GH In The News: The PC Press Club

[Rancide]

To me it seems highly likely that PP's efforts to revive the shows would've failed regardless of whether or not ABC lived up to its end of the deal. Wouldn't it be fairly easy to convince a judge of this? If PP were forced to turn over financial records I would think they would show that they were having cash flow problems from the very beginning and were never going to be able to keep the shows running for longer than a couple of months. 

 

I'm guessing that's a big part of it.  I didn't watch OLTL and so wasn't really following the launch when it happened, but from what I've gathered from others, my general understanding is that much of what PP complained of (killing off characters, stealing actors, etc.) happened after PP had already delayed the launch and generally looked like it might be in trouble.  In fact, the story I've always sort of had in my head (maybe wrongly?) was that ABC "sold" OLTL to PP when ABC was thinking of killing off all its soaps, then after PP looked like it wasn't going to happen, ABC decided to "take back" the characters--which they may or may not have had the right to do--and then only once it looked like ABC was having success with that did PP suddenly decide to go forward with the project it looked like it had abandoned.  

 

It's not really a defense to breach of contract for ABC to say "hey, your company would have gone under anyway."  But it is a mitigating factor in determining the damages.  If PP was headed under, ABC is probably only financially liable for the harm done by the [x] number of nails it added to a coffin that was already significantly underway.  It's a really hard argument to make that "but for" ABC's actions, PP would have been a successful venture and ABC should therefore be liable for the entire loss.  An analogy would be opening a restaurant and having one of your wine suppliers fail to deliver as promised a few weeks after you opened.  Did they breach a contract?  Sure.  Did you suffer damage?  Probably.  Do they owe you money?  Possibly.  If the entire restaurant closes down a couple of weeks later, is the wine supplier liable for the entire loss?  Almost certainly not.  You can--and companies almost always do--allege in your lawsuit that if only the supplier had been on time, the restaurant would not have failed, but that's a pretty far-fetched theory that's hard to prove.  How much damage did ABC (as compared to other factors) do to PP?  Who knows?

 

What PP can do--and has done--is block ABC from using the characters themselves in the future.  It would be difficult to argue at this point that ABC's use of the characters can or would do ANY damage to PP since PP doesn't exist or have any intentions of existing in the future.  (I'm assuming the contract, which I have not read, didn't give PP the permission to pass the rights on to others so that there is no value to PP if PP can't use them itself).  But PP can still seek an injunction keeping ABC from violating the contract in the future, which blocks ABC from using the characters now or until the case is resolved.  

 

My guess is that PP views the injunction (i.e. prohibition against future misconduct) as more valuable to its legal position than recovery past damages (i.e. whatever amount of economic harm it suffered as a result of ABC's violations.  Hence the "stick up" aspect to the lawsuit:  "notwithstanding that we don't really want these characters ourselves, we'll prevent you from using them yourselves unless you buy us out."  

 

Unfortunately for PP, it seems either ABC doesn't care enough about OTLT intellectual property rights to buy PP out, or possibly PP is making completely unreasonable settlement demands.  It's impossible to say which.

 

All this to say that what's likely being fought over in settlement is not really how much harm ABC did or did not do PP back in the day but rather how much ABC is or is not willing to pay to get the rights back.  That's probably another reason why it's hard to find counsel--because the answer to that question is "who the hell knows?"  

Edited August 6, 2015 by Rancide

[kristabell]

As I understand the timeline of the PP venture and the lawsuit, here's what happened: Originally, the online version was to launch shortly after OLTL went off the air in January 2013. But, the announcement was made in November 2012 that PP had decided against it. At that point, PP had already purchased the right to the OLTL and AMC characters for 10 years. They then "lent back" the characters to ABC for the period of one year, during which time PP had to get the online version up and running or the characters would revert to ABC permanently. There were specific injunctions about what GH could do with the OLTL characters, including not killing any of them off, not changing anything significant in the canon of the characters, and not breaking up OLTL's bankable couples (Todd and Blair, and Natalie and John.) Of course, ABC did all those things. ABC, and especially FV, gambled that PP would never get off the ground in the specified time, the characters would revert to ABC, and there would be no consequences for breaking the contractual obligations. But, much to their chagrin, PP did launch in time; ABC had to "give back" the characters; and ABC/FV were on the hook for breach of contract.

