Category Archives: TV

Back here, I told you about the upcoming presentation of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum up at UCLA for a mere sixteen performances, March 16-28. What I didn't tell you then (because I didn't know then) is that if you order tickets online, you can enter the codeword LATIN and get a $10 discount per seat. There's no discount available for the two lectures I'm giving in connection with this show but that's only because they're free.

On Tuesday, March 9, Bob Newhart is being interviewed at the Grammy Museum in Downtown L.A. American Express presale tickets are on sale now for $20 and admission includes a copy of Newhart's autobiography, which is in itself probably worth twenty bucks. Such a deal.

Robert Klein is making a few rare appearances in Southern California — and by "rare," I mean I think the last one was a wonderful night at the Improv some of us spent with him at least twenty years ago. He's at the Ice House in Pasadena on March 9 — same night as Newhart's interview downtown — and he's at the Comedy and Magic Club in Hermosa Beach on March 10 and 11.

If you've never been there: The Comedy and Magic Club is a pretty good place to see comedy and it's not as far away from L.A. as it might seem. This is the club where on most Sunday nights, you can see Jay Leno do about an hour (with Jimmy Brogan opening for him) for $30. Leno gets $79-$99 for his show in Vegas and I don't think he even has an opening act there. I have friends who have been unimpressed by Mr. Leno on TV but who still rave about seeing him do an hour live. One said to me, "Now, I understand his reputation…"

And we're not done yet. There's an L.A. group called Writers Bloc which arranges public one-on-one interviews, usually involving someone who has a new book out being interviewed by some sort of celebrity. On Wednesday, March 31, Jeff Garlin is being interviewed by Bob Saget. And on Tuesday, April 27, Carol Burnett is being interviewed by Tim Conway. In both cases, there will be ample opportunity to purchase the interviewee's new book and get it autographed. I've been to Writers Bloc events for folks like George Carlin, Al Franken, Bob Woodward, William Goldman, Lewis Black, Eric Idle, Jerry Lewis and others I can't recall at the moment…but I recall having a good time at all of 'em.

Now, we're done. For now.

I just set a Season Pass on my TiVo for The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

Just fixed a whopper of a typo in my piece on Paar. Thanks to all nine million of you who noticed it…and how come no one ever corrects Sarah Palin the way you folks correct me?

One other point. You'll notice in the audio of Paar's resignation, he says, "I'm leaving the Tonight show." Well, two points, actually. The show in question was called Tonight when Steve Allen hosted it, not The Tonight Show, though I'm sure folks casually referred to it as such. When Paar took it over, it went through a number of names like Tonight Starring Jack Paar and Jack Paar Tonight. In TV Guide and similar listings, it usually just said Jack Paar. Eventually, it became The Jack Paar Show until near the end when NBC decided they needed to re-establish the name, Tonight.

It formally became The Tonight Show after Paar left. As you may know, his successor (that Carson guy) didn't start for six months after that due to a contractual problem so there were guest hosts. If you were ever asked to name the first person who hosted a program called The Tonight Show on NBC, I believe the correct answer is Art Linkletter. He was the first guest host. When Johnny showed up, it was The Tonight Show and Ed McMahon's opening voiceover would say, "The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson." At some point — I don't know when — the official title of the show became The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson. As far as I know, no one ever suggested changing it to The Johnny Carson Show.

I believe Paar said on several occasions that he never referred to it as The Jack Paar Show and the audio of his walk-off is consistent with that. He later did do a weekly prime-time program called The Jack Paar Show. Jay Leno made it The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and I assume that won't change. Conan O'Brien had The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien. In Mr. Carson's honor, they seem to have retired the word, "Starring."

The Hollywood Reporter has some information on what was in Conan O'Brien's Tonight Show contract and how it may have impacted what NBC did and said. Thanks to Marc Wielage for letting me know about this.

The most interesting thing is that in a 2002 amendment to O'Brien's Late Night contract, he had language that said he'd be installed as host of The Tonight Show if Jay Leno left. This is the kind of clause David Letterman probably wished he'd gotten when he was hosting Late Night and that Carson guy was hosting Tonight.

This evening on Countdown, Keith Olbermann and Bill Carter discussed whether the Dave/Oprah/Jay Super Bowl ad represents a cease-fire in The Late Night Wars. Consensus: Maybe, maybe not. I do think the commercial benefited all three of those folks. Carter revealed that — surprise, surprise — he's working on a book on the whole Conan/Jay rotation.

The first edition of Carter's book on the Dave/Jay mess, The Late Shift, ended on the assumption that Letterman and CBS had won a decisive victory, that Jay and NBC had lost, and that was that. Game over. Later, in the second edition, he added a chapter that essentially said, "Oh, by the way…it all changed." And this time, he was cautious to not suggest the lead might not change back. One assumes he'll be equally cautious with the next book.

By now, you've probably seen the Super Bowl commercial with David Letterman, Oprah Winfrey and Jay Leno all together. I wonder how many people, in this era of CGI and special effects, assumed it was digital trickery and the three of them were not all together on the same couch.

But it was taped with all three on the sofa last Tuesday afternoon as Bill Carter explains. And in case you missed it, here's a video embed. Wonder if Jay brought the Doritos…

It may be time for me to stop following the Leno/O'Brien mess as closely as I have been. I actually had a dream about it last night, and I rarely dream about things that are occurring in reality unless they're really, really close to me. This matter isn't and shouldn't be, though I have spent some time the last few days talking to folks who are living with it, mostly over at NBC. The discussions have been fascinating as spectator sport, and in trying to understand better the bizarre manner by which networks operate. If it doesn't make sense to you from afar, take some comfort in this: There are people who know a lot more about this than you and I could since they're in the thick of it…and it doesn't make complete sense to them, either. Such confusion is, by the way, not unprecedented in network television.

The conversations have also made me aware how so many who are outraged over this silly bit of network bungling simply have the basic factual recital wrong, and how many of the hysterical insults of Jay Leno are way out of scale even if he committed all the treachery they ascribe to him. Apparently, not giving Conan O'Brien a strong lead-in at 10 PM or taking back a job you didn't want to leave in the first place is now a capital offense. Well, I guess I can see that.

Some of the differing perspectives are, I suppose, a matter of personal experience. Those who are furious that NBC made some bad calls seem to be expecting a level of perfection at the executive level that I sure have never seen. Not there, not anywhere…and certainly not with regard to any show I ever worked on. While it's obvious some very bad decisions were made, it's not so obvious what the right ones might have been. Even armed with hindsight and the knowledge of how the ratings would go, no one seems able to say, "Everything would have been peachy if Jeff Zucker had done X, Y and Z." At best, they seem only able to come up with scenarios for a series of lesser disasters.

