The War For Late Night: Chapter 1
Joe Hass
can't believe I did not walk down to Borders to pick up the book the
moment I hit the office this morning, I am going to go in the realm of
redemption and do a basic chapter-by-chapter breakdown as much as
possible without really giving away the book (not that you don't know
how it ends). If anyone else is reading and wants to chime in, please
feel free to do so.
One of the great things about being around her for so long plus being
on Google is that I can quickly jump back and see a certain point in
time. "Comedy Tonight" focuses entirely on the events of May 19, 2009.
(If I remember Late Shift correctly, Carter's first chapter there was
solely about the 1991 NBC upfront that Carson announced his retirement
from) The conversation around here was primarily on the ABC upfront
that afternoon. I could not find a reference at all what NBC did that
night: basically make this pseudo-upfront show based primarily on the
comedy chops of the network. It featured Leno, O'Brien, Fallon, Jerry
Seinfeld (your unannounced guest star), and Brian Williams (who hosted
the event).
This, it becomes clear, was the first instant when NBC could've had
their GOB "I've made a huge mistake" moment. Every single person
listed above except one killed. Leno (who was the closing act) didn't
just bomb, but spectacularly died, in a manner that, even if you're in
the "Leno can DIAF*" camp, will make you wince. Carter mentions Lorne
Michaels thought that Leno was effectively "singing for his supper,"
but even if you discount that (and I completely do), it's just...it's
wow. The story of the NBC execs who are trapped in the front row
watching this and getting messages is excellent. But most of all, it's
watching a moment where everyone could've
That something this utterly traumatic happened without anyone
mentioning a word about it in at the time this environment is
unbelievable.
donz5
career background that led him to LN in '93. So far I'm enjoying the
book a hell of a lot, but I'm surprised no copyeditor took notice of
the very first sentence in Chapter 1:
"By eight thirty on the evening of May 19, 2009, a stream of cabs and
limos was snaking slowing down West Forty-third Street..."
One doesn't go "down" W. 43rd St.; one goes "across" W. 43rd St. One
goes "down," say, 5th Avenue, since it's a north-south passage. 43rd
Street is east-west, and so one goes "across" it, not "down."
You'd think that someone as familiar with NYC as Carter is wouldn't
have made this mistake.
Jon Delfin
> I'm a few chapters ahead of you; just finished Conan's extensive
> career background that led him to LN in '93. So far I'm enjoying the
> book a hell of a lot, but I'm surprised no copyeditor took notice of
> the very first sentence in Chapter 1:
>
> "By eight thirty on the evening of May 19, 2009, a stream of cabs and
> limos was snaking slowing down West Forty-third Street..."
>
> One doesn't go "down" W. 43rd St.; one goes "across" W. 43rd St. One
> goes "down," say, 5th Avenue, since it's a north-south passage. 43rd
> Street is east-west, and so one goes "across" it, not "down."
>
> You'd think that someone as familiar with NYC as Carter is wouldn't
> have made this mistake.
Is that transcribed correctly? Seems to want a comma, at least. And
wouldn't the "down" link to "slowing," as if to say the traffic on W43
was being slowed down?
Joe Hass
individual threads, so I'll just keep going in this one.
Chapter 2 ("Sell-By Date") focuses on the machinations of the 2004
negotiations that set all this up, both Jay's sense that he was being
fired but given a five-year severance package and Conan's team epic
desire to lock in "The Tonight Show" for him. In a way, I think most
of us who followed the story knows this part: Jeff Zucker, even back
then, wanted it both ways. But he may have been the only guy who
really did: Bob Wright and Rick Ludwin (not exactly lower-level names
on the org chart) both were Conan fans. Indeed, the only guy who
seemed in 2004 to have a total lack of awareness of the sea change
taking place was, unfortunately, the one guy who was able to do
anything about it in Zucker. To read how Conan was being courted by
everyone (even, very gently, by CBS after Dave was being courted by
ABC) in 2004 is one of those "you knew, but you didn't *know*"
moments.
