BoomTown is not much of a fan of Bret Michaels, but it was still nice to see the singer and reality star in good form on television talent show “American Idol” last night after a spate of troubling health issues.

Michaels was hospitalized for a brain hemorrhage a month ago and just last week, was back in the hospital due to a “warning stroke.” Heart surgery is to come next.

Still, he managed to belt out “Every Rose Has Its Thorn,” a hit song from his band, Poison, which he sang with finalist Casey James.

Enjoy the video:

Social media analysis firm Biz360 is once again tapping into blogs, Twitter feeds, Facebook posts and a range of other social media data to try to determine who will win the popular singing contest, where viewers vote for their favorites. Once per week, starting on April 7, they will predict which of the contestants will be voted off.

Biz360 tried this last year too, and it didn’t work perfectly. With the race neck and neck between contestants Adam Lambert and Kris Allen right up until the end, they went with Lambert. Lambert came in second.

But they were right on each of the five weeks leading up to the final vote. “Social media and especially Twitter is highly representative of people that are voting on American Idol,” says Tamairah Boleyn, Biz360’s director of marketing.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

“There’s not a better job on the planet than judging that f—ing karaoke contest,” Stern said, the site reports. “It might be possible, we’ll see,” he said, adding: “They’d have to pay me a ton of dough because I already make a ton of dough.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Hi there! Salivating for tonight’s show? Me too.

But I have a request. Please hear me out.

Like you, I’ve invested an embarrassingly substantial number of hours in this thing. And I can’t wait for one last season with Jack, Locke, et al. (Especially Locke. Can’t get enough Locke.)

But unlike some of you, I’m probably not going to be able to watch every show in real-time. Various life requirements are going to force me to watch at least some of these a day or two later on the DVR (or ABC.com or Hulu in a pinch).

Which would be fine, except that I’m also on Twitter a lot, and so are many of you. And many of you want to tweet about the show while it’s running and during its aftermath.

I don’t know why that is. I get the idea of Twittering along with live communal events like “American Idol” or pro football. But you guys realize that “Lost” episodes were taped months ago, right?

Anyway, I’m not here to judge! Just to ask for your help.

My ask: It’d be really great if you folks could lay off the “Lost” tweets until a few days after each show. Because otherwise, I–and, I suspect many other people, as well–will have to make an unpleasant choice: Stop using Twitter for several days a week or wade through lots and lots of spoilers. (This is apparently not a Hobbesian Choice but a Morton’s Fork. Thanks, Wikipedia!)

Yes, I think it’s theoretically possible for me to set up Twitter clients like Tweetdeck to strike some “Lost”-related tweets from my stream. But not all of them.

I also suppose we could also ask Biz Stone and crew to somehow filter out “Lost” tweets from the mainstream, but I think those guys have more important stuff to do. (One other alternative would be to ask all you Twittering real-time “Lost” watchers to head somewhere else for a bit, like Hot Potato, which is supposed to work for just this sort of thing. But I can understand if you’re not up for embracing yet another messaging service.)

So. What do you think ? I’m not asking for much, I think. Just a little near-term restraint. Let’s say two days, max.

That lets the rest of us catch up–remember, East Coasters, that the poor folks on the other side of the country are three hours behind to begin with. And then we can join the rest of you, and we can all discuss this awesome show in 140 or fewer characters.

Thanks in advance for your consideration,

Peter

P.S.: I bet the smoke monster is Jack’s dad. Or something.

The bizarre but catchy “Pants on the Ground” rap song performance by Atlanta’s Larry Platt, delivered with verve during an audition for the “American Idol” television competition, now has two million views on YouTube and has spurred a plethora of comic knockoffs.

You can see the original below, as well as Jimmy Fallon’s version, in which he channels Neil Young. Surprisingly, it’s pretty decent.

Here are the videos:

Yesterday, BoomTown posted on the mess created by NBC over its late-night talk show wrangling.

The fracas involves Jay Leno, Conan O’Brien and seemingly every dude who sits behind a desk and kisses up to celebrities for a living at the GE (GE) television network, which was just bought by Comcast (CMCSA).

As I noted: “I do love the roundelay of online videos this Tinseltown mess has created.”

And here are more, from Leno, who seems really irked by the meltdown that has tarnished his reputation, although NBC is also flacking the clip.

Also below Leno is daytime talk show queen Ellen DeGeneres, who mixed the NBC stew in with Simon Cowell announcing that he is leaving “American Idol” right before she arrives as a judge.

