Two Mexican nationals charged in killing of U.S. Coast Guardsman









Federal prosecutors charged two Mexican nationals in connection with killing U.S. Coast Guardsmen Terrell Horne III after they allegedly rammed his vessel with a drug-smuggling panga boat.

The two men, boat captain Jose Mejia-Leyva and Manuel Beltra-Higuera, are expected to appear in court Monday afternoon to face charges that they killed a federal officer.


Horne, 34, of Redondo Beach, was killed Sunday after suspected smugglers in a panga rammed his vessel off the Ventura County coast. He died of severe head trauma, officials said.

The Redondo Beach resident was second in command of the Halibut, an 87-foot patrol cutter based in Marina del Rey. Authorities said they could not recall a Coast Guard chief petty officer being killed in such a manner off the coast of California.








Early Sunday morning, the Halibut was dispatched to investigate a boat operating near Santa Cruz Island, the largest of California's eight Channel Islands. The island is roughly 25 miles southwest of Oxnard.


The boat, first detected by a patrol plane, had come under suspicion because it was operating in the middle of the night without lights and was a "panga"-style vessel, an open-hulled boat that has become "the choice of smugglers operating off the coast of California," said Coast Guard spokesman Adam Eggers.


The Coast Guard cutter contains a smaller boat, a rigid-hull inflatable used routinely for search-and-rescue operations and missions that require a nimble approach. When Horne and his team approached in the inflatable, the suspect boat gunned its engine, maneuvered directly toward the Coast Guard inflatable, rammed it and fled.


The impact knocked Horne and another guardsman into the water. Both were quickly plucked from the sea. Horne had suffered a traumatic head injury. While receiving medical care, he was raced to shore aboard the Halibut. Paramedics met the Halibut at the pier in Port Hueneme and declared Horne dead at 2:21 a.m.


The second crew member knocked into the water suffered minor injuries and was treated and released from a hospital later Sunday. He was not identified.





Read More..

Microsoft's Motorola Patent Violation Won't Stop Xbox Sales











A federal judge in Seattle has told Motorola Mobility that he will not grant its request to ban the sale of Microsoft’s Xbox 360, and the two need to stop bickering and broker a licensing deal to end their patent suit.


The ruling by Judge James Robart follows a finding by an International Trade Commission administrative law judge that the Xbox has violated four Motorola patents that pertain to the H.264 video compression codec and wireless technologies used in the console and its controllers. The ICT judge recommended in May that sales of the Xbox be banned in the United States.


Not so fast, Robart said. There’s no need for that.


“At this stage in the litigation, and based on this court’s prior rulings, the court concludes that Motorola cannot demonstrate irreparable harm,” Robart said in a ruling issued Friday (.pdf). “The Motorola asserted patents, at issue in this litigation, are standard essential patents of the H.264 Standard and are included in Motorola’s H.264 standard essential patent portfolio. Thus, Microsoft is entitled to a license to the Motorola asserted patents on RAND terms.”


Robart essentially said the two sides need to sit down and hammer out some fair patent licensing terms — RAND meaning “reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.” There really isn’t another option since the patents at the heart of the dispute are fundamental to any device using Wi-Fi or playing digital video. But there is disagreement over how much Microsoft should pay up in the inevitable agreement.


Previously, Motorola has proposed a licensing fee of 2.25 percent of the retail price of each Xbox, according to Bloomberg But Microsoft declined, arguing that was too high. Now Robart and the U.S. District Court are tasked with figuring out what a fair licensing fee would be. That won’t happen until sometime next year.


Motorola and Microsoft officials were unavailable for comment.






Read More..

Additional copies of ‘Lincoln’ headed to theaters












LOS ANGELES (AP) — “Lincoln” is marching to more movie theaters.


Disney, which distributed the DreamWorks film, is making additional prints of director Steven Spielberg‘s historical saga starring Daniel Day-Lewis to meet an unexpected demand that has left some moviegoers in Alaska out in the cold.