There's a discussion about Zucker and Ludwin going out to LA to meet
with Jay (aside: Jay and Conan are always referred to by their first
name on all references) and that "Inside, however, Jay was as stunned
as if he'd been hit by a Taser shot." And all I could think of was Jay
responding like the Hulk: "LENO SMASH! LENO ANGRY!" We also discover
that it's here that Conan's group set up that $45 million penalty for
failing to deliver The Tonight Show.
I know this group is kind of an odd one, especially since we kinda
know the backstory a lot more than most people. I feel like I want to
shout "GET ON WITH IT!" but I'll trust Carter.
Aside: I was reading along when I saw this.
"[Jeff Zucker] knew how he was supposed to interpret these calls on
behalf of Conan: 'They wanted assurance they were gonna get The
Tonight Show or else they were going to leave.'
"In truth, NBC didn't need much utzing."
Utzing? They were offering them a regional potato chip? A quick trip
to Google shows its apparently a Yiddish based word meaning "teasing."
I'm quite the yiddish dropper, and even I hadn't heard that term
before. Am I completely out of my non-existent Jewish roots?
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Jon Delfin <jond...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:13 PM, donz5 <do...@aol.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> "By eight thirty on the evening of May 19, 2009, a stream of cabs and
>> limos was snaking slowing down West Forty-third Street..."
>>
>> One doesn't go "down" W. 43rd St.; one goes "across" W. 43rd St. One
>> goes "down," say, 5th Avenue, since it's a north-south passage. 43rd
>> Street is east-west, and so one goes "across" it, not "down."
>>
>> [snip]
>
> Is that transcribed correctly? Seems to want a comma, at least. And
> wouldn't the "down" link to "slowing," as if to say the traffic on W43
> was being slowed down?
>
In my copy, it's 'snaking slowly down West Forty-third Street.' But I
think the directional error Donz noted, combined with letting "utzing"
go makes me wonder who's the audience here: insiders (and, indirectly,
people like us) or the common folk?
donz5
"slowing."
Thus, the sentence in the book reads: ..."a stream of cabs and limos
was snaking slowly down West Forty-third Street..."
No comma in the passage; "down" should be "across."
donz5
re your comment, "In a way, I think most
of us who followed the story knows this part.:
What I didn't know was that they were able to keep this secret for 6
months.
Kevin M.
> Thus, the sentence in the book reads: ..."a stream of cabs and limos
> was snaking slowly down West Forty-third Street..."
>
> No comma in the passage; "down" should be "across."
Not sure where Bill Carter is from, but this may be one of those
NYC/East Coast things like "on line" versus "in line." Where I come
from (Southern California), across the street isn't a reference to
points on a compass. If I travel across a given street, I am not
driving, riding, or walking in any direction on the road. Rather, I'm
crossing it while on another road, i.e. "The Starbucks was on the far
corner, so he went across the street to get to it." Carter's usage of
the word down seems to gel with my understanding of it. The cars were
traveling on 43rd St -- up or down would both be applicable given that
concept.
--
Kevin M. (RPCV)
Jim Ellwanger
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 7:51 PM, donz5 <do...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Thus, the sentence in the book reads: ..."a stream of cabs and limos
>> was snaking slowly down West Forty-third Street..."
>>
>> No comma in the passage; "down" should be "across."
>
> The cars were traveling on 43rd St -- up or down would both be applicable given that
> concept.
I agree with Kevin: if they were parked sideways, they might be described as "snaking across the street," but since they were traveling in the traffic lanes (or as close as it gets in New York), they were "snaking down the street."
It would be wrong if the passage read "snaking slowly down the island of Manhattan on West 43rd Street," but when traveling "down" (or "up") a street, the orientation of the street doesn't matter.
--
Jim Ellwanger <trai...@ellwanger.tv>
<http://www.ellwanger.tv/>
donz5
west in this city is considered "across," not "up" or "down." The
opening sentence should have read, "... a stream of cabs and limos was
snaking slowly across West Forth-third Street..."
> <http://www.ellwanger.tv/>
K.M. Richards
I don't think the syntax was modified for the benefit of those who
live in NYC because the publishers expect more people outside the Big
Apple to buy and read the book than they do ones in the city.
In this case, what a New Yorker would say is not relevant to the
choice of words for a wider audience.