I also have been around Leno enough to see that he's a decent guy with some unusual, but not at all unethical notions of how to handle the business end of his business. They work for him and he generally gets what he wants, much to the angst of competitors and the many peers he bypasses. In this case, it's all led (unfairly, I think) to a lot of vilification…which is not to say I fret for his future or reputation. One moment when I really liked the guy occurred back when he was getting slammed by TV reporters and critics who saw it as inevitable that Letterman would drive him from the airwaves and back into the comedy clubs. Leno was asked if he wasn't crushed by all the bad press and he said to the fellow who asked him this, "Hey, tell you what. I'll give you my paycheck and I'll call you a moron. See if you can handle it." When he gets slammed, he keeps it in perspective and somehow endures.

Life is seriously askew when anyone feels sorry for any of the characters in this psychodrama. I cringe inwardly and outwardly when someone rails on about the injustice of poor Conan O'Brien having his dream yanked away from him after a mere seven months. Conan, Dave and Jay are all guys who've gotten about 95% of everything they ever could have desired in their chosen line of work — and to put that percentage in context, you have to remember that this is an industry where the average player is lucky to achieve 2%. These guys are at the level where on the extremely-rare occasions that they don't get what they want, the consolation prizes are in the tens of millions of dollars. Conan himself said it well in his classy closing speech.

All I really remember of my dream last night is that it was about people yelling about Jay and Conan, Conan and Jay, all out of scale with what is basically a series of S.O.P. network business decisions. They may be wrong decisions. I mean, I think Conan's ratings would have gone up if NBC had left him at 11:35 for a few more months…and I have a friend who thinks they shouldn't have cancelled Ugly Betty. Somewhere out there, there's someone who thinks the NBC guys are brain-dead for not bringing back Phenomenon and stripping it five nights a week at 10 PM.

One or more of us may be correct, just as Armchair Quarterbacks are sometimes right when the guy on the field is wrong. TV programming is, to at least a significant degree, a hunch business. Yes, there's research and test audiences and focus groups and going with proven winners…but every time a network puts on a show that gets quickly cancelled, it means someone played a hunch and it didn't work. Or at least, it didn't work quickly enough. That happens all the time so it's silly to get emotional about it, especially when it really doesn't impact your life much. Those who make their lives in and around the networks learn how to roll with the inexactness of the science. A friend of mine who was briefly the Vice-President of Comedy Development at NBC — I think he held the post for about three hours — once said to me there was one surefire way to be right most of the time in a network job: "You merely predict that every single decision anybody makes, including you, will prove to be wrong."

Ultimately, I am more bothered by the incivility than anything done by the principal actors in this Kabuki. One friend of mine who has never liked Leno is going all Glenn Beck on this, twisting facts and ratcheting up the invective to no good purpose. I have an awful feeling we are one phone call from the end of that friendship.

March 1, Jay starts his new show. Most of those who said he'd irrevocably destroyed his career with his sinister machinations are now backpedalling to allow that, well, maybe he will start winning the time slot again. Even if he doesn't, no one seems to be wagering that he won't do better in March than Conan would have. I still think Leno's success will have a lot to do with whether he can fix one of the main things that was wrong with his 10 PM show — above and beyond the fact that it was on at 10 PM — which was the weakness of the material. I'm eager to see what he'll do but I'm even more eager for this all to be over. When it starts invading your sleep, something's wrong. I don't think I've ever dreamed about a show I was working on. Why this?

Jay Leno was on with Oprah Winfrey this afternoon for a chat. Ms. Winfrey has the habit of pressing her guests to discuss their lives and feelings in her terminology and in very simple terms…the kind of pop psychology wherein you can summarize a human's complete emotional profile in one sentence. Which is fine if that's how they see their lives or if they can distill it all down to Oprah shorthand. I felt like on the deeper, personal questions — why Jay didn't walk away at certain points or express hurt or anger — she and Leno didn't connect. I don't think Leno was being evasive or obtuse. I think the guy just doesn't view his world in those terms. His attitude is that you bury hurt feelings and you don't look for love or sucking-up from your employer; you just take the opportunity you think will work best and go with it.

On the matters of who did what and promised what, Jay laid out his case pretty well. If you're inclined not to like the guy, you won't buy it…but he said it about as well as he could, considering that he couldn't really emphasize the point of how weak Conan's ratings were. That's the heart of this whole problem but Leno would have looked bad for making an issue out of how, for example, O'Brien's Tonight Show went from first place to third in about a week. (One thing Jay could have mentioned, if only because Oprah didn't seem to know this, is that this did not happen with The Jay Leno Show as its lead-in. Jay's 10 PM show didn't come on for several months. Conan lost with the same kinds of lead-ins that Jay had when he was in first place.)

A much better case for Leno was made by Oprah herself in a post-show discussion group that I think is only available on the Internet at this link. It's about 40 minutes and some parts of it are kind of silly. Oprah's main goal seems to be to get the Leno-detractors in her audience to admit that the interview she conducted with Jay changed their minds. Most in her little focus group don't know anything about the TV business or the players in this drama so it's a little frustrating to hear their opinions on both. But then there is Oprah, who does know the industry (and Jay and Dave…), explaining how things are and how she doesn't see how Jay could possibly be the Bad Guy in it all. I suppose that's the best endorsement Leno's likely to get until he's back on The Tonight Show and all of America votes on whether they still like him.

At the risk of horrifying certain friends of mine — something I do every day, I would imagine — I would like to defend Jay Leno. I'm not going to address the issue of whether you oughta find him funny or not. If you don't, you don't. I generally do, especially in a live setting, and based on his success rate, I'm obviously far from alone. I also note his demographics and who I see in the audience when I go see him in person and I reject the idea that one specific generation or age bracket doesn't like him. Heck, I don't even buy the idea that — of Dave, Conan, Jay or the others — I even have to have a favorite. Anything wrong with liking all of them?

By way of full disclosure, I should say that I've met Jay on a number of occasions dating back to his Comedy Store days, and sometimes sold (or more often, given) him jokes. He has been unfailingly nice to me and everyone around him. I also have several friends who have worked for the guy and they have nothing but good to say about him. I'm sure there are those out there with different experiences but you tend to give more weight to first and second-hand encounters.

Some (note the "some") of the attacks on him from within the industry fall into the twin categories of Personal and Professional Jealousy. Leno is a notoriously prosperous, well-adjusted guy. He has no drinking problem. He has no drug problem. He has a famously happy marriage. He has more money than any of us and more cars than they make these days in Detroit. He also has a ratings track record that anyone in any part of the television industry would kill for. And perhaps most maddening to some is that he keeps having these publicized dilemmas and winning, surviving when his detractors have written him off for dead. Some people — especially those he's bested in the ratings or refused to have on his show — keep being denied their Schadenfreude and can't resist kicking a guy when he might, at long last, be down.