“To say that we’re encouraged by the results to date or that they’ve exceeded our expectations is an understatement,” said Dave Hollis, head of distribution at the Walt Disney Co. “We’re in the midst of making additional prints to accommodate demand and will have them available to our partners in exhibition by mid-December for what we hope will be a great run through the holiday and awards corridor.”


The film, which opened in wide release Nov. 9 and has earned $ 83.6 million in North America so far, has been unavailable at some smaller venues, such as the Gross Alaska theaters in Juneau.


But the extra prints are coming a little too late to fit the movie into the five-screen Glacier Cinemas theater during the holiday season, said Kenny Solomon-Gross, general manager of the Gross Alaska, which runs two theaters in Juneau and one in Ketchikan, Alaska.


“When we had the room for ‘Lincoln,’ Disney didn’t have a copy for us,” Solomon-Gross said Monday.


His film lineup is pretty booked through the end of the year, and he probably can’t screen “Lincoln” until after the first of the new year. Yes, the excitement over the film will have dimmed, but then the Academy Awards season will be stirring up, he said. That should kick up the buzz.


In the meantime, Solomon-Gross plans to head to Las Vegas this week and catch the film there.


___


Follow AP Entertainment Writer Derrik J. Lang on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/derrikjlang . Associated Press writer Rachel D’Oro in Anchorage, Alaska, contributed to this report.


___


Online:


http://www.thelincolnmovie.com


Entertainment News Headlines – Yahoo! News


Read More..

Global Update: GlaxoSmithKline Tops Access to Medicines Index


Sang Tan/Associated Press







GlaxoSmithKline hung on to its perennial top spot in the new Access to Medicines Index released last week, but its competitors are closing in.


Every two years, the index ranks the world’s top 20 pharmaceutical companies based on how readily they get medicines they hold patents on to the world’s poor, how much research they do on tropical diseases, how ethically they conduct clinical trials in poor countries, and similar issues.


Johnson & Johnson shot up to second place, while AstraZeneca fell to 16th from 7th. AstraZeneca has had major management shake-ups. It did not do less, but the industry is improving so rapidly that others outscored it, the report said.


The index was greeted with skepticism by some drugmakers when it was introduced in 2008. But now 19 of the 20 companies have a board member or subcommittee tracking how well they do at what the index measures, said David Sampson, the chief author.


The one exception was a Japanese company. As before, Japanese drugmakers ranked at or near the index’s bottom, and European companies clustered near the top. Generic companies — most of them Indian — that export to poor countries are ranked separately.


Johnson & Johnson moved up because it created an access team, disclosed more and bought Crucell, a vaccine company.


The foundation that creates the index now has enough money to continue for five more years, said its founder, Wim Leereveld, a former pharmaceutical executive.


Read More..

DealBook Column: For Buffett, the Long Run Still Trumps the Quick Return

“If somebody bought Berkshire Hathaway in 1965 and they held it, they made a great investment — and their broker would have starved to death.”

Warren E. Buffett was sitting across from me over lunch at a private club in Midtown Manhattan last week, lamenting the current state of Wall Street, which promotes a trading culture over an investing culture and offers incentives for brokers and traders to generate fees and fast profits.

“The emphasis on trading has increased. Just look at the turnover in all of the stocks,” he said, adding with a smile: “Sales people have forever gotten paid by selling people something. Generally, you pay a doctor for how often he gets you to change prescriptions.”

Mr. Buffett, 82, is famous for investing in companies that he sees as solid operations and essential to the economy, like railroads, utilities and financial companies, and holds his stakes for the long run. The argument that the markets are better off today because of the enormous amount of liquidity in the stock market, a function of quick flipping and electronic trading, is a fallacy, he said.

“You can’t buy 10 percent of the farmland in Nebraska in three years if you set out to do it,” he said. Yet, he pointed out, he was able to buy the equivalent of 10 percent of I.B.M. in six to eight months as a result of the market’s liquidity. “The idea that people look at their holdings in such a way that that kind of volume exists means that to a great extent, it’s a casino game,” he said. Of course, unlike many investors, he plans to hold his stake in I.B.M. for years.

