David Beckham's soccer season might be over. While this certainly matters to the L.A. Galaxy, and possibly to England's national team, does it make any difference to Beckham's planned conquest of America? Probably not.

He came here as a handsome face and body, as part of a movie title ("Bend It Like Beckham," for those of you tuning in late) and as the husband of the much photographed Victoria, aka Posh Spice. He was not expecting to use soccer as springboard to bigger U.S. fame; rather, he was supposed to bring the hordes to soccer.

Whether or not he plays, Beckham will undoubtedly continue to be photographed, poster fodder for people who have never seen him play — not even on television. That audience is attracted by the look and the image, whatever that image may now prove to be.

Selected Bob Marley tunes are now available as ringtones. Announcement after the jump, including a list of the songs Verizon is offering. Which leads to this question: If you were trying to match a given Marley ringtone with someone, what would be a good match?

Verizon Wireless, the leading wireless company with the nation’s most reliable wireless voice and data network, and Universal Music Group (UMG), the world’s leading music company, announced today that Verizon Wireless customers can personalize their wireless phones with Ringtones by legendary artist and music icon Bob Marley. Available exclusively to Verizon Wireless customers, these featured tones will include classic songs by Bob Marley, including music off of the classic Island Records / Tuff Gong / UMe 1984 Bob Marley & The Wailers greatest hits collection, "Legend," the best-selling reggae album of all-time, certified 10 times platinum. …

Ed Ruth, director of digital music for Verizon Wireless, said, "These classic recordings by Bob Marley & The Wailers represent some of the best songs ever recorded – Bob Marley is an iconic singer, songwriter and performer and we’re proud to bring these Ringtones exclusively to Verizon Wireless customers in North America. This is yet another proof point to Verizon’s commitment to provide quality music – first – to our customers and reaffirms our leadership position in the mobile music business."

Verizon Wireless customers can select from more than 30,000 Ringtones and 30,000 Ringback tones today; the following Ringtones from Bob Marley & The Wailers are now available:

"Africa Unite"
"Buffalo Soldier"
"Burnin’ And Lootin' " (Live)
"Coming In From The Cold"
"Concrete Jungle" (Live)
"Could You Be Loved"
"Easy Skanking"
"Exodus"
"I Shot The Sheriff" (Live)
"Is This Love" (Live)
"Jah Live"
"Jammin' "
"Kaya"
"Kinky Reggae" (Live)
"Lively Up Yourself" (Live)
"Natural Mystic"
"One Love / People Get Ready"
"Punky Reggae Party" (Live)
"Redemption Song"
"Running Away"
"Satisfy My Soul"
"So Much Trouble In The World"
"Stir It Up" (Live)
"Sun Is Shining"
"Three Little Birds"
"Trenchtown Rock" (Live)
"Turn Your Lights Down Low"
"Waiting In Vain"

I took Friday off to help younger son move into his college room, followed by errands, chores and a little bit of extra sleep on Saturday and Sunday. I did write my weekend HeldenFiles columns, and caught up on some TV viewing, but did not get around to the blog.

Of course, there are always things to blog about. For example, the current reports that Owen Wilson has been hospitalized; CNN isn't giving a reason at the moment, but the National Enquirer is promoting "exclusive" news that it was a suicide attempt. We shall see.

Also, New York magazine has a long profile of Matt Drudge that devotes a fair amount of space to Drudge's current reluctance to be interviewed, given his own pursuit of fame — and dishing about others. I remember when Drudge was much less shy; in 1998 he attended the TV critics' summer press tour, thanks to his deal with Fox News, and he seemed to relish the fireworks his appearance generated.

The Drudge saga fits in with what I posted earlier: That I have been thinking about the nature of fame, the Britney/Paris/Lindsay/Nicole/Lauren/Heidi/whoever mob — and Albert Einstein …

I have been slowly working my way through Walter Isaacson's book "Einstein: His Life and Universe" — slowly because, even when made readable, the descriptions of Einstein's scientific work takes considerable concentration. Still, in the modern context, it's interesting to read about Einstein's difficult relationship with fame; as Isaacson notes, Einstein for the most part spent his 50th birthday in 1929 in private, in "a refuge from the publicity." But he was a Nobel Prize winner and the world's best-known scientist. A New York Times reporter tracked down Einstein and wrote a story headlined "Einstein Is Found Hiding on His Birthday."

On a trip to America beginning in December 1930, Einstein at first wanted to avoid a press conference in New York, complaining about "facing cameras and having to answer a crossfire of questions."

But even by then, Isaacson wrote, "The world, and especially America, had irrevocably entered the new age of celebrity. Aversion to fame was no longer considered natural. Publicity was still something that many proper people tended to avoid, but its lure had begun to be accepted."

Einstein went ahead with the press conference. Fifty reporters showed up, along with 50 cameramen. "The reporters asked exquisitely inane questions," Einstein wrote, "to which I replied with cheap jokes, which were enthusiastically received."

And what does this have to do with anything? Simply that, however much he may have grumbled, Einstein also felt the need for celebrity and fame. (He did not turn away that New York Times reporter on his birthday, for instance.) Actors, musicians, business tycoons, and the so-called "people famous for being famous" may gripe about some of the attention they receive — but they want other attention. At least, they want it when it suits them or their needs. They just want to control the process as much as possible. (I've written here before about celeb attempts to dictate what they can be asked, and how their comments can be used.)

Isaacson had previously noted C.P. Snow's comment about Einstein: "There was a streak in him that enjoyed the photographers and the crowds. He had an element of the exhibitionist and the ham. If there had not been that element, there would have been no photographers and no crowds. Nothing is easier to avoid than publicity. If one genuinely doesn't want it, one doesn't get it." (italics mine)

Well, one doesn't get it if one has never asked for it. But once you seek out fame, or pursue a career in which fame is a component, there's no turning back — until and unless the pursuers of the publicized turn their backs on you.

