Total Pageviews

Tracking Cicadas, With Helpers

The 17-year Magicicada Brood II cicadas are coming, and WNYC and its nationally distributed “Radiolab” program will be there to welcome them â€" after a mad sprint to persuade hundreds of listeners in the next two weeks to build temperature sensors and stick them in the ground, from Virginia to Connecticut.

The sensors, meant to predict the start of the cicadas’ en masse emergence, measure soil temperature at a depth of eight inches. Cicadas emerge in the days after it hits 64 degrees, expected between mid-April and late-May, said John Keefe, senior editor of data news for WNYC, who, with colleagues, initially built an $80 sensor with parts from Radio Shack.

An early prototype of the cicada tracker WNYC is using.John Keefe/WNYC An early prototype of the cicada tracker WNYC is using.

After Mr. Keefe announced the Cicada Tracker in mid-March, members of the group Hack Manhattan developed a $16 sensor, making a larger project financially feasible, and “Radiolab” jumped in.

Tapping $8,000 of an existing grant from the National Science Foundation, “Radiolab” has scheduled Cicada Tracker Maker events April 8 in Brooklyn and April 14 at the New York Hall of Science. Using their newly built trackers, attendees will be encouraged to enter findings on WNYC’s interactive map as temperatures rise, along with pictures and audio when the cicadas arrive.

The project “gives anybody the opportunity to put their hands on the tools of science,”said Ellen Horne, executive producer of “Radiolab,” adding that the hope was to get more than 500 sensors buried by April 15. The map and a video showing how to make sensors is at www.radiolab.org/cicadas.

In addition to engaging a wide audience in science, “this will give a much finer grain understanding to scientists” about the cicadas, as well as temperature variations across the Northeast, said Ellen McCallie, a National Science Foundation program officer who finances Citizen Science projects.

The cicadas’ arrival will not be breaking news, since scientists know they are coming, sensors or not. But Mr. Keefe hopes the sensor project will demonstrate the possibilities for news gathering. “If we can get many, many people building little hard things to put in the ground, that’s just one step removed from monitoring noise, pollution, benzene in the air â€" take your pick,” he said.



Tracking Cicadas, With Helpers

The 17-year Magicicada Brood II cicadas are coming, and WNYC and its nationally distributed “Radiolab” program will be there to welcome them â€" after a mad sprint to persuade hundreds of listeners in the next two weeks to build temperature sensors and stick them in the ground, from Virginia to Connecticut.

The sensors, meant to predict the start of the cicadas’ en masse emergence, measure soil temperature at a depth of eight inches. Cicadas emerge in the days after it hits 64 degrees, expected between mid-April and late-May, said John Keefe, senior editor of data news for WNYC, who, with colleagues, initially built an $80 sensor with parts from Radio Shack.

An early prototype of the cicada tracker WNYC is using.John Keefe/WNYC An early prototype of the cicada tracker WNYC is using.

After Mr. Keefe announced the Cicada Tracker in mid-March, members of the group Hack Manhattan developed a $16 sensor, making a larger project financially feasible, and “Radiolab” jumped in.

Tapping $8,000 of an existing grant from the National Science Foundation, “Radiolab” has scheduled Cicada Tracker Maker events April 8 in Brooklyn and April 14 at the New York Hall of Science. Using their newly built trackers, attendees will be encouraged to enter findings on WNYC’s interactive map as temperatures rise, along with pictures and audio when the cicadas arrive.

The project “gives anybody the opportunity to put their hands on the tools of science,”said Ellen Horne, executive producer of “Radiolab,” adding that the hope was to get more than 500 sensors buried by April 15. The map and a video showing how to make sensors is at www.radiolab.org/cicadas.

In addition to engaging a wide audience in science, “this will give a much finer grain understanding to scientists” about the cicadas, as well as temperature variations across the Northeast, said Ellen McCallie, a National Science Foundation program officer who finances Citizen Science projects.

The cicadas’ arrival will not be breaking news, since scientists know they are coming, sensors or not. But Mr. Keefe hopes the sensor project will demonstrate the possibilities for news gathering. “If we can get many, many people building little hard things to put in the ground, that’s just one step removed from monitoring noise, pollution, benzene in the air â€" take your pick,” he said.



PBS to Show Block of ‘Martha’ Programs

Fans of Martha Stewart who since last fall have been tuning into her “Cooking School” program on PBS for advice on how to braise, roast and sauté are about to get some sweeter wisdom on how to handle the often overlooked stars of menus: baked goods and desserts.

Starting the first weekend in April, when PBS begins to show the second season of “Martha Stewart’s Cooking School,” the network will broadcast reruns of the program “Martha Bakes” after the show. “Martha Bakes” previously ran for two seasons on the Hallmark Channel.

While the new season of cooking classes offer advice on appetizers and main courses, like making pasta dough and sauces or buying and cleaning fish, the dessert segments guide viewers through the challenges of cheesecakes, puff pastry and trying to master what bakers always boast is the oh-so-easy popover.

KitchenAid, which is a sponsor of “Martha Stewart’s Cooking School,” signed up to sponsor “Martha Bakes,” exclusively. The company is also publishing 23 companion videos that will appear on Ms. Stewart’s Web site, along with other Web sites like AOL and Yahoo.

Alison Adler Matz, senior vice president for strategic brand sales at Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, said that KitchenAid worked with “Martha Bakes” because the series offers aspiring bakers so much instruction.

“They really like the educational and informative tone of this,” she said.

Some baking fans may still catch reruns of the baking show on the Hallmark network. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia owns the first season of “Martha Bakes,” and Hallmark has licensing rights to the second season through late September.

Ms. Stewart seemed pleased that the instructional videos she originally produced at her home in Bedford, N.Y., and her studio in Chelsea attracted such a following. A spokeswoman for Ms. Stewart said the “Cooking School” program drew one million viewers each week.

“Cooking and teaching, my two biggest passions, are front and center on a show that viewers are finding accessible and useful,” Ms. Stewart said in a statement.



For N.C.A.A., AT&T Calls on Pro Basketball Stars

A popular series of television commercials is getting stretched out, literally and figuratively.

To take advantage of its sponsorship of the 2013 N.C.A.A. men’s basketball tournament, AT&T and its advertising agency, BBDO Atlanta, are creating special commercials with basketball themes that are inspired by the series of well-received commercials for AT&T, also by BBDO Atlanta, that carry the theme “It’s not complicated.”

In the “It’s not complicated” commercials, which began appearing in November, children - a mix of child actors and nonprofessionals - are prompted by an earnest young man, played by a comedian named Beck Bennett, to discuss concepts like fast versus slow and bigger versus smaller. The resulting dialogue, in a vein reminiscent of “Kids Say the Darnedest Things” hosted by Art Linkletter or Bill Cosby, has captured the public’s fancy as evidenced by metrics that include YouTube views and the volume of positive comments in social media.

The campaign “has really struck gold,” said David Christopher, chief marketing officer at the AT&T Mobility unit of AT&T in Atlanta. Such popularity is hard to come by in a crowded, competitive category like telecommunications, which is flooded with lookalike ads.

In the basketball-themed commercials, which are to begin running on Saturday, Mr. Bennett continues as the interlocutor. Instead of the children, he interacts with four famous former professional players: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Bill Russell.

In a sight gag that also serves to link the two series of commercials, the new ones, like the original ones, take place in a classroom - with the players getting much larger chairs that befit their size.

For the N.C.A.A. tournament, “we thought, wouldn’t it be fun to do a riff” on the commercials with the children, Mr. Christopher said, and, “in a fun way to give a nod to basketball fans,” cast famous former stars in the new spots.

(The commercials could not use college players who appear in the tournament, under N.C.A.A. rules, and current pro basketball players are too busy playing the rest of the 2012-13 season, Mr. Christopher said.)

Stephen McMennamy, a creative director at BBDO Atlanta - part of the BBDO Worldwide division of the Omnicom Group - said: “We knew we have a very likeable campaign. People have taken to it.”

“We want to further it, keep the spark,” Mr. McMennamy said, but at the same time “we didn’t want to jump the shark” - i.e., reach a moment when, through exploitation, the commercials would begin to decline in quality and popularity.

The basketball commercials offer a “nice, delightful reward for people who know the campaign,” he added, and can also be enjoyed by people who are not familiar with the commercials with the children.

In one basketball spot, called “Up Top,” Mr. Bennett asks the players a question that echoes one he asks the children: “In basketball, is it better to be bigger or smaller”

After the players all respond, “Bigger,” he tries to high-five them, declaring, “Up top.” But the size differential between Mr. Bennett and the players proves awkward.

