Sunday, May 24, 2009

Eleventh Hour & Reaper gone


Michael Hinman writing at Airlock Alpha notes that the networks continue to trash the SF and other assorted programming that made watching network television bearable.

He writes:
  • CBS has indeed pulled the plug on "Eleventh Hour" - Also cut was "Reaper" on The CW.
In a weird version of network musical chairs:
  • CBS also announced it was picking up "Medium," a show recently canceled by NBC. It will move to Fridays following "Ghost Whisperer."

This just in however:
Poster ReaperDMV takes issue with Airlock Alpha's Hinman - writing
  • Mr. Hinman is incorrect, Reaper is not gone, it's just not being picked up by the CW. Industry insiders confirm Hollywood Reporter's article that ABC Studios is actively trying to sell Reaper. Syndication is a very real possiblity right now, but EVERYONE is recommending writing your affiliates! Help out! All details here: http://community.livejournal.com/reaperdmv/46875.html
  • If successful, we're looking at a 22 episode season, possibly starting in October.

26 comments:

ReaperDMV said...

Mr. Hinman is incorrect, Reaper is not gone, it's just not being picked up by the CW. Industry insiders confirm Hollywood Reporter's article that ABC Studios is actively trying to sell Reaper. Syndication is a very real possiblity right now, but EVERYONE is recommending writing your affiliates! Help out! All details here: http://community.livejournal.com/reaperdmv/46875.html

If successful, we're looking at a 22 episode season, possibly starting in October.

Beam Me Up said...

Great info Reaper...
I will make sure that tidbit gets in this week's program.

ReaperDMV said...

Thank you so much! If you want the real-time info (including a post from Jenny Wade), we're working on it in our "Ideas to ensure a Season Three" thread:

http://reaperdmv.com/index.cgi?board=seasontwo&action=display&thread=197

And FYI, Tara Butters also wrote us:

http://community.livejournal.com/reaperdmv/42680.html

Thank you again!

catko said...

Cool news, thanks for the support, Beam Me Up!

MichaelHinman said...

Hi! I am all for eating crow or admitting mistakes when they exist, but there is no mistake here.

The story is here: http://airlockalpha.com/news426372.html

The headline is "CBS cancels 'Eleventh Hour,' The CW drops 'Reaper'"

The story goes on to say, "Also getting the scythe was 'Reaper' on The CW, an expected move after the network pushed its second season well into the spring."

...

"'Reaper' never really had a chance this season. It premiered March 3 with a 1.5/2 and finished the season at 1.2/2, averaging a 1.4/2. "90210" averaged a 2.1/3 when it occupied the timeslot earlier in the season."

There is nothing in those two mentions of "Reaper" in my story that are incorrect in any way, even after reading the comments by ReaperDMV.

ReaperDMV states, "Mr. Hinman is incorrect, 'Reaper' is not gone." We never said it was gone.

"It's just not being picked up by The CW." Also EXACTLY what we reported.

What "Reaper" is doing right now is COMMON PRACTICE when you are dealing with a show that is not produced in-house. The producers will tend to look for another network or even look to first-run syndication (which, by the way, is not as lucrative as it once was). However, it is very rare that such a deal can be put into place.

In order for "Reaper" to be successful, it will have to sell to at least 60 percent of the market. That's not an impossible task by any stretch of the imagination, but is not a lock. If "Reaper" is trying to sell itself for October, it would need to start selling to affiliates now.

I do have to say that the best way to support this show going into first-run syndication is by doing exactly what it is you're doing now, contacting affiliates, and I really do hope your successful.

But please do not go on blogs and mischaracterize the stories that we write at Airlock Alpha. We never said the show was gone, only that it was canceled by The CW ... a fact that is NOT in dispute. We didn't mention the syndication attempts because they are commonplace and rarely successful.

I really do hope that "Reaper" bucks that trend, however, as we have a lot of readers who are fans of the show.

ReaperDMV said...