My review of "High School Musical 2" is here. My review of "Superbad" is here.

After the jump, Barry Corbin, and the perils of magazine deadlines … and a new part 2, with "Damages," "Mad Men," "Rescue Me" (so beware of spoilers if you haven't caught up)…

Barry Corbin finally appear as Brenda's father on "The Closer," and what fun it was. He is such a solid actor, able to play the comedy and drama in a character, sometimes within the same scene. He can, as he did on "The Closer," intimidate another character (in this case, Fritz), then make it a joke — and still make you remember the intimidation even as he is smiling. All that, and him playing off both Kyra Sedgwick and Frances Sternhagen. TV heaven, dropped in a sturdy episode. (The elevator scene!)

Talking to some of the "Closer" fans around my office, though, reminded me of the varieties of viewing habits. They were surprised to see Corbin's bald head, since they remembered him in the main from "Northern Exposure," where he had hair. But I;m sure there are other viewers — like my bride – who think of him the way he looked on "The Closer," because it is close to the way he looks on "One Tree Hill."

I made a magazine run last night, mainly to check on the Allure and OK! pieces about Britney Spears. (This is, after all, part of my pop culture mandate.) And while doing so, I began thinking about an item for tomorrow's HeldenFiles, probably to be called "Fun at the Newsstand."

And what was that fun? Well, there was Lindsay Lohan on the cover of the September issue of Elle, with the quote "I'm glad I went to rehab." But, as the magazine notes in the article, it's from an interview done just before her Memorial Day disaster, and the ensuing trip to rehab (which are at least described in the text with the interview) — and therefore well before her most recent troubles and her current reported stint in a Utah facility.

Then there's the Summer 2007 issue of In Style Weddings. Jennifer Morrison of "House" on the cover. Lovey-dovey pictures inside of Morrison and co-star/fiance Jesse Spencer. Description of wedding plans, discussion of The Dress.

They called off the engagement this week.

Part 2: I've been doing some catchup this weekend, for the past week's "Damages," "Rescue Me" and "Mad Men." I also have a couple of upcoming "Mad Men" I may get so, although our Viewing Of The Day is the forthcoming DVD of "Heroes."

I'm still watching "Damages" because I keep expecting it to get better. And every now and then there's something I like a great deal, like the look on Ted Danson's face when he talks about the cost of shipping a grenade. But I still think it's mainly implausible melodrama, and a clunky one at that. The time shifts from the present day (post killing) to the past (case in progress) and even to the deeper past (Florida) are just distracting; once the killing was established in the first episode, it should have settled for a more linear narrative from the case to the present day. The everybody's-got-secrets subtext is overworked, too, mainly because the secrets so far just aren't that interesting. But Glenn Close is growing on me, her behavioral tics seeming more understandable — at least, if we accept the idea that she is crazy as a bedbug. "Damages" has come one of those big potboiler novels that I'm determined to finish, even if doing so isn't all that enjoyable.

"Mad Men," in contrast, is just plain terrific. It also involves a world full of secrets, in particular those of Don Draper (the superb Jon Hamm), who has changed his name and abandoned his old life — including, we now know, an adoring younger brother. The story of Don and his wife Betty (January Jones) by itself is enough to carry a pretty good show, but the weaving in of other characters and stories remains strong. And unlike "Damages," where I feel as if I'm constantly having to fit someone new into the fabric, "Mad Men" does not overburden us in a given week by trying to tell too many stories.

Then there's "Rescue Me." For a moment this week, it had me — in the scene where Tommy is sitting on the rooftop and talking about what it means to bury your child. coming after we've gotten to the depth of Mike the ex-probie's pain. There was also the sheer amusement of the looks on Lou and Franco when they finally see what the new chief has been rumored to have. But I'm still not feeling that great old "Rescue Me" vibe. The intervention scene never quite worked. The baby-kidnapping — or was it a baby-un-kidnapping? — felt fake. The Gina Gershon scene, pointless. More and more this seems like one of those shows that had a season or two of greatness and now just can't figure out how to quit.

Since I've mentioned control-freak behavior by celebrities and studios, I should also take note of this item about a control-freak reporter. (Acknowledgement: I saw it thanks to Jim Romensko's media site.) …

You would think that a member of the press would have accepted another organization's coverage. But you could also think that it as another demonstration of the entitlement some writers come to expect once they work for the New York Times.

Couple of new, related links on Romenesko, including one about the group that let Greenhouse get away with this, and this defense of Greenhouse. But I still think she was wrong.

Interesting piece about the contemporary challenges of the celebrity interview in the Washington Post.

Since the piece talks about Gay Talese's landmark "Frank Sinatra Has a Cold," I have added an excerpt after the jump, and some remarks of my own.

I'm pondering the argument made in terms of a couple of recent profiles: A June 14 Rolling Stone profile of Amy Winehouse which seemed to be very much about the singer, and not always in a flattering way, and did that recent look at Sly Stone in Vanity Fair, which is a great deal about the piece's writer, though part of that stems from Sly's own elusiveness.

While I certainly believe that the dance described in the Post happens all too often — although the Post's classic dismantling of celebs in the '70s may have contributed to the wariness of the famous — I'm not as pessimistic as the writer.

As for Talese, having been a fan, I dug out my 1981 paperback of his collection "Fame and Obscurity," and transcribed this opening:

Frank Sinatra, holding a glass of bourbon in one hand and a cigarette in the other, stood in a dark corner of the bar between two attractive but fading blondes who sat waiting for him to say something. But he said nothing; he had been silent during much of the evening, except now in this private club in Beverly Hills he seemed even more distant, staring out through the smoke and semidarkness into a large room beyond the bar where dozens of young couples sat huddled around small tables or twisted in the center of the floor to the clamorous clang of folk-rock music blaring from the stereo. The two blondes knew, as did Sinatra's four male friends who stood nearby, that it was a bad idea to force conversation upon him when he was in this mood of sullen silence, a mood that had hardly been uncommon during this first week of November, a month before his fiftieth birthday.

