The following was written for today's paper, but didn't get in. So …

Even if heroes are hard to find, a new television show has probably found too many.
Heroes, premiering at 9 tonight on NBC, not only has an array of characters but also begins with them spread around the world. Although it quickly becomes clear that their destinies are intertwined, serving them all can make for some disjointed storytelling.
The core of the show is that ordinary people are discovering that they have special powers.
A Texas cheerleader (Hayden Panettiere) recovers immediately from any harm, no matter how extreme (and she keeps trying new ways). A New York artist (Santiago Cabrera) has visions of the future. A Japanese office worker (Masi Oka) can stop time ` and maybe even move through space.
And that's just some of what you learn in the first hour. What may not be clear is the power held by a brooding young man (Milo Ventimiglia) and how that will affect his politician brother (Adrian Pasdar). The second episode introduces yet another character, a police officer (Greg Grunberg) who can read minds.
Nor is it certain that all the characters are using their powers for good. Still other characters are aware of this outbreak of new abilities, and do not all have benign intentions in dealing with the heroes.
As you can see, the show offers a great deal to talk about. In fact, the watching sometimes pales in comparison to talking about what you have watched, since the show is steeped in fantasy culture. Oka's character is a Star Trek fan. The comic-book style of the show becomes even more self-referential when a comic book becomes part of the story, too.
All of that will create endless online debate. Still, my enthusiasm for the show is limited.
  Oka's character is a real crowd-pleaser, and Panettiere's offers plenty of opportunities for amusement as well as carnage. (There's a scene with both at the end of the third episode.)
On the other hand, I'm not all that interested in Ventimiglia and some of the other characters. The something-for-everyone casting ` I haven't even mentioned the stripper ` also means you're going to have to wait through scenes of people you don't care about to see the ones you do.
And, frankly, the show's ambitions may be its biggest drawback. At its best, Heroes recalls the best of The Greatest American Hero, the TV series starring William Katt as a regular guy dealing with new powers. But the show wants the onset of powers to be part of a larger design and conspiracies, and it drags when addressing those issues.

This is from a recent report in Advertising Age:

Marketers will pony up as much as $700,000 for a 30-second spot in Fox's midseason hit, "American Idol," according to an initial survey of media agencies, conducted annually by Advertising Age. The Tuesday-night singing competition, returning in January, is the most expensive show for the third year in a row. Back in 2003, when NBC's "Friends" topped the list, "American Idol," didn't even make the top ten. The going price for 30-second spot on Fox's wildly popular 'American Idol' ranges from $500,000 to $700,000.  … Others at the top of the heap include Fox's "House," ABC's "Desperate Housewives," and ABC newcomer "Brothers and Sisters."

You can find the full report here.

Update: "Grey's" outdrew "CSI" in the overnight ratings…

We wait months for new episodes of our favorite shows, so it's not easy to approach their return without feeling a little overamped. Will it be as good as we remember it? Will we love it the way we did before? Tonight: A mixed reaction.

"The Office," for starters, was sheer genius. The payoff to Jim and Pam was well done, with both actors wonderful in their longing looks. (And we even were forced to feel sympathetic toward Pam's now-ex-fiance.) Michael's struggle to appear sensitive about Oscar was hilarious while making us entirely aware of how uncomfortable events were for all the characters. It was a terrific half-hour.

"Grey's Anatomy," not such an unambiguous success. Some good things: Sara Ramirez, both at the door and in the kitchen scene. Izzie's meltdown. Kate Walsh in just about everything. James Pickens Jr. and Loretta Devine, working so well together. And, of course, Chandra Wilson as Bailey, who can take even some overwrought business and sell it. (Ditto on that score for guest star Steve Harris.)

Not so good: The labored use of the flashbacks (although I did grin when I saw whom Alex left the party with). McDreamy's speech to Meredith. Meredith generally. Chris O'Donnell, whose fatal flaw — as a character and as an actor — is that he's kind of a bore. The baby storyline, which the bride — who has done a lot of volunteer work in hospitals — noted was implausibly drawn out. Especially when we saw which character was the mother; hard to accept that someone that young and small went through the extended interrogation period without noticeable pain or bleeding. Basically, though, I think this episode faltered because it was the first of the season, and it felt dual weight of starting well and setting things in motion for later in the year; it just couldn't manage to do it all.

