Once again, the Academy Award nominations are out, and once again we should expect a big thank-you from the Oscar folks to those of us who watch television.

After all, we're supporting a medium where Oscar nominees get their start, hone their skills or amuse themselves while waiting for another movie to come along.

This year, television even gave the movies a subject, with "Good Night, And Good Luck," about the great Edward R. Murrow.

George Clooney is also nominated for directing "Good Night." No recitation of his long TV credits is necessary here. All right, maybe it is. As an actor: "ER," which made him a star, "Roseanne," the live version of "Fail-Safe" and other shows. As a producer: "K Street," "Unscripted," "Fail-Safe." As director: "Unscripted." Note that some of those TV credits came after Clooney entered the top ranks of movie stars; he obviously still likes many aspects of TV.

Speaking of actors, here are some best-actor nominees and their TV credits: Philip Seymour Hoffman ("Empire Falls"), Terrence Howard ("Lackawanna Blues," "Their Eyes Were Watching God"), Heath Ledger ("Roar"), Joaquin Phoenix ("Morningstar/Eveningstar," when he was still Leaf Phoenix), David Strathairn ("Big Apple," "Master Spy," "The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd.")

Best actress: Judi Dench will always have a following for the British series "As Time Goes By," Felicity Huffman has "Desperate Housewives" right now, Keira Knightley did "Doctor Zhivago" for TV Charlize Theron played a recurring role on "Arrested Development," Reese Witherspoon was in "Return to Lonesome Dove" and had a recurring role on "Friends."

Supporting actor: There's Clooney again. William Hurt was also in "Master Spy."

Supporting actress: Amy Adams was in "Dr. Vegas" and has a recurring role in "The Office." Michelle Williams spent far too many years on "Dawson's Creek." Frances McDormand was the narrator of the sweet, overlooked "State of Grace."

So, as I said, television plays a major role in sustaining the movie business. And it's not just a place where actors start their careers, then abandon once the movies beckon. As the notes above show, many of the most highly regarded actors come back to TV, sometimes in roles and productions that are as interesting as the ones they do for the big screen.

So don't buy it if you hear some movie-centric character praise his pet medium by knocking the small screen. Instead, let's hope that Oscar is big enough to give thanks to TV. Maybe even send it one of those gift bags.

I did like the twist in the middle of "Veronica" — when we found out she wasn't as innocent as we have come to expect from watching shows that aren't as well made as "Veronica." And it was a nifty way to tie up some storylines, while starting a new one for Wallace. But I set a high bar for "Veronica" and it didn't always reach it. The end suggested the FBI is all done with Veronica, when there seemed to be enough evidence to keep interrogating her as a witness if not as a suspect. And I hope that the settling of this story means that at some point we'll get back to the bus mystery.

"Earl" and "The Office" had good things. But I've also felt as if I'm trying to shake a bug today, and it seemed especially pronounced when I was watching TV. Have you noticed that, when you're even a little bit sick, TV feels slower? It's as if your brain has reduced the pace at which you receive images because you can't process them very quickly.

I checked on last week's "CSI" for a couple of reasons. One was that I wanted to see how scary-looking Faye Dunaway had gotten; she had looked bad when she did that WB reality series and I was hoping it was an aberration. No such luck. Age and what appears to be some cosmetic surgery have not been kind to her. In a strange way, though, the look fit her character; I think there's a real-life Vegas star who had a romantic connection to a mobster, and who in more recent years looked as overdone as Dunaway did on "CSI."

The other reason I watched was that this spring the bride and I are going to Las Vegas; she has been there before, while it's something I have just dreamed about for years. (The dream was very specific, too: Renting a convertible in L.A. and driving across the desert, hitting Las Vegas at night, with its lights a beacon out of the darkness.) So I have not only been reading up on modern-day Las Vegas — and watching cable specials about it — but thinking about the mythology I have accumulated from books and movies and shows like "CSI." Thursday's episode was awash in the mythology, from the lavish modern settings to the echoes of the city in the '60s. I'm really curious about how the real thing will measure up. For instance, will it look as startlingly colorful as "CSI" in HD?

Not a bad start to Monday. The mail included the DVD set of "Action," the terrific 1999 comedy starring Jay Mohr as a driven and foul-mouthed movie producer. And he's even fouler on DVD, since the audio is now unbleeped. Although the show didn't last long on Fox, it's worth a look — a sharp look at the entertainment business, with real names dropped (there's a great O.J. Simpson bit in the premiere) and celebrity cameos (Keanu Reeves, Salma Hayek). The DVD is due in stores on Feb. 21.