The laughter through the tears keeps on coming:

LENO

DEGENERES

But here’s a comprehensive set of instructions from a big cable company showing its customers how to do just that. It suggests that they head to the likes of Hulu, Fancast or “any search engine”–weird for it not to call out Google (GOOG), no?–to find their favorite shows.

Time Warner Cable’s (TWC) instructions on “How to Connect Your PC to Your TV” are embedded at the bottom of this post. And here’s a helpful video (sorry for the clumsy screengrab; the video kicks in at about the five-second mark, and there’s some unpleasant coughing around 2:30. Yikes!):

The instructions (Time Warner Cable promised to provide them last week) are part of the company’s game of chicken with News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, which is supposed to come to a head tonight. If you believe the posturing so far, Fox and its associated cable channels (Fox News, FX, etc.) will disappear after midnight tonight because the two sides can’t agree on  new rate.

Alternate view: This thing will go down to the wire and then get resolved, like Time Warner Cable’s back-and-forth with Viacom (VIA) a year ago.

If you want blow-by-blow coverage, let me suggest the Los Angeles Times’s tireless Joe Flint, who is updating each salvo in real time, or very close to it. Or you can just turn on your TV set after midnight tonight and take a look for yourself.

Still, no matter how this resolves, the danger for both sides is that consumers really do take up Time Warner Cable on its offer and start watching Fox stuff on the Web. And to be clear: Fox would prefer that people keep paying for cable TV, because the media company really likes subscription fees from cable TV providers.

Peoplr are already moving to the Web to watch TV, of course, but it’s not mainstream behavior yet. It may be inevitable anyway, but no matter what you hear from both sides of this contract dispute, both sides like this model very much and they’d like to keep it intact as long as possible.

Which is why discussions with would-be “over the top” providers like Apple (AAPL) are supposed to be about adding additional TV programming, not replacing cable.

The safety catch here for the TV business is that consumers who do go to the Web to watch TV, at least through sanctioned means, may be disappointed: They’ll find that programming there doesn’t show up for at least a day, and often longer, after it airs. And some stuff, notably live sports like the NFL playoffs (contrary to the image in the screenshot above) and Fox’s “American Idol” don’t make it on the Web at all.

TV_to_PC_TWC –

Last year’s version featured Time Warner Cable facing off against Viacom (VIA). This year, it’s Time Warner Cable (TWC) versus News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox channel. (Disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this Web site).

If you’re looking for a  variation on a theme, note that Fox is trying to get paid for its Fox broadcast channels, which the cable guys traditionally don’t pay for, at least not directly. But big picture, it’s the same pool of money, divvied up by the same companies and funded by the same people–Time Warner Cable customers like me–who don’t really have a say. Nothing new here.

I have noticed one difference. Last year, the Time Warner Cable guys suggested that if Viacom shows really did disappear from customers’ homes, it would be easy enough to find them by going online. And the company promised to help its customers figure out just how to find the likes SpongeBob and Jon Stewart on the Web, if it came to that.

This year, we haven’t heard this particular threat. But for a lot of people, Web TV is a much more plausible alternative than it was 12 months ago. What gives?

Nothing, says TWC spokesman Alexander Dudley. He just hasn’t gotten around to talking about it yet.

“We have plans, if it goes on, to direct customers to specific content” on the Web, Dudley says. One of the reasons it hasn’t come up yet, he adds, is because it’s so obvious–everyone knows that if you want to watch Fox shows on the Web, you go to Hulu, the video site the company owns with GE’s (GE) NBC and Disney’s (DIS) ABC.

“Part of the reason that we find their demands outrageous is because the content is available for free online,” Dudley says. “And if it goes on, we plan to show our customers how to connect their PCs to a TV using an S cable.”

Dudley won’t spell it out, but he’s essentially repeating one of the cable industry’s main criticisms of Hulu: Handing out free TV on the Web devalues the stuff programmers try to sell to the cable guys.

We’ll see. I think that if push really does come to shove, casual Hulu users might discover that the site is no longer the treasure chest of free TV they thought it was.

For starters, there’s broadcast stuff that never gets to Hulu in the first place–like live events. In Fox’s case, that’s a very big deal, since its January schedule includes both NFL football playoffs and the start of “American Idol.”

And when it comes to cable programming like “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” or “Nip/Tuck”–stuff that Time Warner Cable is already paying for–Hulu’s owners have been careful not to put much on the Web in the first place. Go try to watch “Sons of Anarchy,” the FX biker show on Hulu and you’ll end up pretty frustrated.

So here’s a question for Time Warner Cable: Do you really want to send angry customers to Hulu–and then have to deal with them a second time, when they find they still can’t watch their favorite shows, S cable and all?

