The TV Zone

Just heard this grim news: Liz Smith is reporting that Don Hewitt is at Sloan Kettering, "felled" by pancreatic cancer.

[Now, this update: I'm told he IS NOT in the hospital but will go in this Friday.]

Here's the full piece, from WowOwow:

"Don Hewitt, the creator of CBS’s famous, long-running "60 Minutes," is in Sloan Kettering, felled by pancreatic cancer.

Mr. Hewitt invented the program in his dynamic, courageous and independent manner and took it to a victory it still enjoys. It is the most reliable, in-depth program of news on television. Even after he relinquished direct reins to the show, Don has continued his energetic race to the top with new ideas and concepts and an unending work ethic.

He is a citizen of Manhattan and also of Bridgehampton, NY, where he usually holds court Sunday mornings with pals and admirers in the Candy Kitchen of that little Hamptons town. His loyal wife, Marilyn Berger Hewitt, a former writer for The New York Times, is by Don’s side. We hope against hope for his recovery.

This is a man I admire immensely and we have had our arguments and disagreements through the years, but they have never ended our friendship."

Please allow me add to this: Don has remained very active since "60," working for Fordham, developing other media projects, and he recently authored a big thoughtful piece for Huffington Post. I know the word "legendary" gets thrown around a lot but he really was a legendary producer and director. Will find out more soon ...

Photo by Jon Filo

Oh come now, does this matter? Really? That Hudson Hero Sully Sullenberger talked to Rick Reilly before he talked to Katie Couric?

I have it on good authority that he also talked to the good people at the Danville, Ca. library. The conversation was relayed to hometown paper Contra Costa Times.

So one could argue that the CC Times scooped Rick. (Unfortunately, the CC Times story was about an overdue book. )

What was the full interview with Sully about? Here's Reilly's entire blog post on the encounter (and go to the jump for the overdue book story...this is all getting a little weird.)

"Who was standing there Saturday night - just he and his wife - in the lobby of the Marriott Waterside hotel in Tampa, but Chesley (Sully) Sullenberger, the US Air pilot who ditched safely and miraculously in the Hudson River with both engines gone. The man who saved 155 lives was about 6-2, 175 pounds with a deep radio voice and a personality that couldn't be hurried with a team of Clydesdales. He was at the Super Bowl as a guest of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, but hadn't met him yet, even though Goodell was standing 15 feet away. I had to ask him, What was that like when you realized both engines were out? He thought about it for awhile and then said, slowly and deliberately, "Shocking. It was very quiet as we worked, my co-pilot and I. We were a team. But to have zero thrust coming out of those engines was shocking - the silence." How were you feeling inside? I asked. "Calm on the outside, turmoil inside." He kept calling the whole thing "surreal." His wife, Lori, said she and Sully have been opening letters every night that are so emotional, "it allows both of us to express emotion about it all. We both sit there and cry." I wanted to ask him one more question but he got swept away. It was going to be, "Do you mind emailing me the list of all your flights coming up in 2009? I'd like to be on them."

Continue reading "Katie Scooped...By Rick Reilly" »

Here's a pix of Katie and Sully...in his kitchen. Interview took place last week....Brief outtakes on "Evening News" in just about half an hour...

Thirty years old and what day does a distinguished news program choose to celebrate the big anniversary?

THIS Sunday, of all Sundays. When the world is thinking of the pigskin.

Rather than lament its fate, CBS's "Sunday Morning" is celebrating it...this IS, after all, the Quiet Show. What better place to be than in the shadow of a giant.

"Sunday Morning?" A truly fine program that rarely gets any ink, but just happens to churn out quality editions week after week, year after year. This is a special anniversary, and while everyone else is squawking about the Bowl today - and don't fear, I'll be squawking soon enough too - I figured I would zag a bit.

I had a nice chat with the estimable Charles Osgood this morning, and for an edited version of that, please head south to the jump.

The vital stats: "Sunday Morning" launched Jan. 28, 1979 and was hosted by Charles Kuralt until April 3, 1994. Osgood took over then, so he's closing in on his 15th anniversary here.

And one more vital stat: Along with "60 Minutes" (ten years older), "Sunday Morning" is one of the jewels in the crown of network television news...

Continue reading "CBS's "Sunday Morning" Turns 30" »

This just in: Katie Couric will anchor a one-time-only primetime edition of "The Evening News" next Wednesday at 8.

CBS says this will be "in addition" to the earlier 6:30 edition, while a spokeswoman says it will contain "all new content."

A big deal? Certainly a very interesting one. The last time an edition of "Evening News" aired at 8 - or one that wasn't tagged to breaking news? Never... This is as much promotional as anything else - Katie's coming off a very strong political season (see: The Palin Interviews) and the network wants to keep the ball rolling. (Head to this post if you want some more background from CBS News boss, Sean McManus...)

They also want to put a bullet in that long-standing - and probably bogus - press story that "Kate Will Be Leaving After the Inauguration."

You know that one - it ran in a couple of prominent papers a year or so ago,and soon the broad-based assumption was that Katie's days were numbered. She (and CBS) heatedly denied this, including a pointed denial at the summer press tour in Beverly Hills, but (then) you know the press: They wouldn't believe their own grandmother.

Certainly some basis for the rumors - After that big "EN" launch, the numbers softened, the fingers started pointing (as they tend to do inside CBS), and 'ere long, Katie was grousing about not getting the support she needed, or that this wasn't what she signed up for, or whatever. And then...the speculation began: What next for Katie? "Meet the Press?" "Larry King Live?" Back to NBC in some capacity?

