I did not expect to go this long between posts, but the days filled themselves up — chasing down a cat to take to the vet, putting a fence back up around a flower bed, Easter morning at church, grocery shopping, giving the grill its spring inaugural. Today at work I was hip-deep in a non-TV project, now finished.

Watching was done, too. Friday night, we kicked back with "Serenity," the big-screen continuation of "Firefly." Sunday night was devoted to '"The West Wing" and "The Sopranos," and in between there I caught up on "Veronica Mars" and "Gilmore Girls." I keep thinking the viewing menu included something else, but right now I can't remember what it was.

Notes on all that viewing:

– I laughed more at "The Sopranos" than at any other recent episode as the guys exhibited their homophobia in so many different ways. For Paulie, of course, it was all about him. Tony's stumbling explanation of how guys get a free pass for any homosexual acts in prison was priceless. And I really like the way they're treating Christopher's NA sponsor, the latest in a line of characters who are not hoods but still want to hang out with some.

At the same time, though, the guys' reaction to Vito's secret life reminded us how unenlightened they are about many things; even young guys like Christopher can't handle the idea of men with men. Even though Tony was less dismayed than the others (and nice to see that his change brought us back to his post-shooting introspection), even he felt social pressure from the others — until that pressure was a challenge to his authority.

As for Vito, I'd like to think that he has found a place where he can be himself and is out of harm's way; the implication in Tony's attitude was certainly that Vito is fine as long as Vito doesn't come back. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as out of harm's way on this show, as we saw early on in the "College" episode.

– "The West Wing" offered some civics lessons, as Santos is learning that even a transition period comes with hard lessons, and old friends are not necessarily the best new allies. And it held out some fun hints of what could be if the show wasn't ending now, by beginning to fill some staff positions. But overall the hour dragged, and I expected more for Bartlet's farewell to Leo than false bonhomie bucking up everyone else.

– "Gilmore Girls." Emily is right. It's time for Lorelai to step into the middle of the Luke/April situation. It's sure not easy emotionally for Lorelai to keep herself apart. And it appears that just about everyone else on the show has had more conversation with April than Lorelai has.

As for ongoing plots. the Rory and Jess thing was a waste of air time (even if it gave the promo makers something to hang the episode on). And Rory is just a bore to watch (partly because Alexis Bledel is bringing little to the part), her attraction to Jess no more convincing than her ambivalence about Logan. Not a great episode overall. Luke's accompanying the field trip kept seeming to go somewhere, only it had nowhere to go. And for all the kerfluffle about Lorelai's parents being in town, why has it not occurred to her that they might be house-shopping for Luke & Lorelai — a very Emily wedding present, yes?

– "Veronica Mars." Not bad, and it feels as if we're getting closer to something on the big mystery. Some interesting visuals on the dream sequence. Lot of empty air, though.

– "Serenity."  Of the three folks under this roof, I am the one least enamored of "Firefly," so I may not be a great judge of "Serenity." While it wasn't completely lacking in entertainment, it never elevated beyond being a so-so action picture. Of course, on a Friday night when we were all eager to kick back, I appreciated the way the movie made few demands on me.

Not much of an episode. Sally's gone, leaving Terry on his own. But, because of his bad strategy in previous weeks, he already was on his own. He has put himself in the position of having no allies and needing to win out on immunity. The one benefit, touted in the trailers, is that the Gang of Six will have to turn on itself next week, creating a fallback position if Terry again wins immunity. I hope something happens. The show's in a rut.

I won't pretend that last night's "Lost" — called "S.O.S." — was great in terms of advancing the overall narrative of the show, although there was some of that. Liked Jack and Kate in the net. Remain curious about the way the captive Other has played with Locke's head. And Michael's back, apparently setting up a lot of things for the rest of the season.

But I think of "S.O.S." as the greatest episode in the show's short history — and I admit that this is probably a solo opinion — because of the Rose and Bernard story, both in flashback and in the present.

Sure, we knew that we were headed toward a point where Rose admitted her belief that the island had cured her, and that she was not willing to leave. But oh, the getting there, and the wonderful actors (L. Scott Caldwell as Rose and Sam Anderson as Bernard) who made the writers' words sing.

As much as "Lost" is a page-turner, its inner strength is as a character piece — in Jack's relationship with his father, Sawyer's swagger masking a meeker soul (Is there anyone who hasn't beaten him in a fight?), in Hurley's sadness (nicely elaborated upon in last week's episode), Locke's father issues and pondering of faith.

