At long last our national nightmare is over: Jay Leno is headed back to his spot atop “The Tonight Show,” and Conan O’Brien—more adorably known these days as Coco—has left the building with his gazillion-dollar consolation prize, quite possibly to set up shop at Fox.
Who would have imagined the battle between two filthy-rich late-night gabbers could command so much public attention, overshadowing even our obsessions with Jon Gosselin’s love life and Tiger Woods’s compulsion to play hide-the-putter with cocktail waitresses? And yet, even now, after all the articles and video clips and interviews devoted to NBC’s deliciously bloody melodrama, I still don’t quite get it: How did Jay Leno emerge as Great American Jerk, vilified across old and new media alike as an entitled, conniving, big-footing back-stabber who ruined poor Coco’s life?
Forget all the “Team Coco” t-shirts and the anonymous, overcaffeinated web barkers raging about how the sight of Leno makes them want to puke; at the height of this bizarre struggle, ABC late-night gabber Jimmy Kimmel did a mano-a-mano takedown of Leno that ranks among the most vicious assaults I’ve seen on network TV—and he did it on Leno’s own show. (Sample bit: Asked about his fondness for pranks, Kimmel shot back, “I think the best prank I ever pulled was I told a guy that ‘five years from now I’m going to give you my show,’ and then when the five years came, I gave it to him and then took it back almost instantly. It was hilarious.” Kimmel didn’t look amused; he looked steamed. And things only got rougher from there.) WTF? The vilification of NBC’s Jeff Zucker I understand—and applaud. This is, after all, the guy who brought us “Fear Factor” and “The Apprentice.” But what did Leno do that’s so appalling?
Surely people aren’t whining about the unfairness of the show shuffling. Yes, Coco has been dealt a harsh blow. In 2004, NBC execs made him a pinkie promise that, if he eschewed other suitors and stayed loyal to the network for five more years, he would then be handed the keys to arguably TV’s most celebrated brand. Obviously, Coco assumed he would be allowed to keep those keys for more than seven months. But lest any of us get too self-righteous, let’s recall that no one—least of all sweet little Coco—seemed especially troubled back then by the thought of kicking Leno to the curb. This despite the fact that, for about a decade, Leno had been dominating the ratings and raking in truly obscene wads of ad cash for the network. (A Fortune article from February 2004 reported that Leno’s “Tonight Show” was generating $100 million in annual earnings—roughly 15 percent of NBC’s total profits.) The eye-on-the-bottom-line calculation was that, come 2009, Leno would be a whopping 59 years old and no one, especially the all-powerful 18- to 49-year-old demographic, would want to watch his desiccated old carcass anymore. (No matter that Johnny Carson didn’t cede the throne until age 65; that was before advertisers’ youth fixation.) So it was that NBC execs informed Leno that, no matter how great a job he was doing, they were putting him out to pasture in five years to make way for Coco and his dewier demographic.
OK. Fair enough. TV is a bloody, mercenary business. So why now the shock and outrage that NBC would be so crass as to pull the plug on Coco for sinking below not only the ratings that Leno enjoyed as “Tonight Show” host (even among the youngest viewers, mind you) but also those of Letterman over at CBS? And even if people are riled at the network suits, why slam Leno? Sure, his 10 p.m. show turned out to be a dog, but that only upped the pressure on NBC to kill it and restore Leno asap to the perch where he had proved so valuable.