And some of it is folks who don't like his act, don't like his comedy, which is to be expected in this world. From that though, they leap to "He's not funny" and an insistence that his achievements could not possibly be Kosher. Those who flock to see him must be deluded or simple-minded, and all those steps up the ladder could not possibly have been earned. For the record, there are a number of very popular, wealthy comedians who rarely make me laugh…but I recognize that plenty of other folks find them hilarious and that's why they're popular and wealthy.

I don't like everything Jay's done. I wince at some of his political views and was not at all comfortable with his actions during the recent Writers Guild strike. That he went back to work bothered me but my Guild did clear him completely of all charges related to possible scabbing. Given that and the fact that I don't know all the legal considerations — the kinds of contractual problems he would have had as a performer if he hadn't returned — I grudgingly give him the benefit of the doubt here. I was, of course, very disappointed with his 10 PM effort and there are a number of things he did on The Tonight Show that sent me diving for the Fast Forward button on the TiVo remote. I don't think he's been at his best lately but that's true of Dave, Conan, most of them. Of all those guys, I think Craig Ferguson's the only one who's at the top of his game currently, though Conan's final week was terrific.

I have already written here that I don't think Leno did anything unethical or all that unusual in the manuevers that got him The Tonight Show job in the first place; that it was a natural process, at least to the extent anything is ever natural in network television. In the matter of the rearrangement with Conan, consider: Jay was doing a very successful Tonight Show. No crime there. NBC decided to take it away from him and give it to Conan. That might have been dumb on the network's part but Jay was gracious in stepping aside from a job that he wanted. Given his ratings clout and wealth, he could easily have engaged a killer attorney and pressured NBC to find a loophole in Conan's deal or renege and buy the guy off. Leno could also have immediately made a deal with Fox or ABC to go up against Conan and try to crush him in some emotional lust for revenge. Perhaps neither move would have worked but as far as we know, Jay didn't even try. I'm not sure I would have been as cooperative if I was thrown out of the biggest game of my life, especially when I was winning.

Those seeking to make some sort of case against him are arguing like his acquiescence included a pledge to go away, retire from network television and go work on his cars forever more. All he agreed to was to hand off The Tonight Show to Conan and he did, agreeably. He even had Conan on his last show, thereby making it at least partly about Conan O'Brien and not wholly about Jay Leno. How often in TV do people pass on an opportunity for self-congratulation? Not too often…

Taking the 10 PM slot on NBC, I'm sure, looked lucrative and it was also a good way to keep 175 people — the ones who helped put on a very successful Tonight Show — employed. But it was probably a mistake in the sense that the show was a mistake. It was not a breach of ethics, and I don't get this argument that Jay had some sort of obligation to get off the stage in order to do everything possible to help make Conan's Tonight Show a success. He did the two most important things, which were (a) not to dump on Conan for shoving him aside and (b) to hand off the program in good shape with high ratings. Conan continued those high ratings for about three days and then the show lost around half its (or Jay's) audience, plunging from First Place to Third, where it largely remained until talk of it moving or ending got it some attention.

I like Conan and once even told him so. I think Andy Richter's one of the funniest people on television and I'm glad that they finally moved him from being a distant announcer to an on-the-couch sidekick, thereby righting one of the early errors I think they made. Conan has/had first-rate producers and writers and, for my money, the best band of all the late night programs. But his Tonight Show did not connect with audiences as NBC had hoped…and it's annoying to see his partisans trying to spin that to blame Leno and his 10:00 thud. Conan took over The Tonight Show on June 1. The Jay Leno Show didn't start until mid-September, by which time Conan had been in last place for more than three months.

If you want to argue that before and after, Conan was victimized by bad lead-ins, okay. That's sure some of it. NBC had a 10 PM problem before Jay went on there. They had a 10 PM problem while he was on there. They'll probably have one after he's gone from there. The job description of hosting The Tonight Show pretty much comes these days with having to rebound from weak lead-ins. Somehow, Leno always managed it and Conan did not. Given more time, would that have happened? I don't know. Among the many aspects of this that must be eating at O'Brien and his staff is that no one will ever know. I'm sure at the network there were arguments, with one side noting that late night shows often build an audience over time. The other side probably said, "Yeah, but it's not like Conan O'Brien's an unknown quantity or some beginner who requires on-the-job training about how to do a talk show. He's been on for seventeen years."

As I've said here several times, I think he should have been given more time and I'm glad I don't have to say how much. One of the many reasons I'd never want to be a network programmer is that sitting at home, it's easy to say I'd cancel this, renew that, move some show to Tuesdays. It's the least exact of sciences but it's fun when no money rests on your decision and you really can't be proven wrong. If I were actually moving, cancelling and picking up the shows and millions (sometimes, billions) were on the line and my bosses and the affiliates were screaming at me to make a change, I'm not sure I'd be as apt to gamble and to rule out the safer decisions.

In this case, I don't think their decision to bail on Conan has a lot to do with Jay Leno, except for this: Jay's available. If he'd never done the 10 PM show and gone off to play Vegas and other places, he'd still be available. There would still be folks at that network looking at Conan's ratings and looking at Jay's and asking, "Can we get the guy with the chin back?" They might even be more apt to do that because Jay wouldn't have the prime-time disaster hanging over him, making some wonder how much he'd damaged himself with that failure.

If he'd said, "No, I don't want to take back The Tonight Show," that would have bought Conan more time on the air…but only because it would have taken several months for NBC to decide on someone else to host Tonight and to get that person up and running. Jeff Zucker and his team would not have said, "Okay, we can't get Jay back. Let's just be content with Conan finishing third and not have anyone else lined up to replace him if he doesn't pick up." Networks are not content — and come on, you know this — to finish last. Especially with a show that not that long ago was in First Place and earning them tons more money.

Yeah, I understand why Letterman and Kimmel are cranky about all this. Their ratings went up when Jay went away and now he's coming back. I understand why those who like Conan O'Brien (and I am one of 'em) don't like seeing him go away, even if he might be back as soon as September. I even understand an exasperation at watching a big company like NBC have this public, dysfunctional meltdown and screw with what's on our sets.

What I don't get is why some people think Leno had a moral obligation to retire and disappear. They didn't like that he did that 10 PM show. They didn't like that he was willing to do the half-hour show at 11:35 when that was proposed. They don't like that he's going to take back a show that he and his crew didn't want to give up in the first place. I know some of you don't think the guy's ever funny but you oughta try what I do. If I don't like a performer, I don't watch him. It's just as effective as if he did disappear and it saves a lot of time.

Jay Leno does Oprah on Thursday.

NBC's Jeff Gaspin said the other day that Jay Leno's forthcoming Tonight Show would be a "hybrid" of the old Jay Leno Tonight Show and the 10 PM Jay Leno Show. In other words, it will be a mix of (a) the old show with two guests and (b) the exact same show with one, plus they'll put the couch back. I sure hope it's more than that.