Then...something happened. The "EN" numbers started to improve slightly; Katie got a new and particularly seasoned and competent exec producer, Rick Kaplan (who, by the way, was also good at handling the press and managing internal expectations at CBS); outside options for Katie were hardly as good as this one; and CBS wasn't anxious to see her go because it'd have to pay off the balance of her contract; most important, the show got better, and then the Palin business.

The new press narrative: "Katie's on a roll!"

Here are the canned quotes from this morning's press release: “This is a unique opportunity to showcase the CBS Evening News and give viewers who might not be able to sample the broadcast the chance to see the outstanding work being done by Katie and the CBS News team,” said Sean McManus, President, CBS News and Sports.

“I am extremely proud of the tremendous work by Katie and our entire team and the primetime broadcast is yet another platform to bring our distinct reporting and franchise news series to a wider audience,” said Kaplan.

Only one teensy, weensy hitch to this one-time-only experiment aimed at dragging more viewers to this worthy program: It'll air opposite "American Idol." (That's maybe OK too - we call this "counter-programming" in the trade.)

(Pix: John Paul Filo, CBS)

"Webcast ..."

Isn't that an ugly word? (Surely we can think up something better, or more appealing...) And surely you must wonder - as I did - what sort of benefits accrue to CBS News and Katie Couric to have done this thing after every major ping on the political calendar this year?

On paper, or on-screen, it seems like great idea - isn't EVERYONE supposed to do something on the Web, to prove there with-it-iveness and to establish that they too have hitched a ride to the future and aren't old fogies like everyone else? There were many many streaming shows yesterday, maybe hundreds provided by people who held up their cellphones. They're not old fogies, but God, I'd sure hate to watch their "webcasts."

Here's CBS' postgame show, below, and the problem, one of them anyway, is that it is so startlingly different from the network's earlier sober coverage - which was actually pretty good. This is the let-your-hair down show - the one that's supposed to throw a spotlight on the humanity of the anchors, and pundits, and bring out all their wit, smarts and irrepressible bonhomie (whatever that is...)

But after a day on the air, those talents tend to get shaved, or evaporate altogether. You're not at your best.

Katie: "I'm not sure who's watching but some people out there are...oh look, Jordin Sparks is here [at the Commander-in-Chief ball, where she sang, I imagine, the Etta James classic, "At Last"]...I feel like I work for MTV all of a sudden...[The Obamas] must be getting sick of 'At Last'...Would you think I was really creepy if I said I think you smell good?...Sure you can get a picture...Did I mention Audi is sponsoring our webcast."

"Webcast:" That word again, which implies "cheap," and "crumby" and "low-rent," and "really really boring." Too bad, cuz Katie's not any of those things.

So here's a suggestion for a Webcast of the future, CBS. Don't let the hair down. Make this thing as smart and insightful as it can be. Don't be silly or frivolous (that devalues the overall brand.) Don't pander - people can smell "pander" from a million miles away. Make this thing even richer than what you had on the air. Make people think that if they miss this, they'll miss the more IMPORTANT part of your overall coverage. Never embarrass yourself or CBS News - you've worked too hard to establish your Big League Anchor creds. And don't forget, some people are watching - even annoying critics who post their own blog posts...

("Blog:" An ugly word....)

That's my free advice for the day.

Watch CBS Videos Online

Here's a just-asking blog post: How is it that Lara Logan, the respected correspondent for CBS News - embroiled in quite the scandale du TV last year when revealed she was bearing the child of a married man (not married to her, BTW - she was married to someone else; oh brother) - could actually give birth to a baby boy on Dec. 29 (Joseph Washington Burkett V), but still have a story on the air just a few days later?!!??

That woman has stamina, by heavens.

Or another possibility: The story on "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric" had been mothballed for months, which is kinda odd considering there's so much real news out there.

You be the judge. Here's the piece:

Did you watch last night's interview on "60 Minutes" with Barack Obama - conducted by Steve Kroft and produced by Michael Radutsky and Frank Devine?

Of course you did, and if you didn't I now offer my two cents - make that four cents. It was a huge TV event, seriously, in so many ways that are so obvious that it almost beggars the reasons for pointing them out, but I do nonetheless. The first black American president - there, on "60 Minutes," the nation's premiere news mag. Get beyond the content of that interview and what news may or may not have been parsed. It was just a stunning event in and of itself; a TV moment where you almost felt the ground move beneath your feet.

Here's my insta-analysis:

* Obama was very good. Of course, you say - he's always that way. . But I felt and maybe you did too that he THOUGHT as he spoke, and that the words he used were not dropped as mere recitations of former campaign promises, but a re-affirmation of those. Whatever you think of the wisdom or lack thereof of some of his stands - say, the closing of Guantanamo, and Kroft's obvious failure of followup (um, where do the prisoners go?) - those positions were stated precisely and intelligently.

* Michelle O was good too. ("Good?" Yes, "60" interviews are to a certain extent performances and as everyone well knows, such interviews can be easily botched.) "The White House was beautiful, awe-inspiring...a great honor to live there." Right answer, when you consider that after Nancy Reagan first walked through, she couldn't plan fast enough to demolish the second floor.

* Delayed gratification on new puppy ("gratification?" Not necessarily the right word when it comes to new puppies.) Yeah, much'll be made semi-seriously of the fact that a new dog isn't coming until maybe in the spring, maybe later. First broken promise!! Oh, puhlease...