In the other basketball spot, called “Slow Break,” Mr. Bennett’s question is about faster versus slower. After he asks, “I mean, they don’t call it a slow break, do they,” Mr. Johnson jokes, “Well, in Larry’s case maybe they do.”

The laughter from Mr. Johnson, Mr. Russell and Mr. Abdul-Jabbar cause Mr. Bird to pout, saying, “It’s like I don’t have feelings.” Mr. Bennett then tries awkwardly to give the much-taller Mr. Bird a hug.

The two commercials will appear during the final games of the tournament, Mr. Christopher said, and alternate with the commercials featuring the children - or, as he put it, “The kids aren’t going away.”

The basketball commercials are scheduled to end with the N.C.A.A. national championship game on April 8, the theory being, Mr. McMennamy said, “Drop the microphone, leave the stage.”

However, “it’s not out of the realm of possibility” they may continue, he added, if the public likes them.

As for the chance of AT&T commercials with Mr. Bennett chatting with famous retired football players for the Super Bowl or famous retired movie stars for the Academy Awards, Mr. Christopher said, laughing, “We’ll see.”



In Ratings Race, ‘The Voice’ Gains on ‘Idol’

Time, and maybe the presence of “The Voice,” seem to be catching up with the great TV ratings titan of the last decade, “American Idol.”

It is still too early to crown “The Voice” as the new king of the singing competitions, because in its first outings this season Fox’s “Idol” scored notably better numbers than the first two episodes of NBC’s “The Voice” this week.

But in its first week this season sharing the singing stage with the “The Voice,” “Idol,” a perennial ratings giant now in its 12th season, fell to its lowest-rated performances two nights in a row.

On Thursday, among the audience group that Fox sells to advertisers, viewers between the ages of 18 and 49, “Idol” dropped below a 3 rating for just the second time its history (the previous Thursday was the first time), hitting a low of 2.7 (or about 3.4 million viewers).

That was for one of the “Idol” elimination shows, which are traditionally lower-rated than the performance shows. But that number came one day after Wednesday’s “Idol” recorded the lowest-ever rating for a performance show, a 3.2 rating (about 4 million viewers).

Both numbers were down sharply from the prior week, from a 3.6 for the performance show and a 2.9 for the elimination show. While “Idol” generally trends lower in the middle of its season, one notable change took place on the network schedules between those weeks: “The Voice” returned on NBC.

That singing show was up from its performance in the fall. On Monday, “The Voice” scored a 4.7 rating in that 18-49 group; on Tuesday it managed a 3.9 rating (about 6 million and 5.1 million viewers, respectively). This follows up a fall in which “The Voice” convincingly topped Fox’s other singing show, “The X Factor.”

Does this make “The Voice” the undisputed champ of the would-be singing stars That would not be a fair assessment - yet. But if “Idol” continues to sink, and “The Voice” sustains its numbers, that may be the inescapable conclusion by the end of this season.



The Breakfast Meeting: Awkwardness at NBC, and Barbara Walters’ Retirement

Networks never seem to absorb lessons of lineup changes gone bad, NBC most of all, Alessandra Stanley writes. Matt Lauer, the host of NBC’s “Today” show, who may be on the way out, was admirably suave onscreen despite reports that NBC may be seeking a new host. Mr. Lauer’s problems began with his succession last year, when many viewers blamed him when his co-anchor Ann Curry was clumsily cast aside. The drama is not new.  More than 20 years ago, NBC replaced Jane Pauley with the younger Deborah Norville; that “Today” show shakeupbecame a founding fiasco of morning television, and Ms. Norville’s career never recovered.

Barbara Walters, the host of the ABC daytime program “The View,” whose television career has lasted more than 50 years, will retire in 2014, Bill Carter reports. An executive familiar with Ms. Walters’s plans said she would announce her decision this May and that the following year would include a number of retrospectives and specials about her career. Ms. Walters’s health became a national story this year after she suffered a concussion in Washington and developed an infection that turned out to be chicken pox.

Jeffrey Zucker, the new head of CNN, announced Thursday that he would pair Christopher Cuomo, a former ABC anchor he hired in May, with a young Washington correspondent named Kate Bolduan to host a new morning show, Brian Stelter writes. The show will premier in late spring and will replace “Starting Point,” which is hosted by Soledad O’Brien and has done poorly in the ratings.

FX Networks announced that it would add a third channel to its lineup and step up its commitment to original scripted series at an upfront presentation on Thursday, Stuart Elliott writes. The new cable channel, FXX, will be aimed at viewers ages 18 to 34 and will coincide with FX’s introduction of TV everywhere, industry shorthand for technology that lets paying viewers stream content on devices at any time.

Amazon.com, the dominant online bookseller, said on Thursday that it would buy Goodreads, the most visited social media site based around sharing books, Leslie Kaufman reports. Internet sites have become critical places for telling readers about interesting books as bookstores close. The companies did not disclose a purchase price or conditions of the sale, which will close in the next quarter.

Madison Avenue and the automotive industry are fretting over ways to attract millennials to cars and car culture, Stuart Elliott reports. Younger people are buying fewer cars, whether because of shaky finances or lack of interest. Manufacturers like Toyota, which is adding content like music to a new Web site for its Scion brand and beginning to advertise in Teen Vogue, are trying appeal to them.

The third season of “Game of Thrones,” the HBO adaptation of George R. R. Martin’s “Song of Ice and Fire” novels, begins with a satisfying slaughter but then falls into a familiar pattern of bursts of action interspersed with lengthening periods of dialogue, Mike Hale writes. Though the intricate fantasy is certainly enjoyable, claims that it is the best show on television may be overblown.

Bob Teague, who joined WNBC-TV in 1963 as one of the city’s first black journalists and worked in various roles in TV news for more than three decades, died on Thursday in New Brunswick, N.J., at 83, Douglas Martin reports.



‘House of Cards’ Recap, Episode 12: The Guns End Up Aimed Inside the Corral

Who is vetting whom Ashley Parker and David Carr untangle Episode 12 of “House of Cards,” and tease apart Frank Underwood’s visit to a captain of industry living in a middle place. He goes bird hunting, but if you poke around here, you will find plenty of spoilers, so by all means avoid if you haven’t seen it. If you are caught up on your episodes, but behind on recaps, you can find all of them - Episodes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 â€" right here.

Episode 12

Synopsis: The president sends Frank Underwood to the Midwest to vet a potential (new) vice president â€" but it turns out there’s more vetting going on than meets the eye. Zoe Barnes joins with her colleague Janine Skorsky to unravel what could be their biggest story yet.

Parker: In this episode, we see Frank Underwood sent to St. Louis ostensibly to vet Raymond Tusk, an eccentric billionaire, as a possible replacement vice president. But shortly after he arrives, Mr. Underwood realizes that it is he who is being vetted, and that the president and Mr. Tusk are old friends. Mr. Tusk, in fact, was the one who initially advised the president against making Mr. Underwood secretary of state â€" “One of the largest mistakes I’ve made,” he concedes.

“You’ve proven yourself to be quite difficult â€" Kern, the teacher’s strike, now Matthews,” Mr. Tusk says, accurately chronicling a partial list of Mr. Underwood’s behind-the-scenes disloyalties to the administration.

We also see Zoe Barnes and Janine Skorsky begin to team up, to puzzle out a story that could bring Frank Underwood down.

Up until this point in the show, it always seemed as if the president was a naïve, vanilla figure, getting played by Mr. Underwood. But maybe the president is savvier than he first appeared, onto the majority whip from nearly the outset. And ditto Zoe Barnes. Here, we see her turn fairly quickly on Mr. Underwood, as she realizes that the scoop of his downfall might be bigger than the morsels he’s been feeding her.

What do you think, David Is this yet another example of Frank Underwood being behind the curve Just how much does the president know And has Mr. Underwood lost control of just about every narrative

Carr: One of the rules of the game as played in the Beltway is that everyone is a player. Mr. Underwood often acts if he is plotting in a vacuum, when in fact there is the game he is playing on his own chess board â€" I’ve always felt that the interludes where he shoves pieces around is heavy-handed â€" but there are also other chessboards, other players, other games all over town.

I love Frank’s raw hatred of the outing in the woods with Mr. Tusk. At first, you think he is getting dragged through the woods like a carcass, and then you realize that Mr. Tusk knows that he hates every second of it and is doing it for the fun and provocation of it.

And there is much to love in watching Zoe Barnes and Janine Skorsky make common cause, less about their former antagonism, which is by now ancient in the life of the series, and more about watching the pure pleasure of journalists smelling a large story.