[MSquared]

kristabell, your assessment is generally correct except for one thing...it was as 2011-2012 timeline.  In November of 2011, PP realized the time to get it off the round or lose the characters, so they began to (seemingly) get their ducks in a row.  That was when, over at GH, FV was rushing to really push the OLTL characters into GH fully.  That's why we had the horror that was NYE 2012 after Todd went from mooning over getting Blair back after her non-wedding to declaring that Carly "was the only friend he ever had!"  And the PR where it was put out in the soap rags how the OLTL 3 didn't want to go back to OLTL.  (How fast did RoHo scamper to CT?)

[TeeVee329]

I think the truth and the blame regarding the ABC/Prospect Park mess lies somewhere in the middle.

 

But I'll also say this - I am baffled by those who try to cast ABC as victims.  It all started because ABC CANCELLED THE SHOWS.

[ulkis]

I think the truth and the blame regarding the ABC/Prospect Park mess lies somewhere in the middle.

 

But I'll also say this - I am baffled by those who try to cast ABC as victims.  It all started because ABC CANCELLED THE SHOWS.

 

ABC's not the one who wanted the characters on General Hospital though, that was Ron and Frank. I wouldn't call them the victims, but I wouldn't call them the villains in this either. I do think they deserve 100% blame for not making sure Frank and Ron were doing everything by the book, re: the OLTL characters.

[Rancide]

But I'll also say this - I am baffled by those who try to cast ABC as victims.  It all started because ABC CANCELLED THE SHOWS.

 

I just wanted to clarify that all of my posts with respect to the right/wrong in the lawsuit relate only to the legal merits of this particular lawsuit, for which ABC's cancellation of the shows is not really a relevant factor.

 

I didn't watch OLTL and have no personal investment in the show, but I understand that people who did have feelings about right/wrong separate and apart from the terms of the contracts.

[TeeVee329]

I'm talking more about ABC's spin in the press.  They've made a bunch of statements that it's "disappointing" that Prospect Park cancelled the shows, let the fans down, etc.  Which was more than a little rich.

[TeeVee329]

In other news, Tony Geary might be gone, but Michael Logan kissing his ass lives on:

 

Well, @laurag0317 I'm not surprised #GH gave #MichaelEaston the ax. The Writer shot off Silas' balls when Nina arrived and it's been downhill ever since. It's a great loss. But ME is a marvelous talent and he will spring back in the most terrific way. @GeneralHospital

[dubbel zout]

It's not a great loss, because Silas was a dud before Nina came to town. She just made him more irrelevant. And I say this as a Michael Easton fan. 

[ulkis]

https://despairintheafternoon.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/were-gonna-be-on-the-soup-again-arent-we/

 

lol at the caption for the first pic. To be fair to Hayley Erin . . . slightly fair . . . she has weird shaped lips. They just make her look extra bratz-doll-y when she opens her mouth wide like that.

 

this is hilarious:

 

Meanwhile, Kiki’s loving boyfriend spent most of the last two episodes giving his sulky duck lips a work out while whining about how unfair it is that being a dick makes people treat him like a dick.

 

I hope Michael just laughs and laughs and then finds out who the killer is and keeps it from her for no reason for months.

 

I don't even like Michael that much and I love this scenario.

Edited August 6, 2015 by ulkis

[KerleyQ]

I hope Michael just laughs and laughs and then finds out who the killer is and keeps it from her for no reason for months.

 

 

And when she eventually finds out, he can say that "I did it to protect you.  It would only hurt you if you knew that someone you loved and trusted had killed your father...Bitch." 

Edited August 6, 2015 by KerleyQ

[ulkis]

And when she eventually finds out, he can lay that "I did it to protect you.  It would only hurt you if you knew that someone you loved and trusted had killed your father...Bitch." 

 

Put "dumb" before the last word, then it's perfect. :)

[tvgoddess]

Does anyone know what was tweeted to ER to make her quit Twitter?

Edited August 6, 2015 by tvgoddess

[cheyz]

Another issue with the PP soaps was the deal with Hulu. ABC is a partner in Hulu, and may have had something to do with Hulu withdrawing from supporting the PP soaps.

[ulkis]

Does anyone know what was tweeted to ER to make her quit Twitter?

 

No. Probably someone got too nasty. There are a couple of sad people on twitter who still badger the poor woman on twitter over taking over the role, it's highly embarrassing.

 

ETA: I know I complain too! I'm a bit of a hypocrite, I know.

Edited August 6, 2015 by ulkis

[OnceSane]

No. Probably someone got too nasty. There are a couple of sad people on twitter who still badger the poor woman on twitter over taking over the role, it's highly embarrassing.

 

ETA: I know I complain too! I'm a bit of a hypocrite, I know.