Just that little bit gives me a sweating admiration and envy. But I should also mention why the title, "Frank Sinatra Has a Cold," is significant.

…when (a cold) gets to Sinatra it can plunge him into a state of anguish, deep depression, panic, even rage. … Sinatra with a cold is Picasso without paint, Ferrari without fuel — only worse. For the common cold robs Sinatra of that uninsurable jewel, his voice, cutting into the core of his confidence. …

ABC does well, Fox not — although Fox gets a bit of praise that highlights the real meaning of diversity. More after the jump …

Here's the release from GLAAD on its new study of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender characters on network TV:

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) today released its inaugural GLAAD Network Responsibility Index, a first-of-its-kind report that maps the quantity, quality and diversity of images of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people on network television. ABC, with shows like Brothers & Sisters and Ugly Betty, received the highest ranking of the five networks. NBC, once home to Will & Grace, ranked fourth, and FOX scored lowest.

Please Note: The 12th Annual GLAAD Where We Are On TV diversity report will be issued in early September. This analysis will examine LGBT inclusion as well as the gender and race/ethnicity of all scripted characters scheduled to appear during the upcoming season.

As for Fox's failing grade, the complete report includes this note about the network:

While FOX’s numbers were lowest, their impressions reflected a great deal of LGBT diversity. In fact, 46 of its 99 LGBT impressions included people of Middle Eastern-American descent (Kenny from The War at Home and Richard from The Winner both made several significant appearances). FOX also had 12 gay Latino impressions and one gay African American character throughout the year.

That's an important note, because it reminds people that diversity is a complicated issue — that if all your gay characters are white, then you've embraced one kind of diversity but overlooked another. As the full report notes:

LGBT impressions on NBC and ABC overwhelmingly featured white representations (80% and 83%, respectively) in their drama, comedy and unscripted areas. NBC had 12 gay Latino and eight African American impressions, while ABC featured eight Latino, 19 African American, and 10 Asian Pacific Islander (API) impressions, the highest API representation of any network.

Covering just about any entertainment medium these days can involve some tap-dances, but I really don't like the steps that I'm having to take for "The Simpsons Movie." …

To be sure, I have spent most of my recent years covering television, where the rules about reviewing TV shows and interviewing stars are generally pretty simple. Review copies will arrive with requests not to give away spoilers, for one thing. And when the pilots for new shows are sent out in the late spring (basically to provide more information for show-related interviews on the summer press tour), the networks ask that they not be reviewed since things could change before the shows actually air. Of course, my colleagues and I still write about the shows — but take some pains to note that the comments are not a review of what you'll see in the fall. (And things really do change, especially in casting.)

Interviews, as well, can be subject to negotiation. I've been offered some interviews only if I agree to write a story only about the star in question, not packaged with other interviews. (I've usually said that I may write only about that person, but I won't guarantee it, since another interview may come along that fits with it, and the interviews haven't happened.)

Sometimes publicists will ask that certain topics not be brought up, and I've been in situations where publicists cut off lines of questioning they deemed inappropriate. (I've also seen ground rules set, and then ignored by the actor being interviewed, when a tactfully phrased question eased the pre-interview resistance.) One of the nice things about talking to Kellie Pickler, mentioned in a previous post, is that there were no ground rules beforehand, and she fielded my questions. Contrast that to Star Jones's ridiculous recent attempt to fend off questions about her makeover.

I blame the movie biz for such behavior, since control freaks have tried to run the movie media for years. When Victoria Beckham wanted written control of some interview comments, it was reasonable to think that the Beckhams are claiming chumminess with Tom Cruise, whose rep for controlling behavior is well known.

Then there's the nonsense I've been going through regarding "The Simpsons Movie." It's going to be available for preview a few days before its premiere, and I expect to see it and write about it. But before I go to the preview, I've been told that I have to hold my print review until the day the movie opens locally.

I wasn't pleased to be told when a review could run, but printing it on opening day is consistent with what we do with most reviews, so I can live with that. Then, today, I got an e-mail wanting "written confirmation" that I wouldn't post notes about the movie in this blog before opening day.

As you know, I routinely post comments here shortly after seeing movies, as I did recently with "Hairspray" and "Talk to Me." They're not reviews, but, I'm told, would be considered reviews by the "Simpsons" folks — and they're working hard to control the news about their movie, as this Los Angeles Times story indicates.

Once again, I don't like the idea that I'm being told when I can write about something by the people I'm writing about. Beyond that, though, what "The Simpsons Movie" wants to do seems practically impossible. If, as the Times story says, it's opening July 24 in LA, then there will be plenty of buzz on the Internet that same day, if not sooner. (I have to think some blogger is going to get into the Springfield, Vt., premiere — part of a "Simpsons" promotional contest — reportedly scheduled for July 21.)

Holding back a review in Akron does not stop the flow of information for people here. I am sure that by the time I write more about "Talk To Me" for its Northeast Ohio opening date, plenty of people will know all they want about the movie because it has already opened in other cities and been widely reviewed.

Even the understanding about the print review is looking more absurd, since some theaters in Ohio and elsewhere will begin showing "The Simpsons Movie" at the stroke of midnight on July 27 — and "The Simpsons" strikes me as real midnight-movie material — so some people will see the print review later that morning, after they've seen the movie.

The wisest course for "The Simpsons Movie" was, and is, to make it available to reviewers with a simple "Have at it," and let the judgments fall where they may. If nothing else, then I wouldn't feel so cranky about the movie before seeing it.