Here's a question from one of those readers who doesn't want his name used for some reason…

They're saying that if Conan goes and does a new show for another network, he can't take his "intellectual property" with him like the Masturbating Bear and Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. Why not? Why can't he take his act with him? Isn't this piggish of the network?

I know it's hard to believe but networks have been known to do piggish things. In this case, there's a justification that may make sense on some levels. Let's take the Masturbating Bear, for example. Now, I don't know who came up with that idea but let's say it was a staff writer on Late Night with Conan O'Brien. That writer wasn't working for Conan. He was working for NBC and paid by a check that said NBC on it. To the extent rights are transferred when a writer is paid for his work, those rights transferred to NBC, not to Conan O'Brien. Why should Conan be able to have that bear masturbate on a show at Fox? He didn't create it. He didn't pay for it.

Now, some would say, "Well, it became Conan's bit. It's part of his show." Well, yes. But consider this. Paramount Pictures owns Star Trek. The character of Mr. Spock is part of Leonard Nimoy's identity and Mr. Nimoy obviously had a lot to do with the nature and worth of that character…but Nimoy is not free to take Mr. Spock and portray him in a show for Disney. Spock is "intellectual property" claimed by Paramount…and that intellectual property is worth a lot. You can understand why they would assert those rights.

Now, some of those same people would say, "Yeah, but what's a Masturbating Bear worth, anyway?" Probably not much. (I'm tempted to say "A handful.") But NBC has two concerns here. One is the precedent. Some "intellectual property" from their shows does turn out to have enormous value. Look at just the many properties spun off Saturday Night Live into merchandise and feature films — Wayne's World, The Coneheads, The Blues Brothers, etc. We don't know the ownership or split on all those but we can understand how anyone who might have a claim would want to claim as much of them as possible. What NBC is doing is what darn near any company (or even any individual) does in these matters, which is to quickly assert they own everything. They can always, in later discussions, back off those assertions. After all, it's harder to go the other way…or to stake your claim later.

Which brings us to their other concern. Even though NBC has settled with Conan and he's free to go to Fox or QVC or wherever, they're still going to have business relations with him. He has this 18 year body of work for the network and both sides will want to exploit it, reuse it, market it, excerpt it, draw from it, whatever. Down the line, he may need or want things from them and they may need or want things from him. So they're staking out future bargaining leverage. Down the line, if they need him to sign off on some syndication or home video plan not covered by existing contracts, they can say to him, "Hey, Coco…okay this and we'll let you have your Masturbating Bear, plus just to show what nice guys we are, we'll throw in the FedEx Pope!" That kind of thing. It's just bargaining chips.

I don't know if Triumph is included in this. Bob Smigel has used that character in so many other venues that he may have a special deal. Just because something appeared first on Conan's show doesn't mean it's part of NBC's "intellectual property." It all depends on the contracts. The Masturbating Bear may not be of much value to NBC in the future. In fact, they might do better to tell Conan, "You can have him if you pay us 50% of any future merchandising or licensing." But they're concerned about the precedent, and it's usually their default position to insist they own everything until it's proven — as it sometimes is — otherwise.

Deals are being announced today. Conan gets a big settlement and will be free to go off and do another show as of September. Jay goes back to The Tonight Show right after the Olympics. NBC is saying that even with paying off O'Brien and his crew, they'll make more money with Jay there. That may well be true…and the fact that NBC believes that is pretty much what all this has been about. They didn't decide to bump Conan from 11:35 because they thought his hair was too frightening before Midnight.

And it isn't just NBC Corporate that anticipates more $$$ this way. Based on what NBC execs are saying (and to some extent on what they're not saying), various of their affiliates were clearly poised to change the schedule if the parent network didn't. Jeff Gaspin, the Chairman of NBC's parent corporation said in one interview that perhaps a third were poised to do some heavy rearranging. He didn't say what they would have done but presumably some were going to bump Leno altogether for other programming while others were going to slot him after their local news, thereby approximating the old configuration that had worked better for them. In some markets, Conan would probably have been shoved back to his old time slot.

A third is a pretty high, unprecedented fraction for a threat of this sort and NBC must have figured it would get higher. Some of those stations would surely have increased revenues and others would have quickly followed those stations' lead. My guess is that Gaspin and Jeff Zucker are sincere and probably even honest when they say that their schedule — Leno at 10, O'Brien at 11:35 — was working for the network, maybe even close to expectations. They surely wished both guys' numbers were higher but NBC could have lived with what they were getting. They could have waited to see if and when things might improve.

The more astute among you may notice a subtle contradiction here. They wished they could have stuck with their plan but the new one will make them more money.

In the up-is-down, down-is-up world of network television, this all may be true. Before Leno was saying (and saying and saying) that NBC stands for "Never Believe your Contract," folks were saying it stood for Nothing But Cash. Even when these guys screw-up, they often make staggering sums of money. All over the Internet, folks are asking, "How does Jeff Zucker keep his job?" And the answer to that is probably found in bottom lines on balance sheets. Even if Zucker has destroyed their prime-time and late-night schedules — and the blame there may not all be his — those are not the only areas in which the corporation gains revenue. He apparently has performed well in some of the others…and like the man said, they may still show a decent profit in late night, albeit less than they'd hoped.

As even Mr. Letterman has noted, this is all about money. Pretty much everything done in network television is, and absolutely no one in this whole soap opera has made a move in order to take a pay cut. Every decision — the network's, Jay's, Conan's, everyone's — has been done with the intent of drastically improving income. Even the other hosts attacking Leno these days must think it's good for business. Jay, let's remember, is about to become a competitor again.

But there's also a lot of fighting to save face going on here, a campaign to not be blamed for mistakes. As we said the other day here, a lot of 'em — not just one, not just two — were made. It remains to be seen precisely which moves they were and we're in for a lot of spinning and damage control in that regard. On with Charlie Rose the other night, Mr. Zucker was arguing that the deal that took The Tonight Show from Jay and gave it to Conan (i.e., the guy they just took it away from) was not a mistake because it kept Conan at NBC, kept him from competing, kept the profitable Leno/O'Brien tag team intact and generating cash for five more years. Losing Conan then, he said, would have been a mistake.

So let's review. Killing The Tonight Show with Jay Leno was a wise move because it kept Conan around for five more years and during that time, he wasn't on Fox or ABC competing with Jay.

And putting on The Jay Leno Show at 10 was a wise move because it kept Jay around and he didn't go on Fox or ABC and compete with Conan.

And now, killing The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien was a wise move because they have Jay available to replace it and he'll do better there.

I'm not saying the above is completely wrong, at least not if you care only about short-term profits, which is sometimes all the industry does care about. Zucker may well have had an insoluble problem back when O'Brien's people said, in effect, "Conan gets 11:35 or he walks." When you have two trains and one track, you're probably going to have a train wreck, no matter what. All the machinations and rearrangements have stemmed from that premise and they've been maddening for Leno and O'Brien and all who work for them or love their shows. They haven't done a lot for the image of NBC or the proud heritage of its late night schedule, either. You and I might care about those things…but we don't run big networks.