I've got "CSI" in the DVR and will get to it at some point, but I did manage to catch most of "Survivor" including the pivotal stuff at the end. I was infuriated, though not by the racial design, which hasn't added up to much so far.

Rather, I have never liked the idea of throwing a challenge, and it felt really stupid tonight. It's too early to be jettisoning people, for one thing, even if you feel that the one to be dumped — Billy tonight — is useless. And, as a viewer, I resented the distasteful sham involved. When another tribe has a chance to celebrate a victory, the members should be able to feel it was a legitimate win — and that their joy is honestly achieved. The contempt a challenge-throwing tribe has for the other groups is disgusting; the smug comments that followed it tonight made it even more so. And that's not a matter of race. That's about general human decency.

I caught up to "CSI" this morning and right off the bat it reminded me of something that had struck me during "Grey's Anatomy": the perils of improved TV technology. I watch shows on my HD set for the most part, and last night's "Grey's" was absolutely brutal about Ellen Pompeo's skin. "CSI" reminded me of that because it was visually dazzling (the sound's pretty great, too) in that Cirque du Soleil opening and beyond. The attention to lighting, the sharpness of the picture — I kept having to pull myself back into the story because I would be admiring the visuals.

Beyond that, it was clear at a "CSI" press conference this summer that the show was ready to rumble with "Grey's," and it sure did tonight. The Cirque stuff. John Mayer. The Danny Bonaduce stunt. Setting up two more storylines for continuation. How good Marg Helgenberger was in that last series of scenes. Brass's tattoo.

And, for everyone still amazed at the end of last season, the show is gleefully playing with the audience regarding Sara and Grissom. Nothing explicit said by either but they're sure hitting the notes, not only in the meal business but in that "bye" scene. It's not exactly sexual tension — since we know they've crossed that bridge — but it sure is tension, and great fun to watch. 

Tonight I'll be neck-deep in new TV ("The Office," "Grey's Anatomy," "CSI") and plenty of you will be, too. Lots of office conversation today about "Grey's." But since the conversation here is going to broaden to include a lot of other topics, let's also consider a movie question.

Specifically, what do you do when you want to make more money off something you've already released on DVD? Well, you repackage it. But what if you already packaged it really well? You decide to get really weird about your packaging.

At least, that's what's happening with Universal's DVD of Al Pacino's "Scarface" in a "Platinum Edition" on Oct. 3. Universal has released the movie before, including in a "Two-Disc Anniversary Edition" three years ago that was pretty well done.

For the new "Platinum Edition," Universal has included four of the featurettes from the 2003 DVD (although not the "Origins of a Hip-Hop Classic" segment). But it has gone quite mad with a new extra, an optional onscreen counter that keeps track of how many times the F-word is used, and how many bullets fly.

The F-word counter is on the left side of the screen, right next to a little F-bomb (complete with fuse), while the bullet counter — accompanied by a gun — is on the right. The counts can increase with alarming rapidity, and it's even funny for a couple of minutes. I am sure, too, that faithful fans will study the accuracy of the F-word counter. (The bullet count is a little harder to follow.)

Now, that alone may be enough to get you to plunk down $29.98 for another copy of "Scarface." (I think one per household should be enough. And in some cases too much. One of my co-workers cringed today when I matter-of-factly mentioned "the chainsaw scene.")

If you need more incentive, a Universal press release also promises "BIGGER GUNS, BIGGER EXPLOSIONS and BIGGER SOUNDS!" — those are their capital letters — via digitally remastered sound effects.

Universal sent out a demonstration disc comparing the previous release to the new one in the shootout-laden "Say hello to my little fren' " scene. Being the wary sort, I preferred to dig out my copy of the 2003 edition and compare it directly to the new release. Definitely louder. Very much louder. Not that the previous release was all that quiet.

I should probably say something about the outrageousness of changing a movie from its original form. In principle, that worries me. In practice, I keep thinking, come on, this is "Scarface"!

First the divorce, now this: Shanna Moakler and her pro partner Jesse De Soto got the sack on tonight's show.

But that's less of a story than the survival of Ohio's own Jerry Springer, who was not even in the bottom two. (Willa Ford was there with Moakler) With a radio show and a syndicated TV series, he has pretty much begged people to vote him off this show. And the judges at least obliged this week, giving Springer and his partner the lowest scores.