Another thought: What if Fox simply yanked the programming it supplies to Hulu from Time Warner Cable users? Is that doable–either technically or contractually? I’m lobbing the question to News Corp. and will let you know if I get a response.

Best bet: Just like last year, this year’s fight will likely go up until the Dec. 31 deadline. And then it will get resolved, with the cable guys paying more than they wanted and the network getting less.

Then again, there is dark muttering that is really different this time because both sides have important precedents at stake, etc. I wouldn’t put much stock in that yet–what else are they going to say?–but if it pans out, it will be interesting to see what role Hulu ends up playing.

This should change early next year, but in the most limited way. Hulu plans to let users in the U.K., and most likely, other countries, access its U.S. site to watch a single show: The made-for-the Web reality series, “If I Can Dream.”

The show comes via 19 Entertainment, owner and creator of the “American Idol” franchise, and has a similar theme: It will follow five would-be stars as they try to make their way as actors, singers, etc. They’ll live in a Hollywood house wired with HD cameras and microphones, and viewers will be able to follow them live, seven days a week, via a streaming Web video site.

That footage will be edited down to a 30-minute weekly highlights show for Hulu. And that’s the show that should provide many international viewers with their first glimpse of Hulu, owned by GE’s (GE) NBC, News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox and Disney’s (DIS) ABC.

The press release announcing “If I Can Dream” says “it will be the first recurring show to be available to select international audiences via Hulu,” though it doesn’t spell out which countries or a time frame. But I’m told the series is set to start running early next year and that the U.K., where 19 Entertainment is based, is one of the countries slated to get access.

There’s still a possibility that the international plans could fall through. However, 19 Entertainment owns the show outright, which ought to make things easy. And both Ford (F) and Pepsi (PEP), which have already signed on to underwrite much of the show’s costs, advertise internationally, which ought to make things even easier.

But since “If I Can Dream” will use recorded music as a soundtrack, clearing the rights to every song in every territory could pose a problem.

That uncertainty should also help explain why Hulu has taken so long to expand the rest of the site to other countries: Even when Hulu finds major TV partners that want to work with it–which isn’t always a given–sorting out rights problems for every show or movie can be a lot of work.

Meanwhile, a few notes on “If I Can Dream”:

• Hulu and 19 Entertainment, which is owned by Bob Sillerman’s CKX (CKXE) licensing shop, don’t seem exactly sure how to describe the new venture. Hulu’s press release calls it a “post-reality entertainment show.” But 19 Entertainment’s PR guy asked me specifically to avoid calling it a reality show. “It’s a Web experience,” he explains. Okay, then.
• Whatever you want to call it, at least parts of “If I Can Dream” will seem familiar: There’s the Peeping Tom component of “Big Brother,” mixed with “Idol’s” star-making. And if we’re lucky, some drunken debauchery a la “The Real World.”
• The most interesting element is the show’s path to Hulu: 19 Entertainment originally pitched the show to broadcast and cable networks, which hemmed and hawed, I’m told. But sources say Hulu jumped at the chance to run the show as an exclusive. Theoretically, if it does well enough on the Web, it could end up on conventional TV next year, too. But “If I Can Dream” is designed to turn a profit without leaving the Internet.
• The show is synergized from the get-go: In addition to the Ford, Pepsi and Hulu connections, it will also use promotion from News Corp.’s MySpace, which will help run a talent search to find new faces as the old ones cycle out. And Clear Channel (CCO) will use its network of radio stations to promote the talent.
• The cast of five seems to be composed of exceptionally good-looking people. If you’re trying to view this clip from outside the U.S., you’ll have to take my word for it:

Now, Shareholder Representative Services, a firm hired by VCs to manage post-acquisition escrow, earn-out and other events, has thrown its party hat into the ring with a new video ode that gives Onset a run for its money.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Last week, BoomTown translated an opinion piece written by Google CEO Eric Schmidt and published in The Wall Street Journal that focused on defending the search giant from criticism that it was, well, killing journalism.

One of the louder critics, in fact, has been Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp. (NWS), who has been loaded for bear in regard to Google (GOOG), leveling a series of high-profile verbal attacks on the company.

Last week, Murdoch published his own piece in The Journal, which he owns (along with this Web site), on the topic of the wrenching changes in the news business and in which he never mentioned Google by name.

But the company was there anyway, so, in the interests of equal opportunity balloon-pricking, I must also render Murdoch’s post through my decoding machine, because it’s only sporting!