"At the end of the day," as people say on cable news shows every three minutes, a lot of people at NBC will probably be quite satisfied with how it all turns out. Because they delayed the train wreck for five very profitable years…and they're still making money. And that's really all this is about. That and not getting blamed for mistakes.

They're saying that deals for Mssrs. O'Brien and Leno will be signed today. Then again, they said that yesterday. Conan's shows this week have been fiercely entertaining. Leno's have been awkward but they were awkward before this whole controversy started. And David Letterman…well, I like Dave almost any time he isn't whining about not getting to sit behind Johnny's desk or being ungracious to the guy who did. Yeah, he's funny…but he's starting to remind me of Orly Taitz making her case that Barack Obama was born in Kenya (or wherever it is this week).

It's hard to say how Jay Leno will do when his Tonight Show resumes. I think it'll depend a lot on whether he can surprise people with strong and fresh material. If he's doing Pumpcasting and that Jeopardy-for-Stupid-People bit by Wednesday, I think he's in trouble.

Still, one of the interesting things about the guy, and I think I made this point a few days ago here, is that people are always underestimating him. They underestimated how he'd do as Johnny's guest host. They underestimated how he'd do as Johnny's replacement. They underestimated how he'd do against Letterman with total viewers, then they underestimated how he'd do against Dave in the younger demographic. Once he had exceeded expectations in every one of those instances — and it really was this that triggered this whole, messy melodrama — his own network underestimated how long he could possibly stay in first place.

Want to know the one time he was overestimated? They overestimated his ability to deliver an audience at 10:00…and we all saw how that turned out. Maybe we oughta do him a favor and expect him to bomb big upon his return to 11:35.

Sources are saying that Conan is dickering with Fox, and I'm wondering what kind of terms he can possibly get since he doesn't seem to have an alternate competing offer. It's not like his agents can say, "Give him everything he wants or he's going to The Food Network." I hope he finds a slot soon because I'm looking forward to whatever he does, wherever he does it.

A number of folks have written to ask me who I think is "next in line" for David Letterman's job and if I agree with speculations that Craig Ferguson is a lock. No, I don't. Of Dave, Jay, Conan, the two Jimmies and Craig, I think Craig is offering up the most enjoyable show at the moment and I also suspect he's the only one whose powers of entertainment aren't fully developed or exploited in what he's currently doing. But here's my guess on this…

It's another one of those "we don't know" situations. It's possible that there's already some pre-negotiated deal in place; that in order to get Craig signed through 2012, as apparently was just negotiated, he has some contractual guarantee there. It's also possible that it's built into Dave's simultaneous renewal that he's annointing his successor. Letterman, like Conan and Jay, has always been concerned about what will become of his staff when he's no longer hosting. It would not be surprising if his pact says that if he leaves in '12 or before, they move Ferguson not only into that time slot but to New York and maybe even into that theater with as much of Dave's crew as is still present and eager to work. Letterman could also perhaps be repulsed at the thought of a battle over his throne, such as he endured and inflamed over at NBC, and he could want to preempt that from happening. So there's always the possibility of a deal of that sort. (One might note reports that suggest the current deals for both Dave and Craig expire at the same time. That would sure make it easier for the Scottish kid to replace Letterman.)

It's also possible that there is no already-secretly-arranged line of succession. CBS may simply not want to get trapped with a certain guy down the line, especially after seeing how badly things went when NBC decided to plan five years ahead for Conan to take over from Jay. If it's a free agent situation, I would suspect Mr. Ferguson is not at the absolute top of the standby list. He's more like that girl in the bar who's cute enough that you wouldn't mind taking her home but you're not quite ready to commit in case someone better walks in.

Assuming there's no deal in place, it would be in CBS's interest to see who else was available. By the time Dave needs a replacement — which might be a lot farther in the future than even he now imagines — another prospect could emerge as a bold and fresh comedy star. If Letterman left today and Ferguson didn't already have a guarantee of the job. I suspect CBS would first see if there was any way, financially and contractually, to manuever Jon Stewart behind the desk. Failing that, they might go after Stephen Colbert and one or two others (maybe Chris Rock) before they got down to Craig Ferguson. By 2012, that list will probably change somewhat. It might even include a name that would never occur to us right now.

And I'll bet NBC is quietly having discussions about who could take over The Tonight Show if Leno crashes and burns, either figuratively or on one of his motorcycles. I don't think it'll be Jimmy Fallon. Not at least until he starts consistently winning his current time slot.

Jeff Zucker (the name on so many lips these days) was on with Charlie Rose last night. The interview seems to have been taped around the close of business yesterday and because of ongoing negotiations, Zucker was somewhat encumbered as to what he could say. Still, it's a fascinating performance that must be viewed by those who are interested in the details of that whole story. It's also a good lesson in how to keep smiling and saying, "No, I didn't make a mistake" when the evidence is overwhelming that you did.

Among the points Zucker makes…

• He says Conan O'Brien's contract contained no time slot specification for his Tonight Show. I believe somewhere, some Conan rep said otherwise. Perhaps this is a matter of how some clause is interpreted.
• He says he's received death threats over the idea of moving Conan a half-hour later.
• Boy, NBC Entertainment is doing great in every area except, uh, network television.
• Mainly, he doesn't regret taking The Tonight Show away from Jay Leno even though they're now scrambling to get him back onto it. It's unfortunate that Conan didn't see the wisdom of going on at 12:05 after him.

I suspect most folks will watch this and be amazed that the man doesn't just come out and say, "Hey, we blew it. We made a lot of decisions that made sense at the time. They didn't work and now we're trying to mop up." But watch for yourself. I don't know how much longer you'll be able to do it but right now, if you go to this link, you should be able to watch the whole conversation online. The show may also rerun later today on your local PBS affiliate.

Tomorrow (Tuesday) afternoon, Stu Shostak's doing a special live edition of Stu's Show on his channel, Shokus Internet Radio. It airs live at 4 PM West Coast time (7 PM Eastern) for two hours. This is not a podcast. You have to tune in live when it's on, which you can do by going to that website and clicking as instructed. Then you listen right through your computer speakers.

The topic is the Conan O'Brien/Jay Leno situation and I will be one of three panelists, along with Wesley Hyatt and Steve Beverly, discussing who did what to whom and made which mistakes. Oughta be a lively discussion.

This episode may not rerun. It's only currently scheduled as one-time event. So if you miss it, you can't hear it the next day. Don't miss it.