Bygones become bygones because there are bigger fish to fry. “Show me your notes,” Ms. Skorsky says matter-of-factly. “I know he was your source.”

Their nostrils flare, their hands become like birds flitting over documents and you can sense that they will soon be in full gallop. They begin to ambush, gather and marshal facts. Watching a major story unfurl, even a fake one on a television show, is a mighty thing.

Given that there is a dead congressman in the middle of the story, they both know that stakes are high and you can see they mix their own thrill of pursuit with worries about where it might lead.

Parker: And here, we get a glimpse into what animates Ms. Barnes â€" like all journalists, it seems, she’s eager for a good, high-profile story. She was originally willing to sleep with Mr. Underwood and do his bidding when the reward was juicy A1 nuggets. But when it looks as if the better story might involve bringing him down, she’s more than game for that, too. Her only hesitation seems less born out of concern for betraying Mr. Underwood, but for revealing that she has slept with him.

But yes, it’s great to watch Ms. Barnes and Ms. Skorsky conspire in stairwells, half-talk, half-barge their way into Congressional offices, and hop on planes to track down that one elusive source who can lead them to the next, equally elusive source. And so we see the story start to come together.

Still, I can’t imagine that Ms. Skorsky, Ms. Barnes, and even Mr. Underwood’s own wife have a sense of how high or how deep the Russo affair runs. Might we be coining yet another “gate” â€" Russo-gate â€" by the season’s end

Carr: Betcha Ms. Underwood knows or soon will know what her darling little Francis is capable of. In a show chockablock with moral and ethical eunuchs, she seems to have the most ice running through her veins. She is a classic ends-over-means tactician, rendered all the more spicy by the fact that she runs a supposed do-gooder nonprofit organization. Looking back over the season, one of the deep satisfactions of watching “House of Cards” has been its refusal to suggest that any one part of the Beltway apparatus is morally superior to the other.

People in government like to think they answer to greater gods and journalists like to think that they are on a mission from god, while nonprofits act as if they were always on the side of angels, when in fact, all are capable of moral mis- and malfeasance when it serves their ends. If you think about it, only Remy Danton, Mr. Underwood’s former staffer who has gone over to the lobbying side, is really consistent in terms of who he is and what he represents. As a lobbyist and a fixer, he understands that brute force and large sums of cash, strategically applied, can melt away the pretense of civic-mindedness and reveal the self-interest that lurks around every corner in the capital.



Barbara Walters Said to Be Nearing Retirement

Barbara Walters, whose television career spans more than a half century, will retire in May 2014, an executive familiar with the newswoman’s plans said Thursday.

The formal announcement of Ms. Walters’s plans will probably be made this May on her ABC daytime program,  “The View.” The executive familiar with the plans said the following year will include a number of specials and retrospectives of Ms. Walters’s long career in television on her network, ABC.

Ms. Walters’s decision follows a year in which her health became a national story. She suffered a concussion in Washington after the inauguration. That developed into an infection that was ultimately diagnosed as a case of chicken pox.

In 2010, Ms. Walters underwent a successful heart bypass operation.

In recent years, Ms. Walters, 83, has stepped back from a number of her longtime roles, limiting the number of interview specials for which she has become famous. But she maintained her base at “The View,” a consistently successful program she created.

The future of that program has recently been the subject of much speculation, with one longtime host, Joy Behar, leaving and another, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, rumored to be coming to the end of her tenure.

But most of Ms. Walters’s career was spent at network news divisions, first at NBC, where she became the first prominent woman to anchor the “Today” show, and then at ABC. There she started as the first woman to anchor a network evening newscast and went on to become one of the network’s chief correspondents, with the newsmagazine “20/20” as the base for many of her interviews.

She also gained fame for her annual interview special that preceded coverage of the Academy Awards, a program that was often among the highest-rated news specials of the year.



Retirements Contributing to Largest Senate Turnover in Decades

The announcement on Tuesday by Senator Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, that he will not run for re-election in 2014 brings the total number of senators who have retired or resigned in the 113th Congress to eight.

While eight retirements is not a record, the 113th Congress is the third consecutive legislative session to experience an unusually high number of Senate retirements. Those retirements have combined with defeats at the ballot box to create the largest turnover in the Senate in nearly 40 years.

Since the 1972 congressional elections, which is as far back as our database of retirements goes, the Senate has typically seen about six retirements in each Congress. Beginning in 2009, however, senators have been leaving at a significantly higher rate. Before the eight retirements â€" so far â€" in this legislative session, there were 10 in the 112th Congress and eight in the 111th.


In total, 26 senators have retired since January 2009. That is just two retirements short of the recent peak, from 1991 through 1996, when 28 senators retired. And there is plenty of time left in the 113th Congress for more retirements to come.

But retirements don’t tell the whole story of turnover. Though the 1990s still holds the edge in the number of retirements, the past few election cycles have brought in more Senate freshmen than that era did.

“This is the largest number of turnovers since the 1970s,” Dr. Donald A. Ritchie, the Senate historian, said.

Senate.gov has data on freshman senators going back to 1914, the first election after the Seventeenth Amendment established direct election of United States senators by popular vote. The number of new freshman senators elected to each Congress was generally lower in the second half of the 20th century than it was in the first half. The average number of new senators per Congress in each decade ranged from 15 to 17 from 1914 through 1940, but it then fell to 10 or 11 through the first decade of the 21st century.

The 1970s were an exception. The era immediately after Watergate saw a jump in retirees, which contributed to an increase in Senate freshmen. There were 18 new senators elected in 1976, 20 in 1978 and 18 in 1980.

The current period â€" beginning with the 2008 elections â€" have seen a similar, though slightly smaller, jump in new senators. Fourteen freshman were elected to the Senate in 2008, followed by 16 newcomers in 2010 and 12 in 2012.

In part, the current turnover is a generational shift. “People who came [to Washington] in the late 1970s and early 1980s â€" the last major turnover â€" are now leaving themselves,” Dr. Ritchie said. “Every 20 or 30 years, there’s just a large crop of people who come in at the same time and so they also tend to leave at the same time.”

Some also argue that more senators are retiring because, as David Karol, an associate professor in American Politics at the University of Maryland, said, “Post-Congress is a lot more lucrative then it used to be.” Legislators can make a lot more money in the private sector or lobbying their former colleagues.

Finally, some contend that increased partisanship has made the Senate less hospitable. When Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine retired last year, she pointed to “political paralysis” as the main reason.

Whatever the cause, the eight retirements so far in the 113th Congress mean that we should continue to see more turnover into the 2014 elections.



The Breakfast Meeting: NBC Calls Cooper About ‘Today’ and Hearst Chief to Step Down

Reports of a surprising phone call from an NBC executive to CNN’s Anderson Cooper have fueled speculation about possible succession plans for Matt Lauer, the co-host of the “Today” show, which has had slumping ratings, Brian Stelter writes. NBC tried to quell the rumors, but three television industry insiders confirmed that Mr. Cooper was asked this month whether he would consider hosting “Today.” It is unclear whether Mr. Cooper might be interested in moving from “Anderson Cooper 360,” his nightly program on CNN, to a morning show on NBC, but rumors of the call come as NBC is finalizing plans to have Jimmy Fallon replace Jay Leno on “The Tonight Show.”

Frank A. Bennack Jr., who has run privately-held Hearst Corporation for nearly 30 years, announced on Wednesday that he is stepping down, Christine Haughney and Robin Pogrebin report. Mr. Bennack diversified Hearst with investments in television, a ratings agency and health care information. Steven R. Swartz, the company’s chief operating officer for the last two years, will succeed Mr. Bennack on June 1.

Weight Watchers found its latest celebrity endorser â€" Ana Gasteyer, the former “Saturday Night Live” comedian and “Suburgatory” star â€" in a very unusual way, Andrew Adam Newman writes. Ms. Gasteyer became a devotee of Weight Watchers’ diet program without the company’s knowledge and posted on Twitter regularly about her experiences using it. The brand contacted her in February, and they have since worked on commercials featuring Ms. Gasteyer singing weight-loss related songs, marking perhaps the first time a brand spokeswoman was found on Twitter.

Justin Timberlake epitomizes the personal brand with the release of his new album, “The 20/20 Experience,” which sold 968,000 copies its first week, according to Nielsen SoundScan, Ben Sisario reports. The album’s release was accompanied by a media blitz of appearances on shows like “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon,” commercials for Target and, most importantly, extensive use of social media to connect with fans who yearn for “insider” access. Mr. Timberlake’s extensive promotion ensures that he sells many more albums than artists near him on the charts who lack the resources to mount such a campaign.

