I've had the viewing blahs the last couple of days. I'm ahead of the game with "The Sopranos," so I had already had the pleasure of seeing Sunday's episode. (And if you haven't seen it yet, please do so.) And I've already complained here about "The West Wing" and "Prison Break."

"Grey's Anatomy" was only all right. OK, so I choked up when the Chief's AA sponsor made it through surgery. But I don't know that I would put it among my favorite episodes; O'Malley should have gotten on with his new possible romance before this, and if they're sending Alex out the door — which felt even more likely based on this episode and the trailer for next week — then let's just get on with it. Last night, neither "How I Met Your Mother" nor "Two and a Half Men" was especially good, either.

So why do I feel good about TV tonight? Well, there is the season finale of "The Shield."

As I said in a previous post, I was somewhat disappointed by tonight's show because it did not seem to be on as high a level as recent episodes. Forest Whitaker has been a stunning addition to the show, and his relentlessness has created a more electric atmosphere for everyone else. Still, tonight takes us to a point that has seemed ever more inevitable as the show has gone along. With the noose closing around Vic and his guys, they have gotten back to a place like the one where the show started, one that asks them if their real goal is doing good or simply surviving.

In answering that question, the show plays absolutely fair with the story it has told. The result may sadden and disappoint some viewers. Still, it is the only place the show could go — unless it wanted to end tonight.

Let me begin by recommending the "Prison Break" episode scheduled to air on April 3. It's a flashback, showing us a lot about the background of the characters, about why Michael is so devoted to his brother, and about the way that several characters ended up in prison. And, if that prison break ever actually happens, the April 3 show gives us some insight into what the convicts might do once they get out.

That said, there are two episodes before then, including one airing tonight, and there's a lot more plot-stretching in them than a viewer should reasonably allow.

I know, "reasonably" is not a word that should easily apply to show about a guy who breaks into prison to free his wrongly convicted brother from death row, where secrets lie in elaborate tattoos, where all sorts of schemes and plots swirl around and where the convicts seem capable of just about anything in prison EXCEPT escaping. (While looking at the new episodes, I was more than once reminded how much "Prison Break" is in the tradition of "Hogan's Heroes." Only Hogan's gang wasn't trying to escape.)

In fact, Fox has built a belief-suspending block on Monday nights, since "Prison Break" is being paired with "24," another show I have trouble staying with, because its plots are so outrageously, uh, outrageous.

"Prison Break," though, has run into a problem by being so successful. When the current TV season began, "Prison Break" was looking at a half-season run, building its melodrama in the fall before "24" came back on the schedule in January. But when "Prison Break" gained a following, Fox wanted more episodes, so now the show has to keep its basic narrative going, just not too far or too fast.

Which means that, tonight and next week, the show is going to stretch. And stretch. And throw in a  plot turn that will make viewers wonder if they have everything figured out. (That's a sad trick straight out of "The X-FIles.") It's not alone in doing that, of course; "The West Wing" on Sunday night rather desperately tried to keep some suspense in its presidential-campaign story with a new turn of events. But in both cases, the need to keep the serialized story going works against the need to satisfy viewers.

But as frustrated as I was,  I didn't hate "Prison Break" either. When a "Prison Break" DVD comes out, I'll probably eat it up, since full-season DVDs are the best way to watch ludicrous serials like this and "24." At least then you can fast-forward through the dull parts, and know that you'll have some kind of resolution on the last disc.

Still, I didn't buy into "Prison Break." There are some horribly slow stretches, for one thing. And, without giving away any story specifics, I am pretty sure that your patience will be tested by tonight's show and next week's.

Two people can watch the same series for different reasons. "House," for example, has the ongoing appeal of the title character, played by Hugh Laurie, and his personal demons. But people can also watch for the complicated medical mysteries, to piece together the information as well as the doctors on the show.

The people who make television know that viewers will bring varying agendas to a show. That's one reason you see such multiple stories in a single episode (a departure from the days when an hour-long drama was built around a single narrative). It also explains the large casts on some series, so that viewers who are not intrigued by one character may stick around to see what happens to a character they like better. (Consider "Grey's Anatomy," which I watch even though I don't like Grey herself, or "How I Met Your Mother," where the least interesting character is the one whose story is being told.)

