MY friend Rick "Shecky" Scheckman informs me that I'm one day off on the Game Show Network schedule.  The shows I mentioned are the ones that air tomorrow night.

Also, tomorrow night, tune in at least the first part of Late Show With David Letterman.  Shecky (who has been with Letterman since Dave was on the old Dumont Network) will be featured in a special Thursday night edition of Viewer Mail.

The Drudge Report is reporting that Marvel Comics is suing Sony to revoke its license to make more Spider-Man movies.  I can't link to that site but the news should be all over the place in the next few days.  Betcha the suit doesn't stop more Spider-Man movies from Sony.

In a week or two — or whenever I get the chance to configure it — the format and address of this page will be changing.  POVonline will remain as is, right where it always was.  But this page will be located at www.newsfromme.com.  If you don't make the change, don't worry.  This page will still forward you, at least for a while.  But just in case you're in a mood to change bookmarks…

If you're up late tonight — or setting your TiVo or VCR — take note of what's on Game Show Network's Black-and-White Overnight block.  The episode of To Tell the Truth scheduled is one that has a then-unknown Cicely Tyson as one of the impostors.  And the episode of I've Got A Secret is supposed to be the infamous Tony Curtis episode that caused the firing of the game show's producer-creator, Allan Sherman.  Details on the latter can be found in a posting I wrote the last time this one aired.

I'm enjoying a book called — this is the full title — I Got The Show Right Here: The Amazing, True Story of How an Obscure Brooklyn Horn Player Became the Last Great Broadway Showman.  The showman in question is Cy Feuer who, with his partner Ernie Martin, produced — among others — Guys and Dolls, Silk Stockings, Where's Charley?, Can-Can, How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying (all for Broadway) and the movie versions of  Cabaret and A Chorus Line.  But he wasn't always that smart: He and Martin had a little show called The Music Man but they got too busy with other projects, so Meredith Willson took it elsewhere.

His autobiography abounds in tales involving folks like George S. Kaufman, Cole Porter, Abe Burrows, Ray Bolger, Bob Fosse and the cheapest man in show business, Rudy Vallee.  (Has anyone yet mentioned Vallee in a book without telling anecdotes about him that make Ted Baxter look like a philanthropist?)

Most of the Feuer-Martin shows have been written about before — some in great detail.  So it's interesting that Feuer still has things to tell us that I'd never heard before.  For instance, it's long been known that although the book for Guys and Dolls was credited to Jo Swerling and Abe Burrows, it was actually written by Burrows alone after Swerling's draft was deemed unseaworthy.  There have been some partisans of the long-deceased Mr. Swerling who have argued with this conventional wisdom, feeling he deserves credit in truth, not just in name.  But here we now have the co-producer of the show, Cy Feuer, stating that not one word of Swerling's made it onto the stage.  Moreover, he says, Nathan Detroit and Miss Adelaide were not even in the show when Swerling was disengaged.  They were added, he says, when George S. Kaufman came aboard as director and suggested the play needed a sub-plot.

Not much more to add right now.  If you're interested in these shows, you'll want this book.  And if you want this book, click here to order it from Amazon and give us a little cut.  Even Rudy Vallee would think it's a bargain.

There's a proposal, soon to be voted on, that would merge the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), with the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA). Not being a current member of either, I have no stake in this. Which is great because I also have no idea if it's a good idea or not. If and when I get the time, I may study two websites that seem to represent the extremes of the pro and con factions. You can get the view of those who think the merger is a peachy idea at this website. And you can read the rebuttals and arguments of those who consider it a bad plan at this website.

I've recieved a lot of e-mail about my piece on hidden camera shows.  Here's a message from a TV writer friend…

Yes, I confess!  I worked at the dreaded, horrific, unwatchable Hidden Video.  (The bit that got me hired was writing a piece where Julie Strain — who was sleeping with the host, to put it far more discreetly than she ever would — played a bride-to-be who confesses to a Wedding Planner ("the Mark"…in the most non-Evanier sense of the word) that she had once been a man, and her husband-to-be didn't know…and would the wedding planner tell him…But I digress —

The "talent coordinator," as it was, did indeed use temp agencies to find certain marks.  As you know, when you shoot in L.A., many unemployed people are "biz" people.