Yeah, but you don't bitch AT her. Big difference.

[ulkis]

Yeah, but you don't bitch AT her. Big difference.

 

How do you knooooooooooooooooooow :cue spooky music:

 

No, seriously, I don't. Tweeting mean things to Emme Rylan would be like kicking a bunny.

Edited August 6, 2015 by ulkis

[OnceSane]

Yup, an adorable bunny holding a baby squirrel in its paws. And the baby squirrel is giggling at the butterfly which landed on its nose.

[KerleyQ]

No. Probably someone got too nasty. There are a couple of sad people on twitter who still badger the poor woman on twitter over taking over the role, it's highly embarrassing.

 

ETA: I know I complain too! I'm a bit of a hypocrite, I know.

 

All I could find is that someone tweeted at her that she looks pregnant.  I can't believe that would be enough to push her off Twitter, though.  She's been in this business a decently long time.  I can't imagine that something like that would be too much for her.  

[ulkis]

All I could find is that someone tweeted at her that she looks pregnant.  I can't believe that would be enough to push her off Twitter, though.  She's been in this business a decently long time.  I can't imagine that something like that would be too much for her.  

 

Who knows, maybe there is other stuff going on with her and that just pushed her over the edge. Poor woman does look like she might be pregnant a lot of the time, because they don't have a lot of clothes her size at the show.

[dubbel zout]

She might just want a break from answering stuff about the show. Jasus knows it has to be exhausting.

[tvgoddess]

No. Probably someone got too nasty. There are a couple of sad people on twitter who still badger the poor woman on twitter over taking over the role, it's highly embarrassing.

 

ETA: I know I complain too! I'm a bit of a hypocrite, I know.

 

That's terrible. And I'm a hypocrite too, although I don't really say much about her other than here. She seems to be really sweet, and I would never dare dream of tweeting something nasty to her. I have just seen a few things about it in my timeline, that's why I was asking.

[Box305]

No. Probably someone got too nasty. There are a couple of sad people on twitter who still badger the poor woman on twitter over taking over the role, it's highly embarrassing.

 

ETA: I know I complain too! I'm a bit of a hypocrite, I know.

 

I follow one who does nothing but complain about ER in the role. I finally had to mute her in Tweetdeck because it's all she'd tweet about. It was exhausting. Oh and she also bothers JMB begging her to return. 

[TeeVee329]

Oh man, this Michael Fairman interview with ABC executive VP Vicki Dummer is some shit...

 

http://michaelfairmansoaps.com/news/abc-executive-vice-president-vicki-dummer-chats-on-the-changes-at-gh-writing-regime-switch-tony-geary-michael-eastons-exits-the-ratings-picture/2015/08/06/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

First, I think Ron Carlivati did an amazing job with General Hospital and with the transition of the show that he and Frank Valentini took on.  I think the 52nd anniversary episode was one of the best episodes of GH that has ever been done.  But, we wanted to dig into a little bit more of the romance.  We want to dig a bit more into the adventure of the show.  I think that is the DNA of General Hospital.  It’s in the DNA of what I have loved about it since I was a viewer back in the 80’s, and really explore that with Shelly and Jean as co-head writers.

 

Cut to three months from now..."Mob Wars Part 70...this week on "General Hospital!".

Edited August 6, 2015 by TeeVee329

[ulkis]

This is irrational on my part, but I was truly hoping that somehow the new writers would step in and end Nina and Franco.  They put Budig on contract the first week they're in charge, certainly they could have said, somewhere on social media, "Look, we get it, we're stopping that nonsense as soon as we can."

 

Given the ratings for last week, I don't think you're the irrational one:

 

For the week of the 27th

 

Total Viewers
3. GH 2,592,000 (-128,000/-186,000)

Households
3. GH 1.92/6 (-.13/-.13)

Women 18-49 Viewers
4. GH 445,000 (+1,000/-118,000)

Women 18-49 Rating
4. GH 0.7/5 (+.01/-.18) <—— ties low *

* 15th straight week at a low

Monday: 2.11/2,902,000
Tuesday: 1.91/2,595,000
Wednesday: 1.94/2,557,000
Thursday: 1.81/2,444,000
Friday: 1.81/2,463,000

 

I don't have to tell everyone who Thursday and Friday featured, do I?

[Francie]

I know it sounds knee-jerk to say this, and that it's easy to be an armchair quarterback,  but damn, is she clueless if that's really what she thinks.  She thinks the ratings decline is because of a hole that the cancellation of the Katie Couric show left and not because of the story telling in general or Ron Carlivati's style of writing?  Jesus, and I say with all sincerity and objectivity, that is one stupid woman.

