declined to make its executives and the show's creators available for interviews." But the LAT managed to get both of the show's executive producers, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse, to give quotes in the article by Maria Elena Fernandez that ran the same day.

"He doesn't have a tremendous number of contacts," said one L.A. executive in the industry of Wyatt. "I don't look at that as a failing on his part! It takes awhile to develop those relationships." Wyatt appears to have written his first story on his new beat in March, 2006 ("Smithsonian-Showtime Deal Raises Concerns"), though people out west had the perception that he had been on the beat for a much shorter time.

"Ask me in three months what I think of him, and I'll be able to give you a better answer," this executive said.

At the New York Times, as at the Los Angeles Times, television is covered by both the Arts and Business desks. At the NYT, Jacques Steinberg and Bill Carter report to Business editor Larry Ingrassia [they used to report to Ingrassia; they now report to the Culture desk]; Brooks Barnes will report to media editor Bruce Headlam, one of Ingrassia's deputies, on the Business desk. Wyatt, and Virginia Heffernan and poor Alessandra Stanley, report to Steve Reddicliffe, the culture TV editor, who's under Sam Sifton.

At the LAT, Maria Elena Fernandez, Martin Miller, Greg Braxton, Scott Collins, Lynn Smith and Matea Gold—all reporters—are edited by Kate Aurthur (who used to work at the NYT on the Arts & Leisure desk), while Meg James reports to Sallie Hofmeister on the Business desk. That's not counting the LAT's critics. Even as the LAT prepares to slim down, they remain bulked up on their home turf—a place where they think they can show up the NYT.

Wyatt's relative inexperience wouldn't be so noticeable if the rest of the NYT's entertainment coverage was strong. And that's why Barnes—who has a reputation as someone who breaks stories—has the potential to be something of a thorn in the LAT's side in writing about the film industry. For example, Sharon Waxman (who's on the Culture desk, though her stories often touch on business-related topics) has been basically blacklisted by at least a few Hollywood folk since September 2004, when she wrote an article for the Times, "The Nudist Buddhist Borderline-Abusive Love-In," about the director David O. Russell and his film I Heart Huckabees. The article was filled with details that Russell—rightly or wrongly; there's a lot of he-said, she-said here—thought were for Waxman's book Rebels on the Backlot. When they ended up in the Times, he was none too pleased.

Since then, Waxman's lack of sources has become a detriment to the paper's coverage of the industry—a very recent example is her piece on the box-office success of Pirates of the Caribbean which (very logically) speculated that a fourth Pirates had to be in the works, given the success of the first three. Waxman quoted Mark Zoradi, president of Disney Studios marketing and distribution, an anonymous "film executive close to 'Pirates 3,' and Paul Dergarabedian, who runs a company called Media by Numbers, which tallies box-office receipts.

Meanwhile, the LAT's story had quotes from Disney studio chairman, Dick Cook (better than the head of marketing and distribution); Sony Pictures studio chairman Amy Pascal; Pirates producer Jerry Bruckheimer; and anonymous Sony executives.

Then there's the NYT's Bill Carter. Recently, Carter—who's been on the beat since the dawn of time—has had a few slip-ups that make it look like he's phoning it in. Take the recent incident involving Chris Albrecht, the HBO chairman forced to resign after allegedly beating the crap out of his girlfriend in Las Vegas; the LAT's Claudia Eller was the first to report that Albrecht had been accused of assault in 1991.

Later, Eller reported that Time Warner president Jeff Bewkes authorized a $500,000 payment to the woman, a settlement that raised eyebrows on the occasion of the company's annual meeting—will Bewkes be passed over for the head honcho job when Dick Parsons resigns? The NYT had nothing on the story.

Carter has trouble with HBO stories, for one, and also in getting stories when there's any whiff of scandal to them. Carter is also notorious for not giving credit to writers from other publications who break stories; compare, for example, Carter's coverage and its lack of credit to that of his new co-worker Barnes, always quick to slip in an acknowledgment. (Of course, both the NYT and the LAT both sometimes fail to give credit where it's due—take the recent firing of NBC's Kevin Reilly, which Nikki Finke reported on Deadline Hollywood before either publication; neither gave her credit.)

So, pre-Brooks, L.A. is up in the struggle. But what will happen next? When asked to compare the two papers' TV coverage, one critic (from neither publication), called the LAT's coverage "kinda schizophrenic. Sometimes, it's as sharp and as insider-y as it should be. At other times—well, look at the lead of this story. Wouldn't it be more appropriate in the Kansas City Star?"

(Disclosure: Gawker's Managing Editor takes a small bit of money from the LA Times, via the Calendar section (and has previously taken money from the New York Times via the culture section). Defamer's Mark Lisanti was called in to review this item.)

This apparently put the TV beat fellas of the NYT in a world of pain. Sort of like that spaceship in "Event Horizon" where everyone has nails all up in their faces and stuff!

NYT.com was happy to run the credit-is-due-to-the-LAT wire stories until their folks could crap a story out. Then NYT biz TV writer Bill Carter came to the rescue, ready to give credit to.... "speculation."

Yesterday: "The board of NBC Universal has scheduled a meeting in New York tomorrow morning, fueling speculation that the long-awaited appointment of Jeff Zucker as the company's new chairman and chief executive...."

Today: Bill Carter's follow story to his follow story, as it arrived—with edits!—on RSS. "When Jeff Zucker is named As the new head of NBC Universal, he Jeff Zucker will have completed a spectacular ascent from part-time sports researcher need to corporate C.E.O. deal with rapid technological and financial changes that are throwing traditional media businesses into upheaval."

That's just how NYT biz section editor Larry Ingrassia rolls, West Coast bitches! It's Biggie and Tupac all over again.

[UPDATE: a thumbnail of the published photo of Chris Albrecht by Justin Lane was removed per Mr. Lane's request, because we're super-nice like that. We offered him twenty cents via Paypal, but I figure we can't afford him.]
He lit up HBO. Now he must run it. [NYT]