Andy Williams, a TV Star When Variety Shows Were Just Hanging On

By BILL CARTER

In this YouTube clip, Andy Williams is with Antônio Carlos Jobim to sing “The Girl From Ipanema.”

Andy Williams, who died Wednesday at the age of 84, was mostly known for his mellow crooning style but he was, for much of the 1960's, well traveled in the declining genre called the variety show.

“The Andy Williams Show,” appeared in various forms, and for various networks - Mr. Williams had shows on each of the three broadcast networks during his career. He started with summer series first on ABC in 1958, and then on CBS in 1959, but he was best known for his initial five-year run on NBC.

None of the shows was ever a significant hit, which probably accounted for its many different locations on the television schedule. The NBC show alone played on Thursday night, Tuesday night, Monday night and Sunday night. And it never cracked the top 30 rated shows on television. Despite that, he won three Emmy Awards over the years for outstanding variety series.

The program, which also introduced the Osmond Brothers to big-time show business, came in an era when many variety shows built around mainstream singers, like Perry Como and Dinah Shore, were fading from television. Mr. Williams's second NBC entry made an effort to be more contemporary, with a psychedelic set and music guests that rocked a bit more than the Osmonds (the Bee Gees and Creedence Clearwater Revival were booked, though Liberace and, yes, the Osmonds, also appeared). By that time, the variety genre had shifted mainly to comedy stars like Carol Burnett.

Later, Mr. Williams mainly stuck to popular Christmas specials, which also helped him sell a lot of albums.

The Obituary

Bill Carter writes about the television industry. Follow @wjcarter on Twitter.

Why Credit Scores Aren\'t Always What They Seem

September 26, 2012, 1:48 pm

By ANN CARRNS

When consumers buy access to their credit score, there's a good chance they're not seeing the same score a lender sees, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reports.

Specifically, one in five consumers who pays for a score from one of the major credit bureaus will probably receive a meaningfully different score than the one a lender will use to make a decision about lending the consumer money, the agency says.

That's because the scores sold to consumers are not necessarily generated by the scoring models used to create scores sold to lenders - usually, some version of the FICO score, created by the company of the same name. Rather, consumers may be sold “educational” scores, created by using different models.

Even if consumers buy a FICO score - like those at the myfico.com Web site, which offers scores generated by credit data from the TransUnion and Equifax credit agencies - and go to a lender that uses FICO scores, the purchased score still may not be the one that particular creditor uses. That's because there are many different versions of the FICO score, depending on various factors, like the type of credit a consumer is applying for, the version of FICO's model the lender is using and the credit bureau the lender uses.

For its analysis, the agency looked at credit scores generated from 200,000 randomly selected credit files at each of the three major credit bureaus: TransUnion, Equifax and Experian.

For a majority of consumers, the agency found, the scores produced by different scoring models provided similar information about the relative creditworthiness of the consumers. But for a substantial minority, diff erent scoring models gave meaningfully different results.

A meaningful difference, the agency said, means the consumer would probably qualify for better or worse credit offers than those they would expect to get based on the score they bought. As a result, the bureau concluded, consumers shouldn't rely exclusively on those scores to gauge how a lender would evaluate their creditworthiness.

The report stopped short of saying that credit scores bought by consumers were worthless. But it's hard to see why you should pay for a score if you can't be certain that it's the one a lender would use. After all, isn't that why you want to see it in the first place?

The agency recommended that firms selling scores make consumers aware that the scores they buy may vary substantially from scores used by creditors. And it's possible the agency will recommend changes in the way scores are marketed to consumers, when it assumes regulatory authority over the credit bureaus th is month.

For now, the agency advises consumers to be aware that multiple versions of credit scores exist. And they should periodically review their credit reports, which provide the raw data used to produce credit scores, and dispute any errors.

John Ulzheimer, a credit expert, said the agency's report suggested that scores being sold to consumers were a “fairly good approximation” of their FICO score, but were “clearly not good enough.”

Chi Chi Wu, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center, said in a statement that the “obvious policy solution” was for Congress to grant consumers the right to a free annual copy of the score most widely used by lenders. Right now, consumers can get a free copy annually of their credit report - on which credit scores are based - but not of their credit score.

Do you think a free annual peek at your basic FICO credit score would be beneficial?

Executive Producer of \'Today\' Says Ouster of Ann Curry Was His Call

By BILL CARTER

Commenting publicly for the first time about the decision to remove Ann Curry from the “Today” show's co-anchor position after only a year on the job, Jim Bell, the show's executive producer, said Wednesday that it “was absolutely my call.”

In a telephone interview, Mr. Bell spoke broadly about the show's recent ratings setbacks, including the end of its 16-year weekly winning streak. He offered numerous reasons that ABC's “Good Morning, America” had taken over as the regular leader in the morning news competition, including the sheer difficulty of maintaining dominance for so long a time.