[TeeVee329]

It's a weird interview because she's trying to both praise Ron AND explain why he had to be fired.

 

And apparently Ron has a pilot commitment for a primetime show, verrry interesting.

Edited August 6, 2015 by TeeVee329

[ulkis]

I know it sounds knee-jerk to say this, and that it's easy to be an armchair quarterback,  but damn, is she clueless if that's really what she thinks.  She thinks the ratings decline is because of a hole that the cancellation of the Katie Couric show left and not because of the story telling in general or Ron Carlivati's style of writing?  Jesus, and I say with all sincerity and objectivity, that is one stupid woman.

 

I'm just going to comfort myself that it's all blah blah bullshit and she doesn't want to admit Ron turned GH into a campy ass mess.

 

First, I think Ron Carlivati did an amazing job with General Hospital and with the transition of the show that he and Frank Valentini took on.  I think the 52nd anniversary episode was one of the best episodes of GH that has ever been done.  But, we wanted to dig into a little bit more of the romance.  We want to dig a bit more into the adventure of the show.  I think that is the DNA of General Hospital.  It’s in the DNA of what I have loved about it since I was a viewer back in the 80’s, and really explore that with Shelly and Jean as co-head writers.

 

If she's saying Ron didn't do romance or adventure, what does she think he did there? (and to be fair, I think Ron did try to do adventure.)

[TeeVee329]

I'm not buying the "We want romance and 80's style adventure" spin.  I guarantee mob shenanigans are going to be on the forefront.

[dubbel zout]

Wow, they are really desperate for The FABLife to succeed.

 

Her comments about bowing to TG's wishes for Luke's departure makes me mad and sad:

 

we love and respect Tony so much that we want to really honor his wishes, and really service him as the actor and as a person, and how he wants to say goodbye to the character.

 

How about servicing the character and the fans? I'm fine with TG not wanting some lavish production—that fits Luke, actually—but the fans really deserved some flashbacks. They couldn't compromise at all on that? Ugh.

[Francie]

I will say this again.  If representatives from ABC aren't saying, at every opportunity, that they "get it" and are looking to fix the problem, they are going to lose fans permanently. Michelle Stafford and Roger Howarth have to go today. Literally, actually, truly today. Not wrap up their storyline in 3 months.  Not tone them down.  Not change them up. Just have them leave and say, in a sentence, how they're gone and never coming back.  

 

The fact that interviews have been given and there's been no "we get it, making a serial killer a romantic lead was tone deaf, ill-advised, etc." shows me they do not understand or appreciate the gravity of the situation.

[TeeVee329]

And then you have Michael Fairman straight-up editorializing.  Say it all you want, bro, Michael Easton was NOT "very popular" as Silas, full stop. 

 

You can expect the same "OMG how could you get rid of Soap Name Who I'm Friends With" BS if and when Michelle Stafford is let go.

Edited August 6, 2015 by TeeVee329

[magnolia11]

The fact that interviews have been given and there's been no "we get it, making a serial killer a romantic lead was tone deaf, ill-advised, etc." shows me they do not understand or appreciate the gravity of the situation.

 

They really should have made the big month-long whodunnit "Who Killed Franco" rather than seldom-seen Silas -- they would have generated a lot more interest that way, and let it be known that they were really and truly planning on changing things up.  I won't believe they are at all serious about trying to improve/revamp the show unless/until they announce that Howarth is gone.

[Tiger]

And then you have Michael Fairman straight-up editorializing. Say it all you want, bro, Michael Easton was NOT "very popular" as Silas, full stop.

You can expect the same "OMG how could you get rid of Soap Name Who I'm Friends With" BS if and when Michelle Stafford is let go.

The day I log onto this board and read that Michelle Stafford has been dumped on her hack ass, I will immediately stop whatever I'm doing, no matter where I am and do the entire dance from N*Sync's "Bye Bye Bye". Same for Roger Howarth.

As for Vicki Dummer's interview, she has clearly paid attention PR training. So I don't put any stock in what she or didn't say, because at the end of the day it's typical network spin.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Tiger

[Francie]

Okay, my prior post was a bit crazy strident. In my defense, I've just had it with the kooky serial killer and his krazy companion.

[wonderwoman]

"The fact that interviews have been given and there's been no "we get it, making a serial killer a romantic lead was tone deaf, ill-advised, etc." shows me they do not understand or appreciate the gravity of the situation."