The Supreme Court dismissed a class-action antitrust lawsuit against Comcast on Wednesday in which more than two million current and former subscribers sought to prove that the company had unfairly eliminated competition and overcharged customers, Edward Wyatt reports. The 5-to-4 decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said that the proposed class of Comcast subscribers failed to meet formal legal guidelines to certify that wrongdoing was common to the group and that damages could be measured on a classwide, rather than an individual, basis.

Tim McCarver, Fox’s No. 1 baseball analyst, plans to retire after the 2013 season, Richard Sandomir reports. Mr. McCarver said that he had no plans to continue working for Fox or its forthcoming sports channel, Fox Sports 1. Fox may have to look outside its studios for a replacement.

Criticism of Germany’s economic policies in the European Union and Cyprus in particular has taken a distasteful turn, Melissa Eddy writes. Cypriot protesters have taken to comparing Germany’s economic policies to its dark past. Some media outlets have taken a similar tack; a column by a university professor who compared German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s policies to Hitler’s was removed from the Web site of the Spanish newspaper El País after a flurry of criticism.



After Casting Wide Net, CNN Finds Co-Host for Morning Show

In his search for a new morning television host that lasted months, the new head of CNN, Jeffrey Zucker, considered dozens of names, some boldface and some unknown. It wasn’t until he paired Christopher Cuomo, the former ABC anchor he hired in January, with a young Washington correspondent named Kate Bolduan that he thought he had a perfect match.

On Thursday, in something of a surprise, Mr. Zucker named Ms. Bolduan the co-host of CNN’s forthcoming morning show, which has attracted considerable interest in the television business this year, given Mr.
Zucker’s past life as a former producer of NBC’s “Today” show.

“We were floored with excitement when we saw Chris and Kate together on screen,” Mr. Zucker said in a statement, referring to the “screen test” of the two hosts that took place about four weeks ago.

Mr. Cuomo and Ms. Bolduan will lead the new show, which will have its premiere in the late spring, replacing “Starting Point,” which was hosted by Soledad O’Brien.

They will be joined by Michaela Pereira, a new hire by Mr. Zucker who is a morning host on KTLA, the most popular local morning newscast in Los Angeles. “Chris, Kate and Michaela are a dynamic team that will give our viewers in America a new way to start their day,” Mr. Zucker said in his statement.

Mr. Zucker has declined interview requests since taking over as chief executive of CNN Worldwide in January. But his pairing of Mr. Cuomo, 42, and Ms. Bolduan, 29, suggests that he sees an opening for a morning show that is generationally different â€" or, to put it more bluntly, a morning show that has younger faces.

The top producer of the forthcoming program will be Jim Murphy, who ran ABC’s “Good Morning America” in the late 2000s while Mr. Cuomo was the news anchor of that program. Mr. Murphy, whose hiring was announced internally in February, said in a telephone interview that the CNN program would be a “wide-ranging morning show.”

“We’re not going to reinvent the wheel,” he said, seemingly trying to manage expectations. “But what we will provide people, I think, is a fresher, more energetic, more conversational and more interesting morning show than what they’re used to.”

Some of the specifics about the format and the content are still being sorted out, Mr. Murphy said. But he indicated that the new show “will not be all politics like MSNBC is,” referring to “Morning Joe,” or “as consistently about social issues as Fox is,” referring to “Fox & Friends.”

Both “Morning Joe” and “Fox & Friends” routinely outperform “Starting Point” in ratings, which may be part of the reason why Mr. Zucker has decided to start over from scratch and make a new show. “Starting Point” was plagued by executive-level disagreements about what the show should and shouldn’t be. Ms. O’Brien’s associates complained that the show wasn’t supported internally or promoted externally.

Mr. Zucker and Mr. Murphy seem determined not to repeat those missteps. Mr. Murphy said in the interview that “we really did cast a wide net” as the new management considered possible co-hosts for Mr. Cuomo.

Of Ms. Bolduan, he said, “It is a surprising choice, and we know that.” That’s because Mr. Zucker originally planned to pair Mr. Cuomo with Erin Burnett, a better-known host who CNN hired away from CNBC two years ago. But the plan fell apart, reportedly due to Ms. Burnett’s unwillingness to move to the morning time slot. She currently hosts a 7 p.m. newscast, “Erin Burnett OutFront.”

CNN executives portrayed this as a good thing, because it led them to Ms. Bolduan, who wowed Mr. Zucker and his lieutenants. Mr. Cuomo and Ms. Bolduan had obvious chemistry when they tried hosting together in an internal test, and that’s what morning producers look for when they put people together.

Ms. Bolduan, who at 29 will be the youngest morning host on any major television network, will move to New York from Washington for the new job. She is currently a congressional correspondent for CNN. She joined the channel in 2007 as a correspondent for the CNN service that provides news to local television stations. She was promoted to the main channel in 2009. Ms. Bolduan has gained a little bit of hosting experience lately by co-hosting one hour of “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer” in Washington. But she hasn’t anchored elsewhere, so the new morning show could have something of a learning curve.

“It is a huge opportunity to work on this new show,” she said in a statement on Thursday. “Knowing that we have the resources of some of the most experienced executives in the business, the backing of a brand like CNN, and to be able to sit alongside such great people as Chris and Michaela â€" I can’t think of a better combination.”

Executives at CNN have said they know â€" and they want others to know â€" that the rebuilding of the channel’s daily schedule will take time. But the channel’s recent ratings lows suggest that it is primed for a comeback of sorts. “Starting Point,” for instance, averaged just 234,000 viewers last year, CNN’s lowest total viewer number in that time slot in more than a decade.

Inside the network, there is confidence that Mr. Zucker can increase its market share in the mornings. Mr. Zucker is the producer credited with taking the “Today” show to first place in the ratings in the 1990s. He went on to become the chief executive of NBC, until Comcast took over the company in 2011.



Tucker Carlson Takes Over ‘Fox & Friends’ Weekend Edition

Tucker Carlson is the new co-host of the weekend editions of “Fox & Friends,” the Fox News Channel’s popular morning talk show.

Mr. Carlson’s promotion was announced on Wednesday. He will start on April 6, one week before a new host takes over the talk show that MSNBC telecasts at the same hours on Saturdays and Sundays.

Mr. Carlson, a paid contributor to Fox for the last four years, is well-known in political circles for founding and editing the conservative Web site The Daily Caller. He has been a frequent fill-in host on “Fox & Friends Weekend” this year. He will succeed Dave Briggs, who left the show in December for a position at NBC Sports.

“We’ve been impressed with Tucker’s lively and thought-provoking appearances on our air and are pleased that he is joining the ‘Fox & Friends Weekend’ team where his vibrant personality will be a great addition to the show,” Bill Shine, an executive vice president at Fox News, said in a statement.

Fox’s news release noted that “Fox & Friends Weekend,” which sometimes has a conservative bent, just like Mr. Carlson, outperforms the competing shows on MSNBC and CNN in the ratings, a fact that is equally true for the channel’s schedule seven days a week. MSNBC’s “Up,” a show on weekend mornings hosted by Chris Hayes for the past year and a half, will be taken over by a new host, Steve Kornacki, on April 13. Mr. Hayes is moving to weekdays at 8 p.m.

Fox said Wednesday that Mr. Carlson would remain a contributor to other programs on the channel.

With the promotion, he becomes the rare television figure to have achieved a cable news trifecta. In the early 2000s he was a co-host of “Crossfire” on CNN. Then he leapt to MSNBC, where he led a show called “The Situation With Tucker Carlson.” He exited MSNBC as it started to emphasize progressive-themed programs in 2008.



A Driving Force Behind Wikipedia Will Step Down

Sue Gardner, who oversaw a period of rapid growth and evolution at Wikipedia, said Wednesday that she would step down as executive director of the nonprofit organization that runs the free encyclopedia.

In an interview with The Times on Wednesday, Ms. Gardner said she would depart in roughly six months, after the board of the organization, the Wikimedia Foundation, has decided on a successor. She said she wanted to advocate more directly for an open Internet, either by starting her own nonprofit group, writing a book or by joining an advocacy organization.

“Wikipedia will be fine. It’s a behemoth and people love it,” said Ms. Gardner, 45. She added: “I worry about the broader conditions of a free and open Internet and the future of other Wikipedia-like projects.”

Ms. Gardner took over the group that oversees Wikipedia in 2007. It was a time of intense skepticism about the accuracy of Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that relies entirely on tens of thousands of volunteers to write and edit entries, which now appear in 285 languages.