Starting today, you'll be seeing posts around the blogosphere from the Television Critics Association summer press tour in California. But you won't find them here …

The people who have the final say on such matters have decided not to send me this year, ending a summer tour run that began in 1984. I don't agree with the decision, of course. But, as should be evident from regular reading of Romenesko, these are tough times for newspapers, and hard decisions are being made all over the place.

I still have a job, and one that I like. As much as I will miss the tour's newsgathering opportunities and the chance to see old friends, I am enjoying the idea of a July where I get to home at night.

And, even without the tour, we should have plenty of things to talk about.

A good story from CBS, via Jim Romenesko's site. …

On CBS's Public Eye, Richard Roth recalls following Pope John Paul II, and was asked about covering a religious leader as opposed to a political leader. His reply:

It’s funny you should ask, because I started covering the Pope back in 1981. And I’d only been there a few weeks when my foreign editor called and told me that martial law had just been declared in Poland and he said “Who’s the most famous Pole in Rome?” He woke me up to ask me this. I said “Peter, I’ve only been here a short time. I don’t really have all my sources down. I don’t know.” He said “Think, Richard. Who’s the most best-known Pole in Rome?” And I stumbled around and he said “Think religion.” And then I realized immediately that he meant the Pope. And he said “Go find out what he thinks about martial law in Poland.”

But I tried the same approach a few days later in an audience at the Vatican and he ignored me. I was then told by the security detail that if I tried that again, my Vatican press credentials would be pulled. So I realized that I had hit the limit of dealing with a religious figure of that stature as if he were a politician.

I think that I have written before about the way watching TV has come to require watching TV. But the evidence keeps piling up, as in this announcement today:

ESPN, ABC and the National Basketball Association (NBA) will significantly expand their global relationship with ESPN’s most comprehensive digital rights package negotiated with any major professional sports league and enhanced television coverage in an eight-year extension beginning in 2008-09, it was announced today. … Under the terms of the new deal, the NBA will deliver content for 17 ESPN platforms, including: ABC, ABC HD, ESPN, ESPN HD, ESPN2, ESPN2 HD, ESPNEWS, ESPN Classic, ESPN Deportes, ESPN International, ESPN Radio, ESPN.com, ESPN360.com, ESPN Mobile Publishing, ESPN Mobile TV, ESPNU and ESPN podcasts. The deal will also cover all new platforms ESPN creates or develops relationships with through the end of the agreement in 2016.

That ties in with the announcement a couple of weeks ago from CBS about "Big Brother" (continued after the jump) …

This one is an epic:

CBS's BIG BROTHER 8 multi-platform initiative includes the following elements:

"HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD BLOG" returns for its second season in which fans will be able to hear straight from the Head of Household about life in the BIG BROTHER house, what it is like to be under the constant gaze of dozens of cameras and watched live on the Internet 24/7.

Now, how much of that will you actually watch? And I ask that while admitting to a certain amount of old-and-in-the-way-ness when it comes to TV and technology. I've embraced HD, YouTube, some online elements and streaming video — more and more often catching up with TV shows via their online replays. On the other hand, I'm out of the loop regarding mobile TV and video iPods (and have a hard time with the very idea of watching something on a screen that small).

To be sure, for someone who just can't get enough basketball or "Big Brother," all those extra elements are a Godsend — not to mention an incentive to spend extra money, to the delight of the people running the Web sites and the phone companies. But I worry that the platforming of information makes the simple act of watching television that much more difficult because it's just one component of a larger and more complicated information flow, and you're not getting everything you need just from the TV screen. That's certainly happened with cable vs. broadcast — cable filling niches that broadcast can then abandon, even though some people cannot pay the cost of getting what they want on cable.

Mark Cuban has a few thoughts here. I have a couple of reactions, after the jump …

The first is that the sort of convergence he is describing has been happening on a small scale. You have broadcast journalists blogging, and you have guys like me writing for a print edition of the Beacon, writing online and podcasting occasionally. Adding a videographer to the mix wouldn't be that big a stretch — except that, as some of Cuban's commenters noted, the visual demands of TV include reasonably good-looking people with voices that won't offend the audience's ear.

I also wonder, in the sort of big news convergence Cuban is talking about, who breaks the tie when it comes to presentation? Will the skills of TV be deemed more important than those of print, or the other way around? Will the workhorses capable of churning out stories for multimedia be the gold standard, or will it be personalities (whether from print or other media) whose output is less important than their connection to the audience?

If only for last night's "Top 10 Signs Your Newspaper Is In Trouble"":

10. Covers all the news that happens within one block of the office.

9. Today's exclusive: "Nixon Dead!"

8. Reporter sent to jail for refusing to divulge a source … Oh, and he also killed a dude.

7. All horoscopes: "Now would be a good time to get out of the newspaper business."

6. Paper's motto: "Suck it!"

5. Every "hot gossip" item is about Jack Klugman.

4. Managing editor and the guy who wheels around breakfast? Same guy.

3. Under "weather," it just reads "yes."

2. Instead of "Garfield," has a comic strip called "Garfunkel."

1. You endorsed Dennis Kucinich.

A curious comment from David Broder, after the jump …

This from a new Broder column:

I had never heard Imus's broadcast, because I am a longtime fan of NPR's "Morning Edition," which is on at the same time. I was stunned to learn how many of the journalists I admire had been regular guests on the program. Many are now having a hard time explaining their association.

Aside from the way that "stunned" echoes like Louis's "I'm shocked" in "Casablanca," I find Broder's comment curious because part of his job should have included listening to Imus.

After all, Broder, according to one bio, is "a national political correspondent reporting the political scene for The Washington Post." Politicians —
as well as some of the people covering them — used Imus's show as a pulpit.

Broder has a long-standing reputation as one of the great reporters on politics. So maybe he was reading wire reports or transcripts of the interviews on Imus. Still, there's a strong whiff of elitism in his saying that he was too busy listening to NPR to check out a commercial talk-radio show.