This!

From the same interview, another example that denial is just a river in Egypt:

"I don’t think the ratings decline is a function of the storytelling, or a function of Ron’s work. I really don’t. "

Gives new meaning to tone deaf. But, she's far from the only suit believing (well, of course there's what she says in public and what she really believes:) that the problem with dropping ratings is anything BUT the storytelling.

Edited August 7, 2015 by wonderwoman

[LeftPhalange]

I know it sounds knee-jerk to say this, and that it's easy to be an armchair quarterback,  but damn, is she clueless if that's really what she thinks.  She thinks the ratings decline is because of a hole that the cancellation of the Katie Couric show left and not because of the story telling in general or Ron Carlivati's style of writing?  Jesus, and I say with all sincerity and objectivity, that is one stupid woman.

 

I don't understand why she can't just admit that Ron's writing was trash. He doesn't work for ABC anymore and it's unlikely that he ever will again so why does she feel the need to coddle him? The ratings have hit record lows for 15 straight weeks and there's no way to believably put a spin on it.

[jsbt]

She can't admit it was trash because she is trying to placate the online press, too much of whom still sympathize with Ron. Or, to cross-post myself: The problem is that neither side comes to the interview with an intelligent agenda.

 

Fairman is just trying to ingratiate himself to the online fan or press contingents (DC, etc.) by taking a scalp for both Ron and GH's various outraged social media bases: "Why was Ron fired? Why wasn't Frank fired with him? Why was 'the great' Michael Easton fired?"

 

The answers, in order, are: 1) Ron was fired for, at the very least, 12+ weeks of straight lows, 2) Frank is the only producer left in daytime capable of producing this show for the nickels ABC throws at the production, and 3) Michael Easton has not been a sound investment in over a decade, and the ratings lows meant FV could no longer camouflage that. People can get all outraged about this shit and how unfair they may think it is, but it's not gonna change anything.

 

As for the questions about Geary, there is no good answer. They let him dictate to them and fucked up the story because of it. That's been going on for years. Nothing to be done about it now.

 

Dummer was trotted out to try and appease the natives and give happy talk, that's her only goal. So nobody in this Q&A is talking for real. And some of that is to be expected from a network exec.

 

If they really wanted to be for real, though, they'd say, 'we've hired Genie Francis on a long-term contract and decided Laura will anchor our show.' Or, 'we'll be dispensing with Franco and Nina; like Silas and Kiki, we think that experiment with those characters was not embraced by the audience.' And 'we're wrapping up the Robin story as soon as possible.' That's what I'd do, all of that.

 

But Dummer didn't do any of that, yet anyway. So my guess is: All they care about is getting the show in under budget via Frank and without a ratings catastrophe. Therefore, they'll either make him drop Roger and Stafford or they won't, or, best case scenario, all parties now agree those two have to go. I have my doubts. I think they think firing Ron will be the end of the bleeding.

Edited August 7, 2015 by jsbt

[TeeVee329]

He doesn't work for ABC anymore and it's unlikely that he ever will again

 

Well he's got a pilot commitment from the prime time division so he actually still is working for/with ABC at the moment.  I wonder if Frank would produce...

[Francie]

I get being all PR.  But it's just as bad, from a PR standpoint, to not acknowledge that 12 weeks, now 15 weeks, of an all-time low is something to be dismissed. I know, never let them see you sweat and all, but respect the audience enough to say, "Of course we want ratings indicative of the quality of the show."  It can have a positive bent. "I'm sure that we'll restore the fans' confidence." Whatever. But to "merely a flesh wound" it is just plain insulting.

 

I think they think firing Ron will be the end of the bleeding.

 

That is my big fear.  Given the tweets going out from Frank's account, especially the one about how "heart breaking" Nina and Franco are, that's exactly my fear.

 

Dummer said the magic word -- romance.  It is missing from the show. But my fear is that she doesn't watch the show and all she knows is that Roger Howath and Michelle Stafford play tragic, star-crossed lovers.

[dubbel zout]

I don't think Dummer should trash Ron, but it wouldn't be amiss to say that he got away from what GH was about. She sort of said that by saying the new HWs will bring back adventure and romance, but I don't think it's unprofessional to say Ron's writing lacked what the show needed.

 

Whatever. She's got The FABLife coming up! It's gonna be great!