Print
COMMENTS (11)
The problem with the article is that it confuses two things. First, that Jay Leno is not particularly funny, that's he's not "edgy" or hip." Second, that he's royally screwed Conan out of the tonight show. It confuses the cause of anger between the two. Leno is in short a bad guy not because he is unfunny, but because he does bad things. Leno, five years ago, agreed to retire in 2009 from the Tonight Show. He claims NBC forced him out, and it may have come to him saying "We'd like to give Conan the Tonight Show in 2009, is that OK?" but he utterly agreed at the time. He came out and told the world that in 2009, "It's yours Conan." He certainly had the chance to fight it then, given h ... view full comment
The problem with the article is that it confuses two things. First, that Jay Leno is not particularly funny, that's he's not "edgy" or hip." Second, that he's royally screwed Conan out of the tonight show. It confuses the cause of anger between the two. Leno is in short a bad guy not because he is unfunny, but because he does bad things. Leno, five years ago, agreed to retire in 2009 from the Tonight Show. He claims NBC forced him out, and it may have come to him saying "We'd like to give Conan the Tonight Show in 2009, is that OK?" but he utterly agreed at the time. He came out and told the world that in 2009, "It's yours Conan." He certainly had the chance to fight it then, given his clout in the ratings and the profit margins. He did not. Instead, as the time came towards his retirement, he intimated that he would go elsewhere, to Fox or ABC rather than retire. He threatened NBC enough that they came up with this cockamamie 10 PM show idea. So now, rather than retire and leave the stage graciously (Carson, you may recall, never returned to TV after retiring. At all. He made one guest appearance on The Simpsons, and cameoed a couple times on Letterman, but otherwise, nada.) Jay Leno began a new show, an hour and a half earlier, in the same metro area as the Tonight Show. He undermined Conan on guests and in the ratings, making him once more the de facto #2 at NBC Late Night. When his ratings were so bad, his failure so complete, that the affiliates threatened to revolt and preempt him (that is, preempt a new prime time show with their own syndicated sitcom reruns), NBC is forced to cancel it but instead shoves out Conan and promotes Leno back to the Tonight Show. Moreover, this comes only seven months after NBC insisted Conan, and his entire staff, uprooted their families from New York to Los Angeles 3,000 miles away.
O'Brien's Tonight Show labored less under being "too hip" or artistic or some such, but rather to a) having an awful lead in from Jay Leno for all five nights of the week, b) having Leno compete for Guests in the LA area, usually getting top dibs, and c) having the Leno show overglut the market for Late Night talk, dividing the potential Tonight Show Audience. Leno's own failure was at the heart of his own problem, but NBC bails him out with the Tonight Show and boots Conan. Then, Leno continues in this entire process to play the victim, with this multimillionaire a) talking about being "fired twice," when he got promotions and millions of dollars each time, b) Tells everyone not to blame Conan for some reason (as Dave said "NO ONE is blaming Conan for this mess") c) decides now is the time, months after the whole extortion/ sex scandal broke, to trot out tired old Bill Clinton intern jokes to use on Letterman, and d) continues to play his tired act of a "babe in the woods" / company man where NBC keeps telling him what to do and he has no choice but to play along. It's bullshit, and everyone knows it's bullshit, but he keeps with his disingenuous.
I'd have more respect for Leno if he'd been up front at any point. If in 2004, he'd said no. If in 2009, he'd gone to ABC or Fox instead of the 10 PM deal. If he'd done something unique on his new show, like an American version of Top Gear or a real Variety Show instead of just an hour and a half earlier version of his Tonight Show. If he hadn't unloaded passive aggressive "I'd move back to 11:30 if asked" quotes repeatedly while doing his new show. If when the 10 PM deal didn't work out, he said, "We tried a good game, it didn't work out" and moved on to do some new thing, retire with his cars and money, become the Celine Dion of standup in Vegas, rather than insist on a return to 11:30 all while playing the victim. Instead, he has been a spineless, scheming toady the entire time. He deserves no defense and no sympathy.