It's fashionable lately to say that the recent Leno/O'Brien square dance at NBC is The Worst Mistake in Television History. I would like to suggest that what we have here is a series of decisions, some of which were right, some of which were wrong and a few of which seem right or wrong now but might flip the other way based on what happens in the future. Not all that long ago, there was a period wherein that honor — "The Worst Mistake in Television History" — was routinely bestowed on the decision to give The Tonight Show to Jay Leno instead of David Letterman. As Jay began to consistently beat Dave in the ratings, it became a bit more arguable that NBC had screwed up on that call.

Actually, that decision was not one decision, either. In early 1991, NBC execs were confronted with the following dilemma. Leno was Johnny's guest host to the point of sitting behind the desk about 40% of the time. He was getting better ratings than his predecessor sub, Joan Rivers, and Jay's numbers sported a significantly younger, more desirable demographic. He was also hosting more than she'd hosted. One of the trends in late night TV the last decade or three has been that as viewers have had more options, they've been less willing to watch talk show reruns. The ratings are pretty clear on this point and it's why the current late night shows deploy a lot fewer of them than Mr. Carson ever did. It's also why when they do re-air an old show, they pick a fairly recent one that won't feel as much like a rerun.

This trend was evident by the late eighties, which is why they cut back on the reuse of old Tonight Shows and began doing more new episodes. Since Johnny wasn't about to work more nights, that meant his guest host worked more nights. Jay was behind that desk pretty damn often and he seemed to be developing a good following. That's why CBS made him a mega-offer to come over and host a late night show there…and by so doing, fired the opening shot in The Late Night Wars.

Leno's manager Helen Kushnick, in one of her saner moments, went to NBC and did what any manager in the business would have done. She said, "If you want to keep him, you're going to have to give him a lot more money and job security." That pretty much meant The Tonight Show, effective whenever Mr. Carson abdicated. So now NBC had this decision to make: Give Jay what he wants or let him go to CBS?

They had little doubt that if Jay went up against them, he would beat The Tonight Show on the nights they still ran reruns. Joan Rivers hadn't but Pat Sajak usually had. (Also, Joan was on Fox before it was that formidable a competitor. NBC was a lot more afraid of Jay on CBS than they'd ever been of Rivers on Fox.) They were also afraid that Leno would beat Johnny's new shows. Arsenio Hall was starting to do that…at least with a younger demographic, the kind Leno would deliver for CBS. If Arsenio could do it, Jay could do it.

And they were especially afraid that Jay would slaughter whoever they got to replace him on the nights Johnny was off which, let's remember, was pretty damn often. Would that have happened? Obviously, since they never picked the person, we'll never know…but at that moment, there didn't seem to be a lot of encouraging prospects for the fill-in post. The few names that were batted about didn't seem like sure bets and most of them would have demanded what Jay's manager was demanding for her client: A guarantee of The Tonight Show job whenever Johnny departed.

Today, Johnny Carson's a legend and he's viewed as the guy nobody ever beat in late night…but part of that rep is because no one that strong ever went up against him, especially in his later years. I mean, Alan Thicke? Rivers? Sajak? Which one of those ever demonstrated any ability to hold an audience night after night with their own talk show? The only competitor he ever bested who had any other prolonged success in that area was Merv Griffin and that was in 1970. Pat Sajak actually did rather well against Johnny for a week or two in 1989, proving that audiences were not irrevocably loyal to Carson; that the notion of another talk show at that hour was feasible. Soon though, America decided they were bored by Pat and drifted back…and not just to Johnny but to Johnny and Jay. CBS had the right idea but the wrong guy.

At the time Leno got the CBS offer, Carson's ratings weren't that wonderful. His audience was aging and that not only makes it harder to sell advertising at top rates but it usually indicates that a show's best days are behind it. So NBC gave Jay what he and his manager wanted…and as it turned out, Johnny announced his retirement soon after.

I have never, by the way, believed the claim that anything Leno or his people did "forced" Carson out. Johnny was the most powerful star in the history of network television and the execs then at NBC lived in absolute terror of him. I can't buy the assertion that when Jay's manager planted one basically-true story in the tabloids — the rumor that some there felt it was time for J.C. to go — Carson felt shoved out the door and left against his will. I think he just realized, with his impeccable timing, that if he didn't leave soon, he might not leave on top.

In any case, that was the decision that gave Jay Leno The Tonight Show. It was not about whether Dave or Jay was the rightful heir apparent. It was not even about which of the two guys would host a better Tonight Show. People who run TV networks are usually all about solving immediate problems, not planning for the future. They're judged by how they solve immediate problems. They're fired if they don't solve immediate problems and then they're not around to take the bows if and when long-range planning pays off.

The decision to guarantee Jay Leno The Tonight Show upon Carson's departure was about keeping him on as Johnny's guest host for however much longer Johnny stayed. It was also about being ready for a day, the timing of which they could not predict with much accuracy, when Johnny would decide to hang it up. But most of all, it was about keeping Leno off the competition. In the world of television, the only thing worse than being clobbered in the ratings is being clobbered by something you had and you let it get away.

If you think not letting Jay go was a mistake, tell me how they would have replaced him. Take Dave off Late Night (thereby destroying that highly-successful show) and move him out here to be Johnny's guest host? Hire some unknown person to sub for Carson and hope he caught on as well as Jay had? That was not an easy job, being Johnny's guest host. A lot of successful people weren't very successful at it. And like I said, some of the leading candidates wouldn't have taken it if the permanent gig wasn't part of the deal. Bring in one of them and you'd have had the same problem where Johnny leaves and Dave doesn't get the job, plus you'd have had Jay opposite you.

Later, after Carson was out and Leno was in for a while, there was another big decision to be made. David Letterman wanted The Tonight Show and threatened to leave NBC if they didn't shove Jay aside and turn it over. The network actually made a kind of half-assed decision to do that but Dave didn't accept their terms and instead went to CBS. Was it a mistake for them to not kick Leno out then, even though his ratings were quite decent, and bring in Dave? I don't think so. Imagine this scenario: They boot Jay and that leads to a situation not unlike what we're currently seeing with Conan, with people rallying behind a guy who seems to have been unfairly fired, just because someone else wants to be the star of The Tonight Show.

I don't believe, by the way, that's an accurate summary of what's going on now. I doubt Jay barged into Jeff Zucker's office and said, "Get rid of Conan and give me back 11:35!" But that's more or less the way it's coming across in the press and it is pretty much what Letterman's agents did on his behalf when there was that full court press to get Leno fired. So in our scenario, Dave looks like the bad guy who took Jay's job away. And Jay goes on CBS with a competing show and then beats him in the ratings for…oh, maybe fifteen of the next seventeen years. Maybe more.

If he had, then the decision to fire Jay and give his job to Dave would have become The Worst Mistake in Television History. In TV, as we know, the only thing worse than being clobbered in the ratings is being clobbered by something you had and you let it get away.