We're not even arguing about generational bias here — the way David Brinkley said he did not watch MTV, even when Bill Clinton was using it as a political platform — since Imus was hardly a kid. Broder just sounds snobbish.

And considering his job, he should have checked on Imus once in a while. Sounds as if he would have found something to write about.

The New York Times tries to explain a screwup, after the jump …

I found this on a link at Radaronline.com, and it was such an epic correction/clarification, I had to pass it on:

The cover article in The Times Magazine on March 18 reported on women who served in Iraq, the sexual abuse that some of them endured and the struggle for all of them to reclaim their prewar lives. One of the servicewomen, Amorita Randall, a former naval construction worker, told The Times that she was in combat in Iraq in 2004 and that in one incident an explosive device blew up a Humvee she was riding in, killing the driver and leaving her with a brain injury. She also said she was raped twice while she was in the Navy.

Based on the information that came to light after the article was printed, it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq, but may have become convinced she did. Since the article appeared, Ms. Randall herself has questioned another member of her unit, who told Ms. Randall that she was not deployed to Iraq. If The Times had learned these facts before publication, it would not have included Ms. Randall in the article

Halle's from Cleveland and maintains ties to the area. So she brought her latest movie, Perfect Stranger, to town for a preview screening on Thursday. And that barely describes the fun …

What follows is an account of the preview, as seen from behind the velvet rope where the press congregated. Just in case you're curious about the way these things work.

The preview was in a lot of ways a large-scale photo op. Some of us had talked to Halle and to co-star Giovanni Ribisi before the preview, during a press event she did in Chicago. That event was clearly a grind; they were still doing interviews early Thursday afternoon before catching a plane to Cleveland for the preview that night. But it's part of their business, and both were pleasant and accommodating when I talked to them.

Anyway, at the Cinemark Valley View, they set up a red carpet leading from the entrance to the theater and across the lobby, with spots for the individual media operations marked along the way — print nearest the door, TV and radio in the more visually impressive lobby. About 10 feet back from the press side of the red carpet was another line of velvet rope; people attending the movie stood behind it. Well, some of them, but we'll get to that.

Most of us staked out our spots by the rope about an hour before the stars were due in, then watched the details of the event: the arrival of people with VIP passes (among them the Browns' Braylon Edwards), a publicist handing out welcoming signs — drawn to look spontaneous and hand-made — to people in the crowd. Quite a crowd, too. The line snaked across the lobby, past the entrance and along the outside of the theater, where folks endured the rain. The crowd was so big, in fact, that some people were turned finally turned away from the screening. Publicists can usually hand out more passes than they have seats, because a lot of the pass-getters won't show up; with Halle expected, the turnout this time was huge.

The arrival time came and went, and more time after that. The crowd grew larger and more restive, and people began moving from the line across the first velvet rope and over near where the press line was. And then began to meld into the line wherever a spot seemed open. Others formed a line outside the door; autographs would be sought, including on a lot of "Gothika" posters, photographs would be snapped, a personal connection would be desired.

One young woman elbowed her way up to the press rope and kept leaning out to see who was coming. I asked her once to move back a little so the Beacon Journal photographer could get a shot. She moved briefly, then edged in again. In fact, if she had been a little bigger, I am sure she would have body-checked me out of my spot. As the celebrities began to arrive and she shoved forward more, I said, "I don't want to be unpleasant, but I'm working here." "So am I," she said. "I'm writing a paper for my school."

About 40 minutes later than expected, Ribisi arrived. The plan was to go down the carpet, pausing for a minute or two with each media outlet. But the surge of fans made that a little ungainly at the beginning of the line. Still, when he paused in front of me, we shook hands, I reminded him we had talked earlier, and I asked a couple of questions about his feelings about the crowd and the scene. "This is massive," he said, and a few other things, and then we exchanged a few more words before he moved on.

Then Halle appeared. Shrieks. Screams. Crowd charging forward. The print reporter at the beginning of the line didn't get near here. Hands were reaching out on every side of me. Halle paused in front of me, and took off her gold trenchcoat, to more shouts from the crowd. Behind me, someone held out a paper and asked for an autograph. She asked for something to write with. Apparently the seeker didn't have anything. I offered her my pen — a yellow-and-blue University of Akron Residence Hall Activities pen, by the way. For a moment, she hesitated; I'm guessing she was waiting for me to provide a piece of paper for her to sign. But when I offered the pen again, she took it, signed the first autograph and another one or two after that.

Then she gave me back my pen. The woman knows her manners. As she did that, I reintroduced myself and asked my couple of questions. And yes, I asked what designer she was wearing (Dolce & Gabbana). It was actually the second time I had asked; when we talked on the phone earlier, she had not yet decided what to wear.

Moment over. Halle moved on, still talking to people, still signing autographs, then stopping to chat with a girl on crutches. The talk went on a bit, then Halle hugged her and kept on. I went over the rope, rather clumsily and around to where the girl was to get her name. Danielle Lee, by the way. And very impressed by Halle.

As the stars kept working the red carpet, those of us who were done moved around to watch the scene and check a few details. (I did not figure out by myself that her dress was champagne-colored.) Then we went inside, to sit in the theater where Halle and Giovanni were going to introduce the movie. Quite some time later, the photographers came in, shaking their heads over the wild scene in the lobby, the fans swarming over the media like the "300's" Persians mobbing Spartans.

Then the theater ceremony began. The mayor of Cleveland introduced Giovanni. He said a few words but was uncomfortable, expecting Halle to join him right away. Then she did, to more applause. She spoke a bit and then asked if anyone had questions.

At that point, even though I was interested in what she had to say, my heart sank.

Let me back up and explain the technical logistics attached to this event. The photographer and I are about an hour's drive from the office. It made more sense to transmit the photos and my copy, especially since the office wanted everything around 9. That meant finding a wireless connection someplace close to the theater.