"Big Love" has some of that basic thinking, with an array of characters and several different stories being told. But my problem with the show is not that I prefer one story to another; it's that I really like one narrative thread, and actively dislike another. In the five episodes of the show I have watched, more than once I have fought the temptation to fast-forward through some scenes to get back to the characters I like. Unfortunately, the two are so intertwined that I have to keep track of one to understand everything going on with the other.

What I want more of: The polygamy story. The series, which premiered last Sunday on HBO, follows the large family of Bill Henrickson (Bill Paxton), who has three wives — Barb (Jeanne Tripplehorn), Nicki (Chloe Sevigny) and Margene (Ginnifer Goodwin). This is not a case of a secret life; Bill's three wives live in adjacent houses, with a common back yard, and to varying degrees help to take care of each other and their children. There are, for example, regular meetings to work out which night each wife gets to spend with Bill.

I was enthralled by the scene with one of those meetings. I also like the way the show describes the emotional and physical needs of all the wives. That's not just an issue for Bill; it's one each wife has to address in the context of two other wives. Each wife, for that matter, has issues which might challenge a single man-and-wife marriage. (Nicki in particular is a bundle of insecurities and flaws, including compulsive overspending.) And, when there are three wives, does seniority matter? Bill, meanwhile, has emotional needs of his own, and they are not always met by his having three wives.

The show is very skillful in making viewers think about what works in a marriage, and about the nature of love itself. I'm very curious about where the show will be going in the coming episodes; even at the end of five, the "big love" is moving ever closer to some big problems.

That said, I still have times when I am very impatient with the show. Most of those times involve the religious group that Bill has tried to extricate himself from, only to remain connected in by personal ties (Nicki is the daughter of the group's leader) and a financial conflict. In a series that has a lot of texture in the family saga, the other conflict feels piled on. It's too melodramatic for my taste, and a distraction from issues that I want to see more about.

So what do to? Well, I will probably keep watching "Big Love" for the parts I want, while hoping that the conflict will be resolved. Unfortunately, it seems to be escalating as the show goes on. I'll have to see if it becomes too dominant; I'm not sure how much I'm willing to sit through the bad parts just to get to the good ones.

When I finally sat down to see Wednesday's telecast of "Veronica Mars," I was ready to be dazzled. It felt as if it had been forever since there had been a new episode, and I was long past ready for one.

The episode was all right, not great. I did like the scenes with Logan, since to the end it was not clear if he was a sincere suitor or a master manipulator. But other stories and relationships felt less sure-handed. And, since I was primed for good stuff, it was all the more disappointing when it wasn't there.

Is that disappointment the fault of the show, since most series have off weeks? Or am I to blame, for expecting a high level of accomplishment that wasn't there?

I'll blame the show. After all, there are programs that we come to with high expectations that do deliver. "The Sopranos" came back from its long hiatus with a very good episode, and tomorrow night's is even better. As I said in a column about the show, with the end of the series in sight, the makers of "The Sopranos" are acting as if every single episode counts, not just one here and there leading to a big finale.

But the quality of the early episodes has been so high, viewers are going to expect the show to maintain that — and it may not be able to do so every week. I thought of that when watching the season finale of "The Shield" next week.

I'll have more to say about "The Shield" in a separate post. But this has been a terrific season, both through the addition of Forest Whitaker as a "good" guy who is as ruthless and unscrupulous as Mackey, and in the impact of Whitaker's presence on all the other characters. The intensity has been incredible; what might have been cat-and-mouse in lesser hands is more like cobra-and-mongoose here.

Still, because "The Shield" has been so compelling episode by episode, I was prepared for something epic in the season finale. Make no mistake, it's good. It has an air of tragic inevitability for anyone who has been watching closely this season. And there's a funny little surprise in the middle of the drama. Even so, it disappointed a little because it did not top everything leading up to it.

This wasn't a case of waiting for a show to return, as with "Veronica Mars." It was instead a matter of getting so deeply involved in a series that I wanted an ending whose power would carry me over to the next (and possibly final) batch of episodes.

I have a long list of TV topics I hope to get to later today and in the days ahead. But before I do any of that, let me note that this is both St. Patrick's Day and my second wedding anniversary. Yup, the bride and I exchanged vows and rings two years ago — and are looking forward to many more celebrations of that event.

