The TV Zone

Last night's Larry King/Ryan Seacrest smoochfest didn't produce much news at all, but it did provide a very quick opportunity to dash that report of a week or so ago that RS was in discussions with CNN to replace Larry King one of these days.

Rumors which I sort of believe.

King was dutifully going over all the stuff Ry does on a daily basis, and then, this:

KING: You have your own TV production company. There were even rumors you were going to join CNN, which, we can tell viewers, there's nothing to that.

SEACREST: No, the only rumor is...

KING: So my question is...

SEACREST: ...we're having dinner Thursday. That's true.

KING: That's true.

SEACREST: All right.

KING: So my question is, when do you sleep?

["When do you sleep???!!!" Boy, that Larry King sure knows how to knock out those tough questions.]

My questions: Wouldn't you like to know what Ryan was going to say before LK cut him off? And why did they dispense with this in two seconds when LK had actually PROMOTED this very subject on air for the last few days?

I honestly think there is something to the rumors; CNN is absolutely thinking about an LK successor - that's a fact - and the network would be foolish to not have Seacrest on its radar. Whether you like him or not, the guy's a skillful live broadcaster who's quick on his feet.

And speaking of quick on his feet, here's a priceless exchange between LK and RS:

KING: Who will be the next "American Idol?"

SEACREST: David.

KING: Or can't you say?

SEACREST: David.

KING: Oh...

SEACREST: Guaranteed.

KING: And so you're going out on a limb here.

SEACREST: Guaranteed, David.

Here's some very, very (very) intriguing gossip, that may well be of the "where there's smoke there's fire" variety:

MSNBC is reporting as we speak that Ryan Seacrest is "in negotiations" to take over Larry King's role at CNN by year's end. Courtney Hazlett of "The Scoop" has this, without the usual round of denials, but suggests that he'd be "adding" to his hosting duties. That's absurd -- there's no way Seacrest would or could do both CNN at 9 and "Idol" -- unless, of course, he's like some sort of Cylon from "Battlestar Gallactica" and has a body double out there (hmmmmm).

No, he'd leave "Idol." There has been bounteous speculation on this very subject -- Ry to LK's slot -- in the past, but always pooh-poohed. Hazlett pulled up an old quote from the Times, which cites LK's tacit approval of such a move: “He’s the classic generalist. The only thing I don’t know, and I’ve gotten to know him pretty well, is how versed he is in politics, world affairs. Does he read the paper? Is he interested in Iraq? Because if he is, he’s going to be very good.”

(Not to be a snotty twit -- because of course, I'm not -- but how well do YOU know those things, LK?)

Seacrest, I imagine, would be fine, assuming he knows how to ask questions and how to listen; he's certainly no dummy and is quick on his feet, and he's done the show before. Can't imagine how he couldn't handle this -- but let me think a little while and I am sure I'll come up with several ways he couldn't. Would viewers of this show with an ancient demographic embrace this relative child? That's another matter altogether.

Could LK be moved aside if Ry is available? Of course. We reported right here at TV Zone not too long ago that CNN neglected to give LK a lock on his 9 p.m. time slot when he got his new contract. Katie Couric is interested, too, and if CNN wants to keep this vital hour open to someone with bona fide news credentials, who do you think might be a better pick?

This would also be an elegant out for "American Idol" and Ry; the show's going to do some overhauling next season, and you know what happens with "overhauls;" first, the set is changed, then the host, then ...

But -- as always -- I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm sure I'll get the e-mail denial any minute from CNN, telling me how "bogus" the MSNBC story is, and that "we love Larry, and that he'll be the host at 9 p.m. FOREVER!"

I've got some reasonably big Larry King news here, friends, that could well affect the future of one Ms. Katie Couric, so listen up.

CNN has just re-upped the septuagenarian newsman to a new deal that will keep him at the network until 2011 - this, first reported on TVnewser.com late yesterday. "Twas expected and re-upping LK to one more contract is NOT "big" news.

But this is: King did not secure a guarantee to continue anchoring the 9 p.m. hour, which - I am reliably told - opens the door wide for Couric when she leaves CBS after the inauguration, as she almost certainly will.

There are a couple of things that seem to be going on with Katie that everyone save the man in the moon now knows about. First, she's miserable at CBS which she thinks has stiffed her on resources and turned "Evening News" into the same old-same old nightly network news show. She wants out, but is certainly in no hurry - recognizing, perhaps, that it's harder to score a meaningful gig if you're on the beach, and that (after all) CBS would have to eat $40 million-or-so of the remainder of her contract if it were to pull the trigger instead.