Hello, Panera.

At the office we had mapped out a Panera not far away. But it closed at 9. It was 8:15 when Halle invited questions.

Fifteen minutes of softballs later, Halle and Giovanni said goodbye and headed out the back of the Cinemark. We reporters and photographers zipped to our cars. (I had already seen the movie.) By about 8:45 I was walking into Panera, and saw the photographer at the counter. He ordered a salad, figuring they were less likely to boot us at closing if he had a big salad to eat.

He set up at one table. Armed with a pastry, I sat at another, tapped into the wireless connection, hooked up to the system at the office and wrote a top for today's HeldenFiles about the event. I was done a little after 9, but we were in no danger of them shutting us down. Four other people were sitting and chatting over the remains of their selections. I called the office, made sure the copy had gotten through and signed off. By about 9:15 I was headed home — and done except for a cell-phone call to the office to add one more detail to what I wrote.

I've been a little lax about posting after a weekend that included my wedding anniversary dinner, younger son acting in a production of "Peter Pan," some household activities and a shooting death …

As many of you may know, my work at the Beacon Journal also includes being part of a rotation of reporters on weekends and some nights. About a week ago, for example, I found myself covering a local school board meeting. And on Saturday, I was the early-morning reporter, where one task involves catching up on police reports from the night before.

And, in the early hours of Saturday, a 19-year-old Akron man was shot and killed. The police at first issued a press release saying an officer had killed the man; more recent reports have police shooting him, but him then committing suicide.

I don't have to say any more to let you know it's a case with considerable controversy, and not the kind that comes with issues of who gets kicked off a reality show. This was, as a co-worker noted, real reality — with much higher stakes than the TV kind.

That made the story one that screamed immediately "don't mess up." Any mistake would give some readers an excuse to dismiss or decry the story even more than their points of view would demand with a thorough and correct story.

As far as I know, I managed not to; the story I wrote quoted both the police and the man's family, as well as another young man who witnessed the incident. All comments were duly attributed, so readers could decide if the speaker had an agenda. Even though the story has changed, I wrote what was being said at the time.

Of course, it's still a no-win. Some readers complained that our coverage was anti-police. I had no such intention. I made sure to quote the police account of events very high in the story, for one thing, and contacted a police spokesman for reaction to the family's comments.

Also, because of what I do most of the time, one reader questioned my ability to cover the story.

"I am surprised that the Editor would allow a 'movie critic' to publish such an article until all of the facts were heard," the e-mail said. "Maybe Mr. Heldenfels should stick to being a movie critic and not an investigative reporter."

To be sure, I would have been quite happy to be with my family instead of on the job that Saturday. And yes, I have spent most of my career writing about entertainment — though television more than movies. But this was the hand I was dealt.

I did what I've done with stories, entertainment and otherwise, for the 30-plus years that newspapers have been willing to pay me. I collected information, then collected more information. I talked to my editor to see if we were missing anything. I then wrote a story that aimed to be as clear and direct as possible — including clear about the areas of the story where different people told different stories.

As for all the facts being heard, this was a breaking story; you get it in the paper with as much information as can be gathered at the time. There was no question that there would be follow-up stories, and more information, and that it would get in the paper, too. There was too much reality here for one story to contain it.

Over the weekend I caught a little bit of "Teacher's Pet," the 1958 comedy starring Clark Gable as a hard-bitten newspaper editor and Doris Day as a journalism teacher. I've always been kind of fond of it and even as a kid I learned a journalism lesson that can still hold — the one about the virtue of brevity in storytelling.

That — along with working the night shift at the office — got me thinking again about the great newspaper movies — there's a little too much fluff in that one to qualify — but, when you get down to it, I didn't have much to add to lists that are already circulating like this one. and this one.

I don't know if that's a function of the relative lack of interesting newspaper movies, or that certain movies are more likely to appeal to those of us who wear our ink stains like merit badges. Well, at least those of us who still find a use for ink.

That said, some movies have aged better than others. "All the President's Men" now feels more like an old-fashioned romance than a modern view of news media.

On the other hand, "Deadline USA" just keeps improving with age — some 55 years after it was made. Sure, there's some romance to it. But the pivotal event involves the demise of a great newspaper because its owners want to cash out. You think that doesn't echo with the staffs of current newspapers?

Even before it became all too plausible, "Deadline USA" was one of my favorite newspaper movies. But not the only one. Some other faves:

"-30-." It combines my fascination with the business with my fascination with Jack Webb. And, like so much of Webb's work, it combines stylized acting with a love of the nuts and bolts of a business.

"The Paper." Ron Howard's movie is a little too slick in spots, but still. Jason Robards. Glenn Close fretting over money. Swaggering, snotty Michael Keaton. And it was stronger than a lot of newspaper movies in its feel for competitiveness. Bad journalism movies often act as if there's only one news organization in a town, and one reporter on a hot story. The people of "The Paper" are constantly aware that others are chasing a story, and they have to beat them.

"His Girl Friday." The best big-screen rendition of "The Front Page," the dialogue rapid-fire, the performances wonderful from Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell — and Russell was a representation of all the tough, smart women in journalism then and now.

"Between the Lines." I know, it's not about a daily newspaper, but an alternative publication in the style of the Village Voice, Rolling Stone and other counterculture publications. In the manner of "Deadline USA," it is about commerce overtaking journalistic ideals — with the great Lane Smith as the bringer of doom. That notion is even more pointed in the casting of Jeff Goldblum as one of the reporters — since about six years later Goldblum would play a jaded writer for People magazine in "The Big Chill." But it's also about the joy that comes with doing important work. And the cast includes Stephen Collins, Joe Morton, John Heard, Lindsay Crouse, Jill Eikenberry and Bruno Kirby.