A report in today's Variety included this tantalizing passage:

While the CW hasn't officially announced any new pickups, the network did pass out materials that listed shows such as "Veronica Mars," "One Tree Hill," "Supernatural," "Gilmore Girls," "Everwood," "Reba" and "Everybody Hates Chris" as dramas and comedies "returning 2006-2007."

"Veronica," "Gilmore" and "Chris" have been on a lot of lists of shows expected to survive the merger of UPN and The WB. But the survival of "Everwood" and "One Tree Hill" would send out hosannas in some concerned corners.

Unfortunately, when I talked to a CW rep today, I was told that the presentation materials referred to existing shows available from the two networks, not shows that were definitely being picked up. "On May 18," he said, referring to the network's fall-lineup announcement, "all will be revealed."

Update: I received a copy of the presentation packet that Variety was talking about, and it sure seems less ambiguous than the CW rep was making it sound. In a section called "CWhat's Now!" the material showcases a bunch of UPN and WB shows, each with a "returning 2006-2007" note accompanying.

The shows in the package are: "All of Us," "America's Next Top Model," "Beauty & The Geek," "Everwood," "Everybody Hates Chris," "Friday Night Smackdown," "Gilmore Girls," "Girlfriends," "One Tree Hill," "Reba," '"Smallville," "Supernatural" and "Veronica Mars." So, as you can see, it's not everything on the two networks. And "returning" sounds pretty definite.

First, from CBS, the next edition of "Rock Star" will feature a made-up band instead of an attempt to shoehorn someone new into an established bunch of geezers. Here's some of CBS' announcement:

CBS and Mark Burnett Productions announced today that legendary musicians from some of the biggest American rock bands have joined forces to form a new band, Supernova, and will use CBS's ROCK STAR (working title) as the competition to determine the new lead singer. 

Supernova will feature drummer Tommy Lee (Motley Crüe), Jason Newsted (Metallica) and Gilby Clarke (Guns N' Roses).  The second edition of CBS's ROCK STAR will premiere on the Network this summer.

           After the winning singer is selected on CBS's ROCK STAR, Supernova will record an original album, to be co-written and produced by Butch Walker (hit songwriter/producer for Avril Lavigne, Pink) that will be released in the fall before the band embarks on a world tour starting in early 2007. …

           Dave Navarro and Brooke Burke will return as hosts, with Burke returning to the stage for introductions and Navarro returning to the judges' couch for input and evaluations.  "Last year, doing ROCK STAR: INXS was the greatest summer job of my life," Navarro affirmed.  "This year, I'm on the couch with my friends Tommy Lee, Gilby Clarke and Jason Newstead as they choose Supernova's lead singer."

This summer's edition of CBS's ROCK STAR will also feature some format twists with a different music celebrity or rock legend each week. Said Navarro, "Friends of mine, like Slash, Macy Gray, Moby and Rob Zombie, will join us and throw in their two cents about who should stay and who should go." (end excerpts)

As for Idol, next week's theme is … wait for it … "music of the '50s." In other words, a big comfy couch for the contestants. Any singer who makes a bad choice from that decade deserves to go home.  And Barry Manilow will perform on the results show.

Here's the info on last night's podcast with me and Amy Carlson Gustafson of the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

If you checked out Tuesday's podcast, you heard the reasons why Melissa was a prime candidate for ouster even though she was not the worst singer. (In short, Kellie and Kevin may have been worse but still have followings, while Melissa — and, I thought, Bucky — were more in the danger zone of OK but not likely to spark enough passion to retain a solid voting base.)

So we can't be surprised that tonight was Melissa's last. Her final performance tonight was pretty awful, too. But the show did have its bits of drama, with Ace and Lisa in the bottom three, especially Ace. (More about him in a bit.)

Although neither had a stellar night, there were plenty of worse performances. And, if you keep a cumulative score the way many viewers do, Ace had piled up so many early points that he should have been safe anyway.

Maybe this is one of those cases of overconfident fans figuring they didn't have to protect their guy, only to put him in jeopardy. Eventual champion Ruben Studdard was also in the bottom two or three at least once, if memory serves. Also, since we don't know vote totals, we don't know if there was a huge voting gap between Melissa and Ace, or even between Melissa and Lisa. In online stuff I looked at today, Melissa was a pretty strong consensus pick to go bye-bye.