Rose has been a pivotal figure when "Lost" deals with faith, because of her certainty that her husband had not died in the crash — faith that was validated when Bernard was found among the Tailies. But in "S.O.S.," we see that she has not always had such strong faith, and that she was at times pushed forward by Bernard's beliefs. At the same time, Bernard/Rose represent the dichotomy at the heart of the show; Bernard believes in what he can see and what people can do, while Rose has moved on to a higher power. They are a variation on the Jack/Locke split.

And I see that I've started overintellectualizing about an episode that affected me in a very personal, emotional way. It's not merely that Rose and Bernard are a middle-aged couple bound by a love that contains elements of newlyweds and old, settled people — something I feel with my wife. We are settled in many ways, two people in their fifties who match up well, but we are also in a marriage that after two years still feels very new at times. And my reaction came from the way Bernard and Rose face her illness.

My wife lost her first husband; I lost my first wife. When Rose tells Bernard that she has a year to live, I was saying, "Take the year." The show is smart enough to let him do it, and to see that a man who believed in Rose would also believe that he could be rescued from that island. Where "Lost" has had moving scenes before, the Rose and Bernard story was great from start to finish. I didn't just recognize the characters. Their feelings blended with my own.

The show is really mowing people down this season, with yet another week that did not include a non-elimination leg.

The latest victims: Lake and Michelle. When I wrote last week that I liked all the remaining contestants on the show, several people in the "Amazing Race" cult in my office were quick to argue that they did not like L&M, mainly because of their bickering. And heaven knows we got enough of that on last night's telecast, with Lake ballistic pretty much from the beginning of the race. Even so, they were allowed a tender moment — when Michelle softly calmed Lake down.

But we are getting to the point where couples start to melt down — Fran's panic on the bungee jump, increased references to "we're done" by players who make mistakes, the scenes in the promo for next week's episode — and where the show has to be careful not to let one or two teams just take over the show.

With Eric & Jeremy and BJ & Tyler seeming unstoppable in recent weeks, I detected a little field-leveling last night when there were several points along the way where travel schedules and closed doors let all the teams catch up with each other.

BJ & Tyler actually failed to finish out of the top two. (Eric & Jeremy, first again. Can't stop those guys.) Plus the use of penalty minutes — for teams that did not properly follow the travel assignment — added even more suspense.

Good episode, and we are down to a group of teams that are — without argument — all entertaining and appealing.

Caught up on some viewing this morning and will be posting later about, IMHO, the greatest "Lost" episode ever, as well as "The Amazing Race."

I've had my say about "Commander in Chief" in a column you can find here. I know some of you have posted comments on the blog about how much you like the show, but I can't agree, at least not when it comes to a couple of new episodes I have seen. But I've done my pounding in the column, so I won't hammer it more here.

Yesterday, I was at the bureau of motor vehicles so my younger son could take his driving test (he passed). As we waited for the paperwork to be done, we heard one of the uniformed officers say, "This is not 'Who Wants To Be a Millionaire'! You don't get to use lifelines here."

Turns out a young man sitting at one of the written-test machines was talking on a cellphone while taking the test. I don't think he was getting answers — in fact, once warned, he said that he had to end the call because "I'm taking a test" — but it still seemed to be an odd moment for multitasking. Especially with a sign by the BMV door forbidding phones.

Here's the link to the post-show podcast with Amy Carlson Gustafson of the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

http://www.ohiomm.com/podcasts/tv/idol_results_41206.mp3\

And here are my post-show notes:

Well, Bucky is gone at last and that's no disappointment here. It wasn't that he was horrible, it was that he was dull and forgettable. As I said in last night's post, Kellie's outrageous "Bohemian Rhapsody" probably erased viewers' memory of Bucky and Ace, who had gone before her — and there were both in the bottom three, along with Elliott. I thought Elliott was OK last night.

Beyond that, I'm thinking ahead to next week and already feeling the disappointment that Rod Stewart's going to be the latest Old Celebrity Guest Who Appears Familiar With Cosmetic Surgery. Not that it's Rod, mind you. I made a list of songs from vintage Stewart/Faces performances that might be interesting for "Idol" contestants — "Maggie Mae," "Every Picture Tells a Story," "Sailing," "Stay With Me," "Gasoline Alley," "I'm Losing You," "This Old Heart of Mine" (the "Atlantic Crossing" version). Maybe "Tonight's the Night." And I'm sure someone would risk "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy?" (A side note: The greatest version of that ever was Bob & Ray's.)

But it appears that we're not getting that Rod. We're getting the Rod of recent vintage, with those albums of standards that could be done by just about anyone. That's probably good news for Ace and Elliott, but I don't know how good it will be for us viewers.