* Great night for "60 Minutes," now the only serious news mag left on TV. The Only One. (Really? "20/20" had the bearded lady-man on Friday, will have a famous prostitute this Friday, and next week, closing up sweeps, an exclusive interview with Batboy.) "60" was the most watched program on television week before laset, and will likely do same this week. An "old" warhorse that just keeps on establishing its relevancy.

Grade: A

(Photo: AP)

Oprah? Are you listening? It's getting to look like you'll be the last one in this conga line. Sean Hannity has Sarah Palin this week. Charlie Gibson had her last week. And now ... Katie Couric will interview her in a week and a half.

(Oh, and Brian? Are you starting to feel like chopped liver? Blame the Bickerson Boys.)

The details - which, in fact, first got out via a Page Six item this morning: Katie'll spend a couple days with Tina Fey ... err, Palin on Sept. 28 and 29, then excerpts will air that Monday, the 29th.

Additional details from the presser: "Coverage of Couric’s travels and interview with the Republican Vice Presidential nominee will include behind-the-scenes access [with] Palin Senator McCain as they campaign in battleground states.

"The interview will take place just days before the Vice Presidential debate between Palin and Senator Joe Biden in St. Louis on Thursday, October 2. Portions of the interview and extended coverage of the trip will be available across all CBS News platforms..."

I guess we'll get the press release next week saying Wolf will have Sarah. Oh wait: The McCainers have a problem with Campbell Brown, so ...

(Getty Images Photo / Frederick M. Brown)

Former White House communications dude Dan Bartlett is about to become CBS News' newest political talking head dude - that is, "consultant." He joins Dem Joe Trippi in the spin, errrr, commentary booth.

Per CBS, he'll "provide on-air analysis on a variety of political issues, including at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions and beyond. The appointment is effective immediately. He joins Joe Trippi in that role for CBS News."

As you know, Barlett was top PR man for President Bush, and I think the most common phrases in his lexicon were:

"...That simply is not true."

And, "I don't understand the motivation of Mr. [name an ex-Bush official to publish a damning account of the Bush Presidency] other than financial."

And, "The war in Iraq is going very well."

There may be others but these are the ones that come immediately to mind.

I don't know about you, but I always find it amusing and somewhat troubling too when any top official - be he/she Democrat or Republican, be he Barlett or Howard Wolfson - leaves a job where they were in charge of fibbing or to be kind, truth stretching of monstrous proportions, for a well-paying news gig in which they're supposed to finally utter words bearing some semblance of veracity.

(Photo: ABC News.)

This just announced by the Commission on Presidential Debates: The peerless Bob Schieffer will moderate a "third and final debate" between the two presidential candidates.

You will note: The peerless Katie Couric will not be doing the honors.

It'll be hosted at Hofstra on Wednesday, Oct. 15. Here are the other details: 90 minutes long, eight segments, each segment 10 minutes long, then Schieffer will "facilitate conversation" between both candidates.

Why NOT Katie? Good question, though Schieffer has done this before, and done it exceedingly well, so his choice is certainly a reasonable one. Katie had been in line to moderate one on April 27 from North Carolina, but it was canceled last minute, making her the only one of the Three Majors to miss out on grilling the presumptives and would-be presumptives. Meanwhile, ABC got shut out entirely this time - a real slap, and one can speculate as to why, but its last debate was roundly panned. Jim Lehrer will moderate the Sept. 26 debate at Ole Miss, and Tom Brokaw will moderate NBC's Oct. 7 debate in Nashville.

Do you know who Lara Logan is? You should - she's a heckuva courageous reporter for CBS News who has done stand-out work for the network from Iraq and Afghanistan for years. (She's also a former South African model whom some at CBS News initially viewed with considerable suspicion because they assumed she was just another pretty face, which, of course, she wasn't...) She's leaving Iraq, and has just been named the network's chief foreign affairs correspondent. Will be based in D.C.

“Lara is among the most talented and respected journalists in our industry,” said CBS News boss Sean McManus. “She is extraordinarily determined and courageous, but never fails to see and report the human side of conflict, including some of the most horrific stories of our time. Lara’s deep and varied experience around the world over the past 17 years positions her remarkably well for covering this expanded beat, which she will handle with the same fervor and dedication that our viewers have come to expect.” She joined CBS six years ago.

Interesting aside: on a recent "Daily Show" appearance, she was harshly critical of U.S. TV's - and by association, CBS's - dramatic reduction of news from Iraq. She joked - or was this a joke? - about having to point an RPG at her news bosses to force them to air her stuff...

Well, ya missed last night's "Evening News" and that's too bad 'cause Katie (again) came to Hill's defense; she decried the media's sexist coverage of the candidate, etc., saying that...well, watch for yourself. But I wonder: Did Katie miss the whole point? Wasn't the media - rightfully - astounded at a campaign that refused to end, even when the end was a foregone conclusion? And weren't the absolutely harshest critics WOMEN?! I'm talking Maureen Dowd (NYT) and Peggy Noonan (WSJ). Go ahead, Katie. Read what they had to say. (Question: Can women be sexist when discussing other women? I suppose, but...) Anyway, I've gotta run. Rach is on the other line. We're talking about last night's brilliant performance...

CBS News should be announcing...oh...any minute now...that the great Bob Schieffer has just signed a new contract that'll keep him at the network for at least four more years - as host of "Face the Nation."