But he especially pointed to what he called the difference in the show's approaches, calling “Today” a “more serious show” and accusing “GMA” of “doing something else.”

Asked if he was saying “GMA” is now a tabloid-style program, Mr. Bell said, “That's what I'm saying.”

Mr. Bell declined to call the original decision to name Ms. Curry to the anchor position a mistake, but he said that she is now “in the role she is naturally suited for.” (Ms. Curry has become a special correspondent for the show reporting, so far, mostly on international stories; for example, on Wednesday morning, she interviewed the president of Libya, Mohammed Magarief.)

Mr. Bell defended the insertion of Savannah Guthrie as the co-anchor beside Matt Lauer, calling her an important part of the “long view” plan to regain pre-eminence for the “Today” show. He said of the original choice of Ms. Curry to succeed Meredith Vieira: “Ann had earned it. Hindsight is 20/20. You can sit there and think this or that, but we're comfortable with that decision and the one we've made now.”

“Today” lost its long-standing lead over ABC's “GMA” in April, before Ms. Curry was ousted from the anchor job at the end of June. But even after NBC's Olympics coverage - and with Ms . Guthrie now the co-anchor - “Today” has lost every week to ABC in terms of total viewers. For the last four weeks, the show has trailed in the critical category of viewers between the ages of 25 and 54, which determines ad sales for news programs.

Mr. Bell specifically denied reports that have circulated recently that the decision to remove Ms. Curry was a response to demands by Mr. Lauer, who recently renegotiated his contract. “It was definitely not Matt's call,” Mr. Bell said. “He is the host and does not have management responsibility. It was not his call. That was my call.”

Mr. Bell said that rumors that he had a lunch with Mr. Lauer at which the anchor made a change on the co-anchor role a quid pro quo for his re-signing, were “absolutely not true.”

Mr. Bell expressed anger and incredulity at recent reports that Mr. Lauer had been been more vocal in his demands about the show, and had begun berating sta ff members. “These stories portraying Matt in a negative light are just preposterous,” Mr. Bell said. “Matt is the heart and soul of the broadcast. He has a heart of gold. This stuff about him has been very irresponsible and in a lot of cases flat-out wrong.”

Nor is “Today” facing any budget cuts to make up for paying Mr. Lauer a reported $25 million a year, Mr. Bell said. “There is no plan for any cutbacks of layoffs for any of the staff,” he said. As for any reduction to Matt's salary, which was reported in The Daily News this week, “That could not be more wrong,” Mr. Bell said.

“Today” should be facing a downturn in its profits, given its recent ratings declines. But the show was mostly sold out for the year during sales in advance of the television season, so “Today” effectively could have a year to fix itself before the financial impact is fully felt.

Asked what viewers could expect in the way of changes to affect this long- view approach, Mr. Bell said, “You just have to watch.”

Bill Carter writes about the television industry. Follow @wjcarter on Twitter.

The Annual Health Benefits Gamble

September 26, 2012, 10:47 am

By ANN CARRNS

It's soon to be open enrollment season for many workplace health plans, when employees choose their coverage for the coming year. And while this may be an annual ritual, many workers, according to a recent survey, have trouble determining which plan is right for them.

Choosing annual benefits is often a gamble, even if, like my family, you're fortunate enough to be in good health and have pretty good insurance options. None of us has a serious chronic condition, and we use few prescription medications. So last year, after weighing our choices, we opted to keep our monthly premiums low by going with what we considered to be a substantial ($5,000 plus) family deductible. Everyone was reasonably healthy, we reasoned. Our children are well out of the phase when they catch every bug going around school, and we had enough emergency savings in case something pricey cropped up.

Essentially, we considered the odds and wagered that the coming year would be like the last year. And we pretty much lost that bet.

Illness happens, even to generally healthy people. For various reasons, our family ended up having unusually frequent visits to the doctor (not to mention the dentist, but that's another issue). So we quickly exhausted the upfront health “credit” that our plan provides, to cover costs before the deductible must be met. We probably won't top our deductible, but we're still (ouch) a couple of thousand dollars out of pocket. Our overall bill at the end of the year would probably be lower if we had gone with a higher premium and a lower deductible.

So it's no surprise to me that a survey from the health insurer Aetna found that cons umers think health care benefits decisions are confusing, second only to retirement savings in complexity.

The Aetna Empowered Health Index Survey was conducted over the phone, including both land line and cellphones, by KRC Research in late July among 1,500 adults. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percent.

A quarter of Americans who have health insurance told the pollsters that they found it difficult to make the right health decisions. They said the available information was confusing and complicated (88 percent), there was conflicting information (84 percent), and it was difficult to know which plan is right for them (83 percent).

Also, 81 percent said they found it difficult to make decisions because they didn't know the cost of various medical procedures.

It all sounds dishearteningly familiar, as we prepare to evaluate our choices again.