Mr. Buffett was in a reminiscing mood about a bygone era, in part because he was in New York to make the rounds on television to discuss a new book chronicling his 61-year career, which began in 1951 at Buffett-Falk & Company in Omaha. (After lunch, he was going to visit “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.”)

The book, “Tap Dancing to Work,” by a longtime journalist and good friend of his, Carol Loomis of Fortune magazine, is a compendium of articles that she and others wrote in Fortune that creates a series of narratives spanning the arc of his career.

Ms. Loomis, who first met Mr. Buffett in 1967 — and whose long career is a story unto itself — also came to our lunch. Ms. Loomis may know more about Mr. Buffett than he knows about himself. (“There’s nothing here you’re going to like,” she said, after surveying the various pies when the dessert cart came around. She was right: he took a quick look and asked if they served ice cream. They did.)

As we talked about the “good old days” — he spoke of some of his early friends who were successful hedge fund investors, like Julian Robertson, who founded Tiger Management — it became clear that he was less enamored of the investor class of the next generation.

When I asked, for example, if there were any private equity investors that he admired, he flatly replied: “No.”

When I asked if he followed any hedge fund managers, he struggled to name any, before saying that he liked Seth Klarman, a low-key value investor who runs the Baupost Group, based in Boston.

“They’re not as good as the old ones generally. The field has gotten swamped, so there’s so much money playing and people have been able to raise money by just saying ‘hedge fund,’” he said. “That was not the case earlier on; you really had to have some performance for some time before people would put money with you. It’s a marketing thing.”

For a moment, he paused, and then posited that if he started a hedge fund today, “I’d probably grow faster, because a record now would attract money a lot faster,” speculating that his record of returns would attract billions of dollars from pension funds and others. But he then acknowledged a truism of investing that he knows all too well, as the manager of an enterprise that is now worth some $220 billion: “Then money starts getting self-defeating at a point, too.”

Until 1969, Mr. Buffett operated a private partnership that was akin in some ways to a modern hedge fund, except the fee structure was decidedly different. Instead of charging “2 and 20” — a 2 percent management fee and 20 percent of profits — Mr. Buffett’s investors “keep all of the annual gains up to 6 percent; above that level Buffett takes a one-quarter cut,” Ms. Loomis wrote. However, in 1969, he announced he would shutter his partnership. “This is a market I don’t understand,” he said, according to Ms. Loomis.

He believed that the stock market of 1968 had become wildly overpriced — and he was right. By the end of 1974, the market took a tumble. Instead, he remained the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, one of his early investments.

“If you want to make a lot of money and you own a hedge fund or a private equity fund, there’s nothing like 2 and 20 and a lot of leverage,” he said over a lunch of Cobb salad. “If I kept my partnership and owned Berkshire through that, I would have made even more money.”

Mr. Buffett says he now considered himself as much a business manager as an investor. “The main thing I’m doing is trying to build a business, and now we built one. Investing is part of it but it is not the main thing.”

Today, Mr. Buffett is particularly circumspect about the investment strategies that hedge funds employ, like shorting, or betting against, a company’s stock. He used to short companies as part of a hedging strategy when he ran his partnership, but now he says that he and Charlie Munger, his longtime friend and vice chairman of Berkshire, see it as too hard.

“Charlie and I both have talked about it, we probably had a hundred ideas of things that would be good short sales. Probably 95 percent of them at least turned out to be, and I don’t think we would have made a dime out of it if we had been engaged in the activity. It’s too difficult,” he explained, suggesting that the timing of short investments is crucial. “The whole thing about ‘longs’ is, if you know you’re right, you can just keep buying, and the lower it goes, the better you like it, and you can’t do that with shorts.”

One of his big worries these days is about what’s going to happen to all the pension money that is being invested in the markets, often with little success, in part because investors are constantly buying and selling securities on the advice of brokers and advisers, rather than holding them for the long term. “Most institutional investors, whoever is in charge — whether it’s the college treasurer or the trustees of the pension fund of some state — they’re buying what they’re sold.”