This is a big turnaround from a year ago when Bob had pretty much decided to get out while the going was good. He had planned to retire, until CBS News boss Sean McManus asked him to stay past inauguration.

This - of course - immediately set up speculation by TV writers, who added two and two together and came up with seven (we write about TV; we can't add). Aha! (we mused.) This could mean Bob will be taking over when Katie Couric leaves "Evening News," as has been reported (and re-reported) so often that it'll be huge news if she stays.

In any event, I asked Bob about the new contract and whether this means a little show with the initials "EN" is in his future. Said he:

"This is just about my continuing role at 'Face the Nation.' Covering Washington is still more fun than anything I know, so when Sean asked me to stay around, it was hard to say no."

(Above, Bob, courtesy the New York Observer)

Oh what fun they're having at CBS News these days. And we in the TV press, likewise.

But enough fun. I now direct your attention over to TVNewser.com which has been running a very interesting poll. It asks readers to predict who will replace Katie, assuming she leaves as the blood-in-the-water-loving press would have you believe.

What's so interesting? People seem to think -- and by a wide margin -- that ANDERSON COOPER is the guy. Problem is, AC's locked into a long-term contract at CNN, which has allowed him to moonlight on "60 Minutes," although it might be stretching the definition of "moonlighting" if it allows him to anchor "Evening News" as well.

Interesting, smart poll. Check it out here.

Talked to someone late yesterday who's plugged into the CBS rumor mill, and one thought making the rounds is that Katie could be gone long before the various news reports have her gone. Conventional wisdom now stands that Katie stays through inauguration, and then leaves. But the crush of recent press may force the issue sooner, and the standout line in today's New York Times wrap is "in a few weeks."

A few weeks? At the outset of the May sweeps? Maybe even just in time for the Pennsylvania primary (April 22) which should be one of the biggest stories of the political season?

It's certainly possible, but maybe it's also worthwhile keeping a couple of thoughts in mind. If Katie's forced out, then CBS has to eat the balance of her contract, which is around $40 million. That's a far worse outcome than anyone at CBS wants to contemplate. In other words, this decision may pretty much be in Katie's hands - assuming CBS doesn't believe the recent press has caused so much damage to her and the franchise that it's WORTH $40 million to cut bait.

Another consideration: Who would replace her? It now seems pretty obvious that the network prevailed upon Bob Schieffer to postpone his retirement for just this reason. If Katie goes, the call will go out to Bob.

And another consideration still: How will he feel about that? Ever the trooper, he gracefully bowed out when Katie came aboard a couple years, yet I always believed that this was a reluctant exit. He'd never admit it, but Schieffer knew his stint was a success, knew he should have been in the chair years earlier, but out of deference to his friend, Dan Rather, never forced the issue. Schieffer had something to prove - that he had the chops and talent to be the heir to Cronkite - yet he never got the chance to fully prove it.

It was - if you will - an instance of anchor interrupted.

Now he'll be asked to save the franchise once again, knowing full well that he'll be shuffled aside as soon as they get the Next Anchor of "Evening News" (assuming they don't cancel the program outright.)

Schieffer, I imagine, has complicated feelings about this whole situation right about now.

Now that the jackals of the press - me! - have poor Katie Couric out the door, we are left with this inconvenient question: Who, ummm, will replace her?

I pondered that briefly this morning, while putting a few nails in the coffin of "Evening News," but here's one suggestion that occurred to me (or rather a friend more thoughtful on these matters:)

What about Ted?

I speak of Koppel, who disappeared into the bowels of the Discovery Channel two years ago and has been in the witness protection program ever since. (No, really, he's done a bunch of thoughtful documentaries, and remains pretty much in the game.)

What about Ted? Has anyone called him. Do they know what he's thinking? Is he on ANYONE'S radar at CBS? There are advantages (and disadvantages, perhaps) and I lay them out now:

1.) He's the right demographic. That's right - white male of advanced middle age. Rather elderly people watch these newscasts, and they sometimes prefer same in their anchors; sometimes, but not necessarily, with Brian Williams being the obvious exception.

2.) He's got that anchorly mien - the voice, the eyes, the head, the hair. It's a compleat anchor package, if you will, but not a compleat Ron Burgundy blow-dried anchor package.

3.) He's done it all. Ted is embued with almost exactly 30 years of big-league-anchor-experience; "Nightline" was birthed during the Iranian hostage crisis, and he didn't miss much of a stride over those thirty years (though he had plenty of experience, at State, and elsewhere at ABC News.)

4.) He could come cheap. No $15 million anchor man here! Pay his production company a million bucks a year, and all he has to do is read a telePrompter every night for a half hour (plus another half hour for the west coast feed.) I don't think Ted is greedy, honestly. (I don't think Katie is either, but ...)

Disadvantages:

1.) He's not off the CBS News farm. This is important: To be hugely successful at CBS News, one must have spent the vast bulk of one's career there; there are a couple of exceptions (sure, Mike Wallace worked for ABC back in the dark ages), but for the most part this holds true. CBS News has a unique culture - to a certain extent, it is bottled up and walled off; David Burke, a one-time news president and transplant from ABC, once told someone he couldn't understand the place - there were metaphoric walls everywhere that he didn't know how to get around. He didn't last any time at all. CBS News is not kind to outsiders - that's just the way it is - and Ted would be an outsider.

