Over at Slush Factory (a fun, fine site) there's this interview with Gary Glenn, the President of the American Family Association of Michigan. This is the group that's trying to drum up outrage over comic book conventions having porn stars as guests.

And from Jim Guida comes this query…

You have mentioned how the ratings for the Tonys are always pretty low and the article to which you linked compared this year to last. I am curious as to how the Tonys' ratings compare with whatever it is CBS has on regularly in June during that time slot. I don't know how to access that information, but you, with your finger on the pulse of the entertainment world, probably do. If it's not too difficult, could you make the comparison?

Well, the previous week, a rerun of a TV-Movie (John Grisham's A Time to Kill) ranged from a 7 at the outset to a 9 in the final hour. The week before, a parlay of a Becker rerun and another TV-Movie ranged from 5 to 6. Earlier in May, the two-hour finale of Survivor got a 10.7 there. So the Tony rating of 5.4 is not wonderful but it's not a disaster. More to the point, it's probably not far from CBS's best expectation. I mean, you don't expect the Tony Awards to finish in the Top 20 or even to take its time slot…and CBS not only scheduled the show but gave it an extra hour.

Everyone assumes that the networks only care about being Number One. Obviously, they like that but the competition isn't as fierce as it once was. Once upon a time, if your show finished in third place in its time slot, you were probably dead even if (as was sometimes the case) advertisers were still eager to purchase time in your show. Nowadays, advertiser support and critical success can keep a show alive, especially if there's no viable replacement. This is probably the reason they aren't auditioning repacements for David Letterman even though he's been consistently losing to The Tonight Show by at least two points. Sponsors do seem to like to buy commercials on the Tony Awards, and it does a lot to improve the image of a network that broadcasts some pretty undignified programs. So it may be safe for now.

By the way: Another way they sometimes judge the strength of a show is not by how many tune in but on how well the show holds viewers who are tuned to that network. 60 Minutes, which was on before, had a 6.5 rating and the first half-hour of the Tonys had a 6.2, meaning that they held most of the audience of their lead-in. There was very little drop-off in the ratings over the length of the awards show — about what one would expect over a three-hour stretch.

Good article by Christopher Caldwell all about Spam.

Last Sunday night, the final Tony award — Best New Musical — was presented not from the Radio City Music Hall in New York (like all the rest) but from the stage of the Pantages Theater in Los Angeles. The entire company of The Producers was on-stage in formal garb as stars Jason Alexander and Martin Short opened the envelope and announced that the winner was, to no one's surprise, Hairspray. The live audience at the Pantages clapped enthusiastically.

This particular Tony was delivered at around 10:50 East Coast time, which was 7:50 West Coast time. I suppose if anyone had paused to wonder about it, they'd have assumed that the presentation at the Pantages was done before that evening's 8:00 performance of The Producers. That would have been logical…but wrong. For one thing, curtain time for the show on Sunday evenings is 7:30.

Although no one said it on the Tony broadcast, the segment with Mssrs. Alexander and Short was pre-taped. In fact, it was done the previous Thursday evening following the regular performance of their show. They held the audience after, everyone got into tuxedos and gowns, and they taped four different versions — one each announcing the four nominees, Hairspray, Movin' Out, Amour, and A Year With Frog and Toad. I am skeptical that anyone went to the trouble of preparing all four for possible broadcast — especially the last two — but perhaps they had to, just for legal-type reasons. Anyway, at the appropriate moment, CBS ran the appropriate version, then cut back to New York for the acceptance. Clever.

As readers of my previous weblog will recall, I have no particular respect or fondness for Gray Davis, the current governor of California. I seem to be with the majority on this. Davis is unpopular and was only returned to office in the 2000 election because his opponent was (amazingly) even less popular.

Ordinarily, since I love the idea of citizens holding government officials accountable, I'd cheer the notion of recalling someone from an elected position. I think we oughta recall about half the guys in office these days. But the current effort to recall Davis looks like a very bad idea to me. For one thing, it's not like anything has changed since the last election. In a very real sense, the recall drive is the effort of losers deciding they want to re-run an election they think they should have won. If that kind of thing succeeds, it could become a very bad precedent for our nation. Whenever there's a close election, the losing side would merely start a recall drive and hope to get a do-over.

The other problem here is that the recall movement is largely being driven (and financed) by a wealthy G.O.P. representative who seems to think this is a more promising way to become governor than running in a conventional election. That's a crummy reason for a recall.