For one shoot a guy walked in, expecting to work as a receptionist all day.  When he walked into our "fictional" offices, he took one look at the room, pointed out three kiosks and said, "There's a camera in there…and there…and there."  The joke was on us!  He was an unemployed SET DESIGNER!

Oh, the shame! ( I was glad he "got" us — and got paid for the day without having to temp, or endure a hidden camera bit.)

And here's one from Larry Steller (he said I could mention his name) who's also known as "Mr. Grooism"…

Although there was no malicious intent involved, I actually filmed a man-in-the-street bit for Letterman years ago, and let me make this clear: I was asked to sign the release form FIRST, before having any idea what I was to be subjected to!  This is actually WORSE than Candid Camera, because you had no clue how big a fool you were gonna make of yourself beforehand!

On the other hand, I DID know what I was getting into in a general way, so I'm not saying that I was taken advantage of.  The Lure of Dave made me want to be on TV, and I did not give proper thought to whether or not this would be flattering or insulting to me.  The bit never aired, so I guess it didn't turn out funny enough.  In hindsight, I guess I'm thankful for that!

I don't know if that's worse than Candid Camera.  I mean, the studio audience in effect signs a release before they appear on camera.  The back of the ticket gives the producers a general release.  They get to air the show and put it out on home video and do whatever they want with it, no matter what they do to you.  At least you were aware that you were being taped.

Lastly, here's another withhold-my-name person who worked on a different hidden camera show…

The thing about using people from temp agencies is all true.  Producers love it because they think they'll get stupider people that way, and people who can't afford lawyers.  If you're playing tricks on strangers, those are both good things.  Some of them also are afraid to not sign the release for fear they won't get the paycheck for the work they came over to do.  I think on some shows the people don't even know they're signing a release.  When they walk in, they're given a bunch of papers to sign for their job office-temping and one of them is a TV release.  If they say "What's this?  I'm just here to answer the phone," they can be told that it's some sort of standard policy of the company because occasionally there's some filming in the audience for something.

But the big reason hidden camera show producers love using people from temp agencies is that it enables them to rig the shows a little.  You may remember a small scandal when it came out that one of those shows (Totally Hidden Video, was it?) was employing actors to pretend they were surprised.  The shows don't want to risk another scandal so they don't do that directly.  When they get their people from a temp agency, they can unofficially let the agency know to send certain people or certain kinds of people and to let them know that it's for TV and to act surprised and maybe even to react a certain way the producers think will be funny.  I don't mean all shows do this and if you ever called them on it, they'd swear on their mother's lives they didn't do it.  But sometimes the victim isn't as surprised as they make out to be.

That's not surprising.  I don't know if Jerry Springer's show does it but last time I looked, some of the Springer imitators were doing that with "surprises" that were prearranged.  They set things up via an outside agency so that if anyone ever investigated, the producers could do a pretty convincing, almost-true job of swearing innocence, and saying, "If it was phony, we were hoaxed."

Not that long ago, an actress I knew wanted to get on one of those shows to promote a business she had.  An independent booking agent who worked with the show told her he could get her on an episode that was to be devoted to women confronting men who'd harassed them sexually.  If she could bring such a person on, she could get on the show.  She replied that she didn't know of anyone who'd sexually harassed her who might be willing to appear, whereupon the agent laughed and told her to just go find a male friend to pretend and to work up a little story about what had transpired.  The agent would help her work out the details of their story, if necessary.  Then they could go on the show and scream at each other.  She'd get to plug her business, they'd both get a free trip to New York and some nice per diem pay.  The show's producers would get a juicy segment and they could swear that, as far as they knew, it was all true.  When the actress protested that it would be dishonest, the agent's attitude was, "So?"  He'd put dozens of these bogus spots together for the program and apparently got paid very well for insulating the producers from charges that what occurred on their stage was bogus.

You'd think, with the supposed current mania for reality shows, someone would try putting a little reality on TV.

Speaking of reality, here's a real plug.  If you like the articles on this site, you'll like this book.  And if you don't like the articles on this site…well, what the hell are you doing here?  Here's a link to a site that will let you pop bubble wrap on your computer.