2.) Ted probably wouldn't want to do it. Yeah, he'd be flattered to get the call (he ALWAYS is), but at the end of the day, he's got a great life - plus, ego stroking gets old - and he doesn't need the camera like others who shall remain nameless. CBS has come after him before - he once told someone (I forget who) that he'd never work for Larry Tisch. Could he work for Sumner and Leslie?

Okay, that's all I've got for now. Four advantages versus two disadvantages - maybe someone at CBS SHOULD think of Ted...

So we've got another major newspaper story on the departure of Katie Couric after the inauguration - yesterday's appeared on WSJ.com (and today's editions of the Journal.) It repeats - almost uncannily in fact - the exact same story that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer last fall under the by-line of Gail Shister; it was Shister's swansong on the TV beat and included an unnamed source who predicted (confidentially) Katie's departure.

That story was combustible and carried - I'm fairly certain - the exact same denial as yesterday's WSJ - no changes are contemplated, and Katie's not leaving, etc.

In other words, both stories are true - absolutely true. Katie will be gone by next January.

But here's the question both stories studiously ignored, and it's the far more important question: What about the "Evening News?" What about TV's most storied newscast - the one once anchored by Walter Cronkite (and Dan Rather) and the one that once dominated the American news industry much as the New York Times does today.

What about "The CBS Evening News?"

My educated hunch - and it's only a hunch - is that while the network "sources" can confidentially predict the exit of another anchor (and what really is an anchor other than a newsreader? They're expendable) but they can't even consider the other possibility, as if the very mention of it would invite a bolt of lightning from the heavens: What if CBS cancels "The Evening News?"

I (and others) have called this the nuclear option, and many people have speculated about it for years - always inviting derision. But here, now, for your consideration is the cold, hard truth: The world of news no longer has a sacred cow. The cows have all been butchered and the hamburger is arriving at dinner tables as we speak. Nothing is writ, nothing is forever, nothing...gimme a minute and I'll think of another cliche. CBS could, in fact, cancel "The Evening News." It's a possibility and one I'm confident they've considered.

The real question about Katie isn't about whether she's going to leave - she is, get over it - but who will replace her. Another cold hard truth: There is no one in the wings. No one. No one at CBS. No one anywhere else. There are certainly intriguing possibilities out there. George Stephanopoulos? I think he'd be a viable candidate but don't you think ABC has him under lock and key? Diane Sawyer? That might work too - except that Diane, possessed of many many talents, does not possess the talent of anchoring. Bob Schieffer - one of the most gifted anchors in the world? He wanted to retire (sort of) but CBS didn't even have candidates to replace HIM on "Face the Nation," and now he's sticking around. Russ Mitchell? Excellent anchor and smart guy - too bad viewers don't even know who he is.

To show you how incredibly dry this well is, the former president of CBS News once stumped for John Roberts - Roberts! Who can't even draw viewers to CNN's morning program.

So, if there's no one to anchor "The Evening News" then can there be an "Evening News?"

You may say, "well, Gay, you're thinking like an old fool as usual - this is the new world of TV news! You don't need an old fashioned anchor monster. Put your money into field reporting - do a different broadcast. Counter-program!"

A great point (and I may indeed be an old fool), but...unfortunately, "The Evening News" is beholden to the conventions of the industry because it created those conventions. It is a creature of the '60s and '70s, when millions sat down to watch an evening news program anchored by one godlike and profoundly trusted figure. To dispel this convention means dispelling the economic underpinnings of the program; in other words, without the conventions (like a giant anchor-monster) it can't then pay for itself, and no longer has a reason, economically speaking, to exist. I think this may be called a catch-22.

One more point and then I'll let you go on with your day: for years, people said these evening news programs existed for political purposes, as sops to the FCC or congressmen eager for face time. That no longer holds water either; "we have '60 Minutes;' we have 'Face the Nation,' we have 'Sunday Morning...'" They have, in other words, other shows that also cover the news (and make money for the corporation in the process.)

There's a rumor at CBS that Sean McManus will leave his role as news chief to go back to sports full-time early next year too. The loss of Katie - AND "The Evening News" - very well may be his legacy.

Here's some great news from the world of television news: Bob Schieffer, one of the greats in CBS News history who indicated in a recent AP story that he was hanging it up at the end of this season, has had a change of heart.

And more big Schieffer news - he's at work on another book. His last - "This Just In: What I Couldn't Tell You on TV" - was one of most interesting and lively accounts of a journalist's life that I've ever read....

Here's what Bob told me in a recent email: "[CBS News prez] Sean McManus has asked me to rethink my decision so I am rethinking. We are working out the details but he has the basketball tournament to think about this week and I am away on vacation but it looks like I will stay around a bit longer.

" I would rather not say more about it until we get it all worked out. I got the galleys for the book last week and just sent them back to Neil Nyren, my editor at Putnam (also publisher of This Just In ) It is scheduled to be released in September, just after the political conventions. It is a collection of my commentaries from 'Face the Nation' and even includes some of the longer opinion pieces I wrote for CBS Radio way back in the '70s. The collection includes essays on everything from war and peace to advice to fathers on how to 'act normal' which was the order I got from my daughters when we held the first boy-girl party at our house."

TV news people love to talk and here's what the dears are talking about at CBS News, right now at this very minute: That Rick Kaplan, "Evening News" executive producer and recently installed at "Early Show" in the wake of the ouster of the very sharp-elbowed Shelley Ross, will be setting his alarm clock for quite some time to come.