But there he is, sustained by viewer votes. I am sure there are mischief-makers among those voters. But I also suspect some folks prefer him to, at least, Moakler and Ford.

As for "Dancing" overall, I am reminded of something the bride said after the premiere a week ago. "I'm getting addicted to this show," she said, "and I don't want to."

I understand the feeling. Our TV schedules — let alone the lives we wrap around them — are already pretty full. Busy days at work. I spent a couple of hours at a church meeting last night, and caught up with "Dancing" in bits and pieces last night and this morning. Both DVRs are well filled with shows they managed to record without a hitch, and some of the weekend will have to be used for catch-up — especially since I'll be watching and recording still more things tomorrow night.

But we are getting addicted. Let's face it, a lot of "Dancing" is lousy. The hour-long results show is outrageously padded; I especially wonder about all the performances by the professional dancers, which serve to remind us how amateurish the non-pros are. (At least they showcase the pros on a different night.) This may be why I'm not so interested in "Celebrity Duets," although I have tried to watch. The really good vocalists on there can make the amateurs look sick, even though I have seen some generous underplaying by the fulltime singers. I mean, it doesn't matter how hard you try; if you're onstage with Smokey Robinson, the only way you're not toast is if you're Smokey Robinson.

More gripes: I don't buy some of the shtick from the judges.  And you have to sit through dancers like Tucker Carlson (ousted first), Sara Evans (who just doesn't look comfortable) and Harry Hamlin (makes me think of a RIchard Pryor comment in "Silver Streak").

On the other hand, watching the dancers can be kind of interesting. (I should note here that we are also addicted to "Shall We Dance," the Richard Gere-Jennifer Lopez ballroom movie, and I went through a period years ago when I had to pause every time I hit "Strictly Ballroom" while channel-hopping.) We talk about footwork, we look at the chemistry, we discuss. We can be impressed — and have been at times by Joey Lawrence, Mario Lopez, Emmitt Smith, Vivica A. Fox. We have even talked, more than once, about dancing lessons.

So far that's still just talk. (Have I mentioned that we have busy lives?) But in a way that just doesn't happen with "American Idol" or "Celebrity Duets" or "The Amazing Race" — because one of us just will not do the food challenges — "Dancing With the Stars" presents an activity that I can imagine the bride and me doing. Maybe not as well as Joey Lawrence on a good night. That guy has obviously studied ballroom dancers, not just dance. But still doable. And I have much better hair.

One more from today's mail (bold type the network's):

USA Network will air the 100th episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit on Friday, September 22 at 8pm in memory of Mickey Hargitay who passed away on Monday. Hargitay was the father of Emmy award winning actress Mariska Hargitay who plays Detective Olivia Benson in the popular Law & Order franchise . Hargitay, a body-builder, won the 1955 Mr. Universe Contest before he became an actor.  He was briefly married to Jayne Mansfield and they starred in a number of films together including "The Loves of Hercules" "Promises! Promises!" and "Primitive Love."

The episode in which he guest-starred was titled "Control."  Below please find a synopsis of the episode.
The mutilation of a subway commuter leads the detectives to discover their "victim" may be the perpretator in abducting women and forcing them to live in his dungeon for several years as his bride. As the detectives prepare to arrest their victim turned suspect, Benson arrives ahead of the other detectives to find their perp murdered and is crucified in court as a result of turning away one of his victims four years ago because she did not believe the report

I've been chewing on this item from ESPN. (Bold type in the release is the network's.)

For the second week in a row, Monday Night Football on ESPN delivered the network’s largest audience ever. The Jacksonville Jaguars 9-0 shutout of the defending Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers – the lowest-scoring game in MNF history (561 games) – was seen by an average of 9,809,000 homes (13,325,000 viewers, P2+), based on a 10.6 rating.  Also for the second week, MNF was the force behind a day of tremendous ratings for ESPN and a major boost to ESPN.com and its new "Monday Night Surround" content.  ESPN’s three MNF games so far are cable television’s best ratings and largest audiences of the year.

ESPN’s MNF telecast was simulcast on local over-the-air channels in Pittsburgh (33.9 rating) and Jacksonville (23.7 rating), boosting the network’s audience to an estimated average of 10,353,000 households.  Adding in the pre- and post-game shows, ESPN delivered 22.1 gross ratings points. 