Good notes from tonight: The reminder, via Paula, that the judges don't hear the performances very well during the show and that they have been known to watch the TV replays — sometimes with different reactions. Of course, that means that anything they say during the performance show is of no value, but "Idol" doesn't care about that. If it did, the judges would be in another room on Tuesday nights, watching a good audio feed of the show. Also liked Ryan's admitting that the sing-the-song-that-got-voted-you-off was not the nicest thing. And that was sure the case tonight, when — in the interest of show padding — everyone in the bottom three had to sing before the final result was announced. And both Elliott and Ace were better tonight than on Tuesday, although I still didn't think Ace was very good. And Bucky was, well, still a guy who deserved to be voted off.

I feel as if I should say something about Kellie and the "community snot rag." But I'm going to let it go because I finally had a (small) reason to like her tonight: her love of fried okra.

Since this was a week for the songs of Queen, I had expected — even hoped for — a train wreck. But the only time I heard the steel wheels screech was during Kellie's performance of "Bohemian Rhapsody," a move so unnerving that, if I was grading for hilarity alone, she would get an A. Since hilarity is not exactly what the show is about, she gets a D.

And a D to the show for mentioning the "tragic loss" of Freddie Mercury without saying what caused that loss.

Back to Kellie: At least, as the third performer of the night, she probably made everyone forget the wan show-opener by Bucky (a countrified "Fat Bottomed Girls" that I'm giving a C) and Ace's ill-considered "We Will Rock You."

Of course, the bad thinking came before he sang when Ace was caught on tape telling the guys from Queen how he would like to arrange THEIR song. Then came a "We Will Rock You" utterly lacking in vocal authority; he reminded me of some bygone, underage teen idol trying to cover a hard-rocking hit while not rocking too much.

Chris once again showed some smarts by going for "Innuendo," a song little-known enough that the viewers won't automatically hear Queen in their heads and make tough comparisons. (Translation: I didn't know the song.) Good but not goosebumping. C plus for performance, B plus for song choice.

Katharine, one of two singers who changed their song selection during rehearsals (Taylor was the other), went back to her ballad base with a straightforward "Who Wants To Live Forever." C for her, and an A for Simon for being honest about how the show really works — telling Katharine she should be grateful to the director and lighting director. After all, the presentation can help — and hurt — a singer. (See my earlier notes about Mandisa.)

Look again at tonight's show and see how hard they're working at making all the women seem dramatic, especially in the use of closeups; as Amy Gustafson says on our podcast tonight, the show is aware that the men outnumber the women right now and "Idol" probably doesn't want to lose any more women. (Let's hope, then, that Terry from "Survivor" doesn't try to coach them.)

Elliott's "Somebody to Love" was all right — even if he had never heard the song before — and had some verve. C plus.

Taylor, eek. If you're going to kick over a mike stand, you need to hit it on first try."Crazy Little Thing Called Love," my eye. D as in dump him.

Then Paris closed the show with — funny how these things work out — "The Show Must Go On." I've said my piece about the outfit. The vocal gets a B plus.

In spite of the ambition in yesterday's post, the day got away from me. I had a story about SportsTime Ohio that ended up consuming part of the day and evening; it was after 8 p.m. before I had the information I needed to write. And while I was working on that, I was trying to track the two local contestants on "Deal or No Deal" to get something about them in today's paper. Since I was on the phone during the end of one player's journey, I ended up e-mailing an NBC publicist for the results, then wrote a brief item about it.

By which time it was well after 9, so the night's viewing was "Everwood" (on recorded delay) with the bride. I got through part of "Veronica Mars" after that, but it was late by then and sleep was demanded. Finished "Veronica" this morning.

So, some thoughts on recent viewing:

"Veronica Mars": Decent episode, although it was pretty clear that Thumper was in the stadium bathroom before the show revealed it. (At least, I think he was in the stadium. Some tricky editing there.) I continue to like the way Tina Majorino has become part of the show; she knows how to do both intelligence and vulnerability. And Steve Guttenberg is fun to watch, although I wonder if the writers are, in essence, playing to his weakness — making Woody transparently suspicious-looking because anything subtler is not going  happen with Guttenberg. Very much liked the way Jackie handled Wallace. And was there anything more loaded with tension than the scene of Veronica and Logan dancing? Talk about issues…

But probably the best thing about the episode is that I don't have to wait a week to watch another new one, since "Veronica" moves its new telecasts to Tuesday beginning tonight.