As reported in this article in The Washington Post and this column by Robert Novak, Californians have wildly-differing views of the whole recall movement. Some Republicans hate Davis and cannot see how ousting him could be anything but a good thing. But many Republicans fear that it would be a chance for the Democrats (in this Democratic state) to elect someone who'll be a more formidable opponent in the next normal election. So some Democrats see this as an opportunity for them, while others oppose it for the obvious reasons.

I don't like the whole idea. I don't think Gray Davis should be governor and I resent the fact that I may have to go vote for him again.

The overnights were up a bit but when the final ratings came in for this year's Tony Awards broadcast, they were the usual disaster. (Here are the details.) I'm not sure this means much. CBS seems to have resigned itself to the notion that they should run the show even though its ratings are what they are. They can't be expecting things to change much.

And before I go to bed tonight, I'm going to mention the website of a very funny man named Gary Mule Deer. Years ago when I was hanging out a lot at the Comedy Store, he was one of the comics I really enjoyed watching…and so did the crowd. For a long time, I didn't hear anything about him and assumed, I guess, that he'd gotten out of the business or something. Turned out, he's been out on the road for the last umpteen years, opening for Johnny Mathis and other performers, and working his ass off. Great to hear. Here's his website.

And today I'm sending you all over to visit the website of Dan Parent, a very funny artist whether working in the classic Archie style, drawing for that company, or drawing like himself. While you're over there, scope out his tribute to the late Dan DeCarlo.

The Autism Coalition — a charity that raises cash for Guess What — is running a celebrity auction over on eBay, hawking some fun items. The most interesting (currently up to $579.50) is a paper bag which Conan O'Brien had a number of his guests sit on, including Peter Falk, Heather Graham, Roseanne Barr, Chuck Barris, Brendan Fraser, Heidi Klum, Laura Prepon, Carson Daly, Luke Wilson, Jack and Kelly Osbourne, Tina Fey, Matthew McConaughey, Tiffani Thiessen, Tom Cavanagh, Will Ferrell, Christopher Walken, Tom Brokaw, Molly Shannon, Kurt Russell and Jennifer Garner.

Several of the offers involve V.I.P. packages where they put you up in a hotel and then chauffeur you to a TV taping, plus you get to meet the star. You can meet Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien, Jon Stewart, Tom Green, etc. As could perhaps be expected, the David Letterman package does not advertise a meeting with Dave. (The limo ride that's included also stands to be a bit disappointing. They're putting the winning bidder up at the Rihga Royal Hotel, which is an entire block from where Dave tapes his show.)

I keep plugging The Daily Show With Jon Stewart but that's because they keep doing the sharpest political comedy I've ever seen on television. Here, for those of you who have RealPlayer installed, is a link to their story from the other day about the indictment of Martha (no relation) Stewart.

According to this article, the looting of Iraqi museums was nowhere near as bad as we were originally led to believe. Thanks, Augie.

Has anyone compiled a list of news stories out of Iraq that later required amendment or correction? Seems like about two-thirds of them.

Berkeley Breathed (rhymes with "method") drew the newspaper strip Bloom County for 14 years and briefly chased it with the Sunday-only Outland. Here's an interview that will tell you why he quit and why he may come back to it.

Rick Chandler pens a clever tale about the amazing transformation of Dennis Miller. It's called The Millers Crossing.

I didn't see the Barbara Walters interview of Hillary Clinton because I assumed it would be like every other Barbara Walters interview, and darn near every TV interview by anyone: The host exploits the subject to get ratings, and the subject exploits the opportunity to sell their book and/or version of history. Those who complained Ms. Walters wasn't tougher (a) don't seem familiar with Barbara's style and (b) will have to show me where some TV interviewer of the last decade or so has actually been tough on their subject. None of them are…and of course, if they were, the interviewee probably would not even appear with them. Occasionally, some interviewers try to look tough by asking a rude question. But rude is not the same thing as tough, and I suspect that that's what some of the complainers really wanted: Rudeness.

There is an anger towards Senator Clinton that strikes me as having little to do with her actions in the White House or Senate — and that's not to say there isn't cause there for legitimate criticism. But what seems to drive discussions of Hillary on talk radio and Internet forums is something different, including a hostility that some people — both male and female — seem to feel towards any powerful woman. Some of it is from people who have been flogging the notion that she was going to prison for Whitewater, Filegate and Travelgate; that she had secretly divorced Bill; that she personally had murdered Vince Foster, moved the body, then murdered him again. As accusations of that sort have failed to stick, the folks making them never pause to wonder if maybe they're wrong in some way. They just get madder at Hillary for not admitting some wrongdoing for something.