In addition, ESPN.com NFL and "Monday Night Surround" content viewed on computers and wireless devices generated more than 32.2 million page views Monday, up 53 percent over page views last year according to Web measurement tool HitBox.

“ESPN’s presentation of Monday Night Football – an immersive all-day experience on television and online—clearly demonstrates the impact of ESPN’s multiple assets at work." said Artie Bulgrin, ESPN senior vice president, research and sales development.  "Considering last night’s debut of the new season on broadcast television, delivering cable’s second-biggest audience in history is very impressive."

The record set last week was 9,177,000 homes for Minnesota at Washington, based on a 9.9 rating (12,570,000 viewers – P2+).   Last night’s telecast also supplants last week’s game as the second largest audience in cable television history (behind CNN's NAFTA debate in November 1993 between Al Gore and Ross Perot – 11,174,000 households). (end excerpt)

Now, you can look at this as evidence that football is doing very well for ESPN on MONDAY nights [Thanks, Fred], and that's fine. But I have been pondering the old issue of cable vs. broadcast TV.

If the largest audience for a single cable telecast is indeed roughly 11.2 million households for the Al Gore-Ross Perot debate, then cable still hasn't become destination television for many, many viewers.

Now, measuring by households is pretty dubious on its own, since almost no one in the television industry looks seriously at that number — unless it works to the individual's advantage. You can look at total viewers, or — even more common — you can look at the audience within a specific age group, which is how advertisers are more likely to consider things.

Still, I will play fair and use households. The cable record is, again according to ESPN, the 11-million plus for Gore-Perot. In last week's Nielsens, three shows were watched in more households — "Dancing With the Stars," "NBC Sunday Night Football" and the "Dancing" results show. Nor was this some big record-busting week for broadcast television; in fact, a lot of popular shows were still in rerun.

Now let's look at the total-viewer number ESPN had, more than 13 million viewers, its largest audience ever. I counted eight broadcast shows last week that had more viewers, according to Nielsen estimates, with more than 20 million just for "Dancing With the Stars."

I do love some cable shows, and I am glad cable is there. And ESPN can pop all the champagne corks it wants to for the historic success it is having. Let's still remember that the numbers that so impress one TV entity are not necessarily impressive in the world of TV as a whole.

Today's official announcement, with the regular cast four paragraphs in…

"Saturday Night Live" continues its extraordinary run and returns for its 32nd season on September 30 (NBC, 11:30 p.m. - 1:00 a.m. ET). 

The season premiere will be hosted by red-hot standup comedian Dane Cook, who returns for his second hosting stint.  An inventive and electric performer, Cook will soon be seen starring opposite Jessica Simpson in the comedy "Employee of the Month."  The comedian has built an impressive following through relentless touring (as chronicled on HBO's "Tourgasm" and standup special "Vicious Circle" and his pervasive online presence on both his own website (danecook.com) and MySpace.com (where he has over one million "friends.")  Cook continues to enjoy the success of his certified platinum comedy album "Retaliation," which debuted at No. 4 on the Billboard 200, making him the highest-charting comedian in 25 years.  Future projects for Cook include the features "Dan in Real Life" with Steve Carell and "Good Luck Chuck" opposite Jessica Alba.

Also returning to "SNL" are The Killers, performing from their eagerly awaited sophomore release "Sam's Town."  The new album is the follow-up to the band's five million-selling debut "Hot Fuss," which garnered four hit singles and seven Grammy nominations.  Named "Band of the Year" by Spin magazine in 2004, the Killers' record was the longest-running rock record to remain in the Top 50 for the same year and their new single "When You Were Young" is already Top Five at alternative radio and one of the most played videos on MTV.

Returning to the SNL repertory cast are Fred Armisen, Will Forte, Bill Hader, Darrell Hammond, Seth Meyers, Amy Poehler, Maya Rudolph, Andy Samberg, Jason Sudeikis, Kenan Thompson and Kristen Wiig.

Amy Poehler will return to the "Weekend Update" desk with a new partner to be announced later.  Also returning, Seth Meyers returns for his second season as head writer, sharing the position with Emmy winners Andrew Steele and Paula Pell.