Most pension funds probably didn’t buy Berkshire in 1965 and hold it, but if they had, they would have far fewer problems today. At the end of her book, Ms. Loomis notes that when she mentioned Mr. Buffett’s name for the first time in Fortune magazine in 1966 — accidentally spelling Buffett with only one “t” — Berkshire was trading at $22 a share. Today it is almost $133,000 a share.

Read More..

Kern County farmers take on oil industry, California









SHAFTER — In this lush pocket of Kern County, where the agriculture and oil industries have long coexisted, Mike Hopkins' almond orchard has become a battlefield in a dispute that extends to the governor's office.


Hopkins is standing up to the oil industry — and Gov. Jerry Brown — by filing a lawsuit against the state to bar energy company Venoco Inc. from drilling an exploratory well on his farm without a full environmental review. Venoco has the mineral rights to Hopkins' 38-acre farm.


Across Kern County, other farmers are waging similar fights. With oil prices booming and energy companies eager to develop new wells, the state has granted oil companies permission to drill on farms without first assessing possible harm to the environment, as called for under the California Environmental Quality Act.





"I want the oil industry to make money," Hopkins said. But not if the drilling damages his farm and livelihood.


The exemptions from CEQA are precisely what Brown sought late in 2011 when he replaced two top officials in the state Conservation Department with appointees who agreed to ease environmental restrictions on energy companies.


In the months afterward, the department granted oil companies 19 exemptions statewide — a six-fold increase from the year before — and 14 energy firms gave more than $1.1 million to the governor's tax initiative, Proposition 30, which voters approved in November.


"I've never seen a CEQA exemption I didn't like," Brown told reporters at a news conference earlier this year.


In Kern, farmers pushed back after the state granted 16 exemptions in California's richest oil county. Four farmers wrote a letter to the state accusing officials of skirting the law by granting environmental waivers. The letter, sent in August by Irvine lawyer Gregory Sanders, asked regulators to explain "an institutional pattern and practice … in which the requirements of CEQA are disregarded" when considering oil permits.


"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what could go wrong with an oil well," Sanders said in an interview.


State officials and the governor's office declined to respond to questions for this story. But in a written statement to The Times, the Conservation Department's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources defended the general use of exemptions.


The statement said oil projects are evaluated case by case, taking into consideration several factors, including proximity to residential communities and whether sites are in existing oil fields.


Nearly all of the state's exemptions cite the same CEQA provision: The operation would result in only a "minor alteration to land."


Environmental groups challenge that interpretation. They note that the provision is typically applied to small projects. The law gives such examples as painting bicycle lanes on a street, clearing flammable vegetation around a home and hosting a carnival in a parking lot.


"It's difficult for us to see how the exemption would ever apply to a new oil and gas well," said George Torgun, an attorney with Earthjustice, one of several environmental groups that have filed lawsuits against the state.


The energy industry contends the exemptions are needed to avoid lengthy delays, helping the economy in the process.


State data shows that the drive for oil is helping Kern County's recovery. The county is just 3,400 jobs short of matching its peak employment of 239,600, reached in 2007 at the height of the housing boom.


Emails obtained by The Times through a Public Records Act request show that before Brown fired the two Conservation Department officials, oil lobbyists had pushed regulators for exemptions — and appealed to higher-ranking state officials when the requests were denied.


In one case, Elena Miller, the Conservation Department's oil and gas supervisor, complained to her boss that AERA Energy had cleared land for well construction and built roads before doing a CEQA study.


"We can presume that little critters lived in that vegetation," she wrote. "This is their environmental program, tear it up, build a road, and then hire a (CEQA) consultant."


Brown fired Miller, saying she and others had needlessly slowed the permit process.





Read More..

A Google-a-Day Puzzle for Dec. 2











Our good friends at Google run a daily puzzle challenge and asked us to help get them out to the geeky masses. Each day’s puzzle will task your googling skills a little more, leading you to Google mastery. Each morning at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time you’ll see a new puzzle posted here.