Reason: Katie Couric has set her eye on network veteran Chris Dinan to become the new executive producer of "EN."

Why am I posting this now and why should you care? (Well, it is Monday morning and nothing else is going on, and I do have to fill this blog and...)

It's interesting because nothing EVER happens within a vacuum at CBS News (never has) and any major level executive shift is usually symptomatic of some broader change. I'm still not telling you why this is interesting (sorry.)

OK, two works: Katie Couric. Enough said?

There's more speculation over at the Milk Factory (fondly so-named because once milk flowed through this wonderful old eastside sprawl as opposed to gossip). Here it is:

- That...Sean McManus, president of the news division will hang up his news spurs by the summer and return full-time to Sports (unlike the news division, CBS Sports is biggest, baddest, meanest, toughest sports TV entity this side of ESPN.) Mc is prez of both news and sports.

- That...pressure will grow once again on "60 Minutes" boss, Jeff Fager, to take over the news division.

Do I believe any of this? Well, yes, a little bit (just not sure how much.) The ever reliable Sandy Genelius, CBS News top spokeshuman, tells me the Dinan rumor is utter hogwash: "There's nothing to it. Nothing to it."

Do I believe SANDY? Sure, but...Dinan, as we say in the trade, IS "well-regarded" (Kaplan appointed him his number two last fall) and no one ever believed Rick and Katie would get along forever (only diamonds are forever - not TV news executives.) Rick's very talented and tough; Katie's the same, and SHE wants to be the one calling the shots. The only thing that gives me pause: Katie's broadcast seems to have settled down with Kapan at the helm. ("Seems to" but nothing is ever as it really "seems" at CBS News, so...),

Fager to the president's office? He doesn't want it (last time I checked.) Morevoer, he's got a much better gig at "60," so why go to the hornet's nest across the street where the news isn't always (ahem) good. Meanwhile, I'm also hearing...that CBS is also shuttering its Paris bureau (actually, it's a three-person satellite; the real bureau, per my recollection, was shuttered years ago.)

(Above: RK, taking over mornings after Ross fiasco.)

Semi-big news from the Martin Tankleff front: CBS News has just now announced details of his first (and so far only) TV interview on "48 Hours Mystery," to air Saturday at 10. Some quotes below. Erin Moriarty handled the interview.

This interview is hardly a surprise: "48 Hours Mystery" was certainly a key media outlet in getting him out of jail and has covered the case for years. Moriarty's July 15 2006 story raised the question of "new evidence" which helped in leading up to the events of recent weeks. (A 2004 broadcast was even ntroduced as evidence in the recent legal proceeding.) So no shocker that Tankleff go to Erin for his post-jail chat.

I spoke a little while ago with Moriarty - a terrific veteran crime reporter - who said that in her interview he was "incredibly normal....I've covered people who have been convicted or were sitting in prison for a long time and he immediately stands out. He seems untouched by the experience, not hardened. He explained to me that he always knew he was going to get out, so he focused on getting out and helping other inmates. He said, 'I never lived in prison. I resided there....I always knew I was going to get out.'"

She added, "I just don't believe that Marty Tankleff had anything to do with the murder of his parents."

Here's an excerpt from the CBS presser:

"Throughout the years, many have speculated that Tankleff’s confession was coerced and that he was the victim of a steadfast and corrupt cop who refused to reconsider his conclusions and pursue other leads, even after the crime-scene evidence raised doubts. And it seems that what was once speculation may now be proved true thanks to new evidence, new witnesses, a 48 HOURS report and some high-profile-support from award-winning actor James Gandolfini. In late 2007, Marty Tankleff got the news he and his supporters had been dreaming of – his murder conviction was overturned and he was released. But as Tankleff adjusts to his newfound freedom, the question remains – will it last?"

And some quotes:

On his confession:
“It was a constant barrage that ‘Marty, we know you did it. Everything will be okay, just tell us you did it. We know you did it’…It’s like having an 18 wheeler driving on your chest and you believe that the only way to get that weight off your chest is to tell the police whatever they want to hear – even admitting to murder.”

On his trial:
“I think every emotion ran through me, scared, fearful, but I was also hopeful because I knew I was innocent and I always believed that innocent men don’t get found guilty…I didn’t live in prison. I resided there.”

On adjusting to freedom:
“The shock was the technology. Sending an email across the world and getting a response back in three seconds. [I] never knew that was possible.”

On facing a new trial:
“At the moment I was not thinking about it because it was the first time I was essentially a free person wearing street clothing…How good it was to wake up in the morning, be able to make my own cup of coffee, walk out the door and watch the sunrise.”

(Photo: CBS News)

You remember Jules and Gedeon Naudet? They were the charming and courageous Parisians who came to New York eight years ago to produce a doc on the FDNY and wound up getting the story of their lives (and in some ways, OUR lives) instead: A first hand look at Nine Eleven and the rescue efforts, with their own extraordinary story of survival that day. It yielded "9/11," airing March 10, 2002, which - for my money - was the single best film on one of the most horrific days in American history. And produced by two Frenchmen and the stellar and extraordinary Susan Zirinksy - "Z" to those who love her - to boot, who also does production honors here.

The boys and Z are back Sunday with what you might call Part Deux of their original film: "In God's Name" - CBS, 9 to 11 - is an earnest search for answers to not just the meaning of evil but the meaning of life itself. "A lot of people asked themselves different questions, whether you're religious or spiritual or not," says Jules at the outset. "And the common one most people [had on 9/11), 'where was God that day?'"