KMR
Jim Ellwanger
> Having lived in NYC for 32 years, I can attest that traveling east-
> west in this city is considered "across," not "up" or "down." The
> opening sentence should have read, "... a stream of cabs and limos was
> snaking slowly across West Forth-third Street..."
Guess I didn't explain it clearly enough last night: the reference is NOT to the cars moving in any specific direction, the reference is merely to the cars' position on a street -- and it doesn't matter if that street is in New York, Los Angeles, or Peoria; it doesn't matter if the street runs east-west, north-south, northeast-southwest, or is a full circle in a suburb. "Across" implies movement in a direction perpendicular to the street, and "up" or "down" implies movement along the street.
Pedestrians in a crosswalk would move "across 43rd street." Cars move "down 43rd Street." They could even be described as moving "down 43rd Street, across Manhattan Island." But unless they're on one of the avenues, or moving diagonally from one side of the street to another, cars don't move "across 43rd Street."
Bob in Jersey
Jon Delfin, to donz and Joe Hass:
> Is that transcribed correctly? Seems to want a comma, at least. And
> wouldn't the "down" link to "slowing," as if to say the traffic on W43
> was being slowed down?
And the term everybody here seems to be missing, is "along."
That is, if and when it has been conclusively determined that the
vehicles (vehichules) in question were on a street or an avenue/
Broadway.
From http://www.cencom.org/bios.aspx?id=716 :
"Born in Brooklyn, N.Y. on August 31, 1949, Mr. Carter received a B.A.
degree in English from The University of Notre Dame in 1971 (Phi Beta
Kappa, Summa Cum Laude) and an M.A. degree in journalism from The
Pennsylvania State University in 1972. He is married and has two
children.
(2006)"
I figgered he was north of 50.
--
BOB
donz5
"crosstown buses."
And it does matter, as it better accurately gives a flavor of
Manhattan midtown.
> <http://www.ellwanger.tv>
Joe Coughlin
> <http://www.ellwanger.tv>
--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--
+++++++++++++++
Joe Coughlin
http://www.twitter.com/inturnaround
donz5
opening the way for Jay to emerge into public consciousness by having
him as the most frequent guest on his Late Night show."
I think he's made this claim before, but it's still wrong: Jay guested
on LN 40 times (plus one taped cameo). Marv Albert guested on LN 56
times (plus 25 live and taped cameos).
donz5
most frequent -- and popular -- guest on David Letterman's Late Night
show in the 1980s..."
And Jay further embellishes the number on pp. 106-07: "As [Jay's]
career was taking off, thanks to his many breakthrough appearances on
Letterman (sixty, he estimated at this point)..."
Bill, I'm, like, right here... :)
Jim Ellwanger
> There's a reason Manhattan buses that travel east-west are called
> "crosstown buses."
Yes, because (for example) the M42 crosses TOWN. It doesn't cross 42nd
Dave Sikula
the Shubert, and someone asks me where the St. James is, I'm going to
say, "down the street." If they ask me where the Broadhurst is, I'm
going to say "across the street."
If I was in a cab that veers wildly from sidewalk to sidewalk, I went
across the street. If we went farther along the block, we went down
the street. North-south orientation doesn't matter.
And we all stand in a line, dammit.
--Dake Sikula
Joe Hass
or Johnny or a suit at NBC or CBS.
"This is the result of a drunken wager between Lorne Michaels and Don Ohlmeyer."
It is a joke told by Conan during his test show in 1993. In Late
Shift, Carter gives Conan almost a glossing over, and for good reason.
He wasn't just on thin ice: he was wearing golf shoes on thin ice.
"The Conan Of It All" is the obligatory backstory of Conan. If you
know it then almost all of this becomes the equivalent of a
"Previously On" segment to you. This is not to say there aren't some
great nuggets in here (how Lisa Kudrow helped him pick out the worst
possible sport coat for the aforementioned test show, and a "talk
show" he did with Jeff Garlin called "Wild Blue Yonder"). But, yeah,
yeah...Lampoon staff with Zucker, then SNL, then Simpsons, then this
insane break. As Ebert might say, it's a Meet Cute with Jeff Ross (who
would go on to EP the test show, then Late Night).