Another new addition to the show is director Don Roy King.  The Emmy Award-winning live television veteran takes the helm of "SNL "with a wide range of credits running the gamut, from 14 years at CBS' "The Early Show," six years at "Good Morning America" and the first four live "Survivor" finales to "The Mike Douglas Show" and numerous Broadway productions for television.

I had hoped to write something here about the season premieres of "How I Met Your Mother" and "Two and a Half Men" last night. Unfortunately, I only saw about one-and-a-half shows.

I saw "HIMMY" and found it funny enough, although I do fear how "Friends"-ish it is getting in blending the romantic drama into the comedy. And even though the show is trying to liven up Ted, he's still pretty bland. Best thing in the show: Barney's bold twist on Henry Fonda in that "we'll be there" speech.

I recorded that, as well as "Prison Break," "Two and a Half," "Vanished" and "CSI: Miami" while mostly watching football. Unfortunately, Time Warner's HD DVR decided to eat "Two and A Half," "Vanished" and "CSI: Miami." "CSI" wasn't recorded at all, and "Two and a Half" and "Vanished" did some weird scene-skipping thing that boiled them down to a fraction of their running time; although "Two and a Half" surprisingly still sort of made sense, I was missing halves of jokes — setup but no punchline, or vice versa. I'm hoping it was all a one-time glitch in the system; still, I'm limiting use of the DVR tonight in case it messes up again — and has to be swapped for a fully functioning one.

That gets into one of the problems I have with a DVR. Although it's nice to have all that programming stored in it, you risk losing a lot of material if the machine goes bad. Still, it's preferable to those old stacks of unmarked videotapes lying around.

And I may just be having a bad technology streak. Today, a tape of the second-season premiere of "Little People, Big World" arrived — and I know a bunch of you are interested in hearing about the show, which returns on Oct. 7. But the top bar on the tape was broken, making the tape unplayable. Fortunately, I have run into this before and have swapped the broken piece with a working one from an old tape — and it was working in a VCR. So I should be able to watch and comment on it.

A couple of things happened last week that will give you a glimpse at part of this job works, for good or ill.

The first thing explains why you've seen me popping up on Channel 5 lately. It actually started the week before last, when Channel 5's Stefani Schaefer called, asking to interview me for some pieces she was doing on Channel 5's fall lineup. I said yes. Schedule permitting, I usually say yes to such requests, and I've been on almost every station at some point. In fact, in the days of the old "Morning Exchange," my colleagues and I had an annual appointment to talk on the air about the coming TV season.

Anyway, Stefani called. Since our schedules — and the idea of my driving to Cleveland — didn't mesh very well, we finally agreed that I would be interviewed from the Beacon Journal offices. (Channel 5 has an office here, as part of a news partnership with the Beacon Journal.) Stefani would be in Cleveland, talking to a camera. I would be in Akron, watching Stefani on a monitor and talking to another camera. Earpieces would let us hear each other. It's a weird process — your impulse is to look at the monitor, where you see the other person, when you should be looking at the camera, where the audience is — but it's functional enough.

We were going to do this last Monday. Then things changed. There was some problem setting up the live hookup between me and Cleveland — probably an outbreak of real news. After calls back and forth, Stefani ended up writing out her questions; the list was sent to me. I went to a meeting room here, Channel 5's Joe McGee set up a camera (and tried not to make me look too much like, well, me) and I gave my answers to the camera. It wasn't the tidiest process, since my answer to one question might include the answer to something two or three questions down the list, but I hit the topics.

And apparently hit them enough that Channel 5 keeps running stories with my mug in them; they sure have made efficient use of my monologue. I haven't seen any of the stories yet — I don't like to look at myself on TV, especially after a long hiatus from the gym — but I've heard from people who have.

"Pimping for Channel 5!" one co-worker declared. That's not it, of course. I happen to like several shows on ABC — just as I like shows on CBS, Fox, NBC and The CW.

Now, on to Leonard Nimoy. While I've already mentioned a couple of times that I saw Nimoy last week, I haven't explained the part of the day that made me feel as if I was trapped on some endless, digressing journey like the Blues Brothers' Mission From God. If only Bill Shatner had shown up to say, "We're getting the band back together," then it would have been perfect.