But enough about the vote. Let's just ponder for a moment how long half an hour can feel.

We got the previous night's recap — with some reordering of performances, so that it looked as if Paris's turn was the show's climax. We got the semi-humorous promotional video for a car. We got Stevie Wonder performing. (Fox alluded in a promo to this being a rare performance. Did we not just see him at the Super Bowl?) And, finally, voting results.

And, along the way, one more reason to hate Kevin: He didn't manage to look the slightest bit guilty that Ace was in the bottom three while he was safe.

One more Ace note: This item arrived today from UPN —

"The Big Off Pitch Episode"-When Dee Dee's first potential client, Ace (guest star "American Idol" contestant Ace Young) decides he wants to quit baseball to sing, she turns to Mona, so she can intentionally crush his music dreams, but when the pro-athlete turns out to be musically gifted, an all out bidding war breaks out between the half-sisters who both want to sign him, on a rebroadcast of HALF & HALF, Monday, April 3 (9:30-10:00 PM, ET/PT) on UPN.

TMZ.com has reported that Ace and "Half & Half" star Essence Atkins are an item.

Besides my notes below, check out the new "Idol" podcast with me and Amy Carlson Gustafson of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. It is available at:

Well, it's Top 12 night. No more gender division. Lots more marketing.

Many enhanced hairstyles. (Bucky did indeed have a Jessica Simpson 'do, as Simon said.) Even Chris's head looked shinier. Fancier duds, including shoes that were much discussed (Kellie's, Katharine's, Ryan's removing of Mandisa's). Paula looking especially mummified, at least in HD, and early on demonstrating her inarticulation ("well-diversed"?). Promises of a bigger band, which is not a good thing; a bigger band can hide more flaws in the vocals — and so give the producers a way of protecting singers whom they want to sell for non-vocal reasons.

Which brings us to Kellie Pickler. Not only was she awful tonight in her song, her little dumb-gal act has worn itself out. Up to now, she could seem ditzy without going completely Jessica Simpson; tonight she was out beyond Jessica.

"I have no idea what I'm doing," she said at one point, and that should be reassuring. I'd hate to think her marketing strategy is to look this ridiculous. And, a week after the judges seemed ready to canonize her, they were quite critical — which for Paula, of course, meant saying that "you look gorgeous."

To the songs and the report card: This week's topic was the songs of Stevie Wonder, with Stevie himself meeting the contestants, many of whom actually knew his music. Not all, alas. Not all. Given the size of Stevie's catalog as a writer and performer, I would have thought each singer could find a song that was manageable. Not all, alas. Not all. They couldn't even come up with a clip of Stevie praising the singing of some performers.

In fact, for the first hour-and-45-minutes or so (and at least it moved along rather well), the show was kind of a bore, the tone set by crowd-pleaser Ace's C-grade opener on "Do I Do." Then came Kellie. Then Elliott Yamin, who was better than the two before but not setting any fires. Mandisa started so-so, then revved up ("Oh, there she is!" I scribbled in my notes), then settled back, then revved up. I still wasn't giving anything better than a C plus.

Bucky Covington. "Superstition." I'll say no more.

Melissa McGhee, Lisa Tucker, let's move on.

Kevin Covais. "Part-Time Lover." This was the moment of my hysterical, horrified, at-home meltdown. Worst performance of the night, and one that should spread rapidly on the Internet. And the mouthing off to Simon was foolish.

Following that, Katharine McPhee was all right, as long as I didn't think too closely about the Aretha version of Stevie's "Until You Come Back to Me."

Then the final three, and things finally woke up. Taylor Hicks gave the performance I've been awaiting for weeks, with "Living' for the City." Paris Bennett followed with "All I Do." I still think she's too practiced — Simon's comparison to a wind-up doll was a compliment with subtext, let's say — and her singing during the post-performance segment with Ryan was a little disturbing, as if she had no faith in her ability to speak.

Finally, Daughtry, with "Higher Ground," which he knew from the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Not a bad performance, but a letdown after Taylor and Paris. The stage effects oversold it, trying to convince the audience it was a great show-capper no matter what the singing was like. And the mike-stand business was too much a reminder of Bo Bice.