But what we discover here is that Conan was (and really is) Dave
without the "baggage". And I use that word not because I like it, but
because you could easily see how the two of them have this odd
similarity, but Dave turned out to be Dave and Conan turned out to be
Conan.
It's Tom Shales mea culpa in 1996 that wraps the chapter up as the
point when things changed, and you do the math to realize that the
sword hung over this poor guy's head for almost *three years*.
And he came out of it a perfectly normal screwed-up guy.
donz5
Though Zucker went with the Crimson, not the Lampoon, according to
this chapter.
donz5
each other. But Carter's description was more general, and in that
context, "across" would have been more appropriate than "down."
donz5
"[Letterman's] company announced that the staff of Letterman's "Late
Show" as well as that of "The Late Late Show" -- which had installed
Craig Ferguson as the new host less than a year earlier..."
Ferguson's first show as official host of LLS was January 3, 2005;
that's 2 years 10 months, not less than a year earlier.
It's these little things that bug me, because if Carter is this sloppy
with the minor details (this, Jay's appearances on LN), it calls into
question the major ones.
Kevin M.
> It's these little things that bug me, because if Carter is this sloppy
> with the minor details (this, Jay's appearances on LN), it calls into
> question the major ones.
I knew a guy at NBC with extensive inside knowledge of the Carson and
Leno camps (in other words, he knew on the west coast what DonZ knows
about the east coast). He noticed (and meticulously logged) all of the
errors in "The Late Shift" at the time of its release. The primary
mistakes are the ones Don is pointing out, mostly errors in when
things happened or the extent one event affected another. It was
decided the errors were deliberate in order to weave a stronger
narrative thread -- in other words, to imply or infer connections that
aren't there. Of course, in many cases the causality is what many
people want to know, since they already know the outcome.
--
Kevin M. (RPCV)
Wesley McGee
--
Wesley McGee
http://www.ambivi.com
http://drawing-a-blank.tumblr.com
djconner
> point when things changed, and you do the math to realize that the
> sword hung over this poor guy's head for almost *three years*.
>
> And he came out of it a perfectly normal screwed-up guy.
complete box set of The Larry Sanders Show that just came out
(undoubtedly for the same reason as "The War for Late Night."
A lot of things are striking in retrospect (including the rather
ghastly realization that three of Larry's guests on one show have all
died untimely deaths since: Gene Siskel, John Ritter, and Warren
Zevon.)
It's interesting to see in the Season 2-3 episodes, Conan's name comes
up every once in a while, always with a "He'll be canceled by next
Tuesday" type of punchline. For example, Paula's not sure she wants
to return to Larry's show (after Larry's own "huge mistake" of walking
off the show for 3 months.) She's got an offer from Conan's show -
more money, more responsibility, a better title.... Larry just asks
something like "And how long do you think that job will last?" She
immediately agrees to come back to the Larry Sanders Show.
Conan really does have one of the odder showbiz career trajectories of
recent times.
Joe Hass
with my brother-in-law's wife. She does not share my enthusiasm for
everything related to the events in the book, but I explained that I
was through Chapter 4. "How are you enjoying it?" she asked. "I feel
like it's almost too basic for me." We decided that there should've
been a note at the end of Chapter 1: "If you already really know the
backstory, skip to page XXX."
"Landscape At Late Night" is, at its core, a tale-of-the-tape between
Jay and Dave, with a bio of Jon Stewart thrown in there and a very
light backstory of how Craig Kilborn melted down at Daily Show. Yes,
Dave eschews publicity and promotion while Jay eats it up; yes, Jay
was beating Dave by every considerable measure except for "love from
the intelligentsia"; yes, Kilborn managed to insult the upper
management leading to his ouster.I know we as a group know this like
the back of our hands, so our prisms are completely corrupted, but I
wonder how much other people already kinda know the stuff that's
delivered here.
Clearly Carter wrote this for people who did not read Late Shift. But
I'd turn the question around and say, "Do you think anyone would buy
this book who wouldn't have read Late Shift?" And that's what's
frustrating me. When the hell are we getting to the fireworks factory?