Anyway, Nimoy was at the University of Akron to talk about "Star Trek." He did a news conference in the late afternoon and then gave a speech at the University of Akron that night. "Star Trek" recently marked its 40th anniversary, and I doubt that Nimoy has any new stories left to tell. In fact, he told some twice on Thursday — at the news conference and then in the speech. (He told them better in the speech, feeding off the energy of the larger crowd.)

I was looking for something fresh to write about, and one of the fresher things was the recent computer-enhanced version of the original "Star Trek." I asked Nimoy what he thought of the changes at the news conference. He at first seemed to have no problem with them, saying they just amounted to improving the color and picture. I disagreed, noting that CGIs were being substituted for old images and other things were being changed. (Another reporter nodded vigorously in agreement when I said that.) Hearing that, Nimoy said, "Shame on them."

But here's where my second-guessing side got me in trouble. I was thinking that, since Nimoy gave different answers based on different information, it might be better to get him the official word — and an unambiguous response. So, when the press conference was over, I told a UA rep that I had a copy of the "Star Trek" press release at my office and I could bring it to Nimoy. Since the question might also come up at his speech that night, I thought it was only fair. The UA rep said she would get it to him, and we agreed to meet before the speech.

I went back to my office, dug up the press release and a transcript of a press conference about the changes. I took it back before the speech, but couldn't find the UA rep in the lobby. I poked my head in the room where we had had the press conference. There was Nimoy.

I introduced myself and showed him the papers. "I'm amazed," he said as he looked at them. I asked if I could get out my recorder and get his full reaction. He declined, saying he had to get ready for the speech. I asked if I could talk to him after the speech. He seemed agreeable.

Speech goes, ends, and I waited outside the meeting room, along with some fans. After some time, another UA rep came out and said Nimoy had left. I introduced myself, explained my presence — and was taken inside. Nobody was around. But the papers I had brought to Nimoy were still sitting where I had left him and them.

I ended up writing a story where I quoted Nimoy's two answers and his "I'm amazed." I would have preferred a stronger and clearer comment. But that's what I had, and that's how it sometimes goes.

The other day, a reader took issue with a column I wrote about Meredith Vieira's debut on "Today." (You can find the column in a post below.) Looking for a cutting finale, the reader ended the letter by asking "have you received your walking papers from the new owners?"

It's a fairly common question to people who work at the Beacon Journal, though not usually so roughly phrased. "Are you all right?" is the gentler way of asking. And let me assure one and all that I am all right, although my responsibilities will change a bit, as you can see in this column by Beacon Journal managing editor Mizell Stewart.

I can't tell you exactly what my new job will look like, since we're still figuring that out. As Stewart's column says, I'll be doing TV and movies. I expect to continue both my mailbags and this blog, although the range of material will probably expand in both.

I'll be talking to all of you as I have before, and paying attention to your comments. For example, my recent post about "Little People, BIg World" was a direct result of questions I received about the show — and all the comments posted on my post give me even more reason to pay attention to it

Sometimes getting to see shows ahead of time can be frustrating. In July, a bunch of us saw a new episode of "The Shield." It was really good. But the show doesn't come back on the air until January. So there was considerable whining about having to wait to see more. It was like getting an appetizer at a banquet, then having to sit through hours of speeches before you get the rest of the meal.

So two episodes of  the third season of "Veronica Mars" arrived in the mail yesterday. And since I had a break between writing my DVD column and covering Leonard Nimoy, I watched them. Now I'm sitting here, knowing that "Veronica's" third season doesn't start until Oct. 3, and I've also seen the Oct. 10 telecast and, well, I WANT TO SEE THE OCT. 17 EPISODE AND I WANT IT NOW.

Regular readers of this blog know that I am a "Veronica" fan. But I had some fears going into the new season. Veronica and her peers have gone off to college, for one thing, and that's a significant change to deal with. And instead of doing a season-long story, the show will have three shorter serials, so new viewers can join in easily. And, in its third season, "Veronica's" characters have so much history — both chronological and emotional — that it still has to walk the high wire between being too obscure for potential new fans and being too obvious for people who have memorized every detail.

I am pleased to report that "Veronica" gets two out of three. The shift to college starts off very well; imagine, for starters, how Veronica might do in a criminology class. The show recognizes the ways that college can be just like high school, so there are similarities in the characters' interaction. But it's also a place where someone like Veronica has to realize that she didn't learn everything in high school; the two episodes refer more than once to how well people judge others' character, and that's an issue for Veronica and for her father, Keith.