Semantics, Mr. Hinman. There's a vast difference between being accurate and misleading. Half the truth is not the full truth and I'm not mischaracterizing anything. People read your articles and assume you are giving the full story, and that's why they give up, even when there is still hope.

Also, ABC Studios contacted the CW affiliates right afer the CW dropped Sunday nights. They're just waiting for a final offer since apparently ABC is dealing with cable (either SciFi or SpikeTV) *and* syndication.

Beam Me Up said...

I am wondering if some of this can be place square on my shoulders. Michael in his article on Airlock Alpha said in his article title CW Drops Reaper.
In my opinion, if I am watching it on CW and CW drops it...well "Reaper is Gone" Little things like well it "might" be picked up are fine, but if it's not there.....so you see that when I wrote my article, quoting as I did from Mike's article, I wrote it as I saw it....Eleventh Hour & Reaper are gone....

So if the contention is that Mike said it was "gone" he didn't...I never said he did. But if my article gave that impression, then I sincerely apologize to everyone especially Mike as I feel he is a great reference point and I think he is reporting what he sees without forwarding an agenda.

Paul

ReaperDMV said...

Michael in his article on Airlock Alpha said in his article title CW Drops Reaper.
In my opinion, if I am watching it on CW and CW drops it...well "Reaper is Gone" Little things like well it "might" be picked up are fine, but if it's not there.....
Exactly. That's the precise inference that can be made from these incomplete stories - and IMO it's a disservice not only to fans, but to readers in general.

I can understand leaving off the "might" details if it's just fan wishing, as most of these details are, but this is not the case here. It's been reported by numerous sources - particularly The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, E!Online, etc. etc. - that ABC Studios *is* in talks. Hollywood Reporter even reiterated this fact when reporting the CW's "cancellation" of the show.

It's worse IMO, when the reporter in question *knows* the information, but chooses not to use it in his/her story. At the very least it can be mentioned - even if it's followed by the caveat "but I don't think it will happen".

Beam Me Up said...

ReaperDMV now I am confused...
Ok, I know it's simplistic but as a general rule, I take these articles at face value. I see little little gain in pushing an agenda when writing about entertainment television. My comments and reports are nothing more than that of a SF fan and comment on them are in the same vein. (even the description of the blog states that we, meaning the submitters and writers to the radio program, use the blog as a script for the program) ok, that being said...at what point did we jump to the conclusion that Hinman was writing with bias? Or for that matter was deliberately misleading by omission? Now I have pulled for my favorite shows before as well (Firefly anyone, even Star Trek in the day)and know that fans want to get the best info forward and out there...but I honestly can not see where there was a deliberate or malicious act of omission. Am I missing something? I honestly do not see any collusion (not saying there isn't...I just don't see it) and what would be the gain?

But I guess that's why I'm and always will be .... just a fan lol.

Paul

ReaperDMV said...

Heh. Sorry Paul. No need to be confused, you've done nothing wrong. You're just proving my point. We take these articles at face value, so it's up to the reporter to get the story accurate in the first place.

As to your question, I am not saying Mr. Hinman posted with bias (much like he's saying "Nothing in my article was incorrect"), so I obviously need to clarify and you can decide for yourself. I emailed Mr. Hinman all the links earlier, especially the Hollywood Reporter article. In particular regards to THR report - I actually sent that to him weeks ago, so he had the information *before* he wrote "CW Drops Reaper". In this particular case, Mr. Hinman's article is not innocent ignorance, but *willful* ignorance.


Like I said, it would be one thing if this were a mere "common practice" issue, and wishful thinking on the part of the fans. But it's not, as a great many reputable sources have documented this fact - like I said in my last post. It's got an interesting catch that caught their attention: Reaper possibly ending up on the same affiliates as the very network that "canceled" it.

This is the second time I have been in contact with him over this issue. I even corrected his email back to me about Tyler and the creators leaving, but he has never acknowledged that.

BTW - Even Tyler has said publically he would be back - although to be fair, we do have word that ABC may be shopping the show without him. And like I said, the creators wrote us to clarify that they would still be involved even with their new FOX contracts.