The year she joined, Wikipedia’s credibility was damaged when it was made public that a prolific contributor who went by the name Essjay and claimed to be a tenured university professor turned out to be Ryan Jordan, 24.

Ms. Gardner worked to broker relationships with librarians, academics and grant-making institutions. “At that time, people didn’t know what to make of it,” (Wikipedia) she said. Today, she added, “Wikipedia is widely acknowledged as useful in a way it wasn’t five or six years ago.”

With credibility came scale. Today, Wikipedia gets more than 488 million unique visitors each month, making it the fifth-most-visited Web site, behind Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook and ahead of Amazon, Apple and eBay, according to comScore data from January.

In the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2008, the Wikimedia Foundation had assets of $5.7 million, compared to $49.3 million in assets in the period from July 1 to Dec. 31, 2012, according to the nonprofit’s financial statements.

In 2007, the Wikimedia Foundation, then based in a shopping center in St. Petersburg, Fla., had fewer than 10 employees and raised less than $3 million annually. Ms. Gardner moved the foundation to San Francisco. It now has roughly 160 paid employees. Its most recent fund-raising drive, late last year, raised $25 million to help run Wikipedia from 1.2 million donors.

Ms. Gardner said the turning point in her decision to leave Wikimedia came early last year when she oversaw a blackout of Wikipedia to protest two pieces of antipiracy legislation under consideration in Washington â€" the Stop Online Piracy (known as SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (known as PIPA).

The move was controversial because Wikipedia prides itself on being politically neutral. It became central in a grass-roots online effort that led lawmakers to shelve both pieces of legislation. The blackout cemented Ms. Gardner’s position as a vocal proponent of Internet openness and one of the few influential female voices in the movement.

The SOPA and PIPA protests “started me thinking about the shape the Internet was taking and what role I could play in that,” Ms. Gardner said.

In a post that will be published on her personal blog early Wednesday evening, Ms. Gardner wrote: “Increasingly, I’m finding myself uncomfortable about how the Internet’s developing, who’s influencing its development and who is not.”

Ms. Gardner also said it was important for her to step down before Wikimedia suffered from a “founder’s trap,”  when an organization is too dependent on a single personality. When she took over, Wikipedia was still very much tethered to its co-founder, Jimmy Wales, who started the online encyclopedia in 2001.

In recent years, Ms. Gardner, a Canadian who previously worked at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, has emerged as the driving force behind the free encyclopedia. “It’s important not to let any organization be overly defined by any single person,” she said. “That’s particularly the case in the Wikipedia movement because it’s a collaborative movement.”

Ms. Gardner will leave some projects unfinished. She has championed efforts to recruit more female editors to Wikipedia. The encyclopedia has been criticized for a lack of diversity among its editors that has led to a dearth of coverage in areas like fashion, style and design.

Entries on subjects like video games, anime, computer programming and other issues that tend to be popular among Wikipedia’s largely young, male editors receive inordinate attention.

“It’s a slow change, but the seeds have been planted for change, and I think there’s an understanding for why that change was wanted,” Ms. Gardner said.



CBS Renews 18 Prime-Time Shows

Flaunting the stability that has made it the top-rated network, CBS on Wednesday announced the renewal of 18 of its prime-time shows in one swoop, assuring that most of the network’s lineup will return next season.

Virtually all the calls were predictable because they included most of the ongoing hit series now on CBS. But for at least one show whose loyal fans may have been worried about the future, the news was surely a relief: “The Good Wife” will be back for a new season.

That drama has scored marginal-to-worse ratings on Sunday nights so its renewal had been the subject of some debate. But it is also by far the most prestigious drama on CBS, a network that is otherwise dominated by pure crime dramas.

Less of a surprise was the new order for “The Mentalist,” though there had been some talk about CBS passing on one more season of that crime drama. But CBS is also well known for retaining marginal shows at least one year past when their demise is expected.

Another questionable show, the reality series, “Undercover Boss,” was included in the list coming back as well.

Notably, CBS did not include one hit drama, “Criminal Minds,” in Wednesday’s announcement, but that is likely only delayed by renegotiations of contracts for the cast.

Several other dramas which are considered to be on the bubble â€" as the term for questionable renewal is known â€" are not necessarily headed for cancellation just because they were not included on the list announced Wednesday. The long-running “C.S.I. New York,” as well as the first year crime drama “Vegas” were not on the list.

But the top CBS shows all were, including the dramas, “NCIS,” “NCIS LA,” “Elementary,” “Person of Interest,” “Hawaii Five-O” and “Blue Bloods.” The network had previously announced it will also bring back the original, “C.S.I.”

CBS renewed four comedies: “The Big Bang Theory,” “Two Broke Girls,” How I Met Your Mother” and “Mike and Molly.” Not mentioned: “Rules of Engagement,” which has bounced back from extinction several previous times, but finally may be facing its final curtain.

CBS also renewed its two top reality series “Survivor” and “The Amazing Race” as well as its newsmagazines “60 Minutes” and “48 Hours.”



Fake Ads in India Showing Bound and Gagged Women Lead to Firings

The Indian operation of a worldwide advertising agency has fired employees and apologized after an uproar over fake celebrity poster ads that were created for a real agency client, Ford Motor, without Ford’s approval or authorization.

The ads were produced by employees of JWT India, part of the JWT unit of WPP, and depicted well-known figures like Paris Hilton and Silvio Berlusconi behind the wheel of a Ford Figo hatchback. In the trunk of the hatchback in each poster ad were women, bound and gagged; in the ad featuring Ms. Hilton, the women in the trunk resembled the Kardashian sisters.

The ads were uploaded to an industry Web site, Ads of the World, and, according to a post on the adage.com Web site of the trade publication Advertising Age, also entered in an Indian advertising awards competition. They were subsequently withdrawn from both outlets after vituperative comments about the poster ads began appearing in social media.

The ads were “never intended for paid publication, were never requested by our Ford client and never should have been created, let alone uploaded to the Internet,” JWT said in a statement.

The statement included an apology, which called the ads “distasteful” and “contrary to the standards of professionalism and decency at JWT.” The statement also disclosed that, “after a thorough internal review, we have taken appropriate disciplinary action with those involved, which included the exit of employees.”

The statement did not identify the employees or suggest how many were fired. The adage.com post said those dismissed included two senior creative executives at JWT India, one of whom was also the managing partner there.

In addition to the apology from JWT, the Indian operation of Ford Motor also apologized for the ads. The content of the fake ads was deemed particularly contentious because of a recent series of well-publicized sex crimes against Indian women.

The dispute over the poster ads is not common in advertising, but it is not unheard of either. From time to time, there are controversies generated by ads produced by employees or executives of an agency without authorization or approval from clients.

Such ads, known as spec ads, are typically created for amusement or to enter in an awards show in place of actual ads. The rogue nature of spec ads was underlined by the statement from JWT, which said the ad posters “did not go through the normal review and oversight process” at JWT India.

The Internet and social media have made it far easier for unauthorized ads to be seen more widely, beyond the agency employees who create them and the judges of the awards shows in which the ads may be entered.

Stuart Elliott has been the advertising columnist at The New York Times since 1991. Follow @stuartenyt on Twitter and sign up for In Advertising, his weekly e-mail newsletter.



Lorne Michaels and ‘Louie’ Are Among Peabody Award Winners

Lorne Michaels, the creator of “Saturday Night Live,” as well as Scotusblog, the widely followed Supreme Court news source, and the FX series “Louie,” created by the comic Louis C.K., were among the recipients of the 2012 George Foster Peabody Awards, announced on Wednesday.

The awards, considered to be the most prestigious of their kind in electronic media, were announced by the University of Georgia’s Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication.

Among the documentaries that were honored were “Why Poverty,” a collection of eight films that were shown around the world, including on PBS in the United States; “MLK: The Assassination Tapes,” which was broadcast on the Smithsonian Channel; and “Sheikh Jarrah, My Neighborhood,” a film shown on Al Jazeera.

Other award winners in news included “60 Minutes”; CNN, for its coverage of the conflict in Syria; The New York Times, for an article and interactive feature called “Snow Fall”; WNYC radio, for “The Leonard Lopate Show”; and ABC News, for its coverage of the damage from Hurricane Sandy and the attention it paid to bone marrow donation when one of its co-hosts, Robin Roberts, needed a transplant.

Several films and television shows on HBO were among the 39 recipients of a Peabody, including the comedy “Girls”; the made-for-TV movie “Game Change”; the sports newsmagazine “Real Sports With Bryant Gumbel”; and two documentaries, “The Loving Story” and “Marina Abramovic: The Artist Is Present.”

