Here are two clips from the first episode that Bravo has put up about its new and controversial-before-it’s-aired reality television show, “Start-Ups: Silicon Valley.”

The cable program chronicles the ups and downs of a group of young entrepreneurs in tech, and some have decried it from simply seeing the promo sizzle reel that featured lots of partying and pool-hanging.

No frolicking here in a short clip, as super angel investor Dave McClure looks over a pitch deck of brother-and-sister team Ben and Hermione Way for their health-and-lifestyle start-up, apparently called Ignite.

With that reality show rut-roh music playing in the background, Ben inexplicably says he thinks McClure was “slightly disrespectful, him going through the whole thing and making his own judgments.”

Which is, of course, an investor’s job, going all Judge Judy on entrepreneurs. And, in my experience, McClure was awfully polite about grabbing the deck.

And alls I can say is that Ben is very lucky he managed to avoid bringing his pitch deck near me.

There’s also one that seems a lot more reality-show, with Hermione arguing over a botched event with another person on the show, Sarah Austin. There is mention of “making out” with Ben and SXSW.

In any case, the show looks interesting enough to take a gander when it airs on Monday, November 5 at 10 pm.

Here are the video clips:

Here’s the trailer for Hulu’s latest original content offering about a very unusual matchmaker.

That’s irksome “Paul, the Male Matchmaker,” a 10-episode spoof series from Warner Bros. Television Group’s Studio 2.0, which will debut on the premium video service on Feb. 13.

Get it? The day before Valentine’s Day.

It’s got the same tone as Lisa Kudrow’s successful (and now on cable television’s Showtime) “Web Therapy,” with lots of well-known guest stars.

I kind of like it from the teaser here, but we’ll see:

With the continuing negotiations between AOL and high-profile TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington likely to come to some conclusion soon, the big question remaining is whether he will appear at its flagship conference, TechCrunch Disrupt, which officially begins tomorrow.

Sources said that seems more likely than not, although the talks between AOL and Arrington are not resolved as yet and his appearance at the highly lucrative conference is part of a whole package.

But it seems unlikely that neither Arrington nor AOL CEO Tim Armstrong and content chief Arianna Huffington wants to damage TechCrunch Disrupt, which makes piles of moolah from sponsors and fees, attracts thousands of attendees, and where a plethora of promising start-ups compete with each other.

And, in fact, some of the slated speakers I have contacted have said that they have not been told of any changes in the program.

A hackathon of those entrepreneurs is now taking place before the main event, where well-known Silicon Valley players will be interviewed on stage by the staff of TechCrunch.

The conference is mostly run by TechCrunch exec Heather Harde, as well as the site’s leading editor Erick Schonfeld.

But, of course, TechCrunch Disrupt has starred Arrington, the larger-than-life blogger now turned venture capitalist.

That shift and how badly it was done is at the center of complex severance negotiations.

As I previously wrote, sources said the company has so far refused Arrington’s bold demand, posted on TechCrunch itself, to either give the popular tech news site “editorial independence” or sell it back to him.

As I wrote last week:

The situation between the popular tech blogger and top execs at the Internet company — which bought his site earlier this year — comes after a week of increasingly testy back and forth between them, after it was revealed that Arrington was starting his own $20 million venture fund called CrunchFund.

The move caused a media firestorm over the ethics and propriety of the move, which was followed by an ugly internal war at the company, with Arrington and TechCrunch staffers on one side and Armstrong and Huffington on the other.

(Full disclosure: Although no one cares what I think, I consider the deal appalling and wrote that it was a “giant, greedy Silicon Valley pig pile.” Now, it seems to be 56 percent piggier!)

After many confusing messages from AOL, Arrington was removed from his longtime job at TechCrunch and placed in its venture arm, after editorial objections from Huffington.

That had supposedly been the the plan until it all blew up, with reveleations about what the CrunchFund deal — which includes $10 million from AOL — meant to TechCrunch and its news gathering.

That seemed clear from a widely cited quote from CrunchFund investor and well-know Silicon Valley entrepreneur Reid Hoffman to me last week:

“TechCrunch will get some real deal flow from entrepreneurs that we would otherwise not see, because they have established a prominent position as the SV/Tech industry information feed. As many tech entrepreneurs read it — both within Silicon Valley and globally — and view the information news feed to be their target for announcing themselves to the world, CrunchFund will have access to deal flow to these diverse and early stage companies. Some of these companies will be the kind of early stage companies with billion-dollar potential that Greylock invests in.”

There you had it: No one can afford to be out of the deal flow in these competitive times, even if it means cutting corners and using a tech news site as fodder.

Arrington obviously has another view of the deal he struck with Armstrong and, sources said, wants his powerful tech news platform back. He has been talking to many Silicon Valley power players about the situation, said sources.

More to come soon from this Silicon Valley soap opera. And, hopefully, it will be a happy — well, happy-ish — ending.

(Full disclosure: AllThingsD also runs conferences that could be construed as competitive to TechCrunch Disrupt, although we both we seem to do just fine. In addition, Walt Mossberg and I are getting along like peas and carrots, although we vigorously disagree over the humongous talent of Barry Manilow.)