It boils down to this: Nobody likes a term-limit-pledge welcher. I knew Paul Wellstone well, worked for him for a time, admired the hell out of him, loved the man dearly. And even I was angry at him for seeking a third term despite his promise to serve only two. Yes, he was a great senator, and yes, I would have voted for him again, but your word is your word. Jay Leno gave his word that he was done with the Tonight Show, and when NBC asked him if he'd like to break his promise, his eagerness to do so made puppies across the land look reluctant. That's where the anti-Jay backlash comes from; it's not confusion or misplaced anger. It's an accurate judgment of his actions. And it will p ... view full comment
It boils down to this: Nobody likes a term-limit-pledge welcher. I knew Paul Wellstone well, worked for him for a time, admired the hell out of him, loved the man dearly. And even I was angry at him for seeking a third term despite his promise to serve only two. Yes, he was a great senator, and yes, I would have voted for him again, but your word is your word. Jay Leno gave his word that he was done with the Tonight Show, and when NBC asked him if he'd like to break his promise, his eagerness to do so made puppies across the land look reluctant. That's where the anti-Jay backlash comes from; it's not confusion or misplaced anger. It's an accurate judgment of his actions. And it will probably pass quickly. After all, how many term-limit welchers actually lose reelection?
Crock1701 gets this exactly right...this whole column reads like it was written by David Brooks - all problems are, at their root, the "two Americas" problem.
Crock1701 gets this exactly right...this whole column reads like it was written by David Brooks - all problems are, at their root, the "two Americas" problem.
We also can't ignore the larger context here. This didn't start with Leno and O'Brien -- it started with Leno and Letterman. Just as the idea that a politician named Clinton's motives in any given case are purely altruistic is (to put it charitably) suspect, so too with the idea that Jay Leno is blameless in this state of affairs after his role in the previous "Tonight Show" transition.
What did poor ol' Jay Leno do? He facilitated NBC breaking their contract with Conan O'Brien. He could have told them "sorry, but the damage to my public image if I leave the Tonight Show with great fanfare and come slinking back less than a year later, after failing miserably at transitioning to a prime-t ... view full comment
We also can't ignore the larger context here. This didn't start with Leno and O'Brien -- it started with Leno and Letterman. Just as the idea that a politician named Clinton's motives in any given case are purely altruistic is (to put it charitably) suspect, so too with the idea that Jay Leno is blameless in this state of affairs after his role in the previous "Tonight Show" transition.
What did poor ol' Jay Leno do? He facilitated NBC breaking their contract with Conan O'Brien. He could have told them "sorry, but the damage to my public image if I leave the Tonight Show with great fanfare and come slinking back less than a year later, after failing miserably at transitioning to a prime-time variety show, is worth far more than the millions of dollars you will pay to dig yourself out of this hole." That would have left NBC in a bind, but it would have been the right thing to do in terms of honest dealing. Who says so? I say so.
A comparison to the Brett Favre situation is apropos. After a couple iterations of Favre's yearly psychodrama with retirement (it's started again already!) led him to exactly the place he wanted to be, thereby breaking the spirit if not the letter of his agreement with Green Bay not to come back to the division, there are very few Americans not employed by ESPN who did not cheer lustily as the Vikings were eliminated from the playoffs on Sunday.
When you make a devil's bargain, you become the bad guy. It's that simple.
The fact that Jay's just not funny is almost beside the point, although it would probably have softened the viciousness of some of the attacks if he were. Every comedian wants that job, and Leno and Zucker have damaged its value perhaps beyond repair. If NBC believes that Leno's old ratings will follow him back to the Tonight Show, they are dreaming. The somnolent old folks who padded the show's Nielsens for years have made other arrangements in the last seven months, and Leno's failure to attract their eyeballs at 10:00 adequately display that it wasn't *him* they were tuning in for.
I was sleepily agreeing with Cottle till I read the thread posts. Crock 1071 makes an especially good case. He has convinced me otherwise.
I was sleepily agreeing with Cottle till I read the thread posts. Crock 1071 makes an especially good case. He has convinced me otherwise.
Benberger: David Brooks? That was a low blow ...
As I don't like either Leno or Conan (they should digitise Johnny and bring him back to life - even the late listlessness of Carson was funnier and fresher than these two), don't particularly care one way or another which one shafted whom and how deep. Any way, they both are multimillionaires and so I have a difficult time gathering up either rage or tears for their travails. But ... I think Rhubs has it right. As Sen Byrd said to Sen Packwood, "it's time to go."