His op-ed, The Journal noted, “has been adapted from his Dec. 1 remarks before the Federal Trade Commission’s workshop on journalism and the Internet.”

What Murdoch wrote: Journalism and Freedom

By RUPERT MURDOCH

Translation: Crikey, as they say in Australia, I have been getting a little wobbly over Google’s growing power, but those bludgers in government will always make me go more troppo.

And, unlike Eric Schmidt, I didn’t need to be called Emperor Palpatine to scare people. Plain old “Rupe” works just fine to give most people the shakes.

What Murdoch wrote: We are at a time when many news enterprises are shutting down or scaling back. No doubt you will hear some tell you that journalism is in dire shape, and the triumph of digital is to blame.

My message is just the opposite. The future of journalism is more promising than ever–limited only by editors and producers unwilling to fight for their readers and viewers, or government using its heavy hand either to overregulate or subsidize us.

Translation: Please try to ignore the salient fact that it was actually Rupert Murdoch–me!–who has been loudly clanging the bell of late about how Google is laying waste to journalism, much as Sean Hannity did to that poor Alan Colmes nightly for a dozen years.

Also, please ignore that I am saying my message is just the opposite, because–really–I hate government more than I hate Google, so this makes perfect sense if you really think about it.

But don’t think about it, mate!

Murdoch wrote: From the beginning, newspapers have prospered for one reason: The trust that comes from representing their readers’ interests and giving them the news that’s important to them. That means covering the communities where they live, exposing government or business corruption, and standing up to the rich and powerful.

Does this mean we are all going to succeed? Of course not. Some newspapers and news organizations will not adapt to the digital realities of our day–and they will fail. We should not blame technology for these failures. The future of journalism belongs to the bold, and the companies that prosper will be those that find new and better ways to meet the needs of their viewers, listeners, and readers.

Translation: Teri: Cue the speech about what journalism means for the little people! But also make sure we get in how News Corp. gets all this digital hoo-ha too and how we are not going to let those pointy-heads of Silicon Valley think we are not ready to rumble!

What Murdoch wrote: First, media companies need to give people the news they want. I can’t tell you how many papers I have visited where they have a wall of journalism prizes–and a rapidly declining circulation. This tells me the editors are producing news for themselves–instead of news that is relevant to their customers. A news organization’s most important asset is the trust it has with its readers, a bond that reflects the readers’ confidence that editors are looking out for their needs and interests.

Translation: There was a trophy cabinet and award wall just like that at The Wall Street Journal before I bought it. I ate it it for breakfast.

What Murdoch wrote: At News Corp., we have been working for two years on a project that would use a portion of our broadcast spectrum to bring our TV offerings–and maybe even our newspaper content–to mobile devices. Today’s news consumers do not want to be chained to a box in their homes or offices to get their favorite news and entertainment–and our plan includes the needs of the next wave of TV viewing by going mobile.

The same is true with newspapers. More and more, our readers are using different technologies to access our papers during different parts of the day. For example, they might read some of their Wall Street Journal on their BlackBerries while commuting into the office, read it on the computer when they arrive, and read it on a larger and clearer e-reader wherever they may be.

Translation: Teri: Tell Jon Miller to get on a plane stat and start chit-chatting with those Asian manufacturers asap. I am not going to let Amazon (AMZN) head Jeff Bezos guffaw me into oblivion with his Kindle or have “American Idol” get hijacked by Apple (AAPL) or have those Google (GOOG) twins shine me on, even as they are developing some magic mobile phone.

What Murdoch wrote: My second point follows from my first: Quality content is not free. In the future, good journalism will depend on the ability of a news organization to attract customers by providing news and information they are willing to pay for.

That’s not going to change, even in a boom. The reason is that the old model was founded on quasimonopolies, such as classified advertising, which has been decimated by new and cheaper competitors such as Craigslist, Monster.com, and so on.

Translation: My second point follows from the first: We can’t charge for milk when we have been giving away the cow for free.

And, frankly, the old media have been lending out Bessie to every Web site that comes looking for a gallon, free of charge, in abject fear that no one likes milk anymore.

In the good old days, when we were the only beverage around–I like to call it a “quasiMOOnopoly”–we could set any price we wanted.

Now, unfortunately, everybody’s got milk.

What Murdoch wrote: In the new business model, we will be charging consumers for the news we provide on our Internet sites. The critics say people won’t pay. I believe they will, but only if we give them something of good and useful value. Our customers are smart enough to know that you don’t get something for nothing.