"Come Fill the Cup." If for no other reason, I'm including this because, if we have newspaper man Bogart in "Deadline USA," we need newspaperman James Cagney in something. But he's also very good in this movie as an alcoholic newsman — and you can't write the history of journalism without admitting that a lot of cups were filled along the way.

"Meet John Doe." Not entirely a newspaper movie — politics suffuses it as well — but watch the reporting in it and tell me you don't get a sense of the contemporary tabloid culture. Barbara Stanwyck flat out makes up someone — and soon enough her newspaper is playing along with the fraud and building on it, because it sells newspapers. This would make an interesting double bill with "Shattered Glass."

I've been vacillating over whether to include "All the President's Men." It's certainly a key newspapering touchstone — Redford and Hoffman dig for news! — and the story is well told. But it, like the book on which it was based, suggested a glamour and glory about newspapering that attracted people that you can spend long, hard years in this business and never take down a president.

I may think of more later, but that's a place to start. Anyone want to add, subtract and otherwise argue?

During my daily — actually, several times daily — check of Jim Romenesko's media site, I came across a link to a note from Roger Ebert in which he talks about his most recent medical crisis. Sounds pretty harrowing, but ultimately optimistic, with a good sentiment at the end.

Dan Rather has come and gone. There's some debate over whether he followed Shannen Doherty's tears with some of his own, but it was clear that he choked up some when talking about Edward R. Murrow.

I've written a column about his press conference for tomorrow's Beacon Journal and will post a link later. But I didn't get into a couple of things there. One was Rather's reference to having worked for a living — meaning tough manual labor when he was young — and how television is pretty eapressy compared to that. It was interesting to me because I remember him saying much the same thing at a press conference in New York City about 20 years ago. (So many things in my life now come with the phrase "about 20 years ago.") It always stuck with me — as a reminder that, no matter how self-important some TV newsgatherers may get, they're doing it for an audience of people home after a day of genuinely hard work.

The other thing I didn't get into is what a boon Rather is to HDNet. As I said when he left CBS, he was going to end up working somewhere, because network newscasters do. (Ted Koppel will be here tomorrow, wearing his new hat for the Discovery Channel.) And one reason they get work is that they're brand names, and they bring attention to places that might not get so noticed. HDNet is mentioned in a lot of places today, and will be in other places tomorrow, because it had Rather in the house. Even though he has only done a promotional tape for the channel so far, he's already earning his paycheck.

Not long ago we had our farewell to Knight Ridder, which ceases to exist today, with the Beacon Journal and other papers going to new owners.

I've been thinking about this moment and decided there were our a couple of things I didn't want to do. First of all, I'm not going to give you some speech about this moment and John S. Knight. It isn't that Knight was a flawed man who became a powerful symbol (not unlike broadcasting's Edward R. Murrow). It's that Knight had been dead a decade before I began working for the company bearing his name, so my connection is that I know people who knew Knight, and the company I worked for went through some un-Knightly turmoil.

I don't want to compare this to a death, especially a death in the family. It's a sad and painful moment, but lately I have seen people dealing with the death of people they loved, and this is not that. A newspaper, even a newspaper chain, is made up of thousands of living, breathing organisms — I am one of them — and we will be out showing what life and breath can achieve tomorrow.

In fact, thanks to a video and talk by the Beacon Journal's Doug Oplinger, today was inspiring. It reminded me of the noble work people do under often trying circumstances. It made me wish I had done a better job along the way — and it made me hope I will do better tomorrow.

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.

I recently put my 200th post on this blog. I didn't pay much attention to it at the time. But I should have. If my blog was a TV show, 200 posts would be a TV event.

If I had paid proper attention to my blog, the 200th post would be a Very Special Beacon TV. I might have offered highlights of previous posts, and sit on my couch with the other members of the Beacon TV cast to talk about it. We would agree that we're like a family — "a dysfunctional family!" someone would quip — but that we really cherish working together, and  that we spend a lot of time hanging out off-blog. The network has always been very supportive, even in the tough times, we would say. The vision of the show is strong. We're doing our best work.

I could also have outtakes from the blog — basically some really bad ideas that I started and never finished. There could even be bloopers, most of which would involve my inept attempts at pasting in network press releases and linking to other sites. For instance, I wasted a bunch of time today because I kept clicking on an "envelope" logo — for e-mail — instead of a "chain link" logo — to link to another site.

Wouldn't that be a great moment for my special? Or I could save it for an extra on the "Beacon TV" DVD.

Some of the clips would have to go with my interview on my network's morning show. The two-hour primetime news-magazine tribute will wait until the night of my very last Beacon TV post, and I'm not ready to leave the network yet.

On the other hand, I might get some prime time on cable. James Lipton could have me on "Inside the Actors Studio." He would have done some amazing research about me. I would look impressed and a tad embarrassed, but would remember that he introduced me as "not merely someone whose place in the blogging pantheon has long been assured, but one who has turned the ether of the Internet in the ambrosia of literature."

Anyway, back on the morning show, the host would giggle at my every joke and urge people to check out my Very Special Beacon TV. Sort of like being on E! just after I won something. The host would sound very sincere, too, and no one would ever, ever think that it was all a big sham set up just because we were on the same network. News is news, right? The show would have me on because my 200th blog is a watershed event, not simply as marketing. Right?

But the buildup to the 200th episode would be worth it. I would have decided not to do the clip show (which will work much better as the hour-long special before my extended-edition Beacon TV finale, which I haven't announced yet). Instead, I would make the 200th post "a Beacon TV unlike any you have ever seen before."

– Someone would die unexpectedly (except to all the people who had found out and posted it on a message board).

–  Or I would announce that I was leaving Beacon TV to join the world tennis tour, only to be brought back at episode's end when I realized that Beacon TV was the best home I had ever had.

– Or another cast member would be desperately ill, and — in an Emmy-nominated moment — I would cry and pray for my co-star's recovery, and the audience would cheer when she came out of her coma.