Tom Wolper
>
> Clearly Carter wrote this for people who did not read Late Shift. But
> I'd turn the question around and say, "Do you think anyone would buy
> this book who wouldn't have read Late Shift?" And that's what's
> frustrating me. When the hell are we getting to the fireworks factory?
Conan has a really strong following among people who were in college
when they first discovered him in late night. The oldest of these
people would have been children when the events of The Late Shift took
place, and the youngest not yet born.
David Bruggeman
David
Joe Coughlin
--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
David Lynch
> Conan has a really strong following among people who were in college
> when they first discovered him in late night. The oldest of these
> people would have been children when the events of The Late Shift took
> place, and the youngest not yet born.
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 13:40, David Bruggeman <bru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For those who boarded Team Coco in his earliest years on NBC, I think some
> of them would be familiar with the press coverage of The Late Shift, whether
> or not they've read the book.
True, but college students discovering late night comedy hosts is a
continuing process and he was on "Late Night" for sixteen years. The
college students (like me) who first started watching regularly at the
midpoint of his run on "Late Night" were in grade school when the
events of The Late Shift took place. (I remember when Letterman
switched networks, but knew nothing about the causes until I was much
older.) I know of at least one person who is now in college who was
introduced to the comedy of Conan O'Brien by his parents.
--
David J. Lynch
djl...@gmail.com
donz5
"Attention and better ratings followed, and then came a deal from CBS
-- one no other late-night host, first at NBC and now at CBS, had ever
had. Ferguson won a guarantee that he would be the successor to David
Letterman, should there ever -- heaven forbid -- be a sudden need for
a new host of Late Show. It wasn't anything like a five-year ticket to
the big chair, but it was the CBS version of the Prince of Wales
clause. Or in this case maybe, the Prince of Scots."
do...@flids.net
Dave Sikula
scenes machinations of Kilby leaving TDS. What's the shorthand?
--Dave Sikula
donz5
"[Kilborn's Daily Show] was a genuine hit by cable standards, though,
and Kilborn might have settled in for a long run. But about a year in,
he gave an interview to 'Esquire' magazine in which he apparently
wanted to underscore his masculinity, telling the reporter, 'To be
honest, Lizz [Winstead] does find me very attractive. If I wanted her
to blow me, she would.'
"Kilborn was suspended. Although he apologized, claiming he meant it
as a joke, Winstead wasn't amused -- nor were many other women. The
show had that hit thing going for it, however, and Comedy Central's
management thought better of letting Kilborn go. Only a year later,
the Worldwide Pants organization sought him out to replace Snyder,
though internally some members of Letterman's company were appalled by
the choice. Whatever his virtues as an on-air presenter -- and Kilborn
had a legitimate facility as a broadcaster -- he didn't seem to have a
fraction of Stewart's comedy talent or pure wit. And that magazine
interview did not speak well of his judgement."
K.M. Richards
local library came to the rescue.
KMR (who has memorized the library card number used to request inter-
branch book transfers because of having entered it so many times into
the Los Angeles Public Library online hold request system ...)
Joe Hass
called "The Daily Show's Woman Problem" pointing out the
aforementioned story as part of the argument that TDS hates women
(vast oversimplification).
donz5
successors. There were none while he was at NBC until after he left,
and Snyder and Kilborn were never offered such a guarantee. Thus,
possibly, the reason for the phrase "first at NBC and now at CBS."
This wasn't in regard to anything outside of Dave's universe, i.e.,
Conan and Jay.
On Nov 11, 5:34 pm, <d...@flids.net> wrote:
> huh? Am I misunderstanding something, since I'm reading that passage out of context? "and then came a deal from CBS -- one no other late-night host ... had ever had. Ferguson won a guarantee that he would be the successor to David Letterman..."
>
>
>
> Whaddaya mean, "no other late-night host" had that deal? Conan had that deal to succeed Jay, obviously. The author references it in the very next sentence. What am I missing here? That makes no sense.