SPOILER WARNING:
We leave the comments on so people can work together to find the answer. As such, if you want to figure it out all by yourself, DON’T READ THE COMMENTS!


Also, with the knowledge that because others may publish their answers before you do, if you want to be able to search for information without accidentally seeing the answer somewhere, you can use the Google-a-Day site’s search tool, which will automatically filter out published answers, to give you a spoiler-free experience.


And now, without further ado, we give you…


TODAY’S PUZZLE:



Note: Ad-blocking software may prevent display of the puzzle widget.




Ken is a husband and father from the San Francisco Bay Area, where he works as a civil engineer. He also wrote the NYT bestselling book "Geek Dad: Awesomely Geeky Projects for Dads and Kids to Share."

Read more by Ken Denmead

Follow @fitzwillie and @wiredgeekdad on Twitter.



Read More..

Young down by boardwalk for benefit show












NEW YORK (AP) — Neil Young said Sunday that he couldn’t see performing in the area devastated by Superstorm Sandy without doing something to help people who were affected by it.


Young and his longtime backing band, Crazy Horse, will hold a benefit concert for the American Red Cross‘ storm relief effort Thursday at the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa in Atlantic City. The New Jersey coastline areas were hit hard by the storm in late October.












People in the New York area who suffered damage in the storm have been supporting him for 40 years, he said.


“I couldn’t see coming back here and just playing and have it be business as usual,” he said. Young is touring in the area, with concerts scheduled for Monday in Brooklyn and Tuesday in Bridgeport, Conn.


Minimum ticket prices for the standing-room show in Atlantic City will be $ 75 and $ 150, although Young notes there’s no maximum. He hopes to raise several hundred thousand dollars for the Red Cross.


Young said he was invited to join the Dec. 12 benefit at New York’s Madison Square Garden that will feature Bruce Springsteen, Paul McCartney, the Who, Kanye West and others, but had other obligations. Besides, there’s enough star power there, he said.


“It wasn’t going to make much difference whether I was there or not, so I decided to go someplace where I could make a difference,” he said.


Young performed at a televised benefit in 2001 following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, memorably covering John Lennon’s “Imagine.”


Fans can expect a two-hour plus rock show on Thursday with opening band Everest. No special guests are planned, although Young issued an invitation to “anyone who wants to come in and play with us that we know and we know can play.”


It’s hard to resist wondering whether Young’s epic “Like a Hurricane” will make it onto the set list, given the occasion.


“Anything’s possible,” Young said. “We have the equipment.”


Entertainment News Headlines – Yahoo! News


Read More..

Unboxed: Stand-Up Desks Gaining Favor in the Workplace





THE health studies that conclude that people should sit less, and get up and move around more, have always struck me as fitting into the “well, duh” category.




But a closer look at the accumulating research on sitting reveals something more intriguing, and disturbing: the health hazards of sitting for long stretches are significant even for people who are quite active when they’re not sitting down. That point was reiterated recently in two studies, published in The British Journal of Sports Medicine and in Diabetologia, a journal of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.


Suppose you stick to a five-times-a-week gym regimen, as I do, and have put in a lifetime of hard cardio exercise, and have a resting heart rate that’s a significant fraction below the norm. That doesn’t inoculate you, apparently, from the perils of sitting.


The research comes more from observing the health results of people’s behavior than from discovering the biological and genetic triggers that may be associated with extended sitting. Still, scientists have determined that after an hour or more of sitting, the production of enzymes that burn fat in the body declines by as much as 90 percent. Extended sitting, they add, slows the body’s metabolism of glucose and lowers the levels of good (HDL) cholesterol in the blood. Those are risk factors toward developing heart disease and Type 2 diabetes.


“The science is still evolving, but we believe that sitting is harmful in itself,” says Dr. Toni Yancey, a professor of health services at the University of California, Los Angeles.