So why am I down these days on Leno and Letterman?  I'll list a couple of reasons here over the next few days but first I think I have to explain why I never liked Candid Camera — or just about any "hidden camera" shows.  Allen Funt used to describe his little franchise as "people caught in the act of being themselves," but that was a fib.  If they acted like themselves, they usually didn't get on the show.  They got on for looking foolish, upset or baffled in what was usually a very artificial, contrived situation.  Stunts on shows like that are always configured such that the target can't help but look silly, and the game, such as it is, is rigged: If by some chance the person reacts in some dignified way — say, if they demonstrate enough brains to figure out they're being filmed, as many do — the footage simply doesn't air.

Hidden cameras put unsuspecting folks at a disadvantage, and they give "us" the chance to laugh — usually not with them but at them.  Once when I expressed this view to a producer of one of the many Candid Camera knock-offs, he admitted that it was true but he had an excuse that he felt absolved him of any guilt.  The subjects (he actually called them "victims") all had to sign a release.  If they looked like idiots on national television, that was their fault.  For signing the release.

There was some validity to that, and it caused me to slightly modify my objection.  Now, it's more to the fact that such shows exploit some folks' willingness to do anything if it gets them on television — a trait not unfamiliar to viewers of many current reality shows.  But I also think some of the folks caught by "prank" shows are just plain unaware that they don't have to sign the release.

In his autobiography, Charles Grodin wrote of his brief tenure as a deviser and stager-of-pranks for Candid Camera.  Funt, he said, had cautioned him against situations that might snare professional people, folks with actual careers.  They had a tendency to not be as clueless and, when they were, to care about being seen that way.  After one too many shoots where no one would sign the release, Grodin was fired.  This happened many times with other operatives Funt employed and he eventually came to rely on a cheaper, easier way to obtain the footage he sought.  It was to pick on the unemployed.

Instead of setting up a gag in a public place, he'd rent an office, slap an innocuous bogus company name on the door, and have a "temp" agency send over the stupidest people they had who were in need of some minimum wages.  It was easier to hide cameras and later, when Funt began doing shows for cable and cassette, easier to set up stunts that involved nude female accomplices.  Best of all (probably) was that the people who came in had no careers to protect and often weren't all that bright.  They also couldn't just storm out the door for fear of not collecting that much-needed paycheck.

In a few days when I have more time, I'll continue this train of thought and relate it to some of the stunts that now occupy key positions on the Leno and Letterman shows.  I don't like Jay's "Jaywalking" or "Howie Mandel's Hidden Camera," I don't like Dave's "Beat the Clock" or all those games he plays with folks he keeps at arm's length in Rupert's Deli.  And I don't like the way that "let's laugh at jerks" attitude has infected other parts of both shows.  Really, I think both men have forsaken actual, clever comedy material for a lot of bits that are way beneath them.  More on this in a day or three.

It's a day late, but we wanted to wish a Happy Birthday to one of America's great writers of silly songs, Tom Lehrer.  On the zillion-to-three chance that he ever sees this page, we'd like to remind him that the world abounds in people who know all his songs by heart, and can and will sing them at the slightest provocation.  Legend has it that he stopped performing when Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, and legend is untrue.  He actually returned to the world of mathematics long before then — though he did say that, with that award, political satire became obsolete.  Either way, we miss his voice and salute him on his 75th birthday.  (That means he's 113 in Base 8.  Base 8 is just like Base 10…if you're missing two fingers.)

My internet service provider is changing again.  (I'm talking about the company that connects me to the Internet — the one that has my neighborhood wired for cable modems.  This website is hosted by a different outfit which thankfully doesn't change owners every twenty minutes.)  In the limited time I have been connected directly to the Internet, I've gone from Mediaone to Road Runner to A.T.&T. and in a month or three, it's gonna be Comcast.  Each time, the new company has changed my e-mail address…and you'd think I'd be used to that by now.  Before I got a cable modem, I had an e-mail address @mcimail.com, another @compuserve.com and yet another @netcom.com.  This is all in addition to my addresses @aol.com, prodigy.com and Hotmail.  Hard to believe my "whereabouts" on the Internet could keep changing while I remained in the same chair in the same office.