And it's nice to be thinking about television again. I hope to post something about last week's "Veronica Mars" before the day is done. A busy schedule kept me from watching it until last Friday, and then things got REALLY busy. On Friday night, when a reasonable life should include relaxation, I was working on the program for a jazz festival at my younger son's high school. Since my design skills are limited, it took some time. In fact, after my wife and spent 10 hours at a show-choir competition in Cuyahoga Falls on Saturday (since younger son is also in show choir), we were back working on the program that night — running off pages, proof-reading, making liberal use of white-out.

Sunday included church, some finishing touches on the program design, copying each page 125 times, collating, making sure we had enough printer cartridges (the color cover was eating ink) and grocery-shopping. By the evening, as the covers were still being printed, the bride and I had stretched out on the couch, winding down and looking for something to watch that called for minimal attention to plot (since there was a serious chance of dozing) but at least had some entertainment value. In other words, "Wedding Crashers."

The following was in this morning's e-mail:

STATEMENT FROM ABC NEWS PRESIDENT DAVID WESTIN

Bob Woodruff and his cameraman Doug Vogt were injured in an IED attack near Taji, Iraq today. They were embedded with the 4th Infantry Division, traveling with an Iraqi Army unit in an Iraqi mechanized vehicle. Bob and Doug are in serious condition and are being treated at a U.S. military hospital in Iraq. ABC News will provide updates on their condition as they become available.

(end statement)

(An IED is an "improvised explosive device." You can find a longer explanation here. ) Below is a transcript of an interview on George Stephanopoulos's show this morning, regarding Woodruff.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Good morning, everyone. We have to begin today with some news that has hit close to home for all of us here at ABC. Our World News Tonight co-anchor Bob Woodruff and his cameraman Doug Vogt were reporting today from Taji, Iraq when their convoy was hit by an IED.

    Both are in serious condition, and they've been medevaced to a U.S. military hospital in Iraq, where they are now receiving treatment. I'm now joined here in the studio by our White House correspondent, Martha Raddatz, who, of course, has also covered the Pentagon for years. And you've been talking to the military this morning. What more do we know?

    RADDATZ: Bob and Doug were in a convoy, and they were with U.S. military as well from the 4th Infantry Division, but they were with Iraqi security forces. As you know, the U.S. military is training Iraqi security forces. Bob and Doug were apparently with the 4th Infantry Division in an up-armored humvee and wanted instead to go in a vehicle with the Iraqi military forces.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Much softer target.

    RADDATZ: Much softer target. It was a mechanized vehicle. At least it wasn't one of the pickup trucks which they usually drive around in. They were in the lead vehicle and they were up in the hatch, so they were exposed. They did have all of their body armor on. They had helmets on. They had eye protection. But the IED went off, the improvised explosive device.

    They were both immediately injured, taken away. They have shrapnel wounds. Both apparently have shrapnel wounds to the head. They were first transferred to the green zone, the international zone. Their medical condition — they were stabilized. Then they were flown by helicopter to Balad. Balad is north of Baghdad..

    STEPHANOPOULOS: And that is the best military hospital in Iraq.

    RADDATZ: That's a very good military hospital in Iraq, and Bob is currently undergoing surgery. This happened several hours ago. Immediately medevac'd, again, both stabilized. Bob is in surgery. I'm not sure Doug is in surgery at this point.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: And the initial reports, at least this morning, were that after the IED went off, there was also some gunfire.

    RADDATZ: Again, some of the reports I've gotten from people over there, as you know, these things change. Initial reports are sometimes wrong. But the initial reports were that they hit an improvised explosive device, and then that was followed up by small arms fire. This is very common over there now. These attacks are planned, and this is a secondary attack. Sometimes when medical personnel come in, they'll have small arms fire following up on that.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Training these Iraqi forces is the heart of the U.S. strategy right now, so there's really no way to cover this story without going out there.

    RADDATZ: There's no way. And I've been, in fact, with Doug and others when we have to go with the Iraqi military forces. If you're going to cover the Iraqi military forces, you have to be with them. You have to see how they live. I will tell you one thing, a few months ago when I was there and we wanted to get into an Iraqi pickup truck, one of the American soldiers said, you can't do that. It's way too dangerous.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Because — and we've actually seen. The insurgents know this as well, so in recent weeks and in recent months, that's been their target.