MichaelHinman said...

Paul:

In my opinion, you didn't do ANYTHING wrong in your story. You wrote "Eleventh Hour & Reaper gone" in your headline, but to be honest, that is still pretty accurate. You cannot control what people infer in articles.

I've been a journalist for a very long time, and an entertainment journalist on top of that for more than a decade. I know how to write these stories, and when I make a mistake, I'm the first person to admit it and make it known that there was a mistake.

Anyone who reads the story knows that The CW canceled "Reaper." If they infer more from that, then they are making assumptions. On my news site, I will judge what is germane to a story and what is not, and to be honest, providing false hope to fans is not what I'm in the business of doing.

We are very selective about what fan campaigns we cover. VERY selective. Why? Because if a campaign is not organized well, or if it's taking the wrong approach, or if it simply doesn't have a chance in hell of succeeding, we're not going to cover it.

We have covered the fan campaigns for successfully bringing "Star Trek: Enterprise" back for a fourth season. We have covered the "Farscape" campaign which successfully brought that back for a television movie and possibly additional Webisodes. We also covered the "Jericho" campaign which brought that show back for a second season.

If there was at least a 30 percent chance that "Reaper" could continue as a first-run syndicated program, I would cover it. And maybe they will be successful despite my lack of coverage of it ... I hope they do.

But I am not going to get into a deep semantical conversation on what was explicit and what was implied, and I'm certainly not going to justify why I cover what I do and why I don't cover what I don't outside of what was already shared here.

I stopped by Paul's fun and cool blog because I wanted to make sure that I wasn't incorrect in something, that if I needed to go back and correct something, I would. And when I decided that I was not incorrect, I responded as to why I was incorrect. I don't need Paul to apologize to me ... he didn't wrong me. And you don't need to apologize either, because you didn't wrong me. However, I will make sure that if I disagree with something -- especially when it's something being said about me or the coverage on my Web site -- I definitely will stop by and do it.

MichaelHinman said...

Semantics, Mr. Hinman. There's a vast difference between being accurate and misleading.Being misleading would be to put up fans' hopes of a revival when the chances are slim. Sorry, I have a lot more respect for my readers and fans of shows we cover.

Half the truth is not the full truth and I'm not mischaracterizing anything.The full truth was there. "Reaper" was canceled by The CW. Period.

People read your articles and assume you are giving the full story, and that's why they give up, even when there is still hope.Do you know WHY they read my articles and feel they are getting everything? Because we spent years and years building a reputation of making sure that all the information that needs to be shared IS shared. We don't put out half-baked ideas and what-not to simply make a fanbase happy, even if I'm a part of that fanbase.

If you, AS A FAN, want to go out there and campaign and do what you can to keep the show alive, I am not stopping you. But I am not obligated in any way to report on it, to talk about it, or to even share it with anyone.

But that doesn't mean that I'm only telling "half-truths," as you so disrespectfully characterize.

Also, ABC Studios contacted the CW affiliates right afer the CW dropped Sunday nights. They're just waiting for a final offer since apparently ABC is dealing with cable (either SciFi or SpikeTV) *and* syndication.And if they are successful in that effort, I will strongly consider covering it. Until then, negotiations are just that ... negotiations. A lot of shows that are canceled (and not produced in-house) usually branch out to find another network or possibly explore cable or syndication to further the series, but such attempts are rarely successful. Usually, if a show is going to move networks, it's because the production company is affiliated with another network, and they decide to move it there (see: "Medium")

You keep quoting The Hollywood Reporter on this ... let me point out to you the entire seventh paragraph of the trade's story on this:

Both scenarios are considered a longshot.

"Both," by the way, refers to first-run syndication and finding a home on cable. When it moves into the realm of "maybe it might work," then I will give a story like this credence.

Until then, it's just wishful thinking that has a better chance of turning into nothing.