[TeeVee329]

Oh man, Michael Logan's trolling on the interview:

 

So the reason for the #GH ratings collapse is not the storytelling but rather...Katie Couric??? God, I love network suits. @GeneralHospital

 

Actually, it was Katie Couric who saved #GH when she refused to have her talk show follow The Revolution. #Fact

[Tiger]

Two things:

1) in a lot of non-O&O affiliates, including a large handful in the top 20 markets, Katie did not air on the markets ABC affiliate; in fact, in some Katie and GH aired against each other.

2) Katie stopped airing her a year ago, yet ratings didn't crater until months later.

As for The FAB Life, my understanding is that a lot of key ABC affiliates, including a few O&O's have already either said they aren't interested or have expressed concerns.

[SlovakPrincess]

https://despairintheafternoon.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/were-gonna-be-on-the-soup-again-arent-we/

My favorite part was the description of Kiki screaming .., which really would be a good T shirt for our GH shirt collection:

"GH: Kind of like a basket of bunnies being murdered."

[Bringonthedrama]

I love the 'dislocate her jaw' part. Now I want that to be worked into dialogue about Kiki's reaction to the murder. For example:

 

Carly: Morgan! Look at Kiki! She's been so traumatized by this she dislocated her jaw. We need to take her to General Hospital.

 

Morgan: Nah, Mom. That's just a great thing about her. It feels awesome when she ----

 

Kiki punches Morgan out in a rage. Or screams until his head literally explodes. (Whichever works.)

 

End Scene.

[yowsah1]

They then "lent back" the characters to ABC for the period of one year, during which time PP had to get the online version up and running or the characters would revert to ABC permanently. There were specific injunctions about what GH could do with the OLTL characters, including not killing any of them off, not changing anything significant in the canon of the characters, and not breaking up OLTL's bankable couples (Todd and Blair, and Natalie and John.) Of course, ABC did all those things.

 

I believe these particular allegations are in dispute in the lawsuit.  Given that PP seems unable to produce any actual concrete proof that this version of events is the correct one, I remain skeptical.

 

But I'll also say this - I am baffled by those who try to cast ABC as victims.  It all started because ABC CANCELLED THE SHOWS.

 

I think some people are cutting ABC some slack because it was Brian Frons and his crew that cancelled the shows.  They were shown the door and a new crew of people came in, who were then stuck with the bad situation.  

 

Fairman is just trying to ingratiate himself to the online fan or press contingents (DC, etc.) by taking a scalp for both Ron and GH's various outraged social media bases: "Why was Ron fired? Why wasn't Frank fired with him? Why was 'the great' Michael Easton fired?"

 

The answers, in order, are: 1) Ron was fired for, at the very least, 12+ weeks of straight lows, 2) Frank is the only producer left in daytime capable of producing this show for the nickels ABC throws at the production, and 3) Michael Easton has not been a sound investment in over a decade, and the ratings lows meant FV could no longer camouflage that.

 

Michael Easton is way down on the list of the causes of GH's recent ratings woes.  If they were trying to fix the bad ratings, they'd get rid of Roger Howarth and Michelle Stafford, not kill off Easton's character so they could give Franco and Nina even more story.

[jsbt]

They can always fire all of them, immediately.

[HeatLifer]

It's scary how this show will never get better because no one will acknowledge what's really happening. The ratings are not gonna go up ever by the looks of it.

[dubbel zout]

Actually, it was Katie Couric who saved #GH when she refused to have her talk show follow The Revolution. #Fact

 

No, what "saved" GH was that The Revolution tanked so hard the network couldn't cancel GH. #RealWorldFact 

 

Katie Couric's show was syndicated, so as Tiger pointed out, it aired on whatever local affiliated bought it. Sometimes that was ABC, sometimes it wasn't.

Edited August 7, 2015 by dubbel zout

[testardo]

OK what's THE FabLife. Katies show was sooo much better than the Chew. Merideth I liked on the millionaire show, but now when I am at the gym on the tredmill,with a tv screen, I watch Giada . The Talk ,I will never turn on it replaced As The World Turns. I am evil that way. These shows have done nothing for the women on them. I was a big Whoopie fan before, now no thanks. Whren Laura leaves I will go back to turning the TV on when jeopardy comes on not before. Dummer's name certainly fits her. If she thinks the soap fansare dumb enough to buy her BS, she can keep her bridge I'm not buying it. I know what I like and I don't need her to tell me. Tony Geary had a right to destroy his character, he didn't want genie back, Maybe if Ron had done what he knew was right and not kow tow to TG he might have not ticked off the fans and made them stop watching, ABC wants to destroy daytime ,fine I have cable and the old movies are great.