    RADDATZ: It's become a primary target. It's a softer target, as you know, but it is a primary target to attack these forces. There have been hundreds and hundreds — thousands, probably, of Iraqi security forces killed. Sometimes they're attacked by suicide bombers, but they have become a primary target. It is very dangerous business, training these troops for that reason alone.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: And both Bob and Doug understood this. And as you pointed out, they're not being hot dogs here. They were wearing heavy…

    RADDATZ: Not in any way. I have worked with Doug Vogt so many times. He is no hot dog. Bob Woodruff would not take risks that were — without his body armor or anything else. They are both very careful. Doug, as a matter of fact, when he was with Terry Moran a few months ago, they hit a very small IED, and one of the Iraqi forces was killed. Doug was also in that convoy, but he was in an armored humvee at that time.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Martha, I know you'll be following this all morning. Obviously, this is very tough news for all of us here at ABC. It gives us a taste of what so many military families are going through every day. Our hearts and our prayers go to Bob, his wife, Lee, and their four kids, Doug's wife, Vivian, and their three daughters. We're going to be praying for them. We hope you will too. We'll be right back.

And here's an evening statement from ABC News President David Westin:

“Our producer just called to say that he, Bob, and Doug are on the medevac plane about to take off for Landstuhl.  The flight will be several hours.”

The flight is expected to take between 5-7 hours.

Bob Woodruff and his cameraman Doug Vogt were injured in an IED attack near

Taji

,

Iraq

today.  They were embedded with the 4^th Infantry Division, traveling with an Iraqi Army unit in an Iraqi mechanized vehicle.

This will be the last update until Mr. Westin and “World News Tonight” anchor Elizabeth Vargas appear on “Good Morning America” on Monday, January 30.

I may watch "The Book of Daniel" tonight, no thanks to NBC. I have one or two episodes stored on my DVR that I haven't gotten to yet. Since the network has pulled the show, apparently permanently, I'll just have to watch the recorded telecasts instead of NBC's substitute.

I know, the ratings were not good. But they weren't good for "The Office" at first, and the network held that show to its bosom, nurtured it, waited for a time slot where it might perform, searched for a compatible show — until tadaaa, everything came together on Thursday nights. The comedy — which, don't misunderstand, I also like — has already been renewed for 2006-07.

I know the competition is brutal now, and that "Book of Daniel" had a longer run than "Emily's Reasons Why Not," killed after a single telecast. Imagine the joy that quick hook brought to the Life magazine newspaper supplement, which today has Heather Graham on the cover, and calls her "TV's sexiest star" and "TV's new darling." I guess that's meant in terms of, "Darling, I have some bad news …"

But "Emily's Reasons" was a really horrible show. Regular blog readers will recall my apologies to Target Demo — aka my 30-year-old stepdaughter — after I asked her to watch it. "Book of Daniel" was a good show, one that deserved a chance to find an audience. So I have to conclude that the controversy about the show, however wrong-headed, played a role in its demise. And I have to believe NBC lost faith in the program.

So, NBC, you'll understand if I don't attend your services tonight.

I'm watching the Oprah Winfrey interview with James Frey and am so loving it. (I've also added things here as the show went along.) It's a great common-sense interview, plain and direct questions that require plain and direct answers. She is making Frey look like an even bigger weasel than he seemed on "Larry King Live."

While Winfrey could have denounced Frey sooner, it's still admirable that she is taking apart someone that she made a huge emotional, and professional, investment in. (And the groans from the audience just make it all better.) This interview is one of the reasons that people love Oprah. She was heartfelt in her support and defense of Frey, and she is just as heartfelt and passionate — and even funny — in taking him apart.

What terrific television.

Oh, and now it's getting better. Nan Talese, who oversaw publication of Frey's book, is doing her own weasel bit — and Oprah's not buying it either. And she's not buying it in a way that will be perfectly clear to common-sense folks like her viewers, especially by insisting that a self-described true story should be fact-checked.

We have now entered the scorched-earth section of the interview, where Oprah takes apart not only Frey, but the publisher (adding to the unhappiness she expressed with the publisher on "Larry King Live"). Frey, meanwhile, looks more and more like a convict who sees the guillotine being sharpened outside his cell. He may not realize that his head is already rolling down the stage.