It's worse IMO, when the reporter in question *knows* the information, but chooses not to use it in his/her story. At the very least it can be mentioned - even if it's followed by the caveat "but I don't think it will happen".If you don't like the way we cover stories, then please, don't visit the site. We are not a site for everyone, and I certainly don't want you to get all upset over coverage of a show since I'm sure there are more important things in life to worry about.

Like I said ... I rarely ever report on "longshots." I'm not in the business of providing false hope to readers and fans.

MichaelHinman said...

I emailed Mr. Hinman all the links earlier, especially the Hollywood Reporter article. In particular regards to THR report - I actually sent that to him weeks ago, so he had the information *before* he wrote "CW Drops Reaper". In this particular case, Mr. Hinman's article is not innocent ignorance, but *willful* ignorance.That is correct. Since "ignore" is the base word for "ignorance," I willfully ignored an aspect of the story that even the source material, in this case The Hollywood Reporter, had already deemed a "longshot."

You might have the opinion that that makes me a bad, horrible person. But I bet it's safe to say that there are more readers who appreciate me not building up hopes based on a "longshot."

If you want to run a fan campaign, no one is stopping you. But if you think coming after me is a good strategy, you might want to re-prioritize. Trying to convince me to add something to help your campaign will not be helped by publicly attacking me in Paul's blog, or anywhere for that matter.

And as Paul said, there is nothing for either he or I to gain from leaving the information out. I don't want "Reaper" canceled, because that could translate to less readers for next season that I have to replace with something else. I would prefer not to do that.

But at the same time, I'm not going to INSERT bias into my stories just to save me some work down the road.

My commitment is to my readers. And my readers only want to know REAL news. Not the "longshot" news.

Like I said, it would be one thing if this were a mere "common practice" issue, and wishful thinking on the part of the fans. But it's not, as a great many reputable sources have documented this fact - like I said in my last post.Umm, just because the trades cover a "common practice" doesn't mean it's not a "common practice." We are NOT a trade publication. We are a general audience entertainment news site. Trades might get more indepth on things like that .. but that's their job. Their audience are people typically in the profession or very interested in the deep, behind-the-scenes aspects of it. My audience likes the behind-the-scenes, but not to the point of minutia.

It's got an interesting catch that caught their attention: Reaper possibly ending up on the same affiliates as the very network that "canceled" it.Yeah, it is a fun catch. But once again, I don't report "longshot" news.

ReaperDMV said...

...providing false hope to fans is not what I'm in the business of doing.And yet, you still fail to understand that it's not about providing false hope to fans, it's about providing the facts.

If you don't like the way we cover stories, then please, don't visit the site.If only your articles were read by just you and just stay on your site. Alas, they are not. They are disseminated to the public at large, and *that* Mr. Hinman, is how inaccuracies take hold in the public mind. You are a reporter, sir. I expect you to report - particularly when you have other reliable information that you are choosing to ignore.

You may choose to personally believe it's a longshot if you want. You may even choose to SAY that in your article. You may even ARGUE it against people who disagree with you.

But to omit critical pieces of facts and pretend that there is nothing going on beyond a mere "common practice" idea is false reporting IMO. Even Tim Goodman of the SFGate (who agrees with you BTW) knows this, hence why he's addressed the issue IN his pieces. It's also why I still respect him, even if I'm disheartened by his view.

ReaperDMV said...

...providing false hope to fans is not what I'm in the business of doing.And yet, you still fail to understand that it's not about providing false hope to fans, it's about providing the facts.

If you don't like the way we cover stories, then please, don't visit the site.If only your articles were read by just you and just stay on your site. Alas, they are not. They are disseminated to the public at large, and *that* Mr. Hinman, is how inaccuracies take hold in the public mind. You are a reporter, sir. I expect you to report - particularly when you have other reliable information that you are choosing to ignore.

You may choose to personally believe it's a longshot if you want. You may even choose to SAY that in your article. You may even ARGUE it against people who disagree with you.

But to omit critical pieces of facts and pretend that there is nothing going on beyond a mere "common practice" idea is false reporting IMO. Even Tim Goodman of the SFGate (who agrees with you BTW) knows this, hence why he's addressed the issue IN his pieces. It's also why I still respect him, even if I'm disheartened by his view.