– Or I'd just bare my soul, and my butt.

All this would be even better because I would have timed my 200th post for sweeps. Great promo opportunity. Not that I would do this just to bring more people to Beacon TV. I would be pushing the envelope, expanding my range, stretching my acting, proving my chops, taking a risk and pursuing my art. It's too bad I missed my chance.

Maybe for the 300th post…

As I mentioned in a previous post, TV stars have had a tough time being declared People magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive." So it is again, as the 2005 winner is Matthew McConaughey. You can read more about him here, including a profile that makes McConaughey sound very Playboy Playmate-like. An excerpt: "McConaughey is fluent in Spanish, cites the dictionary as his favorite book ('I love to look up words') and calls his mom, Kay, every Sunday." I didn't read far enough to see if it listed his turn-ons and turn-offs.

As for TV, the magazine does have a list — and photos — of 13 runners-up for SMA: Patrick Dempsey, Terrence Howard, Viggo Mortensen, Vince Vaughn, Nick Lachey, Heath Ledger, Daniel Dae Kim, Keith Urban, Ian McShane, Matt Damon, Denis Leary, Anderson Cooper and Clive Owen.

Fair number of TV folk there — Dempsey, Kim, Cooper, McShane (because of "Deadwood") and Leary (for "Rescue Me"). You could also make an argument for Lachey, thanks to "Newlyweds," and Howard, who besides making movies is a presence on TV ("Lackawanna Blues," "Their Eyes Were Watching God").

Today's mail included the latest issue of Inside TV, the attempt by the company behind TV Guide to make a glossy, celeb-oriented magazine. The cover photos include Jennifer Aniston, Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel of "Gilmore Girls" and Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie as part of a "Paris Vs Nicole" piece that dominates the cover.

But apparently people are getting their Paris/Nicole fix elsewhere (I'm especially fond of www.hollywoodrag.com ) because Inside TV is about done. Its owner has said it will shut down the magazine to focus on, well, other stuff. If you want details you can find them  in a release at www.gemstartvguide.com.

I think one of the biggest problems for Inside TV was the way that it seemed indistinguishable from many other magazines — including its revamped sister publication. In a Beacon Journal column in October, I said the new TV Guide "reminded me of Inside TV."

I could have gone on to point out nuanced differences, that Inside TV seemed to aim for a younger audience than TV Guide, that it was somewhat gushier about celebs, and that it took even less time to read. (What was that line in "The Big Chill," that each article had to be short enough to be read during a bathroom sit-down? Shows how things have changed in the 20-some years since the movie was made. Now you have celeb magazines that can be finished before you are.) But now there's no point. The magazine is going in less time than a flash-in-the-pan actor's career.

Also headed to the boneyard is "Night Stalker," ABC's attempt to modernize the old Darren McGavin franchise. I wasn't a fan of the show, and thought some of the plotting was painfully obvious. I wonder if it might have done better with another leading man, since Stuart Townsend was a big blank in the middle of the show. But the point's moot now.

It's the day after an election and one that went badly for President Bush and his crowd, and that was a big story today; for awhile it looked even bigger than the hearings with the oil companies. (And am I the only one to find it just the tiniest bit convenient that gas prices were dropping in the days leading up the hearings, and have popped up again now that the exercise is over?) We probably would still be hearing politics were it not for in Jordan, which gave the cable news outlets a fresh reason for big red graphics and split screens.

But there's one thing the anti-Bush celebrators are getting wrong about the current climate. They spend too much time talking about approval ratings.

We hear a lot in the news about that particular barometer of politicians. You know, "40 percent of Americans think that President Bush would kick a dog if he thought no one was looking," versus "20 percent of Americans believe that any dog meeting President Bush would immediately lick his hand." And because President Bush's ratings have been low, there's been a lot of arguing about whether that affects other elections, and how his ratings stack up against other presidents. ("I happen to know," a Fox News pundit would surely declare, "that 55 percent of people thought Bill Clinton would not only kick a dog, he would then steal its bone and dish!")

But approval ratings don't mean anything. And I say that even though that my personal approval rating of President Bush requires negative numbers. The ratings don't mean anything, because they don't tell you what the other choice is.

If I don't like President Bush, but he runs against a guy I dislike even more, I am going to have to hold my nose and vote for Bush.

All right, it's unlikely that there was a Democrat bad enough to make me do that.

But let's say it's 2008 and the Republicans have gotten behind Bill Frist. Joe Undecided is looking at Frist's scandals, and the Terri Schiavo thing, and the fights in the Senate, and he thinks, this guy is bad.  But then he looks across the ballot and there's Sleepy, Doc or Dopey. Or there's someone who's not really terrible, but who has just been the target of so many attack ads that he wishes people thought he was Sleepy, Doc or Dopey. Who's Joe going to vote for?

So-called news experts will try to convince you that low approval ratings do matter. I heard one pundit today saying that the low approval ratings encourage people to run against you. But that's not a good thing, either. If all the hacks smell blood, then all the hacks run and attack each other in the primaries. The Last Hack Standing has then handed the opposition a stack of nasty quotes and ideas — from other Democrats.

Here's what you want if you're planning to be president. A year or two before the election, you want the guy on the other ticket to have huge approval ratings. Enormous. You want him to seem heroic, a winner, a champ. You want him to look so good that no one in his right mind would run against this guy. Because then the guys who are crazy enough to run might also turn out to be smart enough to win.

A wacky scenario? Remember the elder George Bush's approval ratings after the Gulf War? Remember that only nuts no one knew much about were willing to take him on? Remember that one of those nuts was named Clinton?

So come on, people. When those pollsters come around, tell them that W. is doing a terrific job. Say you love him. Get his approval rating up, and that of any other Republican who might want the White House. Then we can enjoy the confounded look on the experts' faces in three years — when they're trying to explain how someone with such high approval ratings got trounced.