Anyway, report card: Taylor and Paris, B each. Chris, B minus. Mandisa C plus plus, putting her slightly ahead of Elliott and Katharine's C plus each. C for Ace and Lisa. C minus for Melissa. Bucky gets a D plus, Kellie a D and Kevin … well, I have to give him some kind of grade, so D minus.

SportsTime Ohio, the new TV overseer of the Cleveland Indians, hoped that the Adelphia/Time Warner merger would happen soon enough that its deal with Time Warner would also apply to the other cable system. But STO said it was talking to Adelphia just in case the merger didn't move quickly enough, and here are the key sections in the announcement of a deal:

SportsTime Ohio and Adelphia of Northern Ohio today announced that the new Indians television network will air on Adelphia beginning Thursday, March 16th with the telecast of the Spring Training Indians vs Minnesota Twins game at 8 p.m. The pre-game show will air at 7:30 pm. …

Adelphia customers will be able to view Cleveland Indians games on the following channels:

Cleveland and suburbs: Channel 17

Ashtabula Area: Channel 30

Lorain Area: Channel 23

Macedonia Area: Channel 97

Port Clinton Area: Channel 17

Adelphia subscribers in Northern Ohio will see five spring training games, 130 in-season games during the 2006 season and other original local programming centering on the interests and passions of Northern Ohio sports fans.

Now these guys need to complete deals with the satellite-dish services…

Monday night I recorded the newscasts in the 6 p.m. hour on local stations because I wanted to see how they handed the changes — or, more precisely, the uncertainty — at the Beacon Journal.

As you may know, Knight Ridder, which owns my newspaper, has decided to sell to the McClatchy company. McClatchy, in turn, has said that it will sell 12 of the Knight Ridder newspapers, including this one. So we've been sold, and we're going to be sold again. As Randy Newman once said, "No one likes us, don't know why …"

I was accordingly interested to see how the local TV guys would handle the situation, especially since our straits seemed to give them a free shot. What I saw was, in some cases, worse than a shot. We were hardly newsworthy at all.

Channel 19 ignored the sale in its 6 p.m. news. Channel 8 waited devoted about 18 seconds to the story (and that didn't come until 20 minutes into the newscast);  a piece about a new magazine interview with Jennifer Aniston got more air time. Cable's Akron-Canton news did not lead with us either, waiting seven minutes to get to the story, and then used a quote from the mayor that probably confused people even more about what's going on.

Channel 5 devoted considerable time to our story, and was respectful about how it covered the situation. That said, Channel 5 is also a news partner of the Beacon Journal and has office space in the newspaper building.

So where was I at the end of all this? Part of me was snarling that this was a historic day, that an Akron institution was mired in uncertainty, and people who supposedly cared about the news could not be bothered to cover this story.

And then I thought, welcome to the real world.

Every day, people see things happen near them that they believe are the most important things in the world. They wait for the reporters and the news cameras. Often, they call to ask for the reporters and news cameras. Almost as often, hardly anyone shows up. Important news in your part of the world just isn't that big a deal to people in the next city or neighborhood or house.

While my ox was getting gored, TV news told me that not many others would care about the bloodshed. That stings. But no more than it stings to people ignored by the news every day.

In the e-mail today from CBS:

STATEMENT FROM MIKE WALLACE, CORRESPONDENT, “60 MINUTES”

“I’ve often replied, when asked, ‘I’ll retire when my toes turn up.’  Well, they’re just beginning to curl a trifle, which means that, as I approach my 88^th birthday, it’s become apparent to me that my eyes and ears, among other appurtenances, aren’t quite what they used to be.  And the prospect of long flights to wherever in search of whatever are not quite as appealing.

“But CBS is not pushing me.  I’ll be in a comfortable office on the same floor–just around the corner from where I’ve holed up for the past 43 years–available, when asked, for whatever chore CBS News, 60 MINUTES, the CBS EVENING NEWS, have in mind for me.

“Plus, longer vacations, of course.”

STATEMENT FROM SEAN McMANUS, PRESIDENT, CBS NEWS AND CBS SPORTS

“Mike Wallace is one of a few giants of broadcast journalism for whom a list of endless superlatives can’t and don’t do justice.  From his genre-creating early days in radio to his standard-setting work on 60 MINUTES for the past 38 years, and from datelines all over the world, Mike has completely embodied what good, tough, fair journalism should be over the course of his 60-plus years in the business.  And he’s broken more than his share of big stories along the way.  I’m very pleased that he’ll remain at CBS News as Correspondent Emeritus.  There is no finer journalist from whom everyone in the news business can learn.”