Even though some (not all) of these companies forwarded mail for a time, it has always been a royal pain in the gluteus maximus to change addresses.  Fortunately, the last few relocations were painless, thanks to my personal domain.  For the benefit of a few friends who don't understand the wisdom of a personal domain, I'm going to explain how this works, and I'll do so with phony names…

Charlie Witznitski has an e-mail address of witznitski17@freebish.com.  This was assigned to him when he signed up with freebish.com, and all his friends know to write to him there.  But then freebish.com is acquired by the massive Ferndoc Corporation, and they announce that everyone's e-mail address is going to have to change to something@ferndoc.net.  In Charlie's case, since there are already 73 Witznitskis (six of them named Charlie) on ferndoc.net, he winds up with witznitski74@ferndoc.net, which is even more confusing.

To make sure this never happens again, Charlie goes out and registers the domain of witznitski.com.  He declares his e-mail address will henceforth be charlie@witznitski.com.  Then, with a very simple command at the I.S.P. where he has his domain parked, he sets all mail that's received at witznitski.com to forward to his real current e-mail address, witznitski74@ferndoc.net.  The forwarding is invisible to those who write to Charlie.  As far as they're concerned, they write to him at charlie@witznitski.com.  Since Charlie owns this, it can be his permanent address.  Next July, when ferndoc.net is absorbed into kreeblat.com and Charlie's local e-mail address changes again, he can just adjust witznitski.com to forward to the new address.  He doesn't have to send out a jillion "change of e-mail address" notices and fear that some correspondence won't get rerouted at some point.

A further advantage of having his own domain is that Charlie can have an unlimited number of e-mail addresses @witznitski.com.  He can give one address to his friends and another to businesses.  When he signs up for mailing lists or has to leave an address with someone who's liable to send a lot of advertising, he can give them a special address for that stuff.  Then he can set his e-mail software to check several different addresses and to perhaps filter income messages differently.  He can have one e-mail address he checks once a week and another he checks several times a day.  He has total control.

Many of you know about this but the other day, I was with someone who was lamenting the latest forcible change of his e-mail address and the need to send out notices.  When I told him about permanent domains, he reacted like I'd cured some chronic disease…so I thought I'd mention it here in case any of you are similarly unaware and pained.  If you're going to set up your own domain, I've been pretty darned happy with Dreamhost.

Hard to believe it's a bit less than 100 days until this year's Comic-Con International in San Diego.  Tens of thousands of people will be flocking there for just one purpose: To buy copies of a peachy new book which collects a bunch of my old columns about comic books, and also includes some never-published ones.  The book will be on sale there, hot off-the-press and full of wonderful cartoons by Sergio Aragonés.  If the line to buy them is anything like the one for the first volume, it will extend out of the convention hall, down the block and out into the street, ending somewhere in Ensenada, Mexico.  You can spare yourself the indignity of having to stand in this queue by ordering your copy now.  That's right!  Click here to go to a page where the nice folks at TwoMorrows Publishing will take your money, sit on it for a few months, then send you a book as soon as they're released.  But all that time, you'll be free to enjoy your life and the convention, secure in the knowledge that your copy of Wertham Was Right! is assured.

Just back from a lovely lunchtime birthday bash for Joe Barbera (of "Hanna and…) who turned at least 92 a week or two ago.  The "at least" is because a couple of animation historians in the back were quietly making the case that J.B. is actually older than his official bio ever claimed.  I don't know that it matters.  There couldn't have been any more reverence and respect in the hall than there was.  The place was packed with associates, long-time and recent, who came to celebrate the life and longevity of the man who helped invent TV cartoons.

(By the way: In the photo above, that's Barbera on the left, Hanna on the right.  I'm guessing 1965 or so.)

Present were folks who've known and worked with Barbera for years (Jerry Eisenberg and Iwao Takamoto both spoke) and a bevy of cartoon voice people: June Foray, Gary Owens, Lucille Bliss, John Stephenson, Casey Kasem, Janet Waldo, Frank Welker, Alan Oppenheimer and others.  Most interesting to me was the vast quantity of writers and artists whose debt to Mr. Barbera was less direct.  Yeah, he hired a lot of them or ran the company that did — but before that, his shows inspired them to want to be in the business and to develop their creative impulses into actual talents.  The place was full of us.