"The Sopranos": Sunday's episode was the first one this season I had to watch in regular time, since HBO sent out the first four for review before the season started. And I was watching it with friends as part of a regular "Sopranos" gathering, with the two previous weeks' episodes viewed before we got to the new one. My one beef: that Tony's spiritual awakening in the hospital seems to be over. I know, for some things he has no attention span, but the near-death experience after the shooting should have set him off on a more extended journey. But maybe I'm asking too much of Tony.

Vito in the leather bar was weirdly hilarious — loved the cap — and I'm really wondering how that will play out. The Johnny Sack scenes were touching; as calculating and cold as Johnny can be, we keep getting reminded that his love for Ginny (and, by extension, their family) is absolute — far deeper than what Tony feels for Carmela. So, of course, it had to become an issue of weakness.

Also liked the event-planner dialogue with AJ, a nice reference to the previous season and to AJ's overall aimlessness.

As for the bodyguard story, well, didn't you sense soon after seeing this guy that someone was going to pound him? (I suspected Christopher would get the chance to show the difference between bodybuilding and street fighting.) The show's deftness was in the way Tony ended up doing it.

"Everwood": I'm on and off in terms of watching the show, although I like it for the most part when I do. (I did cring on Monday night at the way mastectomies' aftermath were treated as loathsome scarring.) At its best, it reminds me a little of "Veronica Mars." The characters are allowed to be smart and articulate, but not in the fake-grownup way of "Dawson's Creek." And their emotions feel genuine. I also like that it's not a teen show, even though many of the characters are young.

Yesterday I was talking to Glenn Gordon Caron, the writer-producer behind "Moonlighting" and now "Medium," and he was explaining how "Medium" is really a show about married, settled grownups — something that can be a challenge for young TV writers to handle. He's right, too; "Medium" repeatedly sets up opportunities for melodrama, then dials it down to a reasoned discussion. "Everwood" often does the same thing, testing the characters but not making them cartoons. But that may also explain why The WB never seemed as enthusiastic about "Everwood" as it did about lighter and simpler shows.

"Gilmore Girls": Not sure about this one, especially with the return (again) of Jess in tonight's episode. Didn't buy for a minute Rory's getting back together with Logan — and was disappointed that Paris was shuffled off again in short order.  Am wondering when Lorelai is going to get off the pot and deal with Luke about his daughter. It's long past time.

I've been meaning to post for a couple of days but things kept filling the time — yard work (the lawn mower has made its first run of the season!), cleaning a shed, helping the bride clean the house, wrestling with the rusted bolts on a toilet, grocery shopping, church and other things I can't remember. Oh, yeah, sleep.

Sunday morning, for example, I got through two thirds of the "Gospel of Judas" special with an eye toward posting about it before the premiere. Never made it through the other third. I recorded "Veronica Mars" on Saturday, but still haven't watched it.

I am hoping that, before tonight is over, I'll have posted some thoughts about last night's "Sopranos" and possibly "Veronica," which I very much want to see. And may have a few thoughts about last week's "Gilmore Girls," where Rory defined passive-aggressive.

Later this week: Some thoughts on "Commander in Chief" for the print/online Beacon Journal as well as for this blog.

Also, with spring beginning to make a commitment, I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts about watching TV outdoors, particularly in terms of (a) tiny screens and (b) how to deal with bright sunlight.

And thank you to everyone who is downloading the "American Idol" podcasts with me and Amy Carlson Gustafson of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Good to know you're listening. We'll be on the case tomorrow night.

I have reservations about Sunday's episode of "The West Wing." I'm not saying you should not watch it, because I would have even if I did not receive an advance copy. While I see the numbers saying that the "West Wing" audience is a fraction of what it was, there's still something — maybe sheer stubbornness — that will keep me watching to the end of the series.

Still, I have issues. For one thing, this show has had one long election day and night, with the outcome kept in doubt through most of this episode, which continues from last week's. (I am not revealing the winner here.) And, although Leo is officially dead relatively early in Sunday's episode, it just begins the other characters' farewells to him. The following week's telecast will be built around Leo's funeral.

In fact, only one character gets a really extended reaction to Leo's passing in Sunday's episode. It's Josh. Part of that is for dramatic tension, since Josh is also central to the election-night drama, so he's going back and forth between two different emotional roller-coasters. But I also think that, besides Bartlet, Josh deserves the most time saying goodbye to Leo.

(Although, again, I wish that we weren't getting such a stretched-out story. Juxtaposing Leo's death with the election means that the story has to fight for time with how Santos is feeling, how Vinick is feeling, how the results are going. There are some good things in there, notably when each candidate has to think about how to consider if a close finish merits bringing in the lawyers. It's still stuff taking us away from Leo, teasing us for one more week.)