“Southland” on TNT, “Switched at Birth” on ABC Family and “D.L. Hughley: The Endangered List” on Comedy Central were also recognized.

Brian Stelter writes about television and digital media. Follow @brianstelter on Twitter and facebook.com/brianstelter on Facebook.



‘House of Cards,’ Recap, Episode 11: Frank Crosses a Big, Red Line

Of all the spoilers Ashley Parker and David Carr have published about “House of Cards,” the details of episode 11 take the cake, so by all means run away if you have not seen. If you want to catch up on recaps, by all means dive into the archive of these chats about the politics and media aspects of the Netflix original series: episode one, two,three, four, five/a>, six,seven , eight, nine or 10.

Episode 11

Synopsis: Frank Underwood goes from hardball tactics to cold-blooded murder. Zoe tries on the garment of a married woman.

Carr: Whoa. We know that evil lurks in the heart of Frank Underwood, but cold-hearted murder I did not see that coming. I guess it was foreshadowed in the first episode when Frank comes out to find a dog mortally wounded and, when no one is looking, snaps its neck with no compunction. I thought that was supposed to put us on notice that the House Whip was a man of action, but now we know that we were being put on notice that he was capable of anything.

Frank wants to be vice president, or president, or king of the world or something like that. To that end, he gained custody of Peter Russo, dusted him off, built him up, then set him up. Then he drove him home where Peter passed out in the car. Frank sees an opportunity, turns on the car, closes the garage door and in that moment, murders the Congressman. (I’ll just skip over the part where we fail to suspend disbelief and notice that he did so in a public parking garage that was likely lousy with security cameras.)

I’m sure that in it’s two century-plus history, one of Congress’s members has committed and gotten away with murder, but it seemed like a bit of a fridge nuke or shark jump, or whatever they are calling a giant plot error these days. It seemed forced, but then again, I have yet to watch much of the Brit version of “House of Cards” because the lugubrious turns toward the camera in the original are impossible for me to get past. We’ve never discussed, but maybe you watched enough to know, Ashley: Are the makers of the American version of “House of Cards” following track laid down in the U.K. version

Parker: I have not watched the British “House of Cards” â€" yet! â€" and I don’t have a great sense of how true-to-the-original the current show is. (Readers, please feel free to help out on comments below.) Ignoring, as you point out, the various implausibilities surrounding Frank Underwood’s murder of Peter Russo, I’m curious as to whether killing him was always part of the plan, or whether what we saw was a desperate Frank Underwood, improvising at the last minute.

“There was a plan here, Doug,” Frank tells his right-hand man, when Peter first goes missing. “He explodes, he withdraws, we put him back together, and he quietly goes away.”

Putting Peter Russo back together and having him quietly go away feels like it should have been a repentant statement to the press about wanting to spend time with his family â€" not a literal snuffing out courtesy of carbon monoxide.

For all of Peter’s flaws, I think one of the things that makes him such an appealing character is his resilience, and his strong sense of right and wrong â€" even if he can’t always personally abide by it. What we saw in this episode was someone with no moral code (Frank) realizing that he might not be able to control the fierce-if-sometimes-wayward moral code of someone else (Peter), and panicking.

Realizing his own lack of control â€" Peter may not be quite the easy mark he’d first expected â€" Frank resorts to murder. And while it’s definitely in cold blood, I don’t know how premeditated it was. It seems to me that we watch the idea strike Frank in the car, and he seizes the opportunity. What do you think, David

Carr: Yeah, he was improvising all right, and as any musician will tell you, a person’s true colors come out when they leave the sheet music behind. Speaking of which, how about the provocation of Zoe putting on Claire’s dress That is pretty far up there on the naughty scale. She is clearly communicating to Frank that he is up against some asymmetries he may not have anticipated.

More and more, I get the sense that Zoe never had anything resembling a real human feeling for Frank. She saw her chance, saw a source of leverage and took it, but now her attitude toward him seems to be hardening into something that looks a lot more like hatred than desire. You could say that they deserve each other, but Zoe is a kid who lost her way. Frank is a guy who a long time ago came to the fork in the road and took the one covered in sleaze. Even in an age of very popular antiheroes and narcissists â€" ”Mad Men’s” Don Draper, Walter White of “Breaking Bad,” Raylan Givens in “Justified” â€" Frank Underwood sticks out as bad to the bone. Those other characters might be able to explain how what they do and the choices they make are somehow in the interests of something resembling the greater good. Frank Not so much. Like Zoe, I’m beginning to think I can’t even respect his sui generis version of evil. And you, Ashley

Parker: At first I was confused about Ms. Barnes’s sudden reversal on Mr. Underwood. But I think you’re right; she saw her chance and she took it. Mr. Underwood was nothing more than the conduit into a good story. Now, when Mr. Underwood is no longer proving himself as useful as she previously thought, she’s willing to drop him â€" and certainly less eager to sleep with a married married who’s older than her dad. In a way, she’s been oddly consistent. Though that certainly hasn’t made me come around to her cause.

With Frank, the problem is not merely his sui generis version of evil; it’s that he’s proving himself to be not even particularly good at it. At the beginning, whatever I thought of his motivations and choices, I at least had a grudging respect for his mastery of the messy game of politics. But from his on-air gaffe that went viral to getting double-crossed by his own wife to, now, murder as a means of damage control, Frank has proved himself not even particularly deft at being an evil politician.



‘House of Cards,’ Recap, Episode 11: Frank Crosses a Big, Red Line

Of all the spoilers Ashley Parker and David Carr have published about “House of Cards,” the details of episode 11 take the cake, so by all means run away if you have not seen. If you want to catch up on recaps, by all means dive into the archive of these chats about the politics and media aspects of the Netflix original series: episode one, two,three, four, five/a>, six,seven , eight, nine or 10.

Episode 11

Synopsis: Frank Underwood goes from hardball tactics to cold-blooded murder. Zoe tries on the garment of a married woman.

Carr: Whoa. We know that evil lurks in the heart of Frank Underwood, but cold-hearted murder I did not see that coming. I guess it was foreshadowed in the first episode when Frank comes out to find a dog mortally wounded and, when no one is looking, snaps its neck with no compunction. I thought that was supposed to put us on notice that the House Whip was a man of action, but now we know that we were being put on notice that he was capable of anything.

Frank wants to be vice president, or president, or king of the world or something like that. To that end, he gained custody of Peter Russo, dusted him off, built him up, then set him up. Then he drove him home where Peter passed out in the car. Frank sees an opportunity, turns on the car, closes the garage door and in that moment, murders the Congressman. (I’ll just skip over the part where we fail to suspend disbelief and notice that he did so in a public parking garage that was likely lousy with security cameras.)

I’m sure that in it’s two century-plus history, one of Congress’s members has committed and gotten away with murder, but it seemed like a bit of a fridge nuke or shark jump, or whatever they are calling a giant plot error these days. It seemed forced, but then again, I have yet to watch much of the Brit version of “House of Cards” because the lugubrious turns toward the camera in the original are impossible for me to get past. We’ve never discussed, but maybe you watched enough to know, Ashley: Are the makers of the American version of “House of Cards” following track laid down in the U.K. version

Parker: I have not watched the British “House of Cards” â€" yet! â€" and I don’t have a great sense of how true-to-the-original the current show is. (Readers, please feel free to help out on comments below.) Ignoring, as you point out, the various implausibilities surrounding Frank Underwood’s murder of Peter Russo, I’m curious as to whether killing him was always part of the plan, or whether what we saw was a desperate Frank Underwood, improvising at the last minute.

“There was a plan here, Doug,” Frank tells his right-hand man, when Peter first goes missing. “He explodes, he withdraws, we put him back together, and he quietly goes away.”

Putting Peter Russo back together and having him quietly go away feels like it should have been a repentant statement to the press about wanting to spend time with his family â€" not a literal snuffing out courtesy of carbon monoxide.

For all of Peter’s flaws, I think one of the things that makes him such an appealing character is his resilience, and his strong sense of right and wrong â€" even if he can’t always personally abide by it. What we saw in this episode was someone with no moral code (Frank) realizing that he might not be able to control the fierce-if-sometimes-wayward moral code of someone else (Peter), and panicking.

Realizing his own lack of control â€" Peter may not be quite the easy mark he’d first expected â€" Frank resorts to murder. And while it’s definitely in cold blood, I don’t know how premeditated it was. It seems to me that we watch the idea strike Frank in the car, and he seizes the opportunity. What do you think, David

Carr: Yeah, he was improvising all right, and as any musician will tell you, a person’s true colors come out when they leave the sheet music behind. Speaking of which, how about the provocation of Zoe putting on Claire’s dress That is pretty far up there on the naughty scale. She is clearly communicating to Frank that he is up against some asymmetries he may not have anticipated.