STATEMENT FROM JEFF FAGER, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, “60 MINUTES”

“Mike Wallace as been the heart and soul of this broadcast since he and Don started it almost four decades ago.  Millions and millions of Americans have tuned in to 60 MINUTES on Sunday nights over all those years to see him in action and to find out what questions he would be asking each week.  I’m glad he’ll be around to do an occasional interview.  He’s had such a powerful impact on all of us who work here, on how we conduct interviews and how we report stories, that there will always be a piece of Mike in everything we do.”

This morning I arose with the remains of my cold. My bride's attempt to fight off illness continues to be a losing battle. My morning paper told me that the company owning my newspaper is being sold. Knew that was coming. Then my e-mail basket included the news that the company buying my newspaper's company did not want my newspaper, so we're up for sale again. Then I got almost all the way to work before discovering I did not have my key card. (I had dropped it in the living room, I learned when I drove back home.) And somewhere in all that, I realized that I had forgotten to record "Grey's Anatomy" last night.

But let's talk "Sopranos." While there are spoilers aplenty out there about the March 19 episode, you won't read any of them here. I believe in a code of silence on this one, since anything else would spoil the delight of watching it unfold. And you'll really want to watch the next episode.

At least we can talk about last night's show.

(IF YOU HAVE NOT SEE IN YET, DO NOT READ BEYOND THIS POINT.)

Not only was it a shock when Uncle Junior shot Tony, the show increased the brutality of it with Tony's agonized attempt to call for help. And it came at the end of an episode laced with dread, with the feeling that something very bad was going to happen. Oh, sure, there was the artful misdirection — making it seem that Eugene might actually put a bullet in Tony to end his own family's suffering. Still, when I looked at the episode a second time, I noticed all the times it pointed that Tony was prospering — new boat, new car for Carmela — as omens that things were not going to stay good forever.

The irony of it, of course, was that Tony was not shot for all his misdeeds. In fact, he was performing a good deed — taking care of his uncle when no one else would or could — when Junior shot him. That touches on a theme that has run through "The Sopranos" as well as other art, including the novels of Larry McMurtry and '"St. Elsewhere," that sometimes punishment is arbitrary, and goodness does not by itself guarantee reward. Pain can come from unexpected places, and be no less horrible for that. Look at the beating and hit-and-run earlier in that same episode. Confusion leads to the beating; fate sends a car.

If the world can let some men thrive on wrongdoing — like Tony — then others will not thrive even when they do no wrong.

I have been meaning to post for a couple of days but a cold has sapped my energy and my mental functions too much for me to form many complete sentences. (I think it just took me about three tries to type "mental.") But the meds seem to be doing their job, and I expect to have a few things to say tomorrow. Sorry about the hiatus. A word which is definitely not easy to type.

Shane and the rest of the Casaya gang are looking more and more like the Oakland A's of the '70s. They fight and bicker and seem to hate each other — and then go out and win championships, or at least challenges, like tonight's, which was a nasty one. On the line was reward, immunity and a chance to send someone from the other tribe to Exile Island — where this time they would be out of tribal council and so free from ouster. So not only did the winning tribe get to send the losing tribe to council, it also got to protect a big loser from extinction.

La Mina should be as rough as Terry and the Pirates. Instead, they're more like Terry cloth. Another challenge lost. Casaya picked Sally for exile, so La Mina had to get rid of one of the guys. And rail-thin Dan the Astronaut was sent home. Before he went — in fact, before the challenge — he impressed the others with tales of his travels into space. I don't think that was the best idea.

Sure, he was a big flop at puzzle-solving in the challenge and that pretty much assured his end. But you don't want the others to think you have already had great success in life, so why should you get a million bucks, too? Sort of like not telling them you were an NFL quarterback.

Still, Dan's end was one of the most polite vote-offs I have ever seen. He knew he was out before the vote, he figured it was a reasonable decision and he went. Shane and his crowd would be spitting at each other. There's a lesson there, I fear.