The shorter story arc actually feels better than the longer ones of the first two seasons. By the end of the second episode, it feels as if things have moved very fast and that more revelations are coming soon — a big reason why I WANT TO SEE THE OCT. 17 EPISODE AND I WANT IT NOW.

The one flaw may be in trying to bring new viewers up to speed. There is a lot of explanation and even introduction woven into the first show, relationships sketched, references to the past. If, for example, you don't know what a jerk Dick Casablancas has been, you get ample new evidence.

But the many layers of "Veronica" can't all be covered in a show that is still moving rapidly forward, so I suspect some new viewers will be unclear why Logan is so sad, or where Kendall fits into everything. But I urge those viewers to watch because soon enough they will see that "Veronica" is funny and clever, dramatic and surprising. And those of you who have been watching should need no more convincing — only a painful cry of "Is it Oct. 3 yet?"

I was out of the house and on the job last night, covering a local appearance by Leonard Nimoy. (You can find the story here.) Then I watched a preview copy of Sunday's premiere of "The Amazing Race," because it has a team of Cleveland guys in it and I wanted to see if there was anything I should write about over the weekend.

Then, this morning, I finally got to Thursday's season premiere of "Survivor" — you know, the one that generated all the talk because the four tribes were divided along ethnic lines.

Anyone watching the hour may have wondered what all the fuss has been about. Yes, "Survivor" can be insensitive, such as in its assigning stereotypical music to the different tribes. But the telecast underscored a point that host Jeff Probst made in a teleconference last week — that when you have a genuinely diverse cast, one player doesn't have to represent an ethnic group alone.

In this show, when an African-American player decided to take a seemingly unnecessary break, there were four other African-Americans to appear critical of it. And when an Asian-American player starts telling ethnic jokes, there are others to disapprove.

I also liked the way the show implicitly admitted that its categories are too broad — specifically in noting the specific backgrounds of the lumped-together Asian players. And, when it came time to vote someone off, "Survivor" was still "Survivor" — with scheming, backstabbing and alliances. And the key alliance formed along gender lines, reminding us of another way the culture divides.

Still, "Survivor's" gesture toward diversity is a contrived one, loaded up with significance that provokes more than it instructs. If you really want people to think about diversity, you do what "Amazing Race" has done — and still does in the new season. You take people of different ages, ethnicity, faiths, ability and sexual preference and then send them off on the race. Nobody has to carry the weight of representing his or her people; they just have to win the doggone race.

The new season is deliberately diverse — including with the Cleveland guys, who are devout Muslims — but the drama in the show comes from how people handle eating fish eyes, climbing a wall or navigating traffic. They also emerge as individuals, with all the complexity that comes with being a thinking, active human being.

I'll keep watching both "Survivor" and "Amazing Race" this season, and not just for professional reasons. But I'll continue to believe that "Amazing Race" is the better, smarter and more socially wise show. (And I'll have more to say about it after Sunday's telecast.)

From today's e-mail:

Animal Planet is airing Steve Irwin’s memorial service exclusively in the U.S. commercial free on Tuesday, September 19th from 9-10 PM ET/PT, with an encore broadcast airing 12-1 AM ET/PT.  The memorial service, entitled STEVE IRWIN: HE CHANGED OUR WORLD, will be a same-day broadcast (with a two-hour delay) of the event Wednesday morning in Australia.  In addition, Animal Planet International is airing Steve Irwin's memorial service worldwide across Asia, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

The public memorial service for the beloved animal conservationist and television personality is being held in the “Crocoseum,” a 5,500-seat stadium at Irwin’s Australia Zoo in Beerwah, Australia.  Members of the Irwin Family, as well as Irwin’s long-time friend and producer, John Stainton, are expected to speak.  Celebrities and dignitaries worldwide are expected to attend.

Two days prior, Animal Planet is airing a 15-hour marathon of Steve Irwin’s programs on Sunday, September 17th from Noon to 3 AM ET/PT.  Throughout the marathon entitled CROCS RULE!: A TRIBUTE TO STEVE IRWIN, interstitial tributes from Irwin’s friends, colleagues and notable supporters will be featured.