Here's the other thing: That she'd be happy to entertain an offer from CNN. Without giving Larry a lock on 9 p.m., CNN is finally laying the groundwork for a 9 p.m. succession plan and in fact, CNN appears to have the luxury to do so: Its first quarter ratings were the best in years, and the one-time whipping post of FNC is finally doing a little butt-kicking of its own. There's a simple reality factor at work here as well: King'll be 75 this November, and while we can all agree his tenure has been a remarkable one, nothing - and no one - lasts forever. Nor is anyone untouchable in this business - even Walter Cronkite, whose exit from the anchor chair was assured in 1981 when Dan Rather, then a superstar, forced the issue.

Does Katie have the same clout to move King aside? This speculation of Katie-for-Larry has swirled around for years (most recently re-cycled in the Times package of two weeks ago.) I remember chasing it during Katie's last two contract go-rounds at NBC, when she let it be known that she was bored and needed new challenges, including the possibility of a syndicated Oprah-like talk show launched under the aegis of NBC. She had the good sense to back away from that, but CNN beckoned, in part because of Katie BFF Wendy Walker Whitworth - "LK Live" exec producer and a real power broker at the network.

That's the background. When the Katie-out-at-CBS story broke a couple weeks ago, CNN - with remarkable haste - signed King to a new deal that will carry him through 2011. But Larry effectively was given the kingdom without getting the throne. Sure, he'll be at CNN - but at 9? The answer to that is the only one that matters.

Possible flies in the ointment of a Katie-for-Larry swap? Foremost, would she want the gig? Again, I'm reliably told, yes. Would CNN consider her "damaged" after the rough ride at CBS? I hardly think so while she could argue (maybe with some justification, maybe not) that she didn't get all the resources promised, etc.

Also, Lou Dobbs. Never count Lou Dobbs out - there's no cagier, shrewder, harder-hitting inside operator in the entire business than LD who probably has his eye on 9 too.

Anderson Cooper? Why unseat a sure bet at 10? That means you've got a problem at 10 that you've gotta fix. Plus, AC's turned into a solid anchor-reporter - why waste him on David Blaine or Paris Hilton?

I've got a call into King's agent at William Morris, John Ferriter - no return yet - and yes, I called CNN. Christa Robinson, the network's spokeschief, said this: "Larry King is the best there is. He will be here for a long time. We are refuting in essence what you are speculating."

But did you guarantee Larry 9?

"We do not discuss contracts."

[Meanwhile, an update! I see that Ferriter, in fact, responded to TVnewser's request for a comment on the iron-clad 9 p.m. lock question. Said he, "I can tell you that it is a two year extension of the exact same deal and job that Larry has been doing." As most of us semantic experts can plainly attest, that's neither a denial nor confirmation. It's a dodge. So, I'm waiting for a call-back, Mr. Ferriter. Waiting and waiting and...]

(Above: Who would you rather see on CNN weeknights at 9? A pretty lady in pink, or....?)

What self-styled-fire-breathing-border-closing-multimillionaire-CNN-anchor-populist emerged as a possible - emphasize "possible" - candidate for the '08 race after an online Wall Street Journal column by John Fund reported recently that "friends of Mr. Dobbs say he is seriously contemplating a race for the first time, although it’s still unlikely...?"

Lou, that's who. Such is the power of the on-line press. The spec couldn't come at a better time because he's just launched a new book tour - amazing how this stuff happens - for "Independents Day:Awakening the American Spirit." He's even written that maybe just maybe a fabulous dark horse could arrive at any minute though coyly says he's not that horse. Anyway, this morning, he denied his interest yet again to Diane Sawyer, which seems like an awfully lot of denials (and a little known rule of politics says that if you deny something three times, then it must be true; I do believe this is the third official denial): "What friends," he scoffed to Diane, would possibly tell Fund that he's interested!? Then this: "That's not where my interest lies right now...I doubt very seriously something like that [a Dobbs candidacy] could possibly emerge."

Note the words "now" and "doubt very seriously." Those prove that Lou is a master of Clintonian speak, with "now" meaning "right at this minute while I'm talking to you, Diane" and "doubt very seriously" means a door is open a crack that would allow someone to walk in and convince him. Who might that be? There is an on-line campaign to get him to run, and if Michael Bloomberg enters as a third party guy, then - goes the spec - Lou's right behind as a Fourth Party guy.

Maybe Lou should call Roger Ailes for some guidance.