Anyway, to understand why Josh's reaction to Leo matters, look past Josh's getting Leo to run for vice president. Go back instead to the second-season opener, "In the Shadow of Two Gunmen."  That's the two-parter using an assassination attempt on Bartlet as the basis for flashbacks revealing how the Bartlet team came together.

The episode tells us a lot about the Bartlet-Leo relationship, how crucial Leo was to getting Bartlet elected, how he was the guy who could give Bartlet bad news (and tough love). But it's also where we see that Leo did not merely bring Josh into the campaign. (And then Josh brought Sam, while Toby — saved by Leo — brought in C.J., so it really all came back to Leo.)

Although he and Josh did not know each other well — Josh speaks very formally to Leo at first — Leo was a friend of Josh's father. And when Josh's father dies in "Shadow," we can see how Leo became a father figure for Josh. Bartlet stepped partly into that role, too, in the airport scene. But even there, Leo was close by Bartlet.

I'm going over some of this old "WW" history because it informs what happens Sunday night. It also reminds me that, as hard as "WW" has tried to be great again — and as much as I have liked some the presidential-campaign arc — it still isn't quite what "WW" used to be.

"Shadow" suffers from excess ambition, from trying to do too many things at once and from what I still consider a continuity flaw (CJ's having worked in Hollywood, when an earlier episode indicated she knew nothing about the entertainment business). It still has moments of real greatness. Sunday's episode also tries to do too much, only its best moments are merely good, not great.

Put it another way: Parts of Sunday's episode stirred me some. Parts of "Shadow" tore at my heart, even all these years after I first saw it.

If you've been following the "Marriage Madness" competition on "Mike & Mike in the Morning," you know about Olivia and Adam, the top seeds in the competition for a wedding at ESPN HQ in Bristol, Conn. They were also my local connection to the competition, so I was watching the final announcement Thursday morning — only to see that they did not win.

I e-mailed them some questions about the experience, and they answered back today. Here are my questions and their answers:

What was the best aspect of getting this far?
The overall experience was phenomenal.  Sports is a true passion of ours, and when we got this far in the competition we lost sight of what the grand prize was and got caught up in the competitive nature of REALLY wanting to win.  The best thing was that we got to experience something that very few get to experience and we made our family, friends, colleagues, and hopefully all Cleveland sports fans proud of us and proud to be Cleveland fans themselves. We gave it all we had, but the cards just didn't fall right this time.  However, this is an experience that we would not trade for anything!

Did you win things for being second? If so, what?
Second place definitely doesn't go home empty handed.  Although the prizes for second are significantly less than the grand prize, they are still extraordinary.  For being selected as the runner-up couple you have won the following prizes.

• An Olevia® 42" LCD TV

• 2 Mobile ESPN Phones & 6 months of service

• A copy of EA Sports NCAA MVP Baseball.

• A copy of Scene It? Sports — powered by ESPN.

• A copy of ESPN All Sports Trivia challenge.

• The books
  • Now I Can Die In Peace: How ESPN's Sports Guy Found Salvation, With A Little Help From Nomar, Pedro, Shawshank and the 2004 Red Sox

  • 3: The Dale Earnhardt Story

• A box of ESPN Upper Deck Baseball Cards. 

• Two (2) ESPY Towels, Hats

It is not the ultimate sports wedding, but we are not unhappy with any of the prizes we do receive.

How was it to sit there, on national TV and radio, and find out that you didn't win? And gosh, how quickly were you ushered out after the winner was announced?
It was tough to sit LIVE on national TV and Radio and hear that we lost.  It was a lot tougher than we thought it would be.  Getting into it as much as we did made it feel like an actual sporting event or championship game, you know with the butterflies rumbling in your stomach, the adrenaline pumping, the palms are sweating, and you think you have got it, and then its gone…  It is tough to finish in second place when you go in thinking you’ve got a good chance to walk away with it all.  In our opinion, as broadcast yesterday, we said it would have been a lot easier to lose in the first or second round than in the championship, but then we would not have been able to have this experience, and this is something we will be talking about for the rest of our lives.  Winning would have been nice, but we wouldn’t give up the experience for anything. 