More and more, I get the sense that Zoe never had anything resembling a real human feeling for Frank. She saw her chance, saw a source of leverage and took it, but now her attitude toward him seems to be hardening into something that looks a lot more like hatred than desire. You could say that they deserve each other, but Zoe is a kid who lost her way. Frank is a guy who a long time ago came to the fork in the road and took the one covered in sleaze. Even in an age of very popular antiheroes and narcissists â€" ”Mad Men’s” Don Draper, Walter White of “Breaking Bad,” Raylan Givens in “Justified” â€" Frank Underwood sticks out as bad to the bone. Those other characters might be able to explain how what they do and the choices they make are somehow in the interests of something resembling the greater good. Frank Not so much. Like Zoe, I’m beginning to think I can’t even respect his sui generis version of evil. And you, Ashley

Parker: At first I was confused about Ms. Barnes’s sudden reversal on Mr. Underwood. But I think you’re right; she saw her chance and she took it. Mr. Underwood was nothing more than the conduit into a good story. Now, when Mr. Underwood is no longer proving himself as useful as she previously thought, she’s willing to drop him â€" and certainly less eager to sleep with a married married who’s older than her dad. In a way, she’s been oddly consistent. Though that certainly hasn’t made me come around to her cause.

With Frank, the problem is not merely his sui generis version of evil; it’s that he’s proving himself to be not even particularly good at it. At the beginning, whatever I thought of his motivations and choices, I at least had a grudging respect for his mastery of the messy game of politics. But from his on-air gaffe that went viral to getting double-crossed by his own wife to, now, murder as a means of damage control, Frank has proved himself not even particularly deft at being an evil politician.



The Breakfast Meeting: Publishers Tackle Bullies, and Columnist Sparks Cat vs. Bird Dispute

The publishing industry has taken a real shine to bullies of late, Leslie Kaufman writes. According to World Cat, a catalog of library collections worldwide, the number of English-language books tagged with the key word “bullying” in 2012 was 1,891, an increase of 500 in a decade. Several publishing houses, including Random House, Simon & Schuster and Harlequin, have even started antibullying campaigns pegged around the books. The surge reflects the broader cultural recognition of the problem, spurred in part by several high-profile cases of cyberbullying that resulted in suicide.

Ted Williams, a freelance writer for the National Audubon Society for the past 33 years, has been reinstated to his job after inciting a controversy that pitted bird lovers against cat lovers, Christine Haughney reports. Mr. Williams wrote a column for The Orlando Sentinel on March 14 identifying Tylenol as an effective poison for feral cats, which are among birds’ deadliest predators. The Audubon Society suspended Mr. Williams on March 15. He has since apologized on the society’s Web site, and his column will return in its July-August magazine.

A Supreme Court decision last week may have copyright ramifications almost as far-reaching as a decision in 1984 to allow Sony’s Betamax to record broadcasts, Eduardo Porter writes in his “Economic Scene” column. The court, in a 6-3 decision, sided with Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai math student who generated around $900,000 in revenue by reselling textbooks his friends and relatives sent him in the United States. The publisher John Wiley & Sons had argued that Mr. Kirtsaeng was infringing on its copyright by importing its books without permission, but the court held that Mr. Kirtsaeng’s right of first sale banned the publisher’s right to imports.

McCann Erickson New York, one of Madison Avenue’s largest agencies, is ramping up its efforts in social media like Twitter, Tumblr and Pinterest, Stuart Elliott writes. A division of the firm that specializes in social media is being expanded to more than 30 employees and is being renamed McCann Always On. McCann Always On will work on assignment for 15 brands sold by clients like General Mills, L’Oréal and Nestlé.

Temp Tee, a whipped cream cheese product sold by the Kraft Foods Group, has begun a campaign aimed at curing “matzah fatigue,” or the culinary exhaustion that accompanies the dietary strictures of the Passover holiday, Stuart Elliott writes. The campaign, with an estimated budget of less than $100,000, began this month well in advance of the holiday and features Jamie Geller, an American-born Israeli food writer and chef who is the founder of the Kosher Media Network. Ms. Geller provides recipes using Temp Tee on her Joy of Kosher Web site, videos on YouTube and other social media postings.

CBS announced Tuesday that it had completed a deal to acquire half of TVGN, formerly the TV Guide Network, Bill Carter reports. The deal puts CBS in partnership with Lionsgate and fulfills a longstanding goal of adding a general entertainment basic cable network to the company’s media portfolio.

Ghost Beach, a two-man indie band from Brooklyn, is using a digital Times Square billboard to ask the public its opinion of music piracy, Ben Sisario writes. The stark, text-only spot lasts 30 seconds and asks observers to “pick a side” on Twitter, as #artistsforpiracy or #artistsagainstpiracy.



NBC Lures Back Viewers With ‘The Voice’ and ‘Revolution’

NBC had a lot riding on the comeback of its twin hits from the fall â€" “The Voice” and “Revolution” â€" with “The Voice,” in particular, taking a big chance by coming back for a second arc in the same season (no singing competition had done that before) and with a new lineup of judges.

But “The Voice” soared back to the top on Monday, with a 4.7 rating among the target audience of viewers between the age of 18 and 49 and 13.4 million viewers. And “Revolution” was a winner at 10 p.m., averaging a 2.7 rating in the 18-49 group with about 7.2 million viewers.

Monday’s edition of “The Voice” actually beat the show’s performance from last fall, when its premiere averaged a 4.2 rating with about 12 million viewers.

The show, however, is down from where it was last winter when it followed the Super Bowl. And executives at Fox hurried to note the show did not come close to matching the 6 rating and 17.9 million viewers that its singing powerhouse “American Idol” attracted for its premiere this season.

But NBC, which has stumbled badly in the ratings since “The Voice” and N.F.L. football left the air, has reason to feel extremely pleased about the initial results for “The Voice.”

The competition on Mondays is the toughest in network television, with strong shows on other networks: CBS’s comedy lineup, ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars,” and Fox’s “Bones” and “The Following.” “The Voice” beat all of them handily from 8 to 10 p.m., and it grew impressively in every half hour, from a 4.0 rating to a 4.5 to a 4.9 to a 5.2.

The numbers for “Revolution” were down sharply from the fall premiere of the postapocalyptic drama, which averaged a 4.1 rating and about 10 million viewers. It was closer to what the show was scoring when it left the air in November, though still down from a 2.9.

NBC notes that “Revolution” has been among the most successful shows in television in adding audience when delayed viewing is counted, but one alarming note is that the show fell off sharply at the half-hour mark, from a 2.9 rating to a 2.4. That is often a sign that viewers don’t find the episode compelling and it might be especially unexpected in the highly promoted return of a serialized drama after a hiatus set up by a cliffhanger.

But for the moment, given its recent travails, Monday night was cause for enormous relief for NBC, if not quite celebration.



How Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage Is Changing, and What It Means

The Supreme Court will hear arguments this week on two cases related to same-sex marriage, the first involving a California referendum that barred gay marriage, the other involving a federal law that prevents the government from recognizing same-sex unions. A variety of outcomes are possible, but it seems prudent to take stock of public opinion on same-sex marriage before the decisions come down.

Support for same-sex marriage is increasing â€" but is it doing so at a faster rate than in the past Is it now safe to say that a majority approves it How much of the shift is because people are changing their minds, as opposed to generational turnover Is there still a gap between how well same-sex marriage performs in the polls and at the ballot booth How many states would approve same-sex marriage today, and how many might do so by 2016

Polling trends

Eight national polls on same-sex marriage have been conducted so far this year, according to the PollingReport.com database. The consensus of these polls is that support for same-sex marriage now exceeds opposition to it; on average, the polls have 51 percent saying they approve same-sex marriage, and 43 percent saying they are opposed. However, the polls differ in the exact numbers, showing 46 percent to 58 percent of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage (and anywhere from 36 percent to 46 percent against it) making it uncertain whether supporters of same-sex marriage now constitute an outright majority.

What’s clearer is the long-term trend. The chart below documents national polls on same-sex marriage since 1996, as according to PollingReport.com. (It excludes polls that offer a three-way choice between same-sex marriage, civil unions, and no legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples, focusing on those that require a binary choice.) The polls are accompanied by a trendline determined through Loess regression to reflect the change in public opinion over time.