Yet many of us still spend long hours each day sitting in front of a computer.


The good news is that when creative capitalism is working as it should, problems open the door to opportunity. New knowledge spreads, attitudes shift, consumer demand emerges and companies and entrepreneurs develop new products. That process is under way, addressing what might be called the sitting crisis. The results have been workstations that allow modern information workers to stand, even walk, while toiling at a keyboard.


Dr. Yancey goes further. She has a treadmill desk in the office and works on her recumbent bike at home.


If there is a movement toward ergonomic diversity and upright work in the information age, it will also be a return to the past. Today, the diligent worker tends to be defined as a person who puts in long hours crouched in front of a screen. But in the 19th and early 20th centuries, office workers, like clerks, accountants and managers, mostly stood. Sitting was slacking. And if you stand at work today, you join a distinguished lineage — Leonardo da Vinci, Ben Franklin, Winston Churchill, Vladimir Nabokov and, according to a recent profile in The New York Times, Philip Roth.


DR. JAMES A. LEVINE of the Mayo Clinic is a leading researcher in the field of inactivity studies. When he began his research 15 years ago, he says, it was seen as a novelty.


“But it’s totally mainstream now,” he says. “There’s been an explosion of research in this area, because the health care cost implications are so enormous.”


Steelcase, the big maker of office furniture, has seen a similar trend in the emerging marketplace for adjustable workstations, which allow workers to sit or stand during the day, and for workstations with a treadmill underneath for walking. (Its treadmill model was inspired by Dr. Levine, who built his own and shared his research with Steelcase.)


The company offered its first models of height-adjustable desks in 2004. In the last five years, sales of its lines of adjustable desks and the treadmill desk have surged fivefold, to more than $40 million. Its models for stand-up work range from about $1,600 to more than $4,000 for a desk that includes an actual treadmill. Corporate customers include Chevron, Intel, Allstate, Boeing, Apple and Google.


“It started out very small, but it’s not a niche market anymore,” says Allan Smith, vice president for product marketing at Steelcase.


The Steelcase offerings are the Mercedes-Benzes and Cadillacs of upright workstations, but there are plenty of Chevys as well, especially from small, entrepreneurial companies.


In 2009, Daniel Sharkey was laid off as a plant manager of a tool-and-die factory, after nearly 30 years with the company. A garage tinkerer, Mr. Sharkey had designed his own adjustable desk for standing. On a whim, he called it the kangaroo desk, because “it holds things, and goes up and down.” He says that when he lost his job, his wife, Kathy, told him, “People think that kangaroo thing is pretty neat.”


Today, Mr. Sharkey’s company, Ergo Desktop, employs 16 people at its 8,000-square-foot assembly factory in Celina, Ohio. Sales of its several models, priced from $260 to $600, have quadrupled in the last year, and it now ships tens of thousands of workstations a year.


Steve Bordley of Scottsdale, Ariz., also designed a solution for himself that became a full-time business. After a leg injury left him unable to run, he gained weight. So he fixed up a desktop that could be mounted on a treadmill he already owned. He walked slowly on the treadmill while making phone calls and working on a computer. In six weeks, Mr. Bordley says, he lost 25 pounds and his nagging back pain vanished.


He quit the commercial real estate business and founded TrekDesk in 2007. He began shipping his desk the next year. (The treadmill must be supplied by the user.) Sales have grown tenfold from 2008, with several thousand of the desks, priced at $479, now sold annually.


“It’s gone from being treated as a laughingstock to a product that many people find genuinely interesting,” Mr. Bordley says.


There is also a growing collection of do-it-yourself solutions for stand-up work. Many are posted on Web sites like howtogeek.com, and freely shared like recipes. For example, Colin Nederkoorn, chief executive of an e-mail marketing start-up, Customer.io, has posted one such design on his blog. Such setups can cost as little as $30 or even less, if cobbled together with available materials.