ReaperDMV said...

But I bet it's safe to say that there are more readers who appreciate me not building up hopes based on a "longshot."Personally I would think they'd rather choose to make up their own minds than have you do it for them.

And considering all the "aw, Reaper was canceled? that sucks I wish they hadn't of done that" comments that occur on such articles like yours, I'm betting there are even more out there who would have liked the opportunity to help if they had of known such a thing existed.

Even Gail Pennington put "google savereaper if you want to help" in her rather...unflattering responses during her open questions from fans article that was pretty much devoted too Reaper's finale.

MichaelHinman said...

If only your articles were read by just you and just stay on your site. Alas, they are not.Hmmm ... I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that people know they are getting NECESSARY information, and that they are getting it from a reliable place.

I don't think it's any accident, sir, that my stories are distributed around the Internet. It took many years of hard work to do that. And I certainly wouldn't mess it up by being sloppy and "incorrect."

They are disseminated to the public at large, and *that* Mr. Hinman, is how inaccuracies take hold in the public mind.EXCEPT you have yet to point out an inaccuracy. I'm still waiting to hear what it is. And an omission of an immaterial fact is not an inaccuracy. And just to make sure we're on the same page, a MATERIAL fact is one that would make "The CW cancels 'Reaper'" NOT true.

You are a reporter, sir.Yeah, I know that already.

I expect you to report - particularly when you have other reliable information that you are choosing to ignore.There's a big difference between "reliable" and "pertinent" information. When you understand that, this conversation will be far easier.

You may choose to personally believe it's a longshot if you want.I didn't say it was a longshot. I was quoting your "reliable" source: The Hollywood Reporter. THEY said it was a longshot. I was repeating it.

You may even choose to SAY that in your article.That's right, it's my CHOICE to say that. And I CHOSE not to, and I STILL CHOOSE not to.

So why are we arguing this again?

You may even ARGUE it against people who disagree with you.Thanks for your permission.

But to omit critical pieces of facts and pretend that there is nothing going on beyond a mere "common practice" idea is false reporting IMO.Really, now it's "false reporting"? Do you honestly think insulting me or my work is going to get you anywhere?

I spent years as a government reporter, having to sit through meetings that would literally last hours at a time. Imagine watching C-SPAN for 10 days straight ... that's what it feels like.

After sitting through all of that, I would then write a story that would be about 800 words long, even though I guarantee you about 50,000 words were spoken during the course of the meeting.

Are you trying to sit there and tell me that it's not my job to condense the IMPORTANT aspects of the meeting (and by "important," I mean, "of interest to my readers") into a story, which almost definitely leaves out other facts?

If I left out facts that took an issue out of context, then I would be wrong. But my story that is linked here SIMPLY states that The CW canceled the show. Period. Even if I include the tidbit you think is to important, important enough to become almost rude, it wouldn't change a single aspect of the story.

Journalists are gatekeepers, which means we are tasked with making the decision on what information is pertinent and what is not. Doesn't mean we are always right ... but you're the only person who has complained about it. One out of 25,000 daily readers? Doesn't seem like I'm dropping the ball at all.

Even Tim Goodman of the SFGate (who agrees with you BTW) knows this, hence why he's addressed the issue IN his pieces.Who? And why would I care what other people who write about this write? Mr. Goodman can include whatever he likes in his pieces, as do I. It's not my place to tell him what to write on his site, nor would it be his place to tell me the same thing.

It's also why I still respect him, even if I'm disheartened by his view.Well please know that whether you respect me or not, I still will sleep wonderfully tonight. :)

MichaelHinman said...

Personally I would think they'd rather choose to make up their own minds than have you do it for them.If people wanted me to cover every single "fact" that came out of a government meeting ... they probably would've attended it themselves. Otherwise, they wouldn't rely on little old me to report it to them, and just give them the "meat and the potatoes."