>
>
>
> Doug Fields
>
> Tampa, FL
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [TV orNotTV] Re: The War For Late Night: Chapter 1
> From: donz5 <do...@aol.com>
> Date: Thu, November 11, 2010 5:09 pm
> To: TVorNotTV <tvor...@googlegroups.com>
> This, I think, is news. re Scottish Conan Guy, page 137:
> "Attention and better ratings followed, and then came a deal from CBS
> -- one no other late-night host, first at NBC and now at CBS, had ever
> had. Ferguson won a guarantee that he would be the successor to David
> Letterman, should there ever -- heaven forbid -- be a sudden need for
> a new host of Late Show. It wasn't anything like a five-year ticket to
> the big chair, but it was the CBS version of the Prince of Wales
> clause. Or in this case maybe, the Prince of Scots."
> --
> TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email totvornottv...@googlegroups.com
David Bruggeman
There's also been no other reporting that I can find of Ferguson officially signing a new deal. I've seen reference to a two-year extension (which would seem awfully short to have a succession clause for 11:35), and discussions in late 2009 and early 2010 that the parties were close to signing.
Does "sudden need" mean anything special?
David
From: donz5 <do...@aol.com>
To: TVorNotTV <tvor...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, November 11, 2010 5:09:21 PM
Subject: [TV orNotTV] Re: The War For Late Night: Chapter 1
donz5
> It's news, as it strikes me as counter to the prevailing narrative. Most
> statements SCG has made about following Letterman to 11:35 range from mild to
> annoyed disinterest.
off as campaigning for the job.
Doug Fields
obvious in context, but I can see how that could be Carter's intended
meaning, now that I consider it from that perspective. In fact, the more I
think about it, the more I think that must be what he meant, because I can't
come up with any other scenario where that passage would fit.
Thanks Donz.
Doug Fields
Tampa, FL
To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com
donz5
while Dave was still hosting LN; Dave even had Conan on as a guest.
But Dave had announced his own departure months before, and so any
succession news had zero impact on Dave's own plans.
donz5
Hour-long interview with Carter on ESPN Radio.
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/player?rd=1#/podcenter/?callsign=ESPNRADIO&id=5787842&autoplay=1
Kevin M.
chronicling his journey from obscurity to late night legend in his own
right.
http://www.amazon.com/Well-Here-Rest-Our-Lives/dp/0767928865/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1
--
Kevin M. (RPCV)
David Lynch
> It's news, as it strikes me as counter to the prevailing narrative. Most
> statements SCG has made about following Letterman to 11:35 range from mild
> to annoyed disinterest.
I think that it would have said outright if Craig was guaranteed 11:35
no matter what happens with Dave. Therefore, I see two ways to
interpret that passage: 1. SCG is guaranteed 11:35 if it becomes
vacant during his contract, but Letterman's contract runs at least as
long as his does so the only way a vacancy appears is if something
happens to Letterman or he leaves mid-contract, and/or 2.
CBS/Worldwide Pants have the option to look for another host if
Letterman decides to hang it up and gives enough advance warning to
search for a replacement and have an orderly transition.
Isn't the deal between CBS and Worldwide Pants such that CBS has
basically outsourced its late-night TV to them and the contract
doesn't say what programming they will provide, just that they will
provide programming? (ISTR hearing something like this once, but I may
well be wrong.) If so, that would be a pretty strong incentive to have
a Plan B ready, since it would be WWP's problem if there was a vacancy
to fill.
David Bruggeman
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118008450?refCatId=14 - Variety, September 10, 2009
"Craig Ferguson is closing in on a deal with CBS and David Letterman's Worldwide Pants that will keep him at the helm of "The Late Late Show" through the 2011-12 season."
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-10/cbs-says-letterman-ferguson-very-close-to-contract-extension.html Business Week, January 10, 2010
"David Letterman, host of CBS’s “Late Show,” and “Late Late Show” host Craig Ferguson are “very close” to contract extensions with CBS Corp., the most- watched U.S. TV network."
So it would seem that there's some kind of arrangement between Ferguson and CBS. Whether it's co-signed or some similar co-something with Worldwide Pants, or there's a separate arrangement, is not as clear.
David
From: David Lynch <djl...@gmail.com>
To: tvor...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, November 12, 2010 1:04:36 PM
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: The War For Late Night: Chapter 1