In the past, we have sometimes considered the possibility that support for same-sex marriage is increasing at a faster rate than before. The data seems to suggest, however, that the increase in support has been reasonably steady since about 2004.

This can be seen by comparing the sensitive Loess trendline to a simple linear trendline, as in the following chart. Before 2004, the lines do not match up all that well, reflecting the slow rate of increase in support for same-sex marriage between 1996 (when 27 percent of Americans said they supported same-sex marriage in a Gallup poll) and 2003 (when 33 percent did on average among 12 polls conducted that year). Same-sex marriage took on a more prominent political role following a Massachusetts court decision to allow it in that state in late 2003, but that produced little immediate effect. An average of 33 percent of Americans said they supported same-sex marriage among 19 polls conducted in 2004, the same as the previous year.

Support for same-sex marriage then began to rise at a rate of about 2 percentage points a year, growing to an average of 37 percent in polls conducted in 2006, and 41 percent in polls conducted in 2008. It has continued to increase at about the same rate since then. At some point in 2010 or 2011, support began to outweigh opposition in the polls. Among the 37 polls conducted since 2012, all but four have shown more Americans supporting same-sex marriage than opposed to it.

Nevertheless, this seems to reflect a steady gain in support for same-sex marriage rather than there having been any one inflection point. The linear trendline implies that support for same-sex marriage should be 50 percent right now, not meaningfully different from the average of 51 percent among the eight polls conducted so far this year.

The steadiness of the trend seems consistent with the idea that the shifts are partly generational, with younger Americans gradually replacing older ones in the electorate. However, some voters have also changed their opinion to favor same-sex marriage while fewer have done the reverse, as can be seen in surveys that track generational cohorts over time. As a rule of thumb, perhaps about half of the increase in support for same sex-marriage is attributable to generational turnover, while the other half is because of the net change in opinion among Americans who have remained in the electorate.

Ballot initiatives

Before last year, the increased support for same-sex marriage at the polls had largely failed to translate into success at the ballot booth. The lone exception had been a 2006 Arizona ballot proposition to ban both same-sex marriage and civil unions that was rejected by voters there; Arizona voters approved a more narrowly-defined ban on same-sex marriage in 2008, however.

Some of the reason for this was because the propositions had mainly been placed on the ballot in conservative states where they were likely to succeed. California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, however, was a reality check for same-sex marriage advocates. Some 52 percent of voters there approved a ban on same-sex marriage in one of the nation’s most liberal states.

Subsequent research has found that polls may slightly overstate support for same-sex marriage, as compared to ballot results. This could reflect a form of social desirability bias: some voters may think it is “politically correct” to say they support same-sex marriage even if they are still uncomfortable with it. Another factor may be that the voters who reliably turn out for elections are older (and therefore less likely to support same-sex marriage) than the broader set of Americans who are included in polls of all adults.

The momentum in favor of same-sex marriage finally seemed to win out in November 2012, however, when voters rejected a Minnesota constitutional ban on it, and voted to affirm it in Maine, Maryland and Washington State. (Note that a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was approved by North Carolina voters in May 2012.) Did these results reflect a major shift in public opinion Or were they predictable enough based on the long-term trends

In 2011, I published a model projecting ballot initiative results for same-sex marriage based on two scenarios: one which assumed a linear increase in support, and the other which assumed an accelerating trend.

In general, the more conservative linear model was closer to the mark in forecasting the 2012 results. It predicted that 48.8 percent of voters would vote in support of same-sex marriage on average among the five states, fairly close to the actual figure of 50.1 percent. By contrast, the accelerated model predicted that 53.6 percent would vote to support same-sex marriage in these states.

This would tend to suggest, as the polling data does, that while the increase in support for same-sex marriage may be impressive, it has mostly been a consequence of support building slowly and steadily over time, rather than there having been sudden reversals in public opinion.

However, the predictions were not especially accurate when looking at individual states. Both versions of the model underestimated same-sex marriage support in Maryland and Minnesota, while both versions overestimated it in Maine, North Carolina and Washington.

There are a couple of complications in the analysis. One is that there is an increasing variety of propositions relating to same-sex marriage on the ballots, from those that seek to ban it (as in North Carolina) to those that ask voters to approve it (as in Maryland), and from those that seek to do so by statute (as in Maine) to those that would alter the state constitution (as in Minnesota). This contrasts with the situation from 1998 through 2008, when essentially all of the ballot measures sought to ban same-sex marriage in the state constitution, and the major point of differentiation was whether or not civil unions were also included.

The landscape may only grow more complicated, particularly if the Supreme Court issues a split or ambiguous ruling. Moreover, very few states that are plausible candidates to approve constitutional bans on same-sex marriage have not already done so. Instead, there may soon be some states that will seek to repeal constitutional bans that were previously put into place by voters, something that no state has yet attempted.

While ballot wording will remain a complicating factor, it is possible to be more precise about the contours of public opinion in individual states. Our 2011 model looked at only two demographic factors specific to each state: how many voters in those states were regular churchgoers, and how the voters rated themselves on an overall conservative-liberal scale. There are clearly a number of other factors that also affect opinion on same-sex marriage, however, most notably age, race, urbanity and education levels. The statistical challenge is that it is tough to reliably account for all of these demographic factors (while at the same time controlling for other factors like the year in which the measure was on ballot) given a relatively small sample of 39 ballot measures since 1998.

One workaround is to focus on some cases for which far more detailed demographic data is available, and then to make inferences about the other states from there. In particular, I looked at individual-level survey results from exit polls in 2008 in the three states that voted on same-sex marriage ballot initiatives that year (California, Florida and Arizona). Each of these states are quite demographically diverse, and among them more than 5,000 voters were surveyed in the 2008 exit polls. Using this data, I applied logistic regression to analyze how more than a dozen demographic characteristics affected these voters’ decisions on same-sex marriage. In essence, the technique is to predict how likely an individual voter is to support same-sex marriage given their particular demographic profile.

From these results, I was able to infer how voters in the other 47 states might have reacted to same-sex marriage ballot measures in 2008. The model suggests that voters in only eight states (and the District of Columbia) would have been ready to approve same-sex marriage by that time, and correctly infers that same-sex marriage would narrowly be defeated in California. It also suggests that only about 42 percent of voters nationwide would have approved same-sex marriage had there been a national referendum that year.

It is also possible to project how the results in each state might change over time. I assume that support for same-sex marriage will continue to increase by one and a half percentage points nationally per year, which reflects the recent historical trend from both polling and ballot-initiative data. (The way that the model is designed, support might be projected to increase slightly faster or slower than that in individual states based on the number of swing voters.) Thus, we can extrapolate the results forward from 2008 to 2012, and to future years like 2016 and 2020.

This model predicts the results of the 2012 ballot propositions quite accurately, accounting for some of the more subtle demographic distinctions that we had lost previously. (For instance, Maine is a relatively old state and a rural one, which may account for why it initially rejected same-sex marriage in 2009 despite being liberal and irreligious.) It projects that voters in roughly 20 states would have voted in favor of same-sex marriage last year, including the four states that actually did so.

The model also projects, however, that a national referendum to approve same-sex marriage would have narrowly failed last year, 48 percent to 52 percent, despite national polls showing more voters approving same-sex marriage than opposing it. For right now, it is probably best to treat the question of whether a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage as having an ambiguous answer. Polls are on the verge of saying that they do, but the ballot results are more equivocal.

By 2016, however, voters in 32 states would be willing to vote in support of same-sex marriage, according to the model. And by 2020, voters in 44 states would do so, assuming that same-sex marriage continues to gain support at roughly its previous rate.

Thus, even if one prudently assumes that support for same-sex marriage is increasing at a linear rather than accelerated pace, and that same-sex marriage will not perform quite as well at the ballot booth as in national polls of all adults, the steady increase in support is soon likely to outweigh all other factors. In fact, even if the Supreme Court decision or some other contingency freezes opinion among current voters, support for same-sex marriage would continue to increase based on generational turnover, probably enough that it would narrowly win a national ballot referendum by 2016. It might require a religious revival among the youngest generation of Americans to reverse the trend.

It’s also possible, of course, that the Supreme Court decision could somehow kick-start public support for same-sex marriage, causing it to accelerate faster, or that the recent spate of Democratic and Republican politicians coming out in favor of it could do so. But one no longer needs to make optimistic assumptions to conclude that same-sex marriage supporters will probably soon constitute a national majority. Instead, it’s the steadiness of the trend that makes same-sex marriage virtually unique among all major public policy issues, and which might give its supporters more confidence that the numbers will continue to break their way regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.