I'm a "meat and potatoes" kind of guy (hence why I'm so fat in the picture Paul has blown up on this blog post, hahaha!). Your aspect is equivalent to beets, and while some people might be interested in having the beets, I prefer to stick with the meat and potatoes.

And considering all the "aw, Reaper was canceled? that sucks I wish they hadn't of done that" comments that occur on such articles like yours, I'm betting there are even more out there who would have liked the opportunity to help if they had of known such a thing existed.That's your job to find them, not mine. I'm not running your campaign, YOU are. And if you ever do campaigns in the future, let me give you some advice as someone who has seen hundreds of campaigns like these come and go.

No. 1: Don't call out and insult specific people in the media, especially if they're stories -- like you said -- are picked up all over the Internet. It never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever works. All you do is make me less likely to ever even consider your position or that you have anything legitimate to offer to the conversation.

Even Gail Pennington put "google savereaper if you want to help" in her rather...unflattering responses during her open questions from fans article that was pretty much devoted too Reaper's finale.Who?

MichaelHinman said...

Paul .. I wish we could go back and edit posts, lol! =P I'm trying to respond to this one particular reader of yours and do 25 other things at once, and I'm making a lot of embarrassing typos, hahaha! =P

Beam Me Up said...

Michael
Yeah, Blogger doesn't even let the editors back in to edit the posts... all we can do is delete them...

Ummm as to the pic...all I had was a thumbnail and I didn't blow it up that much, but then blogger got at it and...well... and you know...I said ahh hell Mike will never see it anyway...lmao! Send me a good copy of that shot or any nice promo shot that I can add in.

As it was I thought about adding it...I didn't want to give the impression that you had posted here, but I DID want readers to know that before anything else, it was your article that was being quoted. I never gave it much thought as to flattering or not...it was more a "here is the guy I have been quoting for years and years" and I have become fond of putting a face with a name.

Paul

MichaelHinman said...

Paul: I'm totally picking on you! :) The picture is fine ... it made me laugh. :)

It is a rather small picture on the site ... but at least it's updated. I used to get yelled at all the time by people because when we were still SyFy Portal, I would use a picture that was obviously a few years old, and had me much thinner.

THAT picture was actually a compromise, because I wanted to use my high school senior picture originally, lol!

MichaelHinman said...

Oh ... and just a couple other things ...

Does Blogger automatically put the logos in? Or did you get an AA logo and put it in? Just curious to how that works.

And I'm notorious for finding posts about me in blogs, and yours isn't as obscure as you think. :) So if I get mentioned, I'll eventually find it ... even if it takes a week or two, lol! :)

Beam Me Up said...

Mike....Nope, sometimes I will co opt a logo for an article, but Blogger pics out your logo from open ID or from Blogger itself, so...I would like to take credit for a neat trick...but it ain't mine.

As for anonymity well... I thought I was hiding well...stick my head up every once in a while and look around... I am beginning to see that might not be the case ..lol

MichaelHinman said...

Hahaha! Yeah ... I remember when I got my first communication from an actor (who I had written something nasty about), and I realized my nice little tiny group of readers had exploded, and I couldn't be the dancing clown anymore.

Although I can't give up being the dancing clown.

I guess the other debate is over? So does that mean I won? =P

Beam Me Up said...

Mike
LMAO yes it was an entertaining ride. I know what you mean about finding a name in the comments that you never expected. Don't get me wrong, I love any type of feedback. It means that there are people out there that are awake enough to have a pulse and an opinion....but I almost choked when I saw your tag come up. I have been reading and quoting your posts for years and it never occurred to me that you might be reading them...lol which leads me to think that I might not be to popular with the programmers at the sci-fi channel...OMG!

Paul

ReaperDMV said...

Not such a long shot after all:

http://tvdramas.about.com/b/2009/06/07/is-reaper-canceled-or-not.htm

If you take Tyler's word though, he and Bret decided that syndication was beneath them and the show, so they opted out - thereby ruining it for everyone.

The interest is still too high, so we're doing one last push, particularly for the DVDs, and then we'll move to more long-range plans.