They announced the winner at 7:40am, so there were over 2 hours of show left when we found out the wedding wasn't ours.  Everyone at ESPN and ESPNRadio, Larry Gifford, Freddy Rolon, Mike Greenberg, Mike Golic, and their whole broadcasting crew are exceptional people who treated us with such respect and made this become one of the best trips and experience that I or Olivia has ever had.  Not to mention they are funny as hell.  They did not usher us out at all, we were welcome to stay there as long as we wished.  Everyone was very professional and everything they had for us was beyond any of our wildest expectations.  Similar to American Idol, they wanted to broadcast our reaction and let us have a chance to be in front of a national audience one last time (and as a side note, we had so much fun we hope it wasn’t our last!).  It gave us a chance to say ‘thank you’ to all our supporters, the people who got us this far.  It was hard, but well worth it.

What are the wedding plans now? Did you at least book that reception hall you mentioned before? Got a wedding date?
Well, since we put all the wedding plans on hold when we found out that we were part of the final 16 in the competition, I guess it's time to go back to the drawing board.  We haven't set an absolutely official wedding date yet.   My (Olivia's)  brother, Alex Lupson, is a Marine and goes back for his second tour in Iraq this summer and will be stationed over there for nine months, so our wedding will most likely be sometime in the spring of 2007, we will keep you posted as our plans advance!  Again, it may not be the ‘Ultimate Sports’ wedding, but we found the right match so it will be the perfect one.

On Thursday, I wrote a story about the latest developments in the attempt to save the Akron-Canton newscast currently airing on Time Warner Cable. The newscast loses money, and if it doesn't find more revenue sources, it will probably be gone at the end of April. As a result, people, including Akron Mayor Don Plusquellic, have been trying to find a way to keep the telecast going. Those efforts included a meeting of community leaders.

The meeting was closed to the press. I knew that a few days ago, and it neither surprised nor bothered me. It was a meeting about a private enterprise, and one that involved money issues. Ed Esposito, a local radio news director, was unhappy about the decision, especially since Plusquellic was speaking at the meeting; he was also displeased that reporters were not only being kept out of the meeting, but out of the building where the meeting took place.

He sent a note to the mayor about his complaints; he also sent copies of his letter to other news organizations. After discussion with a couple of editors, I decided to attend a press conference by the mayor about the meeting, and to ask the mayor about Esposito's complaints. If nothing else, that gave the mayor a chance at a public reply, in case I decided to use the letter in my story.

At the press conference, Plusquellic talked some about the meeting, but — in response to another reporter's question — declined even to say who had attended.

I asked my question. And got a reply that, according to my audio recorder, ran a little over four minutes. Needless, to say, I didn't use all of it in my story. (You can read the story here.) But I thought it was amusing enough to transcribe here.

ME: Was it your idea, then, that this meeting be closed to news organizations, and do you find it at all ironic that a discussion of getting news to the people was held so privately?

PLUSQUELLIC: I'm surprised you take direction so much, so well, from Ed, who in my opinion has hyped that story, hyped that for his own, uh, good, for whatever he thinks comes of that. I hold meetings all the time with business people. It happens on almost an everyday basis. I do not believe that business people who are trying to come up with some solution to a problem — either for redeveloping their business, adding jobs, or in this case, acting in the best interest to provide news — want to have a news camera and a radio microphone sitting in the room while they're trying to talk about possible solutions.

And the idea that you're linking this up with, 'Gosh, isn't it unbelievable, such an unbelievable thing that the mayor is talking about protecting news, but he's closed it to the news media.' I mean, It's almost like our whole society is affected by electrical beams or something, screwed up our thinking.

I don't know what gets into you people. This is a meeting about getting something done. And  I, I read that crazy thing [Esposito's note] this morning and I don't know, maybe some of you sit in little cubicles, drinking too much coffee, by yourself, talking to [recording unclear] inanimate objects or something, that you're not right or something. I'm not sure. But this is a bizarre issue to try to bring up.

I'm a mayor of Akron who could do nothing, and could let the Beacon Journal go out there, and 162 people go out there, and wither on the vine. And I've been out trying to do whatever I can [to help the newspaper]. We put money into this [TV newscast] ourselves, as well as the county, to build the studio, even though we were not listed as sponsors, and said we wanted nothing of that, even though we obviously took it through council and you folks all knew about it. But we built the set and all the things that were permanent, so the content and all the other things on an ongoing basis, we couldn't be accused of being a sponsor and buying good news stories.

I mean, I've done everything to play this straight. And it's preposterous somehow to say that, because this private group of people representing mostly private institutions, can't meet and hold a meeting to discuss a private investment to private companies, to try to do something which is of general interest to the public, but which is still private, is somehow a horrible thing that we didn't open it so you folks can make your job easy, to sit in there and take notes or something, is really almost — It ranks up there with one of the most unrealistic and unbelievable turn of events I think I've seen. But it's very typical. Somebody, in some little cubicle, comes up with some strange twist — of paranoia or whatever else to describe something, and it's the lead story. And if that's what it is, that's what it is.