But Oprah's kicking the head into the audience. She wants Frey to use the word "lies." He's trying to avoid saying it — even in his delusion he must know that would be a major sound bite on cable news — but he has to at least admit that Oprah's not wrong in using it (and at the end of the show, he finally said it himself).

And now the commentators, Richard Cohen and Frank Rich. More praise for Oprah, who rightly says what she did is "the only thing to do."

She knows it wasn't. She knows she could have just kept silent. Or she could have continued her praise of Frey on some paper-thin defense of "essential truth" or "emotional accuracy." But no. She stood up and said she was wrong — AND THEN DEVOTED AN HOUR OF HER SHOW TO THE ISSUE.

I wish politicians could so boldly admit error instead of hiding behind feeble claims of confidentiality. Think of recent reports about White House officials refusing to discuss their actions in response to Hurricane Katrina, including this from David Schuster at msnbc.com: `"Lawmakers say that while FEMA has been cooperative, (former director) Michael Brown has not, refusing, like the White House, to answer questions.  But Brown does talk about Katrina for a fee.  Recently he was the keynote speaker at a storm response conference where attendees paid $375 each."

I'm not going to spend $375 to find out if Brown is more forthcoming to a paying audience than he is to Congress. But Oprah knows she paid a price for this Frey nightmare, and she didn't make us pay to hear her regrets. As she said near the end of the show, "I do believe the truth can set you free."

All right, so that let-the-healing-begin moment at the end was a bit much. That's very Oprah, too. And I still came away from this both liking and admiring her more than ever.

Well, two out of three, since I'm not much of a sun — or sunlamp — worshipper. But I am feeling livelier, thanks to a good night's sleep and some early work completed. I've had time to ponder questions that were in my head last night but didn't make it to these pages. Questions like, where did Jack come up with an extra tarp? Wouldn't you think they're already in use. I'm beginning to think that there's either this really cool junkyard we haven't seen on the island, or stuff is still washing ashore from the crash.

I hope to get to "Veronica Mars" later today, and this morning have been fighting to keep from knowing too much before I watch. This is not as easy as it might sound, since I work with some "Veronica" fans and one is eager to discuss. (At least I have been able to participate in the "Lost" morning-afters.) In fact, my friend and colleague Alan Sepinwall and I found ourselves in a no-man's-land of TV conversation, since he had seen "VM" but not "Lost" and I had seen "Lost" but not "VM."

That doesn't even get into last night's "American Idol," also sitting in the DVR. And I hope to watch or record today's "Oprah," which  continues the James Frey saga I've written about here before. (For a taste, an Associated Press report in the telecast should be here. But I won't see it until it's televised locally at 4 p.m.) And thanks to blog reader stephanie for the heads-up. (Yes, I read the comments on this blog and in many cases post comments in reply.)

So more later. And for now, some other links and an explanation.

First, you can find today's story about the WB and UPN, which is mostly about the nature of network television, here.  Because of the way the story's layout was designed for the print version, it is missing the first sentence. I'm hoping that will be corrected, but until it is, the piece begins: "The planned blending of The WB and UPN into a new network called The CW has already raised questions about the future of each network's programs, and where those shows might be found." It then continues with "As we look at the change …," the part you can find online. For those of you who missed my story in yesterday's Beacon Journal, it should be here.

The story from that speech I mentioned in yesterday's post is here. You can see from the TV 101 quality of the comments from the speech why I went in a different direction at the top of the story.

I wanted to like "Lost" more tonight than I did. Part of that is my weariness with Charlie's lost-puppy saga — the big wet eyes, the whole please-love-me thing. (Of course, Charlie's need for affection fit nicely with the blossoming of other relationships among the survivors — and gosh, would it be nice to see Hurley find a little love.) But part of it may also be that I'm just tired, so tired in fact that I'm going to save my recording of "Veronica Mars" for tomorrow.

Don't you hate it when you've waited all day, or all week, for a show — and then your brain and body just won't let you enjoy it? That's why I'm saving "Veronica." I can't clear my head from another UPN/WB/CW column I wrote for tomorrow's Beacon Journal, and a speech I had to cover, which was less than enthralling, so I made sure to ask the speaker afterwards about some things that might have made the story more interesting.