P.s. have you noticed one cannot leave a comment on the latest Book article on Grant? Is it a glitch or we're not supposed to have a view on the late Prez?
Benberger: David Brooks? That was a low blow ...
As I don't like either Leno or Conan (they should digitise Johnny and bring him back to life - even the late listlessness of Carson was funnier and fresher than these two), don't particularly care one way or another which one shafted whom and how deep. Any way, they both are multimillionaires and so I have a difficult time gathering up either rage or tears for their travails. But ... I think Rhubs has it right. As Sen Byrd said to Sen Packwood, "it's time to go."
P.s. have you noticed one cannot leave a comment on the latest Book article on Grant? Is it a glitch or we're not supposed to have a view on the late Prez?
icarusr, I'm glad it's not just me being frozen out of the Grant article! I was surprised to learn from that review the extent to which even Grant's military reputation was sullied after his presidency. Incomprehensible!
America's great generals have always had the vices of their virtues -- Washington was a tactical piker, but if he had the killer instinct for the direct engagement, he almost certainly would not have been able to sustain the strategic objective of keeping his army in the field. But even admitting Grant's tactical ruthlessness as a vice, no one on the union side save Lincoln himself more quickly or firmly grasped the true nature of the strategic dilemma and what victory would ... view full comment
icarusr, I'm glad it's not just me being frozen out of the Grant article! I was surprised to learn from that review the extent to which even Grant's military reputation was sullied after his presidency. Incomprehensible!
America's great generals have always had the vices of their virtues -- Washington was a tactical piker, but if he had the killer instinct for the direct engagement, he almost certainly would not have been able to sustain the strategic objective of keeping his army in the field. But even admitting Grant's tactical ruthlessness as a vice, no one on the union side save Lincoln himself more quickly or firmly grasped the true nature of the strategic dilemma and what victory would require. If Grant is not a great general, then the last two centuries have produced no great generals.
Really, what it comes down to is this is about corporate profits. Is Leno a 'bad guy' for 'taking back' the Tonight Show? No, he's just more profitable to the #4 network than O'Brien. And really, is this so important given the real issue in the country – particularly the corporatization and consolidation of America's media behemoths? I think not. As Cottle points out, Leno is just worth more money than O'Brien. Bottom line wins in capitalist America.
Really, what it comes down to is this is about corporate profits. Is Leno a 'bad guy' for 'taking back' the Tonight Show? No, he's just more profitable to the #4 network than O'Brien. And really, is this so important given the real issue in the country – particularly the corporatization and consolidation of America's media behemoths? I think not. As Cottle points out, Leno is just worth more money than O'Brien. Bottom line wins in capitalist America.
I'm a big Conan fan. Hardly ever watched Leno on the Tonight Show but the monologues I saw Leno do were pretty funny and well thought out. Conan's "jokes" were more simple and relied on obvious punchlines mocking the latest celebrity or political gossip. I would love a show where Leno did a 10 minute monologue and then Conan took over the rest of the hour for comedy bits and interviews.
Without knowing any behind the scenes stuff, I don't blame Leno. His personality and bank account didn't make for fighting NBC back in '04. He could afford to be "whatever!" about being knocked out of the Tonight Show. Now, NBC wants to put him back. That's business. Why would anyone say no to that?
view full comment
I'm a big Conan fan. Hardly ever watched Leno on the Tonight Show but the monologues I saw Leno do were pretty funny and well thought out. Conan's "jokes" were more simple and relied on obvious punchlines mocking the latest celebrity or political gossip. I would love a show where Leno did a 10 minute monologue and then Conan took over the rest of the hour for comedy bits and interviews.
Without knowing any behind the scenes stuff, I don't blame Leno. His personality and bank account didn't make for fighting NBC back in '04. He could afford to be "whatever!" about being knocked out of the Tonight Show. Now, NBC wants to put him back. That's business. Why would anyone say no to that?