It's preposterous to think that we would open this up to radio or TV reporters, or anybody else. It just doesn't make sense. Why would we do that? If Goodyear was going to put a new plant in and put 3,000 employees here, do you think I would open that meeting up and have you come in there? And do you think there's any way that you could portray that as a bad story for me? 'Mayor Meets With Goodyear Top Official To Bring 3,000 Jobs to Community.' You can't screw me, no matter how you want to, on that one. But I wouldn't do it [admit reporters to the meeting] because it would be counterproductive.

Be nice publicity for me. The problem is, you folks in your business have dealt with too many folks in my business that are more interested in that positive story and positive spin. They'd have said, 'Oh yeah, come on in 'cause it's good for me and gosh, I'm afraid to stand up to anybody and do what's right because you guys will write front-page headlines.' I want to get things done on behalf of the citizens, and if you don't put that in that story, an explanation when you're doing some crazy twist to this story, then …

(On "then," the mayor stopped talking. And another reporter asked a question.)

I've figured that some of you reading this blog are out west, and maybe even taking a peek here at night to see how shows turn out before you watch them. But I heard from one reader — the comment is with the "Amazing Race" post below — who did not like me giving away the results on that show in the headline, where it was impossible to avoid.

That was a bit of a surprise, since I had been giving away info about other reality competitions in headlines for some time, without complaints coming in. So I'm curious if that matters to the rest of you. Feel free to post a comment with this post.

Anyway, for the sake of this "Survivor," I'm dropping the result down here in the text. The latest victim is Austin, and his ouster is revealing a fatal flaw in Terry's strategy.

Terry is proving really lousy at building alliances. The members of his old tribe are being picked off while apparently leaving him no protection if and when he has given up the immunity idol and lost regular immunity. (He won regular immunity again tonight.) I say "apparently" because we never know what's being left out in the editing — a secret alliance between Terry and some of his supposed rivals, say? But based on what we're seeing, he keeps trying to flip people who don't flip.

In tonight's show he tried to take advantage of his extra immunity, offering it to Danielle as an inducement to get her and Bruce to join his shrinking alliance. There was also a hint that Danielle, Ciri and Courtney were considering breaking off from their alliance, because they wanted to get rid of Austin while Aras had other ideas.

After much maneuvering, the end result was that no one flipped, with the Gang Of Six forming a solid bloc for Austin's removal — and the Three Amigos (Terry, Austin, Sally) are now Two Bad. I wrote last week that Terry could have made several different strategic moves that would have worked better than what he did, and he had one of those opportunities again this week — lose immunity at the end of the challenge to draw the Six into the trap of trying to vote him off. But, again, he didn't try it. As I said, he's proving a lousy tactician.

Speaking of lousy, tonight had one of the lamest rewards ever: breakfast in bed, only the bed was soaking wet from sitting out during a rainstorm. On the other hand, we got another example of the show's perversely adolescent sense of humor in the reward challenge. Let me put it this way: It involves coconuts. And underdressed women carrying coconuts. Many giggles should ensue.

NBC made its hiring of a new "Today" co-anchor official today, going with Meredith Vieira. That feels like a very low-risk move by the network. Vieira has news credentials but also has an established personality, mainly through her appearances on "The View."

Here's the announcement:

New York, N.Y., April 6, 2006 - Meredith Vieira has been named co-anchor of NBC News' "Today," it was announced today by Jeff Zucker, Chief Executive Officer, NBC Universal Television Group. Vieira will join the number-one rated morning show, and her new colleagues Matt Lauer, Ann Curry and Al Roker, this September.

"This is an announcement that I couldn't be happier to be making," said Zucker. "Meredith's vast experience as an award-winning journalist, as well as talk show host, make her the ideal candidate for this job. She joins a distinguished legacy of 'Today' show co-anchors: from Barbara Walters to Jane Pauley to Katie Couric. We're lucky to have her as the newest member of 'Today,' and I am thrilled to welcome her to the NBC family."

"Before Jeff changes his mind, I am honored to accept this amazing opportunity," said Vieira. "Not only is the 'Today' show a great program within a superb news organization, it's also where America turns to begin the day. I look forward to joining Matt, Ann and Al in giving America the best each morning."