Don't tell me that couldn't have happened. If Jay on NBC could beat Dave on CBS, Jay on CBS could have beaten Dave on NBC, especially with the victim card in hand. I'm fascinated that people are now suggesting that Leno is "damaged goods" because America hates him for getting Conan fired. As I'll explain, I don't think he did that…or at least, Jay did less to get Conan fired than Conan's people did to get Jay fired. But viewer perception is everything in such matters. If America sees Jay as a backstabber, it could well hurt him. And if they'd felt that way about David Letterman in 1993, that could have hurt him, as well.

There may have been something else NBC could have done…something that would have kept both Dave and Jay on their network and prevented the situation where CBS got to set up a successful competing late night schedule. I say that but I sure don't know what it would have been. Both guys wanted 11:35. CBS was willing to hire either. How do you stop one from winding up over there? (Once when I had this discussion with a guy who was at NBC at the time, he wondered aloud if there was any way Dave and Jay could have shared The Tonight Show. And before I could say it, he said, "No, they both wanted to be Johnny.")

Now, let's jump ahead to five years ago. Jay is doing great as the host of Tonight. Conan's reps go to NBC and announce that he's going to leave because he feels it's time he had an 11:35 show. I dunno if they said, "…unless, of course, you want to fire Jay," because that would have felt like the longest of shots, given that Leno was in the middle of a great winning streak. But whoever's idea it was, NBC (apparently Jeff Zucker) offers Conan this deal: Stay five more years at 12:35 and we'll retire Jay and give you The Tonight Show. Conan grabs it and stays.

Everyone is now saying this was a tremendous mistake and yeah, it sure looks that way. NBC was solving a short-term problem, which was losing Conan at 12:35 and facing the possibility that he'd go on opposite them…maybe on Fox, perhaps on ABC. Both then seemed like more likely destinations than they do today. As we've noted here: In TV, the only thing worse than being clobbered in the ratings is being clobbered by something you had and you let it get away.

So they solved a short-term problem by creating a long-term problem. They do that in television, you know.

They may not have even considered what they'd do if in five years, Jay hadn't worn out his welcome with America. They knew his audience would be getting older…and it did, though maybe not as much as they'd feared. They probably figured Jay would be history by now and they'd be thrilled to have Conan there to replace him. If someone said to the now-infamous Jeff Zucker, "Uh, what happens in '09 if Jay's numbers are up and Conan's are down?," he probably replied, "That's not going to happen…and if it does, so what? I probably won't be here to have to sort it out." As the writer William Goldman once noted about folks who run movie studios, and it applies to TV networks too, they wake up every morning knowing that sooner or later, they're going to be fired.

It was also a mistake for Leno to go along with it. He did it graciously. He may even have thought at the time that his popularity would atrophy over those five years. No interviewer has yet extracted from Jay just what was on his mind, then or now. I imagine that once all the contracts are signed, he'll be on with Larry King and others, trying to repair his reputation. The explanation of what has recently occurred will probably go something like this, and I'm not suggesting some or all of this is not accurate…

Yeah, I agreed to it back in 2004. I kept my word. I gave up a show that my team and I had built into a success, a show we loved doing and one that America apparently didn't want to see go. I never promised I wouldn't do another show somewhere and 10:00 was not my idea. When NBC suggested it, I thought, "Hey, there's a new challenge." It was also a way to give jobs to a lot of people who'd been very loyal to me and done fine work to make my Tonight Show fly. I guess the 10:00 program didn't work. Maybe given more time, it would have. They always said, "Wait until everything opposite Jay is in reruns. Then you'll see the strength of having him on at ten." Then when the numbers weren't there right away, they panicked and didn't wait for that.

They did the same thing to Conan. I didn't cancel him. I don't have the power to make the network do what I want. If I did, I'd still be on at 10. People are saying, "Conan's show could have done better if you hadn't given him such a weak lead-in." Well, maybe…but he was in third place before my show went on. And hey, you want to look at some of the weak lead-ins they gave me when I was hosting The Tonight Show? NBC has always had a 10:00 problem. That's why they tried a wild experiment there…because they've never known what to put at 10:00 most nights and, hey, look at me. They still don't. But when I was hosting Tonight, I had to put up with a lot of weak shows there and somehow, I managed to be in first place for fifteen years. Even before that when Dave was kicking my ass, I was a respectable second. I never finished third. If I had, they would have canned me. There's no sentiment in this business. If you don't deliver, they kick you out. That's how the game is played. Hell, sometimes when you do deliver, they kick you out. Twice now, NBC has decided to get rid of me when I was in first place!

I'm sorry about Conan. If it had been my decision, I would have given him the full two years or whatever his contract calls for and I wouldn't have been the least surprised if he took it to #1. But if he's got a beef, it's not with me. I don't program that network. They came to me and said, "You've got to take back 11:35." Well, why not? I'm out of work. My whole staff is out of work. We liked doing that show. If I'd said no, they wouldn't have stuck with Conan. God knows who'd have gotten to sit behind the desk. I hear Jeff Zucker may need a new job soon.

He'll say something like that and a lot of it, maybe most of it will be true. I really like Jay Leno. I don't always like what he does on television but I've been watching the man since his Comedy Store days. I don't think he's the Machiavellian schemer some are now making him out to be. Or at least, he doesn't do anything other stars don't do except that sometimes — at least since he rid himself of Helen Kushnick — he seems to do it himself, whereas others let their managers and lawyers soil their hands. Jay made some bad judgment calls, starting with the decision to go along with the five-year plan. I'd love to hear why he did. Maybe he really thought he'd be ready to leave by '09. Or maybe he thought that if his ratings in '09 were still strong, he's be in a helluva bargaining position…which he was but he used it to get the wrong thing.

The 10:00 show was, of course, NBC's way of dealing with the long-term problem they'd created and — surprise, surprise — Jeff Zucker was still there to cope with it. They had to replace the #1 guy in late night in order to honor Conan's deal, thereby creating a new short-term problem,: What if Jay now went to Fox? I don't think ABC would dump Nightline for Conan, especially since — this week, aside — Conan's been pretty consistently in last place…but they might have grabbed Jay. Someone probably would have…and if that show started beating Conan —?

Hey, you think they're saying bad things about Mr. Zucker now? Imagine what they'd be saying if that had happened. Like I said: In TV, the only thing worse than being clobbered in the ratings is being clobbered by something you had and you let it get away.

So to keep Leno on the reservation — and possibly in the bullpen in case O'Brien failed — they cooked up The Jay Leno Show. And they probably also had a third reason, which was that their 10:00 programming was such a disaster area that it was worth a wild gamble to see if this just might make things better. Obviously, it didn't work out that way. Bad show, bad idea. A worthy contender for the honor of The Worst Mistake in Television History.