On the plus side, health plans this fall are required by the Affordable Care Act to pro vide a simple-language “Summary of Benefits and Coverage” form, to help consumers compare health plan options. Consumers Union, which helped test the format of the disclosure form before it was adopted by the federal government, offers a sample form online. It also includes a coverage example of how much certain events, like having a baby, would cost under the plan. You also can give your opinion on the form you receive online. The forms are available to people insured through employers, as well as those shopping for insurance on their own. If you don't get such a form, you should contact your insurer or your employer, Consumers Union advises.

How do you make decisions about health benefits coverage? Does your plan offer helpful tools for making the choice?

Wednesday Reading: Making Vegan Food The New Normal

September 26, 2012, 9:00 am

By ANN CARRNS

A variety of consumer-focused articles appears daily in The New York Times and on our blogs. Each weekday morning, we gather them together here so you can quickly scan the news that could hit you in your wallet.

The Breakfast Meeting: The Nook as \'iPad Lite,\' and Lessons From the Olympics

September 26, 2012, 8:35 am

By THE EDITORS

Roughly 217 million people watched Olympic coverage on NBC networks during the London games and eight million people downloaded NBC's mobile apps for the Olympics, according to new figures released by the network, part of a vast trove of consumer research based on viewing during the games. Watching video on tablet computers â€" no surprise â€" also surged and the most popular events on any device were women's gymnastics and the women's soccer final. The good news for the network: the popularity of the live feed during the day didn't seem to cannibalize viewers from NBC's primetime package.

Barnes & Noble tried on Tuesday to position its Nook tablet as a kind of iPad Lite with the introduction of the Nook HD, a seven-inch device that sells for $199 and the nine-inch Nook HD Plus for $269. The company also announced a video service for the Nook color devices similar to the iTunes store and includes movies and TV series from Disney, Viacom and Warner Brothers.

Jonah Lehrer, the book author and former writer for the New Yorker, told Amy Wallace that he planned to write about the considerable fallout from his plagiarism scandal. Perhaps the biggest surprise in her piece for the Los Angeles Magazine is that she was only the third reporter to reach out directly to Mr. Lehrer for comment. “Apparently Lehrer wasn't the only person guilty of laziness,” she writes.

Target, the discount retailer whose ubiquitous television commercials have helped create a hip image, is using some well-known Hollywood talent to push further into branded entertainment. A new short film called “Falling for You” features Kristen Bell and Nia Long and is directed by Phil Abraham, who was nominated for an Emmy for his work on “Mad Men.” Ms. Bell, who cut her teeth on the popular TV show “Veronica Mars,” said, “I do think that as actors we have to understand the fact that no one watches commercials any more.”

Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, the two former News Corporation employees who are at the center of the cellphone-hacking scandal, appeared to court on Wednesday in London and had their trial dates set for next September. Prosecutors said the case encompasses 600 victims.

On another front, the BBC is furiously apologizing after a correspondent let slip in a radio interview that Queen Elizabeth II was “pretty upset” over the presence of a Muslim cleric in London who preaches violent anti-British jihad. It's considered a huge breach of etiquette for reporters to reveal the queen's private opinions. “Yes, I thought I'd drop that in,” the correspondent, Frank Gardner, said during the original broadcast. “She told me.”

< /div>

Iran Will Boycott Oscars to Protest Anti-Muslim Video

September 26, 2012, 7:36 am

By BROOKS BARNES

The boycott appears straightforward: Mohammad Hosseini, Iran's culture minister, on Tuesday confirmed that his country would not submit a film for consideration at next year's Oscars in protest of “Innocence of Muslims,” the anti-Islam YouTube video that has sparked deadly riots. He specifically cited the “failure” of Oscar organizers to take an official position on the incendiary “film.”
But Iran's move left Hollywood scratching its head. Iran, which won the Academy Award for best foreign language film earlier this year, was seriously going to boycott moviedom's biggest prize because the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences hadn't denounced a crude YouTube video made by a former gas s tation owner? (The academy had no comment.)

The deadline for submissions is Oct. 1, and the country had planned to submit Reza Mirkarimi's “A Cube of Sugar,” a dramatic comedy about a wedding that turns into a funeral; Variety called the picture “slim but vibrant” in its review.

The movie site HitFix.com wondered this: If a viral video is causing outrage by depicting one's culture in a negative light, what sense does it make to deny Western exposure to more positive cultural expressions of your country? “Sitting out this particular Oscar race,” Hitfix concluded in an echo of what other movie experts were saying on Tuesday, “is a gesture so minor as to affect only the filmmaker who would otherwise compete.”
Iran's winning submission at the last Oscars, “A Separation,” about a collapsing marriage, was also dragged into politics, to the consternation of its director, Asghar Farhadi. After it won - beating out an Israeli submission and three others - Javad Shamaghdari, the top official at Iran's cinema agency, described it as “the beginning of the collapse” of Israeli influence in America.