In any case, it was an even grander turnout than they had for Mr. Barbera's alleged 91st birthday party last year.  Tune in next year for a report on the 93rd, and the year after for the 94th.  And the year after and the year after…

I just received a virus-laden e-mail that was ostensibly from T.K. Ryan, creator of the very silly comic strip, Tumbleweeds.  I say "ostensibly" because some viruses that come to you are not really from the person they say they're from.  Some "spoof" the sender's name, and it may be that the person with the diseased computer was not Mr. Ryan but just someone who had both his e-mail address and mine in their address book.  I've never met Tom Ryan, but I always enjoyed his strip.  And the virus e-mail (which was caught by Norton Anti-Virus before it could infect my computer) did do some good.

It caused me to visit www.tumbleweeds.com, where I laughed out loud at several vintage episodes, and got the address to order an autographed copy of the latest collection.  Which I'll do just as soon as I post this and figure out why the hell I'm up and reading old Tumbleweeds strips at 4:45 AM.

If one follows the war news — and I'm not suggesting one should do this — one can get whiplash over reports that keep screeching to a sudden halt.  Saddam is dead.  Whoops, no — he's alive.  But now he's definitely dead.  Or maybe he isn't.  No, he's definitely been dead for several days, plus we just killed him again.  This guy's been written off for dead more times than Tom Arnold.

The same thing seems to be occurring with the finding (or not) of so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Our troops keep coming across stashes of what are definitely, absolutely supplies for deadly chemical warfare…until such time as they turn out to be cans of Raid or whatever.

I've stopped watching.  I'm just assuming that any day now, Saddam will be dead with some finality, and we'll find something that will justify all the claims that Hussein had something really nasty that he was about to unleash on us.  It's like those cops who used to say, "If I search you for possession of marijuana, I'm going to find marijuana on you — whether it's there or not."

I still have no firm feelings as to whether this war was a good idea, and I'm skeptical of folks who seem to have made up their minds, one way or the other, based on what they want to see happen to George W. Bush's domestic policies.  Clearly, there are those who are vocal on both sides of the issue who couldn't care less about the liberation of the people of Iraq.  They're hoping a victory there will boost Bush's political stock and allow him to cut more taxes, install more conservative judges, restrict abortion rights, etc.  Or they want to see him fall on his ass so he'll be weakened and easier to defeat in the next election.  The latter group has the more difficult position to hold, since a failure in Iraq could mean a lot of dead and maimed Americans.

Frankly, I think the final verdict on whether it was right and proper to invade Iraq won't be in for years.  We'll have to see the final costs, both in terms of lives and dollars.  We'll have to see what kind of reprisals, if any, result.  And most of all, we'll have to see what becomes of Iraq.  If it winds up with a government as repressive as Saddam's, then the war will probably have been a colossal blunder.  If it leads to more democracy and liberation, then great.

This seems to me the most logical way to view the situation, but I don't see any pundits or politicians who want to wait.  They're all too eager to see what the war is going to do for American politics.  If it does what they want to Bush's approval rating, then they'll be glad we invaded.

Anyone remember Gary Condit?  He was that Congressman that everyone was convinced was guilty of murdering a woman named Chandra Levy.  Lots of people cared passionately about finding Ms. Levy's killer, back when they thought it was probably him — this, despite the fact that no one in law enforcement ever thought Condit was a suspect.  Since her body was found and the evidence never quite managed to point to the sleazy politician, everyone lost interest in her.

Condit is forgotten but not gone: He's presently suing writer Dominick Dunne over some rather wild, factless accusations in a case that tests our concept of the First Amendment and what it should and shouldn't protect.  John W. Dean has an article about it which you can read by clicking here.

This morning on The Today Show, Andrea Mitchell was discussing how, when the time comes, they'll be able to positively identify the remains of Saddam Hussein.  She said that the C.I.A. is in possession of DNA samples from Hussein's son-in-law but cautioned, "Intelligence sources suggest that may not be a close enough relative to be a match."  If that's what the sources are suggesting, they don't seem to be too intelligent.  Wouldn't the odds of identical DNA be a little better with a blood relative?

By the way: Let's hope Saddam Hussein dies soon.  Because an awful lot of Iraqi citizens will, every day we don't have his head to display on a spike.

The management of this website loves to find articles to which it can link without hesitation.  We agree with every word of this op-ed piece by Paul Krugman in The New York Times.