This is a very funny CollegeHumor video series, called
“Always Open With Dave Koechner,” a great if unsung comic. It is set at a Denny’s restaurant. Really.

This perfectly awkward episode features another comedy gem, Amy Poehler.

Maybe it is just me, but a lot of these small Web-only videos are really starting to get interesting.

The hit YouTube video series “The Annoying Orange” is apparently going to become an animated television series.

According to a report in Deadline Hollywood:

“Management/production company The Collective has teamed with Dane Boedigheimer, creator of the popular YouTube series The Annoying Orange, to produce The Annoying Orange animated TV comedy series.”

The Orange in question essentially heckles other fruits and veggies, using a freaky human mouth. After only a half-dozen episodes, the series has garnered tens of millions of views each.

Here’s two of them, which are pretty funny:

The IBM supercomputer and human player, Brad Rutter, each had $5,000 on the scoreboard, while Ken Jennings, who had bested Watson in the much-publicized practice match, ended with $2,000.

Watson missed some questions and in interesting ways. At one point Watson repeated a wrong answer, the “1920s,” which Jennings had just said. Host Alex Trebeck referred to these as “weird little moments.”

Watson sprang to a huge lead early. By the first commercial break, Watson had $5,200 to Rutter’s $1,000, and $200 for Jennings. It began a serious run interestingly enough after hitting the Daily Double and making a bet. This is interesting in that Watson, in the practice match which it ultimately lost, showed a weakness in situations where betting was called for. This was a weakness that Jennings exploited to his benefit. This made it a surprise when Watson threw down and bet $1,000, more than it had on the board at the time.

I asked Stephen Baker (pictured), author of the forthcoming book on the match, “Final Jeopardy,” to call me after the episode aired for a little color commentary from the point of view of someone who was in the studio to witness it. Our conversation, which I recorded on Google Voice, is below.

Steve Baker Talks about The IBM Jeopardy Challenge, Day 1 by ahess247

It’s the show I told you about last month, and I believe it’s the first one the Web video site–owned by GE’s NBC, Disney’s ABC and News Corp.’s Fox–has commissioned for itself. (News Corp. also owns this Web site.)

Just like Hulu said it would be, it’s a Web show about stuff that aired on TV. Nothing wrong with that–showing people clips of last night’s TV on the Web is a useful thing. I like to do it, a lot.

But this one–or, at least, this episode–is a snoozer. I wouldn’t have made it through all five minutes if my job didn’t require it.

Hulu says this is a preview of the show, and that the joint video venture would like to “develop and evolve the show with your input.”

So okay, Hulu. Here’s my input: You say your inspiration for this show was the Keith Olbermann/Dan Patrick-era “SportsCenter” on ESPN, from way back in the early ’90s.

But go back and watch those shows. See how the anchors are both praising sports and, with a wink, making fun of it? The way they’re telling you that yes, we know you’d watch this stuff all day if you could–so would we!–and yes, we think it’s silly too?

Your show scans a whole lot more like the modern-day “SportsCenter,” which also has clips, and jokes, but without any real self-awareness or bite. So I’d like some more of that, please.

Or put it another way: You know how your first set of TV ads were sharp and funny? Make your show like that!

For whatever reason, I can’t find classic “SportsCenter” clips on Google’s YouTube or anywhere else on the Web. But here’s something very similar: Olbermann doing sports for L.A.’s KCBS in 1989, courtesy Twitter’s Matt Graves:

That’s my translation of comments from Turner Broadcasting’s Phil Kent today. The head of Time Warner’s cable network told the crowd at a Citigroup investment conference that his company had pulled out of bidding for reruns of “Modern Family” because the show was “a little too prevalent on the Internet.”

The sitcom runs on both ABC.com and Hulu, so I’m not clear if Kent was talking about one or the other, or both. Either way, those comments have to simultaneously please and dismay “Modern Family” creator Steve Levitan, who has complained that giving away streams of his show on Hulu doesn’t do him any good and probably does him harm.

Levitan isn’t the only one who thinks that way: There are plenty of TV people who worry that free streaming on the Web is hurting their business, either by sapping ratings or cutting down on the appetite for DVDs and syndication. In this case, the supposed value shrinkage hurts News Corp., which produces the show and owns the rerun rights, more than it does Disney’s ABC, which airs the initial run. (News Corp. also owns this Web site.)

That’s one of the fundamental tensions Hulu has to deal with, and the primary reason why taking the joint venture public remains such a long shot–until all of its owner/partners are willing to make long-term programming commitments to the site, it’s hard to see the long-term value in the company.

Still, it’s important to note that Kent didn’t abstain from bidding–he simply dropped out. The Los Angeles Times’ plugged-in Joe Flint estimates that Turner was willing to pay about $1 million per episode, which isn’t as much as the winning $1.4 million bid, but isn’t immaterial, either.

Oh. And the winner of the bid? GE’s NBC Universal–one of Hulu’s three owner/partners.