And with a question on their minds and apparently trouble in their souls, Jules and Gedeon set out for the answer. The result: A terribly long doc stuffed with far too many terribly dull interviews with twelve spiritual leaders. They are bigshots, these leaders, and they believe deeply and fervently in God and faith. For the Naudets, the Kumbaya moment - arriving in the waning moments - boils down to this: We all have much more in common than that which divides us. "I realized," said Gedeon, "at the end of this journey that the search for truth is in itself a religious act."

Noted.

These twelve leaders include Pope Benedict XVI (the brothers seem a little frosty to him), and Frank Page (head of the Southern Baptist Convention; they seem to love this uniquely American type.) There's also Yona Metzger, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, and The Dalai Lama and Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, and important representatives from other world religions. It's an amazing array of talent, so to speak, yet their discursive on life, faith, spirituality, meaning, God, evil and on and on and on never seems to soar. Maybe the Naudets were more interested in creating a "film" than a deep, urgent, sustained and scholarly look at what really DOES unite the world's religions or what really IS the meaning of life.

Bottom line: You have to love and admire the Naudets - and CBS deserves credit too - for trying to tackle something so profoundly important and vital. These guys do have the heart of a lion, and a glorious career lays before them.

But that doesn't mean you should feel guilty when you stifle a yawn while watching - or when you turn off the set and hit the sack before the closing credits.

(Pictured above, from left, Gedeon, James Hanlon - formerly of the FDNY, now an actor - and Jules.)

Hannah Storm's replacement is in the building: CBS just named Maggie Rodriguez, "Early Show's" Saturday co-anchor, as the new weekday co. Which means...what for Hannah? A spokeswoman said no word on how much longer she'll be on the air, but Rodriguez starts Jan. 7, so the game of musical chairs certainly has to end by that time. What's important about that date? It's when "Early" goes to something called "full national format," meaning stations will air both hours (many now air only the first hour.) Maggie? She is a recent convert to the network, based at its owned station in Miami since 2000. Meanwhile, Hannah probably did say goodbye this morning in this interesting blog posting. Interesting: Because I don't think an anchor ever said goodbye in quite the same way. Reminded me, too, of why I always liked Hannah. An elegant farewell.

In case you missed tonight's "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric," we now offer you one of the big interviews of the week: She and Rudy Giuliani mixed it up tonight, which is a heck of a night to mix it up, in light of the avalanche of stories (NYPD chauffers...Judith...and so on) that have suddenly piled over him. Our friends at CBS just provided a rush transcript, and here's an edited version:

Katie Couric: We were talking earlier, Mayor Giuliani, about the scrutiny that you have to endure when you run for public office, so much scrutiny that it really turns a lot of people off from participating in the process and throwing their hat in the ring. You experienced this recently where all of the papers today, I couldn’t help but notice are focused on the on your security detail which you dealt with last night during the debate but I am just curious, are you completely comfortable with the way it was handled and the way the billing was handled for example?

Rudy Giuliani: I was very comfortable with it and really upset that it was put out two hours before a debate with the suggestion that certain agencies were asked to bear the cost of my security. When you had a chance to look at it, it took about 3 to 4 hours to go through all of the records. The story turns out to be a totally false story. This practice was going on in my first term as mayor. It didn’t just happen in my second term as mayor. The police department paid for all of these expenses. But since the police department would sometimes can be slow in payment. City Hall would pay it first then the police department would reimburse every single penny of it and now we’ve been able to confirm that. So this was really, I know what this was. This story is five years old. It came out two hours before a debate. It’s a typical political hit job with only half the story told, not that second part told – that every single penny was reimbursed, that all of this was public. All of this was discoverable. It was not done in a way that nobody could see it. But it was a typical – this particular case – it was sort of a debate day dirty trick.

KC: But according to accounts, the bills were spread across, as you’re saying, several government agencies – from the NYC loft board to the office for people with disabilities and one former New York budget director said today there’s no good reason to do this except to have nobody know about it. . .

RG: He’s just wrong. And that’s probably a political opponent. The fact is, that by doing it that way, it was more discoverable. Had it been paid by the police department, it never would have been discovered because their records are security records and they can’t be discovered. The reality is, all those agencies that you’re talking about. All of it was fully reimbursed within that year. They’re all in the mayor’s office. This was a way of expediting payment. All of it ON the record, all of it discoverable, all of it going on for five or six years. And perfectly appropriate and three budget directors have asserted that but of course the press doesn’t cover that.

KC: Those 3 former budget directors have basically explained it according to the way you’re explaining it to me today.

RG: Every single penny repaid. And the first version of the story does not make that clear.

KC: Having said that mayor Giuliani, the report was in a political website. It wasn’t planted by your opposition and the records were gotten by a freedom of information act so the notion of it somehow being a political hit job, do you really believe that?

RG: It comes out two hours before a debate when the story is five years old – so do I believe that? Of course I believe that. Do I know who did it? No, I don’t know who did it. Plenty of time for the story to come out but to wait until 3 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon of the day of the debate – and it was very, very artfully done because there’s a very good explanation for this . . . which is it took 24 hours to go find the people who did it who explained that every single penny was reimbursed. All of this was on the record. None of it was against other practices that w used in situations like this but it took 24 hours to get that explanation so they’ll be more like this.

KC: Do you think the motive behind this story is to raise questions about your character because it involves a situation that is quite frankly, you know, probably one you’re not all that proud of.