Or not. I wasn't crazy about the way the story turned out.

Then I've been trying to get my brain in shape for the DVD column I have to write in the morning — not only about "Hill Street Blues" but "All-American Girl," the Margaret Cho series, which comes with some of the most ambivalent commentary you're likely to hear on a TV show. And there have been some non-job projects adding to the schedule and sapping the energy.

So, to sleep. The world will look better, or clearer, or something in the morning. And I know people who had a harder day, and a harder night, than mine. So I hope they're finding at least a little peace in the sleeping hours, too.

I've been thinking tonight about what I might do if assigned to combine the WB and UPN schedules under the new CW banner. The thought has not thrilled. Although there are shows I like on both networks, there aren't enough to fill even the 13 hours of prime time that the CW will have. And there are some nights I pay no attention at all to The WB, like Sundays. (Sorry, "Charmed" fans.)

Still, as a responsible network programmer, I would feel the need to keep even some shows I didn't care about, as a foundation for a successful network. Also because my wife likes them. On the other hand, as a responsible programmer, I shouldn't be locked into using only shows now airing on UPN and The WB; real network executives get to cancel things and start over. Why shouldn't I?

So here's the schedule I've been thinking about….

Monday: "One Tree Hill" and "Everwood." Two dramas, both with a family bent, on a night where people will be looking for a substitute for "7th Heaven," which is in its final season. And it would get "Everwood" back on a night where people were more accustomed to finding it.

Tuesday: "Gilmore Girls" and "Veronica Mars." CBS top man Leslie Moonves brought up this schedule during the CW press conference Tuesday and I like it. A lot. It puts two of my faves back to back on the same night.

Wednesday: '"America's Next Top Model" followed by "Love Inc." and "Girlfriends." "Top Model" is a guilty pleasure, and the two comedies feel like a good lead-out, female-oriented, fashionable and somewhat sophisticated.

Thursday: "Smallville" and "Supernatural." Lots of thrills, more than a few chills.

Friday: "Everybody Hates Chris" starts the night as a way of building a 21st-century "TGIF." I might also move "One on One" here, but this is the night where I'd really want some new comedies.

Saturday: CW isn't programming it, and I won't either. Heck, even the big networks don't do much on Saturdays.

Sunday: Reruns in the 7 p.m. hour, maybe "Chris" and one of my better new comedies. Then "Smackdown," because I'd probably have to put it somewhere, and I don't see a lot of room for a new competitor — meaning me — on Sundays.

I am sure you can all tell me many ways in which my schedule makes no sense. But can't you say the same thing about the stuff done by the people who get paid to program?

A week ago at this time, I was in my driveway, picking up papers that had spilled out of my briefcase before the rain soaked them beyond recognition. The papers were from a meeting that I had left a little while before. I had taken off from work that day in part to prepare for that meeting. It did not go as I hoped.

You begin to see that my paraphrasing Boomtown Rats is not the result of my watching "Love Monkey" right now. (Love that Eric Bogosian.) Or of having done some work at home tonight with "American Idol" on next to my computer.

Anyway, one Tuesday does not a rephrased lyric make, so I should explain that today provided more reason. I had a plan for the day, one that involved preparing my mailbag column and planning a story for Sunday and maybe even sneaking in another episode or two of "Hill Street Blues." (How great was Michael Conrad?) Only this is not a business where one can always plan. So there I was when the WB/UPN/CW story came across the wire.

That took care of the rest of the afternoon, what with the quick blog below and a bunch of phone calls, some e-mails, digging into the files and general brain-draining — as in  what was the name of that short-lived network in the '60s? (Answer: the United Network, also known as the Overmyer Network.)  All of that led to a story that will run tomorrow. And I managed to finish the mailbag. Now I just have to figure out what I'm going to say in a story I have to write by tomorrow morning — 9 a.m. — and if I can squeeze in covering a speech in Canton I want to hear.

I don't like…

All right, let me back away a smidge from that. As much as I grumble about stories dropping in my lap this way, I also get charged up when I'm doing them — jazzed when I get a piece of information I think is really cool, delighted when a call gets returned or an e-mail answered, pleased when the story seems to make sense, and when it's done in timely fashion. Can't help the thrill. It's one of the reasons I keep doing what I do.

Besides, the DVR has "Idol" if I want to play catch-up, and "Love Monkey," and I may still have some time for "Hill Street Blues."