Translation: People will pay, once we de-index our sites from Google and they can’t get their daily dose of the New York Post’s Page Six for free. Where else will they get the latest online tidbits on the Tiger Woods scandal, for example?

Okay, from everywhere. But Page Six names at least 46 percent more mistresses than TMZ, and that’s worth something.

What Murdoch wrote: That goes for some of our friends online too. And yet there are those who think they have a right to take our news content and use it for their own purposes without contributing a penny to its production. Some rewrite, at times without attribution, the news stories of expensive and distinguished journalists who invested days, weeks or even months in their stories–all under the tattered veil of “fair use.”

Right now, content creators bear all the costs, while aggregators enjoy many of the benefits. In the long term, this is untenable. We are open to different pay models. But the principle is clear: To paraphrase a famous economist, there’s no such thing as a free news story, and we are going to ensure that we get a fair but modest price for the value we provide.

Translation: By “friends,” I mean “sworn enemies,” also known as “Google.” (Until it meets with me to do a deal and then it is “friends” again.)

By “tattered veil of ‘fair use,’” I mean “the law I am going to get gutted by my 1,473 lobbyists in Washington, D.C.”

By “to be impolite, it’s theft,” I mean “to be impolite, it’s theft by Larry and Sergey.” (Until they meet with me to do a deal and fork over the moolah, and then it will be a “business arrangement.”)

By “there’s no such thing as a free news story,” I mean “I hope to trick those Google-obsessed Bing boys at Microsoft (MSFT) into paying me that boatload of money they aren’t sending Carol Bartz of Yahoo (YHOO).”

What Murdoch wrote: Finally, a few words about government. In the last two or three decades, we have seen the emergence of new platforms and opportunities that no one could have predicted–from social networking sites and iPhones and BlackBerries, to Internet sites for newspapers, radio and television. And we are only at the beginning.

These developments mean increased competition, and that is good for consumers. But just as businesses are adapting to new realities, the government needs to adapt too. In this new and more globally competitive news world, restricting cross-ownership between television and newspapers makes as little sense as would banning newspapers from having Web sites.

Translation: Oh, I do not like Silicon Valley, but I dislike government even more!

And now that Google is its bogeyman instead of me, I really hope to finally be able to gut all those annoying cross-ownership rules that prevented me from owning the entire media landscape of every major city in America.

This must be done immediately, because those icons on people’s cellphones–especially that dangerous iFart app–are poised for attack!

What Murdoch wrote: In my view, the growing drumbeat for government assistance for newspapers is as alarming as overregulation. One idea gaining in popularity is providing taxpayer funds for journalists. Or giving newspapers “nonprofit” status–in exchange, of course, for papers giving up their right to endorse political candidates. The most damning problem with government “help” is what we saw with the bailout of the U.S. auto industry: Help props up those who are producing things that customers do not want.

The prospect of the U.S. government becoming directly involved in commercial journalism ought to be chilling for anyone who cares about freedom of speech. The Founding Fathers knew that the key to independence was to allow enterprises to prosper and serve as a counterweight to government power. It is precisely because newspapers make profits and do not depend on the government for their livelihood that they have the resources and wherewithal to hold the government accountable.

Translation: You bailin’ out me? You bailin’ out me? You bailin’ out me? Then who the hell else are you bailin’ out? You bailin’ out me? Well I’m the only one here. Who the %*#! do you think you’re bailin’ out?”

What Murdoch wrote: When the representatives of 13 former British colonies established a new order for the ages, they built it on a sturdy foundation: a free and informed citizenry. They understood that an informed citizenry requires news that is independent from government. That is one reason they put the First Amendment first.

Translation: Teri: Please insert the clarion cry of the First Amendment here, as it always stirs the heartstrings.

What Murdoch wrote: Our modern world is faster moving and far more complex than theirs. But the basic truth remains: To make informed decisions, free men and women require honest and reliable news about events affecting their countries and their lives. Whether the newspaper of the future is delivered with electrons or dead trees is ultimately not that important. What is most important is that the news industry remains free, independent–and competitive.

Translation: Believe me, if we could push a button and get rid of the whole Internet, News Corp. and Time Warner (TWX) and Viacom (VIA) and CBS (CBS) and the whole lot of us old media players would.

Barring that, whether the newspaper of the future is delivered with electrons or dead trees is ultimately not that important.

What is most important is that the news industry shake down big piles of dough from those Silicon Valley moneybags–whether they be Google or that Mark Zuckerberg kid, whenever Facebook goes public, or those Twitter dudes (if they figure out a way to make any money outside of fund raising)–in order to remain free, independent–and competitive.

It is, after all, the American way.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.