UPRIGHT workstations were hailed recently by no less a trend spotter of modern work habits and gadgetry than Wired magazine. In its October issue, it chose “Get a Standing Desk” as one of its “18 Data-Driven Ways to Be Happier, Healthier and Even a Little Smarter.”


The magazine has kept tabs on the evolving standing-desk research and marketplace, and several staff members have become converts themselves in the last few months.


“And we’re all universally happy about it,” Thomas Goetz, Wired’s executive editor, wrote in an e-mail — sent from his new standing desk.


Read More..

TV Networks Say DVRs and Weak Shows Explain Low Ratings





If you ask several of the top programmers in network television what is going wrong with their ratings this season, they offer a litany of answers: jarring schedule disruptions from debates, election night and Hurricane Sandy, for instance, as well as the ever-increasing defections toward delayed viewing and away from the nightly schedules that have defined network prime time since the days of radio.




The numbers tell the tale. With seven days of delayed viewing factored in, ABC is down 7 percent in the audience preferred by most advertisers, viewers between the ages of 18 and 49; CBS is down 18 percent; and Fox Broadcasting is down an eye-popping 26 percent. NBC is the only network bucking the trend, with its audience up 23 percent in that category.


“We are definitely in a transition period,” said Paul Lee, president of ABC’s entertainment group, citing the heavy shift toward reliance on DVRs and video on demand to create personalized viewing schedules.


Another factor also seems to have been at work this fall: disappointing new shows.


“The point the networks make is that the DVR is revolutionizing viewing,” said Brad Adgate, director of research for Horizon Media, a media buying company. “But that is masking the fact that the new shows they put on this fall just aren’t that good. There are better shows on cable.”


The lack of excitement this fall came in stark contrast to a year ago, when a host of new series broke through as hits: “Two Broke Girls” on CBS, “New Girl” on Fox, “Once Upon a Time” on ABC and many others. ABC had an especially fruitful year, bringing back six new series for second seasons.


This season, only one new series, the NBC drama “Revolution,” has cracked the top 30 programs among those 18-to-49 viewers.


Mr. Lee noted that “there is always an ebb and flow” to seasons, with one marked by strong newcomers followed by another filled with misses, and midyear shows that often reverse the fall trend.


Kevin Reilly, chairman of entertainment for Fox, also stressed that the history of television has been marked by what he called “flat years” when the new selections largely didn’t pan out. “I think this is a flat year,” he said.


Another top network executive, Kelly Kahl, the chief scheduler for CBS, suggested that the season may be showing signs of settling down after the disruptions of the fall, citing stabilized performances for CBS’s shows in recent weeks. But he, too, stressed that networks have to recalculate the meaning of success with “people adjusting to new ways of watching television.”


He pointed to CBS’s growing success in adding viewers from DVR recording, with no fewer than eight CBS shows adding more than three million viewers after a week of delayed viewing is counted. (Only one of those, the drama “Elementary,” is a new show.)


A few new shows gained favorable reviews but failed to attract adoring audiences. ABC’s “Nashville,” despite strong critical backing, has struggled to build wide audiences, winning support among young women but not with older viewers — perhaps, Mr. Lee said, because older viewers “have not gotten past the barrier of country music.”


A Fox comedy, “The Mindy Project,” won critical praise, but has ratings that, in most recent years, would have doomed it in two weeks. But it at least has a core audience of young women watching, and as with “Nashville,” in this season’s environment, that has been enough for survival.


“Usually you are able to say the show was sampled and rejected,” Mr. Reilly said. “Almost none of these new shows were even sampled.”


The need to find some way to carve out space on viewers’ recording machines has been an added factor preoccupying the programmers’ minds. “There is a real pressure to make sure this is appointment television,” Mr. Lee said, “television that has a hook.”


Robert Greenblatt, the top entertainment executive at NBC, reinforced that point. “The bigger the hook the better,” he said.


But Mr. Lee said this approach could be contradictory. “On the one hand,” he said, “you need it to have the fierce urgency of now, so you want to watch it live. But on the other hand, you want it to be attractive enough for people to want to put it on their DVRs.”


Read More..