In an odd way, it parallels the Martha Stewart situation, except that prosecutors actually found something for which they could indict Martha. People who couldn't care less about far more egregious stock swindles are suddenly celebrating that Martha Stewart's getting nailed on a relatively minor offense. It's like they're getting some remote revenge on that stuck-up girl in high school who was smarter than them and she knew it. True, there's always a certain joy in some quarters when a rich celebrity gets taken down…but there's something about successful, not-unattractive females that brings out the worst in some people.

With Hillary, there seems to be some compulsion to trash everything she says or does. This morning, some news outlets are reporting people lining up to buy her book. Given the Barbara Walters interview and how excerpts have been all over the news, that seems utterly unremarkable. Still, over on conservative websites like The Corner, we have the suggestion being offered that either those lines of people were paid by the publisher to be there, or that they're just there to buy something they can instantly resell on eBay. Whatever else one might think of Hillary Clinton, she did win the Senate race in New York in a landslide, and even G.O.P. polling shows that there are millions who support the lady. But somehow, if a few hundred folks turn out to purchase her overly-publicized book, her detractors have to find some way to deny that those people might genuinely like her.

Republicans complain — rightly so, I think — that Democrats are too quick to dismiss George W. Bush as an ignorant frat boy and to view everything he does through that prism. Maybe some of them need to come to grips with the fact that Hillary Clinton may not be quite what they've always insisted she is.

The Tony Awards went about as expected: Inside jokes, great production numbers, men kissing, winners who couldn't get their acceptance speeches down to time, and no real shockers when the envelopes were opened. What's kind of interesting about the show is that it serves a dual function insofar as the theatrical world is concerned: It allows the kind of self-congratulation that every creative community seems to require…and it also serves as a prime-time infomercial for Broadway. Each show trots out its jazziest number and hopes to create a run on the box office the next day. Sometimes, it does; sometimes, days after the Tonys, a couple of shows close. Based on their spots on tonight's show, I'd guess Hairspray, Man of La Mancha, Gypsy and maybe Nine are going to sell some tickets tomorrow, but none of those shows were probably in any jeopardy. Man of La Mancha has been playing to about 70% capacity, which is probably acceptable, and the others have been at 90-100%. (I notice, by the way, that The Producers is down to around 80% capacity, which doesn't even put it in the Top Ten. Bet they announce some big stars stepping into the production soon.)

The most embarrassing moment of the Tony broadcast came after Christopher Reeve announced the award for Best Director of a Play. Joe Mantello vaulted to the stage to accept and somehow managed to not acknowledge Reeve sitting there in his wheelchair, unable to even extend a handshake. (A screw-up with the microphones of the Def Poetry Jam was also unfortunate.) The most thrilling moment for me came when Bernadette Peters came out and performed the hell out of "Rose's Turn" from the new production of Gypsy. Ms. Peters has received mixed reactions for her performance. Some of it is from that bitchy faction of theater buffs who arbitrarily decide it's time to tear down some star they used to love, but some of it has been from critics who actually seem to be responding to what they saw on stage. They said — some of them — that Bernadette didn't have the power or presence to pull off the role…and perhaps at earlier performances, she didn't. But for the Tonys, she performed the big, climactic number from the show — an amazing feat. Out of context, done without the entire show before it, some stars couldn't begin to do justice to "Rose's Turn" but Bernadette was amazing. Right after it aired, a friend who saw her in previews and didn't like her then e-mailed me, "If that's how she's doing the show now, I'm going back to see it again."

The biggest surprise was how the show used its expanded time. In the last few years, we got an hour of "minor" awards on PBS, then a rushed two hours on CBS in which they presented the rest of the trophies and tried to showcase all the production numbers. CBS inexplicably went for three hours this year and a lot of folks assumed it would be the same three hours, only all on one channel. Instead, they presented those "minor" awards before the broadcast and summarized them briefly on the show, thereby allowing three hours for what recently has been done in two. It made for a much, much better show, though I doubt it will cause ratings to soar. Most of America still doesn't care about awards to people they've never heard of for shows they'll never see.