RG: Look, did I expect it, yes. Did I expect exactly this one, no because it’s not true. And it took 12-14 hours to show that it’s not true. But they’ll be others like it.

KC: You have an explanation. Obviously your explanation is quite different than the original report. How do you think this will affect your candidacy? Or the way people perceive you?

RG: I think it will show that we do things honestly, honorably, above board. All of this is easily explained and all of this is easily discoverable. And none of it was hidden. It’s all there in records. And it is perfectly appropriate procedure. And the fact is, I had to have security. It wasn’t of my own desire. The reason I had to have security was because people have been threatening to kill me for quite some time going back to when I was a US attorney. So I had 24 hour security. The records were handled in a way that they’re all discoverable. The police department ultimately paid for everything. Nobody was put out at all and from my point of view I prefer not to have security but this wasn’t done because I wanted to have security. It was done because there were definable threats to kill me going back to when I was a US attorney.

KC When this came out mayor Giuliani, how did you feel?

RG: You know I take it very professionally. I say, ok well, two hours before a debate, three hours before a debate. . .

KC: Did it throw you at all during the debate?

RG: No, I don’t think so, go look at the debate.

KC: Well some have said they didn’t think it was your best debate.

RG: I think it was a good debate. I think I did a really good job.

KC: You didn’t really answer the question. You think it won’t matter in terms of the election itself—this story?

RG: Of course not. I mean there’ll be 100 more stories . . . and we’ll see.

It's now official: CBS News has dropped the Dec. 10 Democratic candidates debate due to the WGA strike. Here's the statement released minutes ago:

"CBS News regrets not being able to offer the Democratic presidential debate scheduled for Dec. 10 in Los Angeles. The possibility of picket lines set up by the Writers Guild of America and the unwillingness of many candidates to cross them made it necessary to allow the candidates to make other plans."

And...here's the Guild statement: “The Writers Guild of America, East and the Writers Guild of America, West regret that the Democratic National Committee has had to cancel the December 10th Presidential Debate hosted by CBS. This was triggered by CBS' fear that the Democratic candidates would not cross a picket line by WGA-CBS News writers or WGA Film and TV writers to participate in the debate – a concern that could have been avoided entirely if CBS would simply sit down and negotiate a fair contract for its news and entertainment employees. Instead, CBS chose to make a decision that stifles the democratic process.”

By the way, we should also mention: This is a blow to Katie Couric too, because she was scheduled moderator - a very big deal, indeed.

Here's some biiig news in the morning TV realm: Hannah Storm has been dropped from "The Early Show."

We'd like to add "unceremoniously" dropped, but there was probably some ceremony involved. So what happened? Not sure: She's been on the program as co-anchor for five years and - unless you didn't know this but then how could you? - she is also one of the nicest people in the entire business. But niceness, I understand, doesn't ensure longevity.

CBS just sent out this press release and we'll let you read between the lines: "Hannah Storm, who has been co-anchor of 'The Early Show' for the past five years, will move into a new role at CBS News. Storm and Sean McManus, President, CBS News and Sports, are in discussions to determine the scope and depth of her new duties.

Said Hannah: “I have loved every minute of my five years...teaming up from the start with some of the best in the business. I am proud of my work at CBS News. We are in discussions regarding future opportunities across CBS.”

Etecera.

Keep this in mind: The notoriously tough ayam TV boss Shelley Ross took over "Early" not long ago with the express mission of boosting numbers. That's proven to be one of the most notoriously difficult jobs in television when it comes to CBS morning news ventures.

Storm is expected to be on the air in the morning; no one seems to be sure when her last day is.

Hillary Clinton hasn't done many major network interviews lately. In fact, none. Which makes tonight's Katie Couric encounter on "Evening News" of considerable interest. CBS recently sent out some outtakes, and we present them here unedited. Bottom line: No surprises.

CBS: "Polls in Iowa are showing the race could shape up to be very close. Couric asked Clinton if she’s lowering her expectations as the primary approaches...

CLINTON: I never raised them, when I got into the race, I was so far behind in Iowa it was embarrassing.

COURIC: Her campaign instead is “encouraged” she said, because “we're making progress - but I take nothing for granted, this is going to be a tight race.”

COURIC: Many of Obama’s supporters urged them to fight back. Some people interpreting that as your campaign being nervous.

CLINTON: Not case at all. Campaigns have rhythm and we're now down to end. We're going to have a mad-dash to Iowa caucuses, mad-dash to New Hampshire and then keep going,” she said.

COURIC: Has her campaign gotten more aggressive?

CLINTON: I have absorbed a lot of attacks, my opponents have basically had a free reign. After been attacked as often as have from several of my opponents, you can't just absorb it, you have to respond.

COURIC: Clinton said she wants voters to know how her plans - particularly health care - stack up against those of other candidates. She named Obama’s plan particularly.

CLINTON: It’s about time for me to draw a contrast. And that’s what I’m going to do.

COURIC: But it was announced today that Oprah Winfrey was campaigning with Obama in three key states.

CLINTON: I think it's great. I'm proud to have a lot of distinguished Americans [supporting me].

COURIC: Is she concerned Obama will get a major boost from Winfrey’s enthusiastic fan base?

CLINTON: No, at the end of the day…I’m proud to have my husband support me…with his knowledge, experience and incredible ability to vouch for me.

COURIC: And if Clinton is not the democratic nominee, wouldn’t she be disappointed?

CLINTON: Well, it will be me.