Everyone now says they knew the minute it was announced that it couldn't possibly work…and some of those people actually did. I won't claim I was one of them. For one thing, I thought Jay would put on a lot better show than the one he gave us. Whether he could have succeeded at all in that time slot might be debatable…but I don't think he could possibly have succeeded with that show. It was like they didn't know what The Jay Leno Show was but they produced it, anyway…and Jay oughta get most of the blame for that. When it's your show, you get most of the glory when things go right and most of the money whether they do or not. It's only fair that you get most of the blame for what goes wrong. There's usually some truth to excuses about bad time slots and lack of support and insufficient promotion — though Jay certainly can't complain about the amount of promotion he got. But in the main, you always could have done better if you'd done a better show.

There was actually a nugget of logic in the idea of a stripped talk show at 10 PM. Because of reduced costs, NBC could make a tidy profit with reduced ratings and word is that they've been doing that, even with Jay's show performing below expectations. The trouble is that the affiliates with their 11 PM newscasts can't correspondingly lower their costs and make as much profit with reduced ratings. It's baffling that the network didn't see that coming.

Still, I suspect there are those at NBC — perhaps even the much-maligned Mr. Zucker — who would have liked to have given both Jay and Conan more time in their respective slots. When New York Times reporter Bill Carter writes The Late Shift II as a lot of us are assuming he will, it will be interesting to see how much of a role the affiliates played in the timing of the decision to cut and run on both programs, and whether the network really had the option of replacing Leno now and giving O'Brien until, say, the end of the year to stop finishing third.

Would he have done significantly better if he hadn't had Leno's calamity as his 10 PM lead-in? We'll never know. Someone obviously thinks Conan's ratings are unacceptable, even allowing for that handicap. They also may not have much confidence that what they're going to replace Leno's show with will give their 11:35 guy, whoever he is, a lot more help than Conan has been receiving with Jay there. Then they're looking at how Jay consistently managed to win that time slot even with (often) low-rated shows on at 10:00…and there you have the reason for the switch. I'm not saying it's a good reason but it's a reason. Me, I'm going to guess that the revived Tonight Show with Jay Leno will do less well than the old one…that is, unless they do a helluva makeover on it. If it's only as good as his 10 PM show, it'll probably still improve somewhat on the numbers Conan was getting before the current controversy gave him a little boost…but not enough to justify losing O'Brien.

Late night is all about the long haul. The premise of replacing Jay with Conan was always that Conan was supposed to represent the future of NBC late night. They did it to keep Conan from doing a competing show but he was still supposed to be their future. What's their future now? I'm sorry. I don't think it's Jimmy Fallon, the guy who was losing to Craig Ferguson before Leno departed. I also don't think it's the Jay Leno who gave us The Jay Leno Show at 10 PM.

It's easy to say what they shouldn't have done. They shouldn't have done almost everything they did do. It's harder to say what they should have done. A lot of us think that given time, O'Brien would have delivered a more-watched Tonight Show. Zucker and his crew may not agree…or even if they do, it may be that affiliates are threatening massive defection and the network feels they can't wait that long. Whatever, as usual, they're going for the short-term solution.

I seem to be quite alone in thinking that a half-hour Jay Leno Show at 11:35 and Conan's Tonight Show at 12:05 wasn't a terrible idea, at least from the network's vantage point. At least, I think it would have gotten better numbers than either guy followed at 12:35 by Fallon. But Conan wouldn't go along with it and I can't blame him…especially if he saw it as an interim move by folks who didn't have much faith in him. I mean, if it didn't work, he'd have been in even bigger ratings trouble and if it did, someone at NBC might have said, "Hey, think what a full hour of Jay there would do for us." And suddenly, Conan's either gone or back at 12:35.

Maybe the biggest mistake in all this was that they let it go public. The 12:05 idea could have been discussed in private. Conan could have rejected it in private and we'd never have heard of it, except maybe a year from now in Bill Carter's probable book. Instead, they forced O'Brien to accept or reject it in the press…and by rejecting it, he effectively said, "Keep me at 11:35 or fire me," forcing the issue.

They shouldn't have let it get to that. Apparently, someone theorized that either Conan would have accepted 12:05 or he'd quit, thereby saving them the massive penalty fees in his contract. Neither happened. It was reported that when Conan issued his statement of defiance, he did so over the wishes of his lawyers and managers. Whether that's true or not, that statement may turn out to be the one thing that anyone in this whole, sorry gang bang did right. I didn't think so when I read it last Tuesday but it was. He's getting out. He's getting his big settlement. And NBC is in this wonderful situation: The guy they're getting rid of looks like a hero and everyone is trashing the guy on whom they're now staking the future of their late night franchise. Heck of a job there, Brownie.

This did not have to happen. It is possible in this business to cancel a show, even prematurely, without creating this kind of ruckus and fragging your own troops in the process. It's even possible to replace one guy with another without creating headline stories on TMZ of feuds and backstabbing. If they were so determined to reinstate Jay at 11:35, they could have made a secret deal with him, then cancelled Conan. If they wanted to stampede Conan into quitting, there were other ways they could have tried, ways that kept Leno's name out of it. Once Conan was removed, they then could have released stories that said they were still trying to lure Jay back but he was hesitant…and then finally, bowing to public demand Jay agrees to come back, not as the guy who squeezed Conan out but as the hero rushing to rescue the grand tradition of The Tonight Show from oblivion. I don't know why they didn't do it that way. I don't know why Jay didn't insist they do it that way.

Like Conan said in his statement, we shouldn't feel sorry for him. He gets that big payoff…and if NBC wasn't going to give him the chance to make a success of his Tonight Show, then he's probably better off going out this way. I really don't know where he'll land but he'll land somewhere.

If he does a hit show there, especially if it's opposite Jay and he beats him, then the decision to oust him now will surely and definitively be viewed as The Worst Mistake in Television History. This is the last time I'm telling you people: In TV, the only thing worse than being clobbered in the ratings is being clobbered by something you had and you let it get away.

If he doesn't succeed somewhere soon and Jay does, the decision to give up on Conan now won't look like The Worst Mistake in Television History. But the one five years ago sure will.

And if both guys ultimately fail? Well, they'll both do fine in that elusive long run. Conan will find a home. Jay can do standup in Vegas and elsewhere for the rest of his life and each week, he'll make enough money to buy another dozen Duesenbergs. But regardless of what happens, I don't see any possible way that the current regime at NBC will be happy with how it all turned out. Eight months ago, they had a prosperous, thriving late night franchise and now it's a lot less profitable and likely to remain that way. Even if Jay gets them back to first place, it's not going to be what it was…and one might also factor in the ancillary damage, like the fact that top TV producers will be extra-wary of selling their wares to a network that seems so dysfunctional about standing by its own commitments.

So it looks like some decision in there was indeed The Worst Mistake in Television History. I'm not sure which one it was but it was in there somewhere. In fact, there were probably at least two of The Worst Mistakes in Television History…or maybe even more. Things don't get this fucked-up over just one mistake.