However, I do hope Conan is back in a similar format on another network. And I hope his staff can find employment (just like I hope to find employment - having been out of work for a year).
Rhubs: frankly, I found the review rather frustrating. It suggested that Waugh's book was primarily a reputational study, rather than a look at Grant himself. And, of course, all the talk about Grant's popularity upon retirement and Grant's Tomb, or Twain's friendship, or even the literary merits of Grant's memoirs on says nothing at all about the man's fitness for the Presidency. (I have no views on the subject, having only read about the scandals in his two terms.) Fine. A reputational analysis is very good at identifying cultural trends, and in this respect, I had hoped Wilentz had more to say about such trends in his review. There is mention, for example, of Lee's enhanced reputation ... view full comment
Rhubs: frankly, I found the review rather frustrating. It suggested that Waugh's book was primarily a reputational study, rather than a look at Grant himself. And, of course, all the talk about Grant's popularity upon retirement and Grant's Tomb, or Twain's friendship, or even the literary merits of Grant's memoirs on says nothing at all about the man's fitness for the Presidency. (I have no views on the subject, having only read about the scandals in his two terms.) Fine. A reputational analysis is very good at identifying cultural trends, and in this respect, I had hoped Wilentz had more to say about such trends in his review. There is mention, for example, of Lee's enhanced reputation relative to Grant's and the hagiography surrounding Lee, especially in the South, but no more. It would have been useful, it seems to me, to have a look at revisionist analyses of Lee (I am thinking of Nolan's "Lee Considered") to give us a better sense of how it is that changing social attitudes engender, permit and encourage reviewing historical characters - and why Grant has yet to fully benefit, and Lee to (in my view, deservedly) suffer, from changing climates. ...
Mrudnick: "Conan's "jokes" were more simple and relied on obvious punchlines mocking the latest celebrity" - I totally agree. This is partly why I found him unpalatable - "celebrity" in this day and age comes with its own laugh track; what's the sport, or fun, in mocking it?
Ms. Cottle, to say that I am disappointed that you (or any logical person) could defend Jay Leno is just unbelievable. Crock1701 got it exactly right, as others have mentioned before.
The real problem is that the facts do not support Leno in any way. All you need to do is to go back to the news stories in 2004 that report the situation (one particularly good one is by Bill Carter of The New York Times). In virtually all of these stories, Leno mentions that he is perfectly happy with retiring in 2009. In NO story does he say otherwise. In NO story does he say that NBC and Conan are forcing him out. He jokes that his wife will be happy because she'll finally be able to go out to dinner with him ... view full comment
Ms. Cottle, to say that I am disappointed that you (or any logical person) could defend Jay Leno is just unbelievable. Crock1701 got it exactly right, as others have mentioned before.
The real problem is that the facts do not support Leno in any way. All you need to do is to go back to the news stories in 2004 that report the situation (one particularly good one is by Bill Carter of The New York Times). In virtually all of these stories, Leno mentions that he is perfectly happy with retiring in 2009. In NO story does he say otherwise. In NO story does he say that NBC and Conan are forcing him out. He jokes that his wife will be happy because she'll finally be able to go out to dinner with him. And what is more damning to his current-day revisionist theory is the fact that Leno signed his contract stating he would step down in 2009 a full SIX MONTHS BEFORE O'Brien signed his new NBC contract. This gave Leno SIX MONTHS essentially to change his mind, or a least to complain. Has anyone ever known Leno to NOT speak his mind about these things?
What I think happened is that Leno fully believed that he would step down in 2009, but as the date grew nearer he realised that maybe he wanted to continue (his wife's dinner plans notwithstanding), so he complained to NBC, and when they threw him the 10PM carrot, he bit down. HARD.
You can't ignore Jeff Zucker's stupidity and ignorance in this matter (Letterman's #1 message left on Zucker's answering machine: "What The Zuck?"), but when it all comes down to it, Leno is still the biggest villain here, and now we all have to suffer for it.
Sorry, Ms. Cottle, you are just plain wrong!