"Meredith is a real pro, and I think it speaks volumes that NBC has brought her here to 'Today,'" said Matt Lauer. "I have been her fan for years and I can't wait to be her partner. She has the perfect background and personality to make a real mark on this show and in morning news in general. I'm thrilled to welcome her aboard."

"It's a tribute to everyone at 'Today,' and all of NBC News, that someone of Meredith's caliber has joined our team," said NBC News President Steve Capus. "She is an eight-time Emmy award winner, a 60 Minutes veteran and real pro ? her skills will be invaluable at 'Today' and throughout the division. We can't wait to get started."

"It has to be every executive producer's dream to be facing a transition and then be given a tremendous talent like Meredith Vieira to join your team," said "Today" Executive Producer Jim Bell. "To face a transition and still be able to say that you've got the best team in morning television is a pretty great feeling."

Vieira has been moderator of ABC's "The View" since the show's inception in 1997. She has been the host of "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire" since 2002. She started at the network in 1993 when she joined their news division as Chief Correspondent of "Turning Point," which debuted in March 1994 and where she earned her seventh Emmy Award.

Vieira spent more than a decade at CBS News, where she garnered five Emmy Awards for her work as a correspondent on the top-ranking news magazines "60 Minutes" and "West 57th". From 1989 to 1991 she was a co-editor of "60 Minutes." In addition she won an Emmy for the "60 Minutes" report, Thy Brother's Keeper, a story on Christians who saved Jews during the Holocaust. After two successful seasons, and pregnant with her second child, Vieira left "60 Minutes."

Vieira also frequently anchored the "CBS Morning News" and was contributing national correspondent on the "CBS Evening News with Dan Rather." In June 1991, she became contributing correspondent for the CBS News primetime series "Verdict" as well, reporting on actual courtroom trials.

Prior to joining "60 Minutes," she had been a principal correspondent for CBS News' "West 57th," since its premiere in August 1985. In 1989 she received four Emmy Awards for stories she reported on "West 57th" during its 1987-88 season. Vieira joined CBS News as a reporter in its Chicago bureau in January 1982. She was named a correspondent in 1984 and covered Senator Alan Cranston's presidential bid, the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco and, as a correspondent, election night 1984.

Before joining CBS News, she was a reporter for WCBS-TV for three years, the CBS-owned television station in New York City. Her assignments included the 1980 Republican National Convention in Detroit, the trial of Jean Harris in 1981 and a series on child molestation that earned her a Front Page Award from the Newswoman's Club of New York. She also served as a substitute anchor on the station's news broadcasts. Previously she was a reporter and anchor at WJAR-TV in Providence, Rhode Island. She began her career as a news announcer for WORC-Radio in Worcester, Massachusetts, in 1975.

Heavily involved with numerous philanthropic organizations, Vieira is a frequent contributor to several charitable foundations. She is also part of Club Mom's Senior Advisory Board, as well as one of its seven co-founders, along with actor Andrew Shue, which officially launched in May 2004. In May 2001, she received the Safe Horizon Champion Award and from City of Hope the Woman of the Year Award. She has also been honored by the Anti-Defamation League. In April 2004, she received the Mother of the Year Award from The Pajama Program, which collects and distributes bedtime books and pajamas to underprivileged children.

A native of Providence, Rhode Island, Vieira received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts. She and her husband and their three children live in New York.

This morning, I've been collecting theories about "Lost" from co-workers to go with my own, and there are some good ones. Starting with the obvious: That "Lost" has pulled a "St. Elsewhere" and really is all Hurley's imagination. Then the twist, which I sort of like, that it's all Libby's mental-asylum fantasy. I'd like to think the show is smarter than either of those, and that Hurley-and-Libby-in-the-asylum is just another of the show's many character overlaps. And my co-workers came up with other good spins: That Libby was in the institution doing research as a therapist, or — even better — that Libby was a Dharma plant, looking for candidates for the "Lost" project, and discovered Hurley.

However this plays out, though, it was a good episode. I like Hurley, after all — who doesn't? — and we got to see a lot of sides of him, including an explanation of how he ended up in an institution. The kiss was sweet and more than a little sad (even sadder if you accept that idea that Libby has some other agenda). And there were good little games along the way, from the arrival of Dave (whom my wife immediately pegged as someone from the asylum) to the revelation of his non-existence — which I figured out, not least because he talked like Hurley, but also because the photo-taking felt like a set-up. But the show played very fair in establishing that, for example in the way Dave's appearance was always tied to Hurley's eating. And there was the other stuff involving Locke and do-we-still-call-him-Henry.

Very satisfying, a good invitation to next week's show.